Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals

Penguin reference

In the section Research On Homosexual Behavior in Animals it is stated:

"Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[23]"

This link no longer works or the page does not exist. Also, just how credible is an activist website in general? I obviously haven't seen the page. Did/Does it contain references to its sources? Was its source a newspaper human interest article that was anything more than a reporter noting two males involved in some kind of activity they thought was 'gay' and rushed off to meet the deadline, grabs a quote about animal homosexuality from wikipedia and another article is in print that a gay activist website links to and voila, a scientific sounding confirmation of another gay animal. I mean I just can't tell that the basis for the mention of these penguins is anything other than a flight of fancy. I realize it may have once been better sourced but it isn't now. ^ a b "Gay Penguins Resist 'Aversion Therapy'". 365 Gay.com. February 11, 2005. http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/021105penguins.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-10. David4442 (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated a few of those sources last week, then got distracted by other issues. Yes, the sourcing is a mess, but it's not hard to find reliable back-ups, at least it wasn't for me, and I'm pretty lazy. Mark it with a fact tag, and if you can't find a source, I'll add it to my to-do list. Auntie E. (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that the sourcing is a mess. I have found two or three more already. I'm off to figure out how to fact tag, or if anyone is so inclined you could explain it to me, please.

In the meantime this source is bad too, from the same section: "Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.[13]" ^ Dorit, Robert (September-October 2004). "Rethinking Sex". American Scientist. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/35487. Retrieved 2007-09-11. I think this is one of the more important statements in this article to properly understand the issue and the state of scientist's beliefs and do not quibble with the content. I could edit it slightly, source it and remove the current footnote and be confident of it if no-one has an objection. I don't believe i would be changing the substance of the statement.David4442 (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

oops the above is from the section "Applying the term "homosexual" to animals" and not "Research On Homosexual Behavior in Animals" sorry about thatDavid4442 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the dead link.Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I fact tagged Footnote #23 because it is a dead link, and therefore the statement is unsourced. I think there is some confusion because i have made arguments which say that other source material is ok in reliability if gay activist websites are. That is not why i fact-tagged. I fact tagged because this link does not work. Please check to be sure a link works when it is fact-tagged rather than assuming something else. I proposed editing this in discussion above. This discussion references TWO separate links, one of which was fixed. 24.206.128.207 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A dead link does not mean unsourced, it simply means the online verifiability for that exact link is at least temporarily dead. It can be fixed or replaced depending on if the page was moved or archived. -- Banjeboi 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Incest

A user has put in information on incest in animals in the lead paragraph. I strongly suggest removing it. Incest is 1) not relevant to this article, and 2) not a behaviour that has only in recent time become understood. Incest boils down to "outbreeding" and "inbreeding" groups of animals, and is, unlike homosexuality, part of textbook zoology. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to un-merge

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior has been hastily merged into this article and then blanked. The list was tagged for 30 minutes and then merged with no opportunity for discussion. My restoration of the list has been reverted (rather than discussing in accordance with BRD). I propose this the articles are restored and the proposal to merge discussed if there is interest. Ash (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to merge these articles. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the merged-in text as the above list has been un-blanked. Ash (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jstanierm (talk · contribs) has merged in the list for a second time without a consensus on the previously challenged merge, see (diff). As s/he has accused me of edit-warring based on my one revert, I am reticent to restore the article without a clear consensus. Ash (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked several times for a reason the articles should not be merged. If you want to discuss then please do so, I am happy to hear any arguments against the merger. I have reverted your edits because your only issue was

a "lack of discussion.". But as I have said to you before that is not an appropriate reason. Again I am asking why the articles should not be merged. Jstanierm (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge is dumb. One is a list, the other isnt. Like GDP and List of countries by GDP (nominal)

Jstanierm, you assume homosexuality is contrary to Darwinian evolution which is not the case. [1] SO thats WP:OR. Linking incest with homosexuality is WP:OR. And if there are no recessive negative genetic conditions, incest could be advantageous from an evolutinary point of view. Phoenix of9 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

References to other 'non-mainstream' sexual proclivities in animals

I included a small reference to incest as observed in animals and added the page in the 'see also' portion.

Taking a cue from this page I also created a stub article "Incestuous behavior in animals." I am not a biologist or a scientist of any kind but I am fascinated in these kind of divergent behaviors being found in animals. I would like to see the stub article flourish. I know there's lots of documentation out there. Jstanierm (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition as homosexual behaviour is not the same thing as incestuous behaviour. Your additions appear non-neutral, as per the guidance of WP:BRD, you have attempted to make changes and they have been reverted, so now please discuss before attempting further reverts or additions. Please note the talk page convention of adding new comments at the bottom of the page. Ash (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

'Homosexual' behavior in animals is interesting because from a strictly Darwinian point of view, it is sexual activity that does not result in the continuation of a genetic strain. Similarly, incestuous activity in animals is sexual activity that does not diversify the strain and can potentially weaken a species. No doubt there are many interesting and diverse explanations for each species, but still these are curious behaviors. I do not understand your 'non-neutral' comment, because I did not realize that there was a side to take on this matter, or that the behavior of animals is some kind of political issue. Furthermore, I already spoke to you about the merged article, I do not understand why you have yet reverted the edit once again without a good explanation. I am reverting that merge, I again ask you to please offer a reason why we should not merge the two articles.Jstanierm (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not discuss the merge with me, you promoted your point of view and accused me of edit-warring (diff). You are taking the article off-topic and creating an unnecessary content fork. Revert your additions if you want to your claims of having a neutral point of view and wishes to discuss the matter to be taken seriously. Ash (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge is dumb. One is a list, the other isnt. Like GDP and List of countries by GDP (nominal) Phoenix of9 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jstanierm, you assume homosexuality is contrary to Darwinian evolution which is not the case. [2] SO thats [OR]. Linking incest with homosexuality is [OR]. And if there are no recessive negative genetic conditions, incest could be advantageous from an evolutinary point of view. Phoenix of9 17:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, I understand that you may feel strongly in your personal opinions about homosexual behavior in animals; however, this is an encyclopedia. This article is clear that homosexuality is common and found in nearly every animal species. Having an article that lists every species that displays this behavior has notability issues, i.e., in order for it to be complete and accurate the article will presumably and trivially include every single species on the planet. If the article is not complete or accurate then the encyclopedia appears unprofessional.

Also, this is clearly a contentious issue for which no resolution has been arrived and for which there has been virtually no discussion with regards to exactly why the article should or should not be merged (other than your assertion that the merge is 'dumb'). Your revert was inappropriate.Jstanierm (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I accept your discussion regarding kin recognition; please note that this is not at issue.Jstanierm (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on homosexuality as a phenomenon. The list is a list of all animals registered by Bagemihl as having some sort of homosexually related practises. Some of these animals do not practice homosexuality as described in this article, but are cases where hormonal affliction makes for “transgender” individuals or where same-sex sociality is common, and same-sex sexuality is expected. Merging the list with the article is a case of merging, if not apples and oranges, at least two kinds of apples. Basically, not a god idea.

As for the idea that homosexuality can not contribute to Darwinian fitness, I suggest you read this article through. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you didn't intentionally take my comment out of context, but if you re-read what I actually wrote I never said that 'homsexuality can not contribute to Darwinian fitness.' What I said in fact was that homosexuality and close-kin sexual pairings are both *interesting* from a Darwinian point of view.Jstanierm (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC Proposed merge of list into article on homosexual behaviour in animals

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – Apart from the proposer, on the basis of the list being trivial, all other opinions were against a merge. Ash (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

---

An issue has arisen regarding whether "List of animals displaying homosexual behavior" should be merged with "Homosexual behavior in animals".Jstanierm (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Against (reason above). Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Against There is no clear benefit in a merge. The list is substantial enough to make integration as prose impossible and merging as an embedded list a pointless change. Ash (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• For there is no need for a separate page trivially listing every observed species participating in what is accepted as universal behavior. There is no list of animals that breathe oxygen with lungs that I know and that is not even a universal behavior. The list is trivial, lacks notability, cites the same source over 100 times and basically only reiterates what is said in this article in more detail. So much coverage on an unremarkable activity betrays the enclyclopdia's npov. Jstanierm (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Two points:

1. The sentence in the lede of this page "A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them." says it all. Why would we also need a list of those 1500 (or 500) species?

2. It is not a "List of animals displaying homosexual behavior", but a list of animals observed to display homosexual behaviour (and also transgender behaviour). It seems fairly clear that there are likely to be many more species in which such behaviour is manifest, and that we are just listing those where it has been observed. What is the point? Thehalfone (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have an opinion on the RfC? We are not discussing the rationale for existence of the list, only the proposed merge. Ash (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the list article. I don't think that much of that article would be useful here. Any information worthy of being contained in the lede there should certainly be here, but then it should be even if the list is kept. The "list" part does not belong here. So I favour deleting the list and merging any useful content here, I think it will inevitably be more of a deletion than a merge. Thehalfone (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus to either merge the list here, delete the listed examples off this article or delete the list articles altogether. That you don't see the point is a valid opinion and others simply disagree. If you wish to try to delete the list article you certainly can try but based on the last attempt it seems wholly unlikely. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Against It's justified to have an extra article on the list. To merge the two would lead to an overly long article. I don't see any benefit at all. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 10:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against. Ridiculous, That list is huge and generally only includes animals that researchers have named, and generally is limited to just a link to each animals' article. This article includes some examples to show the diversity among species and practices. Merging would compromise all. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against Compare GDP vs List of countries by GDP (nominal) Phoenix of9 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against It would make this article too long. However, I do think the lead for the list is rather too detailed and duplicates too much information form this article. Richerman (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against. The list article can be improved as Richerman says. It should not be put into this article. MiRroar (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidently, this looks more like a vote rather than a discussion. I realise this will be a sensitive area for some but let's try and find concensus! Thehalfone (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think folks are simply registering their opinion rather than belaboring philosophical points which is not what this is for. The question is if folks believe a merge should happen and the underlying consensus seems to suggest that folks are opposed to a merge. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose speedy close - I suggest this RfC is now closed with a SNOW-type rationale against the merge. Running for a full 30 days seems pointless as it is unlikely that any fresh viewpoints will be revealed. Ash (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say let it go so no one feels the RfC has been gamed. Having stated that I would have closed it myself if I hadn't already participated so anyone one else is certainly welcome to close but I'm in no rush, we have plenty of other work to do and can revisit this if needed. -- Banjeboi 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; "consensus seen to be done" should always trump "housekeeping". Ash (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Against. On an only slightly related note: some of you who are reading this are gay, and are proud. We get it, and a good many of us simply don't give a rats ass (like... me). Yea, there are bigots out there that will do terrible things to you or your friends just because you or they are gay, and I do feel bad about that and do speak out against it (or do more then that, sometimes) when I'm made aware of it, but... I'm not one of them! Just because I'm a straight, sports loving, beer guzzling, white American male no more makes me the "enemy" as you being homosexual makes you worthy of a beatdown. Let's get on with actually building some content around here, OK?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• Against Lists as long as that one merit their own linked page, with a seperate heading, hyperlink, and sumerizing paragraph--Eion (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism?

User:72.39.250.213 has made several questionable edits to this article. I am not an expert on the subject, so I didn't revert them. Will someone please check the history? Thanks.

Not vandalism at all. I removed content which presents a great deal of bias in addition to content which contradicts other information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.246.41 (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for homosexuality in humans

The second paragraph of this page isn't relevant to this article. It reads "The frequent observation of homosexual behavior in animals has been seen as an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality in humans[...]" This page is about homosexuality in non-human animals and shouldn't contain any information on the arguments for or against LGBT practices in humans, and some might view the paragraph as promoting a certain view point. I suggest that the paragraph is moved to a page which is more relevant to arguments for or against homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsousa4 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)