Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Requested move 9 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy revert to status quo ante. When a page is boldly moved without discussion an RM is not necessary to revert it and often creates confusion in cases where there's a no consensus outcome. If the mover wishes to propose the alternate title, a new RM is the way forward. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Homosexual behavior in non Human animals → Homosexual behaviour in animals – Request reversion to previous longstanding article name because (1) The sudden page move to this new title was undiscussed. (2) Per WP:COMMONNAME it is reasonable to use the term 'animal' in this context, depsite it being (pedantically) true that humans are animals (3) No objection to the previous name had been raised. FrankP (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Concerns regarding captivity and research study reliability

I would like to echo a previous editor's observation about highlighting the distinction between wild animals and animals in captivity, as I think it's an important point that the article frequently glosses over and doesn't address very well. For example:

• This sentence: "Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where male individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance." The two citations are both unscientific sources that refer to a single German zoo with "gay" penguin couples; that is nowhere near enough evidence for the stated claim. Also the later subsection on penguins is simply a long list of same-sex pairing in zoos.
• The claim "cases of homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known" is attributed to a lab study on genetically-modified fruit flies.
• The tortoise section is one instance of a male tortoise in captivity mating with another tortoise that was "probably male".
• The mallard section is an unreliable source with a dubious account of "homosexual necrophilia", in what the source describes as "a more or less sedentary free-living mallard population".

The article also seems to rely far too heavily on Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, as well as WP:PRIMARY sources such research studies. As the article notes, research studies in this field may be particularly unreliable, as "such [homosexual] behavior is often elicited and exaggerated by the researcher during experimentation". Should we pare down the examples listed to only those that are well-founded according to multiple studies or secondary/tertiary sources? Stonkaments (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hard to say and I'd be wary of cutting too freely, but some trimming may be warranted. Every section seems different in terms of quality of sourcing. One thing that is always good, however, is to critically examine sources to ensure text-source integrity. In other words, Wikipedia text should not be generalizing beyond what its source says, and if the source is about a specific species and/or only about captivity, the corresponding text should say so. Regarding "such [homosexual] behavior is often elicited and exaggerated by the researcher during experimentation", that applies to lab studies of such animals as rats and fruit flies; usually studies about captive zoo animals or wild animals would be observation-only and not induced by altering genes or development as is done in the lab. As always, WP:PSTS applies - secondary and tertiary sources, especially by academic publishers, are favored for use over primary sources of any sort. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ibises

Im an ornithologist, and although the white i is can display homosexuality, so can other ibis. I specialize in wading birds, and through research i found that the Roseate Spoonbill, which is part of the same family, displays more homosexual/bisexual tendencies than others in the Threskiornithidae family. The shoebill, which is also a pelicaniform, also displays (mostly bisexual) tendencies. 2600:1017:B006:8307:1C43:850F:9DFD:3AB6 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avacholakian. Peer reviewers: Jackmccullar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Broken link

User @IAmNitpicking: reverted me, see [1]. Now the link is broken again. Wikisaurus (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dogs

Hello I am a biologist who specializes in canines and canidae family in general. This article seems to claim dogs show homosexual behaviors, without showing any evidence to support it. Additionally, dog humping is largely taken out of context, as without any explanation, this article seems to just assume humping is a sexual behavior among dogs. Please add more information, and do your research. 2806:101E:11:2CCA:999D:6387:D6E2:A688 (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can suggest specific edits by citing WP:Reliable sources, please do so. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Roosevelt University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Term "Homosexuality" vs. "Same-sex sexual activity"

Hey, I assume this article has been around for a while, but "homosexuality" is entirely a human construct that refers to exclusively same-sex attraction. So with what little we know about this subject, shouldn't we use the term "same-sex" rather than "homosexual"/"bisexual"?2601:5C7:8300:EF70:EF:32FA:80DA:D06B (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. It's even the name of the article. UtherSRG (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The term is accurate - it is not entirely a human construct. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The term "same-sex" could be added as a synonym, and "same-sex behavior in animals" could be a redirect to this page. Safyrr 14:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Very common? 450 in 8,750,000 species

This article is propaganda, it is very uncommon to find homosexuality in nature ... 450 species out of 8,750,000 what a stretch. Who back checks these articles? 2600:1700:AAB0:C850:B9B5:AC36:AC96:CEF5 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats 450 documented examples. That doesn't mean that this is a static definitive number. This is what we KNOW not what IS. It was also an older source (1999). I found a more recent source (2016) that has it at 1,500. So that number has tripled in that time frame. Science is one of those things that we learn more as time goes by. We cannot always observe mating. For example, have you ever seen your parents mate? Probably not, but they obviously did mate. You wouldn't be here otherwise. Lastly, we don't always readily know an animals sex at first glance and we can't always easily tell when animals are mating. Eg. Have you ever seen birds mate? Can you always tell what sex a bird is? Trocknorat (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

2016 article says 1500 species

I will provide a link. Read it yourself. That would almost triple the number we knew in 1999 that the 450# was based upon. 🔗[2]https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx Trocknorat (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

Change 450 examples of homosexuality in nature to 1500+.

Why? It's a more recent number (2016). I also found another credible source that confirmed the 1500+ number.

Credible Source: Scientific American

Link: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-is-same-sex-sexual-behavior-so-common-in-animals/ Trocknorat (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestion. I have added this to the article. Pastelitodepapa (talk)

Scientific American also says 1500+

I found another source that confirms my last one. The new updated number appears to be 1,500. Can someone with editing priveleges please correct the article? Thanks! [3]https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-is-same-sex-sexual-behavior-so-common-in-animals/ Trocknorat (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have added this to the article. Pastelitodepapa (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)