Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Source for 1500 species not found

...and it's not Bagemihl. A gentleman by the name of Иван Куренной e-mailed me and pointed out that I had started at the wrong end (I'd been reading Bagemighl), the reference is from J. Roughgarden (2004): Evolution's Rainbow. Univ. of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24073-1. I'm trying to track down the page to get the exact wording, but Иван (Ivan) pointed out that Raoughgardens tally include a few other forms of interesting sexual strategies, like sequential hermaphroditism (sex-changing) and parthenogenesis. Same sex sexual behaviour do however occur in quite a few of these cases, so I'm going to read up to get an idea of the actual numbers involved. My thanks to Иван Куренной for looking this up for me! Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, a bit too fast there. The number is just the species number of cichlids, the search continues. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Bagemihl: "Same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide. While this may seem like a lot of animals, it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species that are known to exist." According to J. Michael Bailey et al. (2016): "Although same-sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl, 1999), they are routinely manifested in only a few (Sommer & Vasey, 2006). In this sense humans are rare, but we are not unique." [1].According to Bagemihl: "Same-sex courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and/or parenting behaviors have been documented in the scientific literature in at least 167 species of mammals, 132 birds, 32 reptiles and amphibians 15 fishes, and 125 insects and other invertebrates, for a total of 471 species".--Путеец (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

My reading of Bagemihl is confirmed by other scientists. (Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M). But I do not know why they did not come to Wikipedia and did not fix it. (did not fix 1500 to 450) --Путеец (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I read up Bagemihl's "A Wonderous Bestiary", and there's more than 450 species. The 450 number is probably the animals mentioned in the headings, however there are several chapters having a "Other species" chapter, so all together 607 species are mentioned in the "Bestiary" text. There's also an appendix of another 190 species (pp 657-663), so it's at least 797. This however is still not the 1500, I'll keep looking. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman By this change [2] you have added the text "A review by Bruce Bagemihl (see references) shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species". But even in a complete list of all animal species (626 in Appendix), including parthenogenesis, hermaphroditism, children's games and behavioral features of animals that do not include sexual, homosexual behavior, a few are observed. Basically, these are social interactions, mistakes in identification of a partner in insects, partnerships for incubating eggs in populations with an uneven sex ratio. Many observations were made in abnormal conditions of detention. Scharf et al. says: "Males are more frequently involved in same-sex sexual (SSS) behavior in the laboratory than in the field, and isolation, high density, and exposure to female pheromones increase its prevalence. SSS behavior is often shorter than the equivalent heterosexual behavior. Most cases can be explained via mistaken identification by the active (courting/mounting) male. Passive males often resist courting/mating attempts". Scharf et al. continues: "SSS behavior has been reported in most insect orders, and Bagemihl (1999) provides a list of ~100 species of insects demonstrating such behavior. Yet, this list lacks detailed descriptions, and a more comprehensive summary of its prevalence in invertebrates, as well as ethology, causes, implications, and evolution of this behavior, remains lacking" [3]. You see, he does not even call these identification errors - homosexual behavior. Let's give the floor to biologists, ethologists, not linguists. --Путеец (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems you might me misunderstanding the point of Bagemihls book. There's a reason the proper term is "exhibition homosexual behaviour" rather than "being gay". Same-sex pairs of sea birds or waterfowl cooperating in raising a clutch do often exhibit aspects of sexual behaviour towards each other, including mounting or displaying. Can we by that be sure that they have erotic feelings for each other? Of course not. Then again, we can't know if they have erotic feeling for opposite-sex partners either. With animals, we're stuck with observing what they do, not what we might think they feel.

You are interpreting a lot of the observations as not being sex. This is however your interpretation. We have no idea about the emotional life of insects. It is quite possible the mating damage to male dragon flies represent mistakes (though these wounds are a bit too common for that to be entirely satisfying), but it could just as well be they use their pincher for sexual combat, or something else entirely. They are however using their private parts here, do they feel an emotional sexual rush when doing so? How do insects experience sexuality? The answer is no-one knows. Thus we are left with observing behaviour, and the pincher wounds on male heads are thus classified as homosexual behaviour. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

In insects, it is almost always an identification error. Konrad Lorenz (On Aggression) say: "In a series of experiments with blond ring doves Craig removed the female from the male in a succession of gradually increasing periods. After one such period of deprivation he experimented to see which objects were now sufficient to elicit the courtship dance of the male. A few days after the disappearance of the female of his own species, the male was ready to court a white dove which he had previously ignored. A few days later he was bowing and cooing to a stuffed pigeon, later still to a rolled-up cloth, and finally after weeks of solitary confinement, he directed the courtship towards the empty corner of his box-cage where the convergence of the straight sides offered at least an optical fixation point. Physiologically speaking, these observations mean that after a longer passivity of aninstinctive behaviour pattern, in this case courtship, the threshold value of its eliciting stimuli sinks. This is a widely spread and regular occurrence; Goethe expresses analogous laws in the words of Mephisto, ‘Du siehst mit diesem Trank im Leibe bald Helena in jedem Weibe,’ and – if you are a ring dove – you do so even in an old duster or in the empty corner of your cage." The behavior of animals is often misinterpreted. Often homosexual behavior is attributed to the performance of standard instinctual rituals. People do not have that. Fixed posture is a sexual stimulus in some domestic animals. Do you remember how studies were conducted on sheep? I wrote above - they immobilized. Sample: [4] --Путеец (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman See how this number (1500) became "scientific": DW say: "Studies suggest that around 1,500 animal species practice same-sex coupling, from fish to birds and mammals." [5]. while the real scientists (Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M) say different: "Although same-sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl, 1999), they are routinely manifested in only a few (Sommer & Vasey, 2006). In this sense humans are rare, but we are not unique." --Путеец (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have looked now for two weeks, but can't find any unambiguous list of 1500 species. I can't conclude otherwise than that I must have made an error when writing the original exhibition text, perhaps combining two lists that overlap (the species index from Bagemihl's book with the 607 species from his "Wondrous Bestiary", combined they should be about 1500) or counting some list twice. I really don't know, a bit too much water have flown under the bridge since we started working on the exhibition.

Thus the factual content of the statement that "homosexuality has been observed in 1500 species" for the year 2002 when the exhibition was launched is wrong. The implied content, that homosexual behaviour is quite widespread is correct, and the true number of species where this kind of behaviour occur is in all probably much, much larger. The position that homosexual behaviour has only been observed in 471 species is however not correct, as it neglects quite a bot of the documentation in Bagemihl's work.

Also, science has progressed a bit in the last two decades, so the number of species where homosexual behaviour has been observed has grown since Bagemihl wrote his book in 1999. Путеец provided an example in his post above. In adition, the number of apes where homosexuality has been observed has trebled, not because of any new finds, but because Bagemihl followed conservative wisdom of his day and treated gorilla, orangutan, siamang and white hand gibon as single species (there are now 8 great ape (inkl. humans) and 15 gibon species). The same is no doubt true to some extent for other groups. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

All people make mistakes, and this is normal. Let's quote the opinion of Bagemihl, and confirmation of his opinion in 2016 by other scientists. According to Bagemihl: "Same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide. While this may seem like a lot of animals, it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species that are known to exist." According to J. Michael Bailey et al. (2016): "Although same-sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl, 1999), they are routinely manifested in only a few (Sommer & Vasey, 2006). In this sense humans are rare, but we are not unique." Petter Bøckman Please make this correction, and then my edits are blocked. I thank you for clarification. --Путеец (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If we are evaluating sources here, the 450-number is not correct either. Bagemihl reference 797 species (or what was species in 1999). The proposed wording suggests homosexual behaviour is quite rare, which is certainly not the case.

The main culprit for the apparent disagreement is the term "homosexual behaviour" and "homosexual", which are not the same phenomenon. This article is about homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality is relevant and I think the Путеец suggested could be used in a separate section on for example "Homosexual behaviour vs. homosexuality" or some similar heading.Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The formulation of Bagemihl "over 450 species". It will be accurate, no matter how many species are found 1000..10000. In any case - it will be a tiny fraction compared to millions of species. "it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species" --Путеец (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're already quoting me, we could ad the caveat that this reflects that most species are very poorly known. We know little of their distribution, diet or lifespan, let alone their sexual habits (I've said that a lot too, if the point is relevant). The very specific 450 is misleading though. It would be better to quote 500 of which in 1999 we already knew a bit about frequency, function or both. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species - User Путеец, what you mean with that, and why are you repeting this two times? Is this a suggestion to include it in article, or something else ? M.Karelin (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman I am a bit confused: so whats the number documented by Baghemihl ?? 450 or over ?? M.Karelin (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I gave an exact quote. I understand that you do not have sources, but why can not you see what I already wrote? --Путеец (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman wrote (above): It would be better to quote 500 of which in 1999 we already knew a bit about frequency, function or both. So whats the normal number ?? M.Karelin (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

M.Karelin, the numbers from Bagemihl 1999 is a detailed account of homosexual behaviour in 471 species, and another 300 species are documented, giving a total of 797 species. However, several of the species cited by Bagemihl has been split since then, and others have been added to the list of animals with documented homosexual behaviour in the two decades since then. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

In this list, many animals are not with homosexual behavior. Parnetogenesis, sexual games in childhood, genetic mutations, in unnatural conditions, as well as changing the meaning. In addition, we must give exact quotes from the authors. Do not make independent conclusions. Bagemihl mentioned the number 450 several times. The lists, as you have noticed, intersect, and if you delete the duplicates, you get exactly the value that it indicates, and other scientists confirm it. In addition, they specify that the interaction of the genital organs is very rare. Путеец (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman Wikipedia works this way: we can only add to the article what the sources say. That's when the scientific work will appear in the peer-reviewed publication, which will indicate 626 species, then we can add these data to Wikipedia. Now, Bagemihl speaks about more than 450 species of animals. --Путеец (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, no, the numbers I just presented are the cases of documented homosexual behaviour cited by Bagemihl. Read the book yourself if you don't believe me. The various outer species discussed in the book not cited in the "Wondrous Bestiary" and appendix are found in a specie index at the back of the book. All those curious, but non-homosexual cases are non-capitalized, those discussed specifically in the "Wondrous Bestiary" and appendix are capitalized. If you claim those numbers are false, your are interpreting the text. You are of course welcome to do so, but you can't cite you interpenetration in Wikipedia.

It is true we can only cite what the articles say. Now, the article have cited me, when I was apparently making a mistake. It is however equally apparent (from straight up summation, something you can do in Wikipedia) that the 450 number is also wrong (the author just covered the 471 species in the headlines of the "Wondrous Bestiary". As I said, if we exclude me as a source because I was wrong, then we must exclude the "over 450" as wrong too.

I'm not saying the articles you have cited are irrelevant, but I think they need to be given a bit of context, not the summary treatment you have suggested. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Bagemihl say: "Same-sex courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and/or parenting behaviors have been documented in the scientific literature in at least 167 species of mammals, 132 birds, 32 reptiles and amphibians 15 fishes, and 125 insects and other invertebrates, for a total of 471 species. (see part 2 and appendix for a complete list). These figures do not include domesticated animals (at least another 19 species; see the appendix), nor species in which only sexually immature animals/juveniles engage in homosexual activitie" --Путеец (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman Suggest your option completely including my quotes. Thank you. --Путеец (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, I like that wording! It is strictly on source and strictly factual. We could perhaps ad that "various forms of homosexual behaviour has been observed in several hundred more species", to give an idea of extent. The "various forms" bit should then be expanded on in "Applying the term homosexual to animals" or a separate "Homosexual behaviour vs homosexuality" section immediately below. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Some reminder

I d like to remind User Путеец that wothout consent on Talk page you cant make changes in article. Althought Petter Bøckman gave us info about 1500, but your other changes in Intro were not discussed here. M.Karelin (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• The quote J. Michael Bailey was not discussed with anyone on Talk page. What would other editors say about that quote, is it necessary in Intro ?? M.Karelin (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Миша КарелинExplain what rules of Wikipedia you were guided when canceled my edit. Do you have a reasoned claim to the source, or the accuracy of the quote? --Путеец (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • No consent on Talk page. Bockman explained the situation with 1500 species, but instead of deleting very last sentence from the Intro, you made other changes and added a quote, which was never discussed with anoyone. You rememebr your topic ban ?? No consent, no changes. So with whom you discussed that quotes of Baghemihl and Michael Bailey ?? M.Karelin (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I, unlike you, proved knowledge of sources. I'm trying to improve the article. Submit your claim to this edit. Wikipedia does not prohibit the amendment of articles. You wanted to make a section about mice, do it. I will help. --Путеец (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
        • It s good you try to make it better. But is the mentioned quotas of Baghemihl or Bailey are appropriate for Intro ? With whom you discused it ? The Wikipedia does not prohibit the amendment of articles, but your topic ban and this rule does. So, where is the consent about that quotas ?? And why you think they are necessary for Intro ?? M.Karelin (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
          • They confirm the opinion of Bagemihl (1999), and clarify it. This is a very important specification of well-known scientists, from a fresh scientific work (2016). This explains the understanding of the whole article, for example the fact that birds in same-sex partnerships do not have sex. --Путеец (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Are you talking about quota of Bailey ? Which quota you exactly mean ? M.Karelin (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm talking about the source of 2016. You canceled it. Argument your claims to this quote. Explain your actions. --Путеец (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
                • Well, I explained you several times: do not make changes in article (especially in Intro) without consent, since you are under topic ban. Now, about the issue: 1) the quote of Bagemihl "about 1 million species", is absolutelly not necessary for the intro, he made many statements in his book, why we have to put this one in Intro? 2) As of Bailey's statement, it can be in the article, since it makes some specifications of the previous researches. So, if no objection will come from other editors, I am not mind to back Bailey's statement. But Baghemihl's quote is not for Intro for sure, it will made it very congested. Тhat quote can be written in оther parts of the article. M.Karelin (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • This can be described in one word - do not you like this quote? You invented some kind of prohibition for me to edit Wikipedia. I proved knowledge of the sources and the accuracy of the work. And you have proved that you do not have sources and reasoned opinions. In the preamble, there are strange quotations of Bagemihl. You can explain what, in terms of biological classification, means his proposal. "Research indicates that various forms of this are found in every major geographic region and every major animal group". What was meant here? domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species? Return the information to the article. Your reasoning does not correspond to the purposes of Wikipedia. --Путеец (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
                    • The "major" term here is directed at a "classical" understanding of groups. It encompasses the four tetrapod classes, the fishes (as a whole, I don't know of any observatiosn of homosexual behaviour in Agnathans), and the superfyla Ecdysozoa and Lophotrochozoa. Remaining deutrostomes, Platyhelinthes and the radiate phyla are excluded because they spawn indiscriminately, and does not have sex in the conventional meaning of the word (neither hetro- or homosexual). If you feel like a rewrite, I'm open for suggestions. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
                    • No User Путеец, I explained the situation here, you can read it. M.Karelin (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
                      • It seems to me that this statement is superfluous in the preamble, in addition it is not very precise from the point of view of biology. I'm not sure, but I suggest considering removing it from the preamble. "major animal group" - sounds strange. --Путеец (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
                        • Who better determines the importance of the materials, the one who reads them or who does not read, and asks others to quote? --Путеец (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"there is a political motive"

Lets discuss here what does it mena - "there is a political motive". I hope native English speaking editors will help us. M.Karelin (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Any exaggeration without justification, capable of influencing social life or politics is political. Especially this exhibition was supported by the government. Remember the Colin Powell test tube. [6] [7] Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive" Путеец (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So does it mean, that Bockman admitted, that they "tried to cheat the society and make a fraud" ?? That's how you understand the words of Bockman?? M.Karelin (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I understand simply. The exhibition had a political motive, as one of its organizers says. Путеец (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
      • So what does it mean in your opinion, and WHY it is so important to put it in the Intro ?? I remind you that there are a few other sources in Intro about 1500 species. So, the statement of Bockman is very unnecessary, especially in the Intro. M.Karelin (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Give me a list of 1500 species. Why not 100500? If the data is based on scientific sources, they must contain this data. If not, it means politics and propaganda. Путеец (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Ohh, thats how you work with sources ?? I just trust the reliable sources, thats it (by the way those are different sources). I guess you can find the list yourselve if you try. M.Karelin (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
            • I tried. Also has not found. Therefore, I ask you to provide a scientific source or return my edits. Путеец (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
            • One of your reliable sources is the blog of the author of the comedy video "Talking Sh#t With Dr. Todd and Natalia." You lower your links to this level with Wikipedia.Путеец (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
              • Which one you mean ? M.Karelin (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
                • So you work with sources? Do not even know what you're adding?Путеец (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • Listen! There are 6 sources about 1500 species, and the Intro is written in a very neitral manner. It says: Other sources describe more than 1,500 species. It does NOT say this is the only truth, thats why we also have a statement about 450 species WITH ONLY ONE SOURCE (Bagemihl). Both those statements are deserve to be in the Intro. If one of the sources is suspicious, show me which one it is, we will delete it. M.Karelin (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • All sources that mention 1500, 100500, 10005000, species of animals with same-sex behavior, have nothing to do with science, and can not be found in Wikipedia, only in the section on propaganda and politics, as a political fact of propaganda. I also have a blog. Let me publish 77777 species of animals there. Do you also add this here? Путеец (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
                    • Please, do NOT compare your blog with BBC, HuffPost, Deutsche Welle and Live Science. M.Karelin (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
                      • It's good that you add more and no longer scientific references. Let everyone know how the media are engaged in political propaganda. Путеец (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, I've already explained to you that the 1500 number seems to be referred to as observed and not documented, which is implying that this is not referring to published material. (The BBC article literally has: It says homosexuality has been observed among 1,500 species, and that in 500 of those it is well documented.) Though articles on Wikipedia which deal with scientific topics should be rigorously scientifically accurate, Wikipedia articles do not require scientific literature to cite information. Your reason for removing this information is not sufficient, seeming to be just "I don't like it". Experts in the field saying that the number exists is something that Wikipedia can use; it does not need to be published in a journal. Websites or news outlets (such as the ones that Миша Карелин mentioned, used for this information) may be good secondary or tertiary sources, and are just as reliable.

Second, I am not sure if details surrounding the quote from the BBC article quote (there is a political motive) are lost on you because of your stated English abilities, or you just did not read further because you feel that fits your agenda, but that's not what Petter Bockman (a zoologist, an expert in the field) is saying. After that quote from him is this: "In Norway there was a desire among publicly funded museums to be 'deliverers of truth' and to 'put on display controversial subjects, things that are not said and are swept under the carpet'." Meaning that this information is being used by museums to involve themselves in political discussions, which should not at all be interpreted as they're making up numbers for political reasons. Also, I'm confused how you seem to be ignoring that this exhibition was hosted by a university, which makes it seem pretty academic in nature to me. Rhinopias (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals. [[8]] This is the erroneous opinion of a jack of all trades helping to make an exhibition. All that scientists observe, they publish in peer-reviewed publications. This erroneous private opinion of one person who himself did not observe 1500 species of animals, and could not read this information anywhere. He invented it. [9] No one has observed 1,500 species of animals with homosexual behavior. Путеец (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You DO NOT understand one simple thing: the criterias of sources in en wiki and in ru wiki are not the same. ONCE AGAIN READ ALL THE TEXT WRITTEN ABOVE !!!! M.Karelin (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Lying should not be published as a statement of truth. Путеец (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Its not lying. Once again - READ THE WHOLE TEXT, especially the second paragraph and the very last sentence !! M.Karelin (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Give me a link to a list of 1500 species animals with homosexual behavior Путеец (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We have many sources (acceptable in en-wiki) about that number, and besides, as it was written above, this exhibition was hosted by a university, which makes it seem pretty academic in nature. We have to trust the sources, and no one is obligated to give you any lists. M.Karelin (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm coming in as a neutral editor following Путеец's complaint about this dispute at the Teahouse, and I've got some observations after reading through the links presented.

  First off, the "observed" vs "documented" language seems quite clear, and the reliable sources quoted don't claim otherwise. I'm not quite sure what the problem is there.

  Secondly, Путеец is plainly misinterpreting cites to suit his own argument. That a scientist feels there's a "political" purpose to holding an exhibition demonstrating homosexuality in the animal kingdom doesn't by definition discredit the science involved in its evidence, or the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

  Thirdly, I'm likewise concerned that Путеец is going out of his way to demonize scientists and institutions who say things he doesn't like, but is quite sloppy about his own methodology. I don't place much credence, for instance, in some unnamed "American commentator" decrying this exhibition as "propaganda" -- the anti-science bent of the American conservative media is well known and longstanding, and while you can certainly come up with any number of cites from the Limbaughs, Becks and Coulters of the world pretty much calling any fact their corporate masters disapprove of as "liberal propaganda," that's far from scientific fact itself. Then we move right on to Путеец's insistence that failure of the search term ""1500+species"+animals+homosexual" to produce hits on the National Institute of Health (???) website is indicative of anything at all. If you want to dispute an assertion made by several reliable sources, you need to have solid, reliable sources stating that the assertion is false, not a wild flight of fancy that a failure of a search term "proves" anything. Путеец hasn't done that.

  Finally, I have to ask Путеец: why does this bother you so much? At the level worst, this number is an exaggeration, not a "lie." You've been doing some serious edit warring and forum shopping here, and the invective seems far out of proportion to the putative harm that might be done. Ravenswing 08:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Any exaggeration without justification, capable of influencing social life or politics is political. Especially this exhibition was supported by the government. Remember the Colin Powell test tube. [10] [11] Путеец (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• You are not commenting on the topic that I raised. I regard the mention of 1500 species with homosexual behavior as manipulative and misleading, that only reflects the bias of the author. Ravenswing please see this discussion [12] Путеец (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, you haven't commented on a number of the topics I raised, but that's beside the point, because I did in fact comment on that particular topic. I said, and I quote, "If you want to dispute an assertion made by several reliable sources, you need to have solid, reliable sources stating that the assertion is false, not a wild flight of fancy that a failure of a search term "proves" anything." You haven't done that; you've just stated that you find the statement misleading, manipulative and biased. On the English Wikipedia, your private unsupported belief (or, as to that, mine or anyone else's) is just not good enough to to overturn what is so far unanimous consensus against your position. Ravenswing 10:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I gave explanations on the political use of dialogues about homosexuality. [13] --Путеец (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong place

User Путеец added this kind of info in a new subsection and he called it "Social environment", and put it in "Basis" section. The place of the new info is wrongfull, as long as it refers to the sheeps (rams) only, but it is given as a general info. If the sources are reliable, and the info is given in accordance with WP:WEIGHT adn WP:NPOV (I did not chack it yet), then we can add this info in section about "Sheeps". This info is relevant only to Sheeps. M.Karelin (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• If you tried to read the sources, you realized that they are not just about rams. In addition, I did not complete the work on this section. This theory of the emergence of homosexual behavior, unlike other theories, is proved by practical observations, not just one species of animals. Administrators and other colleagues call for an evaluation of Миша Карелин actions. Let me continue to work on this section. Return it to the article. Why did not you move the description of the genetic and neurobiological causes into the section about mice? Are these double standards? --Путеец (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • How it is not about rams ?? Give me quotes from the source right here please. If you don't complete the section, then better write the draft right here, it will be discussed. M.Karelin (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Raise your eyes to the discussion above. [14] --Путеец (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Once again - is it refers to rams only, or not ?? M.Karelin (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Read what you delete before you delete it. This applies not only to the sheep. Administrators, help my opponent read what he deletes. --Путеец (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
          • I saw an information about mice, but the question is still about rams: why we put in the article a source that contardicts another source (I mean Roselli). This is kind of confusing. M.Karelin (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
            • It is obvious, all opinions should be highlighted. If you have references that deny social basis, give. I do not know these. --Путеец (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
              • In that case highlight it in "Sheeps" section. My main objection is about a place you put an info. M.Karelin (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
              • This advice refers to this topic also. M.Karelin (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Basis

Social Basis

Isolation from females

The social environment in which male lambs are reared influences the sexual behavior of rams. Rams reared in all-male groups show little interest in females. Homosexual behavior in rams is a consequence of prolonged isolation from females and exclusive contact with males.A similar phenomenon was observed in mice separated from the mother and grown in isolation, without any social or sexual experience. Short interaction with females restored their mating and aggressive behavior. They began to show aggression towards males and interest towards females.Psychologist Harry Harlow, famous for his discoveries in the field of affective attachments, says that physical sexual gestures, such as courtship rituals or mounting behavior are laid down from birth, but how, when and with whom to use them can be learned only through social interaction. The males of orangutan experience suppression of reproductive behavior in the presence of a strong male. They can not develop a full range of secondary sexual characteristics, perhaps because of social intimidation or stress, although the exact mechanism is unknown. In males that do not have contact with females, the estrogen level is higher than in males that have contact with females. In a series of experiments with blond ring doves, the female was removed from the male in a sequence of gradually increasing periods. As the deprivation period increased, an object that triggered sexual response of the male became more an more unspecified: a dove of another kind, stuffed bird, rolled-up cloth and eventually the courtship was directed towards the empty corner. This is a widespread and regular phenomenon. These observations mean that after a long period of deprivation, the threshold value of stimuli eliciting sexual response sinks.

Talk

--Путеец (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is a fine way to improve the article - drafting a proposal for amendments. Now, as of proposal: I still think, that it would be more right to put this info in "Sheep" section. If, in other hand, there are such kind observations on other species (impact of Isolation from females and exclusive contact with males), we can create such subsection with this proposed name. I would like to know the opinions of other editors. I also kindly ask my colleagues to check accuracy of the quotes taken from the sources. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I will check on the sources as far as I can. I have just noticed that some of your replies in this section Путеец are relevant to things I have commented on in the section above on Sheep. In fact you seem to have answered one of my questions already. The article is organised according taxonomically, by species or genus or at most family as far as I can see. Couldn't we keep the talk page organised like that as well please? Because otherwise I think the discussion will get too confused. If there are points which need to be made about overarching theories (e.g. theories about social factors affecting the development of sexuality in mammals, or in some other relatively high-level taxon such as all primates), I suggest new sections. But the references in those sections would need to describe research at that level not the species level, because of WP:OR. FrankP (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on a section of social causes. I will say when it is ready, and we will continue this topic. Social reasons are considered by the example of different species, but not specifically related to each. Here we indicate not the features of behavior, as in separate sections on animals, but the reason for this behavior - the basis of it. --Путеец (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with FrankP. The references in those new sections (subsections) would need to describe research at that level not the species level. But, lets see what will be suggested by Путеец, and then we can discuss it more detailed. M.Karelin (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The first section of the social basis is ready. Look at the mistakes in English. @Diannaa: @Petter Bøckman: --Путеец (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have any arguments against placing this section in the article? --Путеец (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure, that while you wrote here about rams, you used the same sources, which you used in the section above about rams (domestic rams 8%). The User FrankP made many objections about your proposals. Did you take his objections into consideration while you wrote the proposed section here ?? M.Karelin (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not interfere with the work. Do you have these five sources on which this section is written? Have you read them? I answered all questions from FrankP, but you did not read it either. --Путеец (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

One more remark in same style, and I promise I ll wrote a request to ban you for violation of this rule. As of the issue: I read the conversation above, and no final comments from Frank yet. So, the discussion is not over. M.Karelin (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It's good that you asked the administrator. Maybe your contribution will be noticed. In another topic about sheep, we discussed the design of research, and the reason for the appearance in them of 8%. Please re-read these studies. --Путеец (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No one reasoned reasonably against this. Adding? --Путеец (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please show me the quotes from the source which says that Homosexual behavior in rams is a consequence of prolonged isolation from females and exclusive contact with males. According to rules, since you are insisting these edit, you have to prove that the source contains that information. So please show me what part of the source lead you to conclude that Homosexual behavior in rams is a consequence of prolonged isolation from females and exclusive contact with males. M.Karelin (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Is the source says the only reason of Homosexual behaviour in rams is isolation form females ? If yes, show it in the source, if no, why the draft is written in this bad way ?? M.Karelin (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A similar phenomenon was observed in mice separated from the mother and grown in isolation, without any social or sexual experience. - Is the source says that Homosexual behavior in mice is a consequence of prolonged isolation from females and exclusive contact with males ?? If yes, please show me exact part in the source about that. If no, why it is written that A similar phenomenon was observed in mice ?? M.Karelin (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC) M.Karelin (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The males of orangutan experience suppression of reproductive behavior in the presence of a strong male. They can not develop a full range of secondary sexual characteristics, perhaps because of social intimidation or stress, although the exact mechanism is unknown. Tell me how this is about "Isolation from females", if it is mentioned about "strong male" presence and consequences of that ?? How this is relevant ?? M.Karelin (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a widespread and regular phenomenon. - what does it mean "widespread and regular phenomenon" ?? Widespread among what kind of animals ? What the source says ? These observations mean that after a long period of deprivation, the threshold value of stimuli eliciting sexual response sinks - is this about birds only ? What the source say about it ? If this is about birds only, why it is not detailed in the draft ? M.Karelin (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to remind you that - In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Thats why I ask you detaily answer to all my objections (since those are different objections please answer to them separately). Thanks. M.Karelin (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC) The burden of presenting the appropriate details is on you, since exactly you are going to contribute this information to the article. Taking into consideration the fact, that previously you already misunderstood the sources, I ask you to provide the answers very detaily. M.Karelin (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC) In advance I want to warn you that I read the section about the rams above ("evidence"), and did not find anything which can be base to what is written here in the draft. So please do not refer to the mentioned section and answer the questions here in detail. M.Karelin (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require proof of the presence of certain quotations in the sources. WP:V You can open them, and check. They are available to specialists who can draw the right conclusions. But, evidence on the sheep - listed in the section [15]. Proofs for mice - you can read [16] even in a popular article [17]. And even in Russian. [18]. But among your questions there was also a relevant question. I will answer him with the words of a scientist who has given several reasons, including one-sex cultivation. Roselli(2011): "Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the develop-ment of same-sex sexual preferences in rams. These include the effect of same-sex rearing, genes, olfactory responsiveness, and brain differences. None of these mechanisms are mutually exclusive and none have been demonstrated conclusively to play a causal role."[19] But a new study in mice has proven that social interaction is the main reason that works for different species of animals. At the expense of stimulus. The quoted book is devoted to studying the behavior of all animals, and conclusions are made regarding animals in general. You can easily verify this by reading the book. I have already given evidence, such as a bull mounting a motorcycle. This is a manifestation of deprivation. When in the absence of a female, a fixed object was sufficient stimuli for the manifestation of the instinct of courtship. According to orangutans, one can not say for sure what causes feminization and a large level of estrogens. Or the presence of a strong male, or lack of contact with the female. But both reasons for feminization are social. Your statement that I do not correctly understand the source is not relevant until you read it. Not only am I talking about this. I will be happy to talk with someone who has read the article. See WP:CIV --Путеец (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, as a User who is in Wiki 4 years, I ll expalin you how Wikipedia works. If someone has doubts about what you try to put in article, you CAN NOT just tell them go and read the sources. You have to explain what pease of source (statement, research, quote) led you to make such conclusion. Those ideas and conclusions shall be analyzed very carefully (especially if someone has serious language barrier), and only after that it can go to the article (if there are no objections). Now, again, put your explanation aftre EACH of my objection above (one by one), to understantd how you came to those conclusions. M.Karelin (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And please do not forget to read this !! M.Karelin (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Миша Карелин Please listen to the advice of experienced editors. Thank you. [20] --Путеец (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me now ?? I am still waiting to your detaily explanation to all of my objections above one by one, otherwise I cant trust to your contributions. We have to give time to other editors as well to see and analyze your explanations. M.Karelin (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Neurobiological basis

User Путеец recently added in "Neurobiological basis" section an info about insects. In my opinion, only one sentence there is really reffer to Neurobiological basis. The rest info shall be moved in a section about "Insects" bellow. Moreover, it repeats some things that already in the "Insects" section. Until the end of this discussion, I hide the mentioned paragraph. M.Karelin (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Миша Карелин Your behavior is very strange. You do not have access to sources and do not read the talk page. This addition was proposed by Petter Bøckman [21], and I added it to the article, because I also have biological knowledge, and I agreed with his opinion. Can you explain your behavior? --Путеец (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please rate the contribution of the participant Миша Карелин --Путеец (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not playing content cop here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter who propsed it, I saw that you addded it, and now I ask you the same question: how the added paragraph concerns to Neurology ?? For example, the very last sentence is not about Neurobiological basis at all. So why it is there ?? The info is useful, but in "Insects" section, not in "Neurobiological basis" section. I wish Petter aslo join to this discussion. M.Karelin (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In some species exhibiting traumatic insemination (e.g. bedbugs), male homosexual behaviour will usually cause the death of the inseminated male, which may make such act a form of male combat against competitors - now please explain me how this is concern to Neurology ?? M.Karelin (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC) Petter Bøckman Please join us, I wish you also explain this situation, I recomend to move some part of the section to the "Insects" section. M.Karelin (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Most cases can be explained via mistaken identification by the active (courting/mounting) male. We already have such sentence in the article. Why we repeat the "same meaning" above, in "Neurobiological basis" section ?? (In a review of reports of homosexual behaviour 102 arthropod species, as much as 80% of the observations was suggested as being due to mistaken identity.) M.Karelin (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I can not explain it to you. Read the sources that Petter Bøckman suggested. I try to explain after this. --Путеец (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What a pity you cant explain. I am not telling that it is not written in the sources. What I am telling is - HOW this whole info concerns to Neurology ?? The info is useful, but it is in wrong place. M.Karelin (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read this article [22], it will help you to return the information. --Путеец (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman If you still think that all the information in the added section is in the right place, then I do not mind that it appeared in the article again. However, in my opinion, some parts refer to insects in general, and therefore most of the section should be moved below, into the section on "Insects". Do not forget that the section refers to Neurology, now there is a lot of excessive info which is not concern to neurology. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Look at Миша Карелин contribution. Do not you think that this is a simple trolling? He cancels all my edits without thinking or reading sources. Now he got on the proposed biologist Petter Bøckman. But deleted only because I added this material instead of Petter Bøckman. As you can see, Миша Карелин does not have biological knowledge. Please protect our work from a non-constructive assistant. --Путеец (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not delete, I just hid it untill the end of discussion. And the reasons of doing so are described above in detail. M.Karelin (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the recommended article? Errors in the identification of a partner are associated with pheromones. They affect the behavior and work of the brain. This is just the section of Neuroscience. --Путеец (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In some species exhibiting traumatic insemination (e.g. bedbugs), male homosexual behaviour will usually cause the death of the inseminated male, which may make such act a form of male combat against competitors - how this is concern to Neurology ?? Again, if Petter insists, that there are no errors in the section, and it is in the right place, then it will be returned. But I ask him to read my objections carefully and pay attention to them. M.Karelin (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This behavior is due mistaken identification --Путеец (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I am confused. So one male fights with another male (which may make such act a form of male combat against competitors) due to mistaken identification ?? Is that correct understanding of what you told me ?? M.Karelin (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read at least one article used.[23] Do not kill the time of other people. If in doubt, ask a question BEFORE deleting the information. And please read the sources. Without this, edits can be destructive. --Путеец (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

So clarify it here, I asked you a question above (as long as YOU added the info). Can you explain here, how the last sentence is concern to Neurology ?? If I got satisfying explanation of that, I ll return the info. M.Karelin (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter, those my words are still in effect - if you insist, that there are no errors in the section, and it is in the right place, then you can return it. But please read my objections about this issue and pay attention to them. Thanks. M.Karelin (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the bedbug example. I agree with M.Karelin and think it really does not belong in the Neurology-section. It could perhaps be adapted and added to the beddbug-chapter (end of article). What we need is an example of homosexual behaviour that does not hang on mistake identity to exemplify the remaining 20% of arthropod examples.Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman 20% can explain not sexual intercourse, similar to sexual. "An adaptive explanation unrelated to sexual behavior is avoiding predation, which has been proposed about four times, in different termite systems. Termite males have been observed to pair together in a similar manner to heterosexual couples pairing (e.g., Matsuura et al. 2002; Wen et al. 2012)." [24] It is conventionally called sexual, as this interaction uses pheromones. "Finally, preventing other males from mating, inflicting damage to rival males through SSS interactions, or other types of intra-sexual aggressive behavior form another group of suggested adaptive explanations (e.g., Wendelken and Barth 1985; Preston-Mafham 2006; Caballero-Mendieta and Cordero 2012; Kant et al. 2012; Kureck et al. 2011). Such explanations are brought up in slightly over 10 % of the cases (we detected 12 cases; Table A1 in the Appendix)." --Путеец (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman You are not mistaken. In bedbugs, this behavior is also associated with an identification error. That is, they do not specifically attack partners. This broadens the understanding of the consequences of such behavior. But all information is deleted, not just bedbug Please return it. --Путеец (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman By the way, consider the possibility, create a separate section in the basis. Mistaken identification . They are not only related to neurobiology, pheromones, but also to other causes, with genetic, for example. Let's think, whether it is necessary to allocate them separately. Then we'll add the beetle with beer bottles --Путеец (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman I can add general words about the basis, from different studies. What do you think? --Путеец (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter, thank you for your clarifications. Now, I guess we can decide which part of the section shall be back to the article, and which part shall be moved to other sections. M.Karelin (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, do you have any sources saying the bedbugs are a case of mistaken identity? I was under the impression it was not. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman Yes, you were right, that's what is said in this work: "Mating is closely associated with feeding, since feeding causes an increase in body size and males are attracted to any large indi-vidual regardless of sex: it is the bloated body that increases the attractiveness (Reinhardt & Siva-Jothy 2007). Mating behaviour does not include long-distance attraction; instead males rapidly mount any large, newly fed nearby individual. The male then folds his abdomen underneath the mounted individual and probes with the paramere (penis). After this sequence of mounting, the male decides either to continue to mate or to dismount (Siva-Jothy 2006); thus sex identification is likely to occur after mounting. Many insects use pheromones for communication (e.g. Wyatt 2003). Thus far, it has been established that bed bugs produce alarm pheromones as a defence against predation (Levinson et al. 1974a, b). In high doses, alarm pheromones cause increased activity" [25] I have any sources, if there are questions, I will quote them with pleasure. --Путеец (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"In some species, sex recognition takes place during courting or approaching (e.g., Scarbrough 1978; Schlein et al. 1981; Hemptinne et al. 1998; Henry and Wells 2009), while in other insects, recognition occurs only after mounting (e.g., Scarbrough 1978; Carroll 1988; Bland 1991; Steiner et al. 2005). The latter is probably also the case in at least two snail species (Saur 1990; Takada 1995)." [26] --Путеец (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, identification errors are manifested not only in insects. We need to create such a section Mistaken identification. --Путеец (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has become too big, and now it is difficult to understand to what conclusion we came. So, 1) which part of the section is returned to the article, and which is not. 2) What kind of a new section do you want to create and where, how will it be called and what kind of content will there be? M.Karelin (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

All that you hid in the article, about insects, including bedbugs, put in the section Basis - Mistaken identification --Путеец (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it has to be drafted then. Since Petter Bøckman has suggested that section, lets see what he thinks about that. M.Karelin (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Mouse

Dear colleagues, I noticed that we do not have a section about mice, although there are many sources about homosexual behavior of mice. Any objections to write a separate section about them ? M.Karelin (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• No objection. Write about all "1500 species", and give me at last the whole list. --Путеец (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this kind of trolling ?? M.Karelin (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • No, this is a proposal for cooperation. If you provide me with the entire list, and this implies research, I promise that I myself will fill in the Wikipedia article with all these kinds. --Путеец (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Calm down please. This section is about mice only. M.Karelin (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Give a list of studies on homosexual behavior of mice. --Путеец (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well, besides several sources already included in the article, one source was given by you. In my opinion it will be right to collect all those info in one section about mice. M.Karelin (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. My source does not describe homosexual behavior. There is no description of the process itself. He describes the reasons. --Путеец (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Again and again I remind you, that this article is about "Homosexual behavior in animals". If you source "describes the reasons", it is still about the mentioned behavior. If you are against creating of a different section, just tell us about it, mentioning the reasons. M.Karelin (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not against your proposal to create a section on mice, and even help you do this when you provide sources that describe homosexual behavior. To understand what the scientific description of homosexual behavior means, read the work of Fox about the Oragnutans. Perhaps you are trying to create a section on mice in order to hide information about the social causes of homosuistic behavior. But this is not possible, because the social basis is described in almost all higher animals, and I was surprised that this fact is not covered in this article. You did not let me finish this section. Administrators will definitely determine the quality of your contribution. --Путеец (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
        • "Perhaps you are trying to create a section on mice in order to hide information about the social causes of homosuistic behavior." - first of all I d suggest you to read this policy, before judging my actions. Second, I did not try to hide anything, read more carefully what did I write above, I just suggeted you to write the same info in "Sheeps" section (because there is a contradictions of whats is written in sources). If I tried "to hide something" I would not suggest you that. As of mice, I just noticed that there are several sources describing homosexual behaviour of mice, but we dont have a defferent section about them. Thats why i suggested to create a different section about them. As you see, everything is much simpler than you think. M.Karelin (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Do it, please, instead of talking. The section on the social causes of homosexuality will be written in any case on the basis of a huge number of other sources related to mice and rams, and not associated with them. For example, this is described in Fox. I wait when you create a section about mice to join the work. --Путеец (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Again I ask you to calm down, this style of converstaion will not create a normal "work space". If my suggestion will be supported, we ll discuss details with colleagues about the section. I want to remind you, that the Administrator on his talk page suggested you to gain consensus of your edits, before making changes in the article. Since many of your edits are very controversial, I d suggest you the same: before making a big edits, write here a draft of it, and also mention where exactly you want to add it. Then the draft will be editied and amended, after which you can put it in the article. That will be the best option to avoid those kind of situations. Believe me, the administrator gave you a good advice. M.Karelin (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
              • Миша Карелин No one spoke out against it. You can make an article about mice as you like. --Путеец (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
                • Thanks you for your permission. M.Karelin (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • Миша Карелин You wanted to create a section for mice, for what purpose did you do this? How do you do to improve Wikipedia? In my opinion, you are limited to attempts to prevent scientific data in this article. --Путеец (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)