Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

domestic rams 8%

Friends, look at my clarifications. I'm afraid that my opponent will delete this information again, but it completely changes the meaning of the phrase. I can provide proof of every word I say. I hope, on the correct understanding of my corrections and edits of my opponent. I will avoid changing the article until you are convinced of my rightness.

8% -10% This figure is better not to use. It has no scientific justification. If you study the initial research, then you will understand this. I can prove it. But not right away, it's hard for me to write in English.

Here is an exact text based on scientific sources:

Some of rams (males), detached from the mother and grown in same-sex flocks, without access to females, refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams. A similar phenomenon was observed in mice excommunicated from the mother and grown in isolation. Short interaction with the female restored sexual behavior in them. They began to show aggression towards males and were interested in females. [1] [2] Путеец (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But it is better to remove from the intro the mention of rams!--Путеец (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

evidence

In a 2004 survey [3], Roselli, referring to 8-10% of "homosexual" sheep, refers to two studies: (1) Price et al. (1988)[4] - in this article a group of 54 rams was studied, of which 4 were classified as individuals with same-sex behavior (7.4%), and (2) Perkins et al. (1992) [5] - a group of 94 rams was studied, 8 of them were classified as individuals with same-sex behavior (8.5%) However, it is not indicated where the figures 54 and 94 came from - the total number of tested rams in each of the two studies.Путеец (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

John A. Resko et al. says: "Rams for these studies were obtained from the U.S. Sheep Experimental range flock (N = 5000 ewes), Dubois, ID. Rams were representative of the major breeds, consisting of Targhee, Rambouillet, Columbia, and Polypay. All rams were born in the spring lambing season (April and May). Rearing conditions have been described previously [27]. Briefly, ewes and lambs grazed spring and summer ranges until the time of weaning in August. At weaning, ram and ewe lambs were separated from the dams. Ram lambs were combined into all-male groups of approximately 400-500 head. The ram lambs were kept on fall rangeland, grazing for an additional 2 mo, then moved to a feedlot (November through April). Ram lambs were given alfalfa hay (18% crude protein) and a commercially supplemented barley-based concentrate ration at approximately 1.5 kg per head per day. At one year of age, ram lambs were moved as a group onto spring ranges and kept through the summer and fall. During this time, they were exposed only to natural changes in photoperiod and had no physical contact with females. Beginning at approximately 16-18 mo of age, rams were given sexual behavior tests." [6]

• And already on the basis of these tests have chosen a small group of rams. Perhaps the most non-active ones were chosen to study the reasons for their inactivity. But these sheep are grown under unnatural experimental conditions! I do not know what prompted subsequent authors to repeat this number (8%) without checking. Путеец (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"They found that all of the non-performers came from the all-male group that were permitted to physically interact with other rams and concluded that the occurrence of low-response sexual behavior in rams is related to experiential factors such as rearing conditions. Subsequent studies by Price and colleagues [49,52] demonstrate that early exposure of rams to females will increase the probability of rams becoming sexually active, but will not prevent some rams from being male-oriented or low sexual performers". [7] Путеец (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if we use a smaller, more favorable figure for the significance, the figure is 400 - then the proportion of such males will be 1.5%. Moreover, Roselli in the review of 2004, for some reason did not mention the article Stellflug et al. (2002) In determining the proportion of sheep with same-sex behavior, in which only one sheep out of 84 males (1.2%) was detected. Also, the publication of Price et al. (1999) - only 2 males out of 104 recorded mounting exclusively for other males - less than 2%. FrankP, Petter Bøckman Flyer22 Reborn please correct the errors that are now written in the article Путеец (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

"The social environment in which male lambs are reared influences the sexual behavior of rams (Casteilla et al., 1987; Katz et al., 1988): rams reared in all-male groups show little interest in females when they are used for breeding (Zenchak and Anderson, 1980). Srivastava et al. (1989) reported that homosexual behavior in rams is a conse-quence of prolonged isolation from females and exclusive contact with males. In the same vein, Ungerfeld et al. (2013) recently reported that bucks reared in isolation from females displayed mating behaviors to-ward a greater number of novel bucks than bucks that were reared in permanent contact with females. This led these authors to propose that males that were reared in isolation from females considered other males as possible sexual partners. Therefore, isolation from females may be a determinant of a greater frequency of male–male sexual interactions." [8]

Let's see what the authors mean by “homosexuality” in rams. The animals were given sexual performance test: the ram was placed for 30 minutes in a room where two ewes and two rams were restrained and immobilized in a device known as ‘rape rake’ (see picture [9]). It should be noted that the immobile stance of an animal is the single most important trigger for male mounting behavior. Some of the subjects, who have never seen a female in their live, had no clue what to do with them and mounted those who they know — males. In nature mounting males by males does not have any sexual context and serves as a show of social rank, something like: I mount you — therefore I’m dominant and you subordinate. It’s well known that rams reared in same-sex groups have to be taught how to mate with ewes. They require special conditions: separate pen with ewes, artificial vagina, etc. 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. Subsequently, nearly all males developed a heterosexual preference. Of the group of 23 rams that grown in a same-sex group, only one could not do it. The studies showed that males grown in a mixed group will be more active than those grown in a same-sex group, and the earlier is acquaintance with ewes, the less likely is homosexual behavior, even if the acquaintance is purely visual — through the fence. Although conventional terminology is used in animal studies, such as "sexual partner preference","sexual orientation","homosexual", etc. , these terms are not identical to those used to describe human sexual orientation, which is a much more complex phenomenon.

Путеец (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk

Please do not change the proof section Путеец (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Ravenswing may be right that counting does not violate WP:OR but this is of a different order. We are not drafting a review paper about ovine sexuality. We should be trying to improve an encyclopedia article. But I thank you for your detailed comments, I will work through them, as you can appreciate it will need a bit of attention. I do question whether this is the ideal editorial process. FrankP (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I proposed a minor addition of the paragraph on rams. And a detailed explanation. If it is not enough to make this change, I will provide additional evidence.--Путеец (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Change 1) to 2) Do not count anything.

sorry, I was only trying to make a little joke

1. "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."
2. "Some of rams (males), detached from the mother and grown in same-sex flocks, without access to females, refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams. A similar phenomenon was observed in mice excommunicated from the mother and grown in isolation. Short interaction with the female restored sexual behavior in them. They began to show aggression towards males and were interested in females." (just check the language)

--Путеец (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm focussing on all that you wrote before. So I'm not ready to consider the new wording, but thank you, let's keep that "on the table". I have some questions about the Evidence section.

(Q1) In first para, you begin, "In a 2004 survey Roselli ..".

I have noted two articles by Roselli + others in 2004, which I will label:

2004a Roselli, Larkin, Schrunk, Stormshak in Physiology and Behaviour

2004b Roselli, Larkin, Resko, Stellflug in Endocrinology

Which of these do you mean to refer to?

(Q2) Your ext link following the discussion of the Roselli paper mentioned in Q1 does not lead to either 2004a or 2004b, but to Resko, Perkins, Roselli et al (1996), Endocrine Correlates of Partner Preference Behavior in Rams, in Biology of Reproduction. Why is this?

In a 2004 survey, Roselli says: "By far the largest proportion of rams is female-oriented. A study by Price et al. [10] recorded that of 54 rams that were studied in a choice test, 18.5% were sexually inactive, 55.6% met criterion for a female sexual partner preference, 7.4% preferred male sexual partners, and 18.5% interacted sexually with both males and females. Perkins et al. [11] reported similar sexual partner preference distributions for rams. Of 94 rams tested in this study, 17% were asexual, 74.4% mounted and attained ejaculation with ewes, and 8.5% mounted other rams." --Путеец (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

From the abstract to this paper, Roselli (2004a): "It is estimated that as many as 8-10% of rams exhibit a sexual partner preference for other males, classifying them as male-oriented rams. Studies have failed to identify any compelling social factors that can predict or explain the variations in sexual partner preferences of rams." So Roselli's conclusion seems to be against your contention that the same-sex mating behaviour of certain sheep is best explained by social factors to do with their upbringing or environment. FrankP (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

When considering the sources, one must see everything. Otherwise it will turn out like with the myth of 1500 species of animals. --Путеец (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(Q3) Your 4th para is referenced to yet another study, namely Roselli, Reddy and Kaufman (2011) The development of male-oriented behavior, in Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology. Since your argument seems to rest on the precise experimental conditions, it is very important that we know which study you are talking about at any time. The conditions are very likely to be different in each study. I got a bit confused at this point.

I just quote the 2011 study as a supporting thesis. This study confirms my thesis. "early exposure of rams to females will increase the probability of rams becoming sexually active" --Путеец (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That is where I have got to so far. Must go now but will check back later. FrankP (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note -- I have removed two "Further information" hatnotes from the Sheep section, because the linked articles contain no further info, only re-stating substantially the same facts as are being discussed here. If we reach a resolution here, then someone should take on making consequential edits at the other articles: Sheep#Behavior and Animal sexual behaviour#Sheep. Because it seems this page is the primary location within Wikipedia for information on the topic. FrankP (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

When I come to work, I will answer in more detail. As for a separate section of the Sheep, it also provides one-sided information from sources. Here is what we wrote in Russian Wikipedia: "Roselli et al., In a review published in 2011 in the journal Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, Baltazar in a review published in 2016 in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, and Bailey et al (2016), analyzing the results of studies on this sheep population, proposed several hypotheses, one of which is the difference in the brain: the core of sexual dimorphism of sheep with homosexual behavior is influenced by a lower concentration of androgens in the embryonic period.In addition to this hypothesis, on the other, explaining the development of same-sex sexual preferences in sheep, including the influence of same-sex upbringing, genes, olfactory reactions, none of which is mutually exclusive, and none of them showed themselves as playing the main role .Our understanding of the causes of same-sex preferences Although the data available to date indirectly support this hypothesis (on oSDN), many questions remain unanswered. Obviously, more research is needed to understand the difficulties associated with organizing the same-sex preferences of sexual partners in sheep. Subsequent studies conducted by Price and colleagues showed that early interaction between males and females increases the likelihood that sheep will become sexually active. [12]"

An unusual form of reproductive suppression occurs in male orangutans. Although they become sexually mature at the age of seven to ten years, males as a whole can not develop the full spectrum of secondary sexual characteristics for another seven years, sometimes it has been delayed for two decades. It is believed that this development is suppressed by the presence of a mature male, perhaps through social intimidation or stress, which controls, through epigenetic mechanisms, the development of secondary sexual characteristics, including brain structures. And not the other way around, as they try to prove. An interesting example with mice [13]--Путеец (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Some scientists try to prove differences in the brain as the cause of homosexual behavior, but analyzing modern research it becomes obvious that these changes appear as a result of different sexual and social experiences. This need to be studied additionally. --Путеец (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, I had hoped to return earlier but things came up. I am interested in the discussion but it would be easier for me to concentrate on one thing at a time. Sheep in this section, not orangutans, mice or humans. OK? I guess if those cross-species comparisons are needed then you should start a new section. But first -- it is important that you understand about WP:OR. Do you understand that policy? It is really not clear that you have understood what the Wikipedia is for. Please can we be clear about this. I will explain with reference to examples from what you have written.

I understand as for the addition to the article. But it is not clear if we can discuss different theories on the discussion page. --Путеец (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You referred to your thesis, namely that "early exposure of rams to females will increase the probability of rams becoming sexually active". Is this conclusion present in a published paper? If so, quote it. If not, and maybe it is your conclusion from reviewing several studies, then you should make that inference in your own published work. It becomes your original research. When it is published then editors here might find it suitable for inclusion in the article.

All that in quotes, and a reference at the end of the quotation is a quote from the study. "early exposure of rams to females will increase the probability of rams becoming sexually active" [14] --Путеец (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarification FrankP (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The same applies to saying that , "analyzing modern research it becomes obvious that these changes appear as a result of different sexual and social experiences". Is this referenced? Or is it your unpublished conclusion? You must become clear about the criteria for eligibility in the article, which excludes original research of your own, and requires references. The same standard applies to others, so your request for firming up references, for example about 1500 species, is completely valid, IMO. FrankP (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This is my generalized conclusion, which I did not support by reference. I do not suggest adding this phrase to the article. This phrase logically follows from the above citations. Besides, remember, for what I wrote this proof? To remove the mention of sheep from the preamble, or to clarify it. I proposed a correction. But as it turned out, my proof is well suited to supplement the section on sheep. --Путеец (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think I see. I'm just trying to take things one step at a time and see what comes from where. Please bear with me, I came into the discussion as an outsider (I am not a biologist), and if there are lots of claims all together from lots of source papers at once, and also some of your conclusions, it can become confusing. So I am picking it out one thing at a time for my understanding, Thank you for your patience with me. FrankP (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman I propose to remove the mention of rams from the preamble. They are not true. Look at this evidence. --Путеец (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is against removal in the intro. But the section itself needs to be supplemented, according to this material. I invite those who wish. --Путеец (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

FrankP Have you looked at the sources? --Путеец (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is against removal in the intro. --Путеец (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That people have stopped responding to you doesn't mean that they agree with you. In this case, they are simply tired of debating you on everything. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to any removal of the ram-related information from the lede. That material is supported by multiple sources (including secondary sources) and its removal would just be an attempt to hide the fact that at least one non-human animal species, Ovis aries, has been confirmed to have members with exclusively homosexual orientation. Statements from User Путеец's "Evidence" section above are mentioned in bullet points below, followed by my response.

• In a 2004 survey, Roselli, referring to 8-10% of "homosexual" sheep, refers to two studies: (1) Price et al. (1988) [...] and (2) Perkins et al. (1992)

User Путеец, you're selectively stating the facts here. Roselli et al (2004) states:

"A study by Price et al. [21] recorded that of 54 rams that were studied in a choice test, 18.5% were sexually inactive, 55.6% met criterion for a female sexual partner preference, 7.4% preferred male sexual partners, and 18.5% interacted sexually with both males and females. Perkins et al. [29] reported similar sexual partner preference distributions for rams. Of 94 rams tested in this study, 17% were asexual, 74.4% mounted and attained ejaculation with ewes, and 8.5% mounted other rams. The high percentage of rams that interacted with ewes is probably due to the fact that female-oriented rams were not given choice tests, but only observed with females, so that this group most likely includes rams that interact with both males and females. We have confirmed these distributions in our own studies. Over the past 2 years, 584 rams were tested. Of these 12.5% were asexual, 55.6% mounted and attained ejaculation with ewes, 9.5% mounted other rams, and 22% interacted sexually with both males and females."

So the 8-10% figure not only derives from Price et al (1988) and Perkins et al (1992) but was also confirmed in Roselli et al's own studies and with a larger sample size. (FYI, Katz et al, 1988, found that 2 out of 24 rams, or in other words 8.3% of the rams in their sample were male-oriented, which is in line with later studies’ percentage findings).

• it is not indicated where the figures 54 and 94 came from - the total number of tested rams in each of the two studies

It's clearly mentioned in the Materials and Methods sections of both studies, e.g., the Materials and Methods section of Price et al (1988) states: “The subjects were 54 cross-bred whiteface rams, primarily of Finnish Landrace, Rambouillet and Dorset descent. Twenty-nine were born and reared in 1984 and 25 in 1985.”

• John A. Resko et al. says: "Rams for these studies were obtained from the U.S. Sheep Experimental range flock (N = 5000 ewes) […] Rams were representative of the major breeds, consisting of Targhee, Rambouillet, Columbia, and Polypay.

This statement is from the Materials and Methods section of Resko et al (1996). They seem to be talking about the sample size of their own research when they say this. Price et al (1988) do not mention what flock they drew their sample from, nor is Price et al (1988) referenced in Resko et al (1996).

I see that you're using the fact that rams in Resko et al (1996) were separated from ewes to imply (as exemplified by your highlighting of the line "had no physical contact with females") that their separation caused some of them to become male-oriented. However, Resko et al (1996) state:

"The proposition that male orientation (i.e., reproductive behavior that is exclusively directed toward other males) has its origins in all-male rearing procedures, although possible, assumes that some males are more susceptible to these rearing conditions than others. Most rams raised in all-male groups after sexual maturation (the usual way rams are raised in production settings) are female-oriented. It should be noted, however, that all-male groups are formed only after males have been reared, until the time of sexual maturation, in the presence of females. In the present study, rams were not isolated from females from birth. After sexual maturation, both male- and female-oriented rams were exposed to estrous females multiple times."

Note that the part of Resko et al (1996) that you quoted does not say that rams were "not exposed to females", it says they did not have physical contact with them. So clearly non-physical exposure (e.g. visual, olfactory) did occur, as exemplified by Resko et al stating that exposure to estrous females occurred "multiple times." So the implication that male-oriented rams in Resko et al (1996) were only male-oriented because of lack of exposure to females is incorrect.

• Ungerfeld et al. (2013) recently reported that bucks reared in isolation from females displayed mating behaviors to-ward a greater number of novel bucks than bucks that were reared in permanent contact with females. This led these authors to propose that males that were reared in isolation from females considered other males as possible sexual partners. Therefore, isolation from females may be a determinant of a greater frequency of male–male sexual interactions.

Ungerfeld et al (2013) isn’t even about sheep; it examines sexual behavior in goats. And please note that the part you quoted does not mean that all male-oriented behavior in all goats/ruminants is a result of isolation from females. It only says that a greater frequency of homosexual behavior in bucks/goats isolated from females may be a result of said isolation. It acknowledges in the first line that bucks/goats raised with females also display homosexual behavior (which obviously cannot be a result of isolation).

• a device known as ‘rape rake’

I have not seen studies use this terminology. I feel that you're trying to create shock and a negative impression in readers by describing the apparatus that way. And despite having read Roselli et al (2004), you're conveniently forgetting to mention that the apparatus is methodologically significant for making the 'partner preference choice tests' accurate:

"These tests involve exposing individual rams to two unfamiliar estrous ewes and two unfamiliar rams in a 10x15-m arena. The four stimulus animals are restrained in stanchions so that they can only be approached from the sides and rear. Price et al. [21] first described this testing method and found that restraint of stimulus animals minimizes bias in the presentation of the stimulus animals and eliminates individual differences in aggressiveness. Signoret [27] demonstrated that immobility is the single most important stimulus eliciting mounting behavior in a ram. Since restraint is necessary to immobilize the stimulus rams, the ewes are restrained as well. Usually, restrained stimulus males stand as quietly as estrous females when mounted by the test subjects. The tests, which are 30 min in duration, are administered twice when the rams are approximately 16–18 months old and twice again the following year when the rams are approximately 28–30 months old. Under the conditions used, test subjects are free to choose among the stimulus animals or remain neutral. The frequencies of anogenital sniffs, foreleg kicks, nudges, vocalizations, flehmens, mount attempts, mounts and ejaculations are recorded, as well as the sex of the animal to which these behaviors are directed."

• Some of the subjects, who have never seen a female in their live, had no clue what to do with them and mounted those who they know — males.

What study did this happen in, if at all?

• In nature mounting males by males does not have any sexual context and serves as a show of social rank

No sexual context or purpose at all? Please cite sources for this claim.

• analyzing modern research it becomes obvious that these changes appear as a result of different sexual and social experiences

Wrong. The review by Roselli et al (2004) states: "Studies have failed to identify any compelling social factors that can predict or explain the variations in sexual partner preferences of rams. Nor is there consensus on the endocrine and sensory responsiveness of male-oriented rams to other rams. However, a number of studies have reported differences in brain structure and function between male-oriented and female-oriented rams, suggesting that sexual partner preferences are neurologically hard-wired."

• I mount you — therefore I’m dominant and you subordinate

Wrong. Roselli et al (2004) specifically checked if mounting functioned to maintain social rank in rams and found that "there was no correlation between dominance scores and male–male mounting frequencies in male-oriented rams. These results further indicate that same-sex mounting is not related to dominance rank or competitive ability."

And a later study, Roselli et al (2011) states: "Social rank does not explain same-sex partner preferences in rams because no correlations are found between dominance behaviors or social rank and the expression of male-oriented preference [61;76]. Taken together, these observations make Ovis aries the only mammal, apart from humans, in which some individuals are known to display exclusive same-sex mating preferences."

Homosexual behavior by male-oriented rams is actually a sexually motivated behavior which often results in ejaculation (also note that it is not an artifact of captivity/"unnatural experimental conditions"):

"Several observations suggest that male–male sexual preference in rams is sexually motivated. Rams routinely perform the same courtship behaviors, including foreleg kicks, nudges, vocalizations, anogenital sniffs and flehmen prior to mounting other males as observed when rams court and mount estrous females. Moreover, pelvic thrusting and ejaculation often accompany same-sex mounts by rams. Ram–ram mounting behavior is not limited to domesticated sheep. This behavior has also been observed in all-male groups of wild mountain sheep [30], indicating that male-oriented sexual partner preference is probably not an artifact caused by human management of sheep, but rather a variation in the sociosexual interactions of sheep."

• Of the group of 23 rams that grown in a same-sex group, only one could not do it.

What study are you talking about here? And how do you know that the ram was actually female-oriented, not male-oriented, and just failed to develop female-oriented behavior?

• Here is what we wrote in Russian Wikipedia...

What you wrote on Russian Wikipedia is giving undue weight to alternative hypotheses and not giving due weight to the fact that brain differences have been found to be the reason why rams are male-oriented or female-oriented (in fact, the text on Russian Wikipedia is casting doubt on the validity of the brain findings with opinion-filled sentences like “many questions remain unanswered. Obviously, more research is needed”).

• studies showed that males grown in a mixed group will be more active than those grown in a same-sex group, and the earlier is acquaintance with ewes, the less likely is homosexual behavior, even if the acquaintance is purely visual

This only holds true for female-oriented rams. Studies have determined that early acquaintance/exposure to ewes will not prevent a percentage of rams from being exclusively male-oriented: "Zenchak et al. [16] and Zenchak and Anderson [32] suggested that the lack of interest in females by mature males could be related to high levels of courtship and mounting directed toward male pen-mates during rearing. However, Price et al. [21] reported that levels of male–male mounting in the home-pen environment did not accurately predict the sexual preferences of young rams given choice tests. Moreover, rearing ram and ewe lambs together does not guarantee that sexual preferences for females will develop. In a study by Katz et al. [15], 2 out of 24 rams were identified as male-oriented in spite of being reared with ewes. When observed with either pen-mates or estrous ewes, both males courted and mounted males only and were sexually inactive with ewes. Thus, no rearing conditions have been identified that predict or determine sexual partner preferences in rams."

"Katz et al. [27] tested the hypothesis that exclusive exposure to males after rearing and lack of social experiences with females could lead to male-oriented preferences in rams. These investigators compared a group of rams that had been weaned and then raised in a mixed sex group that included estrous ewes with a group of rams that had only been exposed to other rams after weaning. The rams reared with females mounted more and achieved more ejaculations with estrous ewes than those reared with males only, suggesting that postnatal learning contributes to the development of sexual behavior. However, the majority of rams in both groups later developed a female-oriented mate preference. The exceptions were 2 out of 25 rams reared in the mixed sex group and 1 out of 23 rams reared with males only. Price et al. [51;52] also found that early experience with estrous ewes either direct or through fence line contact enhances sexual performance scores later in life, but does not prevent male-oriented behavior in rams. These results indicate that early social experience and learning increase the likelihood that rams will become sexually active at an early age, but do not prevent or promote same-sex preferences in rams."

Even one of the quotes you yourself mentioned in the "Evidence" section above says: Subsequent studies by Price and colleagues [49,52] demonstrate that early exposure of rams to females will increase the probability of rams becoming sexually active, but will not prevent some rams from being male-oriented or low sexual performers.

And the fact that male-oriented rams exist is well-documented:

"Although most domestic rams are sexually attracted to and mate with estrous ewes, there are significant proportions of rams that are sexually disinterested in ewes. Zenchak et al. [16] were the first to report that some rams that appeared sexually inactive were actually sexually attracted to other rams. There are now a substantial number of reports documenting the occurrence of same-sex sexual preferences among domestic rams [17–24]."

So do not remove the ram info from the the lede. Honestly, if one only reads Roselli et al (2004), it becomes clear that most of the claims you have made are incorrect or discredited. Seeing that you knew Roselli et al (2004) mentioned Price et al and Perkins et al for the 8-10% info, you have obviously read Roselli et al (2004). Yet you are still using wrong/discredited ideas mixed with WP:OR to mislead editors and to try to get the info about rams removed from the Wiki article. You are explicitly exhibiting bad faith. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk2

It's strange that you didn't see the description of this device [15]. When I come home, I will answer you in detail. "has been confirmed to have members with exclusively homosexual orientation" We must understand that we are talking about breeding animals in captivity. Comparison with society is possible only with prisons. There is a similar phenomenon. --Путеец (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's strange that you didn't see the description of this device

What you've linked to is just a photo of the apparatus; no one is calling it scaremongering words like 'rape rake' there. And since I've quoted the description of the apparatus above, it's obvious I've read the description of the apparatus as well; it wasn't described as a 'rape rake' there either. That's just your personal opinion that you were wrongly passing off as a genuine name for the apparatus to other editors.

We must understand that we are talking about breeding animals in captivity

No, you must understand that it has been checked if homosexual orientation in rams was a result of captivity and the evidence suggests that it is not. I have mentioned all this earlier (above). The prison analogy is highly inaccurate. For one thing, prisons only contain members of one sex (male or female) whereas in the sheep case, male-oriented rams had equal access and opportunity to mate with female and male sheep in the 'partner preference choice tests' but they still chose to mate only with the male ones. You do not understand this phenomenon well, nor are you displaying a willingness to understand it for what it is. I will not support adding your baseless personal beliefs to the Wiki article, nor do I support removing reliably-sourced info from the Wiki article that contradicts the POV you're trying to push on the article. —Human10.0 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to point out, that what I am really trying to do, is to objectively comment on sources and information without making any bias influenced by my own opinion. Roselli himself is absolutely careful and reluctant drawing out any anthropomorphic conclusions, e.g. stating that rams have “homosexual orientation”, he did not mention “homosexual orientation” of the rams in his reviews. In fact, what you paraphrased originally looks like this: “… these observations make Ovis aries the only mammal, apart from humans, in which some individuals are known to display exclusive same-sex mating preferences” and this is from Rosellis 2011 paper, on pages 2-3 (165 - 166) doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2010.12.007.

• Technically, “same-sex mating preferences” and “homosexual orientation” seem to mean the same things, however they refer to different situations. And, if we stitch to the original sources, as Wiki does, does it not?, as I mentioned above, the leading expert in this field, Roselli, is not referring to observed phenomena as “orientation”. Why is this important – because Roselli, as a true and careful scientist, is not sure, what causes same-sex mating preferences of some rams: in the 2011 review, they provide several hypotheses explaining this and then conclude: “Our understanding of the proximate causes of same-sex preferences in rams is far from complete.” As well, in his 2004 review paper, he discussed these - artificially induced (not in those rams, which are free, but only in those which are brought in specific experimental settings) features of mating behavior in domestic animals of male sex, which were bred in all-male flocks – features of rams mating behavior within the topic “Sociosexual behavior”, page 234, doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.08.017.

"It's clearly mentioned in the Materials and Methods sections of both studies..."

• Once again - my comment was on the method of selection the populations of 54 (Price) and 94 (Perkins) rams, and NOT on the origin of the experimentally identified rams with same-sex mounting preferences. I will explain below. I did not selectively state the facts - I did state the facts. Roselli in his 2004 review, on page 235 mentioned the studies of Price et al. (1988) and of Perkins et al. (1992), when he mentioned “8-10%”. Price et al. (1988) did not provide the origin of the studied population of animals, unless one assumes that the entire laboratory population is 54 rams (anyway, this would be again only assumption, not facts, Price at al. did not mention this). Anyway, this is not true – that the entire population of rams was 54 – Price et al. (1988) mentioned that the “Male stimulus animals were ~ 1 year older than the test subjects” on page 348 of their paper, which means, that there were more rams that the population of 54, on which the experiment was carried out – Price et al. (1988) did not provide any information, how they selected these 54 rams – was it just a random choice, some parameter or they just liked the color of the animals, or something else. Neither information is provided in Perkins et al. 1992, they just state on page 1788 about the population of 94 rams from US. Sheep Experiment Station, selected for the experiment. Again, one may assume, that the entire ram population of US. Sheep Experiment Station, Dubois was of 94 rams. This seems not to be realistic, because even the page on Wiki provides the number of sheep of 3,000 animals. [16]. Lets us assume, that there were only 500 rams in 1988, by the years, when Perkins performed their experiment, even more, let us assume that there were only 250 rams at the entire Experiment Station, the question is the same – how did they select 94 rams for the study? Roselli, in his review of 2004, page 235 also mentioned about their own studies, however these were not published and, thus, they do not provide anything about the materials and methods. Unless I skipped of attention some modifications to the Regulations on Wikipedia, an unpublished study without any details on methodology is not an argument, is it? Or it is worth an argument only when such “study” anyway anyhow anywhere “homosexual orientation” of rams? Please make it clear. Why is this important? As you, I am sure, know, the main goal of statistics as a science is to ensure that the sample in the study (study population) is as close as possible to the entire population (which, in reality, is impossible to be fully analyzed). That is why in any study, great attention is focused to the methods of selection of the study population, and this applies to studies both on humans and animals. Why is important to know precisely how the study populations of rams were selected? Because this may change the prevalence of rams experimentally observed with same-sex mating preferences, far below “8-10%”. Roselli in his 2004 review, on page 235 states about US Sheep Experiment Station: “This unique facility has established breeding and testing programs in which approximately 2500 ewes are lambed each year and 300–500 yearling rams are tested for sexual performance. Subsets of these animals are then available for sexual partner preference testing.”. Resko et al. (1996) on page 121 describes: “Ram lambs were combined into all-male groups of approximately 400-500 head.” And of this population they identified six rams with same-sex mating preferences. Is 6 out of 400 equal to “8-10%”? In his 2009 review Roselli et al. wrote on page 3 (613), doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.03.013.,: “In domestic sheep breeds (Ovis aries), most rams are sexually attracted to and mate with estrous ewes, although like wild sheep, domestic rams also show non-exclusive male-male mounting, associated with social rank or induced by overcrowding. It is estimated that ~25% of domestic rams that are otherwise healthy show little or no sexual interest in receptive ewes. The rams have been called `asexual', `non-workers', or `low response rams' Zenchak et al. (1981) first reported that some of those seemingly low libido rams actually show considerable sexual behavior directed towards other rams and concluded that their failure to breed was a consequence of their preference for rams as sexual partners.” It is clear, that about one quarter of the rams (~25%) by observations are identified as `non-workers/ asexual'. Then of these quarter of rams, using specific partner-preference tests, they identify subsets of rams, which, in experimental conditions (immobilized pairs of rams and ewes “to select”) mount ewes, do not mount at all, mount rams. This methodology is clearly explained in Resko et al. (1996) on page 121 as “Preliminary tests” and “Preference tests”. I am sure, you are very good in statistics. Very briefly, 10 out of 100 makes 10%. 10% out of 25% is not equal to10% out of 1oo, it is 2.5% of 100. Obviously, “eight rams out of 94” is not the same as “eight rams out of 400-500”. In the paper by Resko et al, (Resko,JA; Perkins,A; Roselli,CE; Fitzgerald,JA; Choate,JVA; Stormshak,F (1996): Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams. Biol. Reprod. 55, 120-126.) they started with 400-500 rams and tested them for “homosexuality”. Finally after all the tests only 6 classified as homosexual. That is just over 1%. Similar is a paper by Stellflug and Berardinelli (Stellflug,JN; Berardinelli,JG (2002): Ram mating behavior after long-term selection for reproductive rate in rambouillet ewes. [17].) in which they found only one homosexual ram in a test group of 84 rams.

"Note that the part of Resko et al (1996) that you quoted does not say that rams were "not exposed to females"...."

• I am really sorry, but this is a selective conclusion. Resko et al. (1996) did not specify the age of rams at weaning, on page 121 they just mentioned: “At weaning,ram and ewe lambs were separated from the dams. Ram lambs were combined into all-male groups of approximately 400-500 head.” and “Beginning at approximately 16-18 mo of age, rams were given sexual behavior tests.” This means that after weaning (at some time) and till 1.3 - 1.5 years old, rams were kept in all-male groups. Katz et al. (1988) on page 1167 wrote that weaning took place at 12-15 weeks of age, if we assume, that Resko et al. (1996) did weaning at the same age of rams, it would be clear that during the puberty (around 20 weeks, see e.g. Abdel Rahim 1989, DOI:10.1016/0378-4320(89)90114-0), rams were already in all-male groups. Rearing during the puberty, when young rams first show mounting attempts is important for the development of mating behavior of rams. Zenchak et al (1981) stated on page 167:” The failure originates from engaging in high levels of sex-like behavior with other rams during rearing (see Zenchak and Anderson, 1980).” Katz et al (1988) on page 1171 wrote: “Several investigators (e.g., Banks, 1964; Hulet et al., 1964; Pretorius, 1967; Zenchak and Anderson, 1980; Zenchak et al., 1981) have suggested that male-male mounting by rams early in life could be detrimental to the subsequent development of sexual interest in females. … The hypothesis that early sexual experience with males may inhibit subsequent interest in females is supported in the present study by the large difference in male-male mounting between the two rearing treatments and by the significant negative rank association between matemale mounting (in rearing pen) and heterosexual performance (in sexual performance tests)”. The importance of rearing of rams in the presence of mothers and ewes is mentioned in the works of Orgeur, P. and Signoret, J.P., 1984. Sexual play and its functional significance in the domestic sheep (Ovis aries L.). Physiol. Behav., 33: 111-118. Orgeur, P., Venier, G. and Signoret, J.P., 1984. Effete de l'environnement social au cours du d~- veloppement. Casteila et al. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 19 (1987) 111-118

"Ungerfeld et al (2013) isn’t even about sheep; it examines sexual behavior in goats."

• Well, Roselli in their review 2011, on page 3 / 166, when mentioning “Overall, exclusively male-oriented rams account for ∼8% of all rams in the populations studied [43;53;61], cites under [53] Price EO, Borgwardt R, Orihuela A. Early sexual experience fails to enhance sexual performance in male goats. J.Anim Sci. 1998; 76:718–720. - which is, let me quote you “isn’t even about sheep; it examines sexual behavior in goats”. Well, let me guess, is it like this, that the relevance of information depends on the correspondence to a certain point of view? Again, when you comment on Ungerfeld et al. (2013), a wording with a connotation of possibility is enough for you to downgrade its importance to “some of many”, whereas commenting on the wording of Resko et al (1996) see above, with equal connotation of possibility is upgraded to “one and only”.

"I have not seen studies use this terminology."

• What you also forgot to clearly state is that the fact, that the described device has been used, clearly shows, that that the male-male-mounting in rams was observed in artificial conditions, i.e. in scientific words, this was observed in laboratory conditions, where certain subjects-animals were put into certain limited place, whereas some other subjects were immobilized. What conclusions are drawn from observations in laboratory conditions with regard to sexual behaviour and, more that this, to LGB-activism in humans?

"No sexual context or purpose at all? Please cite sources for this claim."

• Take the wild living Rocky Mountain sheep. Their usual social pattern is a flock of ewes dominated sexually and organisationally by a very limited number of males who have achieved their position through ferocious and bloody combats in which they use their large, curled horns. The losers in these fights form a fringe group together with other bachelor males who are not yet mature enough to challenge for the leadership. In this group there are frequent encounters which seem homosexual in which males show most of the usual sexual behaviours, but in the presence of other males, and will quite often mount them. However all is not as it seems. During the breeding season these fringe groups disperse and disappear (Fisher, A. S. 1991. Status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 1990. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 35:14-15. Fisher, A. S. 1992. Status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 1991. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 36:80. Fisher, A. S. 1993. Status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 1992. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 37:56-58. Fisher, A. S. 1994. Status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 1993. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 38:33-34. Fisher, A. S., and D. Humphreys. 1990. Status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 1989. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 34:29-30.) They have all joined the annual competition for the dominant heterosexual positions. This means at most they are bisexual. Heterosexual sexual expression is dominant for the time being and homosexual expression is abandoned in its favour. In this species homosexual expression in rams is for the losers - rather reminiscent of "situational homosexuality" among men in prisons. A very similar process was observed following one controlled culling experiment (Shackleton,DM (1991): Social maturation and productivity in bighorn sheep: are young males incompetent? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 29, 173-184.). In one group of Rocky Mountain Sheep it was necessary for conservation reasons to shoot most of the dominant males. Following that, the candidate fringe males matured very fast and filled the vacant spots, exercising their usually frustrated heterosexual instincts. Researchers noted that they did this successfully - they were not poorly performing heterosexuals. For a season there was a lack of homosexual activity, because there was practically no fringe group. This shows (a) exclusive homosexual activity is quite rare (b) it is highly dependent on social environment (c) it is considered by researchers to be an expression of dominance, real or attempted (d) change is possible.

"Wrong. The review by Roselli et al (2004) states"

• Wrong. There are other explanations of the rams' male-male mounting behaviour. Geist reported that rams took it as an insult if other rams mounted them (Geist,V (1975): Mountain sheep and man in the northern wilds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. ). How would an unsuccessful male who had lost dominance encounters until now react to the presence of a trapped male? He could easily (a) retaliate (b) be simply and naturally treating dominance as first priority (c) if more intelligent than usual, realise that it would be more strategic to mount the male and establish dominance - once that was achieved he would have all the females! A ram with a defective sense of smell would also have no clear sexual preference. This is not as unlikely as it sounds: one animal in 32 could be affected this way (the same chances as tossing a coin 5 times and getting heads each time). He might by sheer chance choose the male rather than the female several times in succession. In the study of Resko et al. 1996 (Resko,JA; Perkins,A; Roselli,CE; Fitzgerald,JA; Choate,JVA; Stormshak,F (1996): Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams. Biol. Reprod. 55, 120-126.) There was an ejaculation only once in five trials (but in a second group of trials there were about twice as many). This seems like rather apathetic sexual behaviour. (In fact Alexander et al. report data on rams which statistically fail to differentiate low sexual activity from homosexuality. Alexander,BM; Stellflug,JN; Rose,JD; Fitzgerald,JA; Moss,GE (1999): Behavior and endocrine correlates related to exposure of heterosexual, low performing and male-oriented domestic rams to rams and ewes in estrus. J. Anim. Sci. 77, 1869-1874.) Similar is a paper by Stellflug and Berardinelli (U.S. Department of Agriculture) in which they found only one homosexual ram in a test group of 84 rams (Stellflug,JN; Berardinelli,JG (2002): Ram mating behavior after long-term selection for reproductive rate in rambouillet ewes. [www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000013/83/0000138334.html].). These homosexual rams were basically sex-deprived, apathetic, and on the losing fringe of the flock.

These authors showed, that the social interactions of rams influence the mounting behavior:

1. Synnott, A.L. and Fulkerson, W.J., 1984. The influence of social interaction between rams on their serving capacity. Appl. Anim. Ethol., 11: 283--289
2. Grubb, P., 1974. The rut and behaviour of Soay rams. In: Jewell, P., Milner, C., Morton Boyd, J. (Eds.), Island Survivors: The Ecology of the Soay Sheep of St Kilda. The Athlone Press, University of London, London, pp. 195–223

In his 2004 paper Roselli did not even use once the term “homosexual” in the context of the observed in his experiments. In his 2004 paper Roselli referred to all views on the cause of such behavior in rams as biologically wired as hypotheses. More than that, he described these observations in rams under section “SOCIOsexual behavior in rams” (2004, see page 234). It is only his review of 2011, where he started to use the definition “homosexual” to such rams and to mention biology as something proved as a cause. Isn’t it an unexpected shift for a scientist? But why not to mention here on wikipedia how dr. Roselli suffered for his scientific views? One can read it in Ersly W. The Desideratum of Discourse: Lessons Learned from a Gay Sheep. Mercer Street, 2013 47-56. [18] Are you sure, that such psychological pressure could not influence the conclusions of Dr. Roselli? Anyway. the studies below highlight that some factors could influence male-male mating in rams.

1. Gonzalez R, Poindron P, Signoret JP. Temporal variation in LH and testosterone responses of rams after the introduction of oestrous females during the breeding season. J Reprod Fertil 1988;83:201–8.
2. Katz LS, Price EO, Wallach SJR, Zenchak JJ. Sexual performance of rams reared with and without females after weaning. J Anim Sci 1988;33:1166–71.
3. Casteilla, L., Oregur, P., Signoret, J.P., 1987. Effects of rearing conditions on sexual performance in the ram: practical use. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 19, 111–118.
4. Thwaites CJ. Development of mating behaviour in the prepubertal ram. Anim Behav 1982;30:1053– 9.
5. Srivastava, R.S., Mathur, A.K., Kalra, D.B., 1989. Effect of training ram hoggets on their adult sexual behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 22, 295–302
6. Price EO, Borgwardt R, Dally MR. Effect of early fenceline exposure to estrous ewes on the sexual performance of yearling rams. Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci. 1999;64:241–247
7. Orgeur P, Signoret JP. Sexual play and it’s functional significance in the domestic sheep (Ovies aries L.). Physiol Behav 1984;33:111 — 8.
8. Illius AW, Haynes NB, Lamming GE. Effects of ewe proximity on peripheral plasma testosterone levels and behaviour in the ram. J Reprod Fertil 1976;48:25–32.
9. Kendrick KM, Hinton MR, Atkins K, Haupt MA, Skinner JD. Mothers determine sexual preferences. Nature. 1998 Sep 17;395(6699):229-30. DOI: 10.1038/26129
10. Damian JP, et al. Competition for oestrous ewes between rams reared by their mothers or artificially reared: Effects on sexual behaviour and testosterone and cortisol serum concentrations. Theriogenology. 2017 Sep 15;100:134-138. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2017.06.009.

Additionally, there may be an impairment in recognition of the female, as it has been observed in male-male mating cases in insects, in case of rams this could be olfactory problems.

1. Muller-Schwarze D. Chemical Ecology of Vertebrates. Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press. 2006 p. 123.
2. Fraser AF. Reproductive and Developmental Behaviour in Sheep: An Anthology from ``Applied Animal Ethology. Elsevier, 2013
3. Blissitt MJ, Bland KP, Cottrell DF. Discrimination between the odours of fresh oestrous and non-oestrous ewe urine by rams. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1990a;25:51 — 9
4. Blissitt MJ, Bland KP, Cottrell DF. Olfactory and vomeronasal chemoreception and the discrimination of oestrous and nonoestrous ewe urine odours by the ram. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1990b;27:325 — 35

Conclusions:

1. The tests for homosexuality are dubious
2. Both sexes mounting is common - exclusive male-male mounting is very rare
3. The true rate of male-male mounting is about 1%
4. Environment has a large effect.

--Путеец (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I hope I clearly stated the facts to remove the information from the preamble? --Путеец (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There has been much debate above, and there is no consensus for whatever you are proposing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I answered the questions and explained my position. What do you think? --Путеец (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest asking Charles E. Roselli. Can someone make offline? --Путеец (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

«It is concluded that bucks that were reared in permanent contact with adult female goats during their pre-pubertal period preferred social contact with non-estrous females than with males, while those that were reared isolated from them did not show any social preference for males or females». [19] --Путеец (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn,Human10.0 Roselli's work is based on the artificial raising of sheep without access to females, which leads in many animals to same-sex behavior, including sheep, whose behavior is similar to other ungulates. Without specifying this feature, the article is misleading. Moreover, you should not do this in the article’s lead. Путеец (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn The studies of Roselli and colleagues that I cited in the article review earlier studies on "male-oriented rams" (in other words, male sheep with an exclusively homosexual orientation) and give conclusions about what all those studies' findings ultimately mean. If you want, I can send you the studies so you can read them in detail yourself.

Roselli et al (2004) states: Zenchak et al. [16] and Zenchak and Anderson [32] suggested that the lack of interest in females by mature males could be related to high levels of courtship and mounting directed toward male pen-mates during rearing. However, Price et al. [21] reported that levels of male–male mounting in the home-pen environment did not accurately predict the sexual preferences of young rams given choice tests. Moreover, rearing ram and ewe lambs together does not guarantee that sexual preferences for females will develop. In a study by Katz et al. [15], 2 out of 24 rams were identified as male-oriented in spite of being reared with ewes. When observed with either pen-mates or estrous ewes, both males courted and mounted males only and were sexually inactive with ewes. Thus, no rearing conditions have been identified that predict or determine sexual partner preferences in rams.

Roselli et al (2011) states: As previously mentioned, domesticated rams are commonly reared in all male groups, which raises the question of whether this environment leads to sexual preferences for other males later in life in a manner perhaps analogous to “sexual imprinting” [30]. Katz et al. [27] tested the hypothesis that exclusive exposure to males after rearing and lack of social experiences with females could lead to male-oriented preferences in rams. These investigators compared a group of rams that had been weaned and then raised in a mixed sex group that included estrous ewes with a group of rams that had only been exposed to other rams after weaning. The rams reared with females mounted more and achieved more ejaculations with estrous ewes than those reared with males only, suggesting that postnatal learning contributes to the development of sexual behavior. However, the majority of rams in both groups later developed a female-oriented mate preference. The exceptions were 2 out of 25 rams reared in the mixed sex group and 1 out of 23 rams reared with males only. Price et al. [51;52] also found that early experience with estrous ewes either direct or through fence line contact enhances sexual performance scores later in life, but does not prevent male-oriented behavior in rams. These results indicate that early social experience and learning increase the likelihood that rams will become sexually active at an early age, but do not prevent or promote same-sex preferences in rams.

So basically past studies have checked if raising rams in mixed-sex groups (i.e., with direct and indirect acecess to ewes/"females") will prevent development of homosexual orientation in rams and have found that whether you raise rams in all-male groups or whether you raise them in mixed-sex groups, a subset of rams still develop a homosexual orientation. User Путеец has clearly read Roselli et al (2004) which explicitly says "Studies have failed to identify any compelling social factors that can predict or explain the variations in sexual partner preferences of rams." yet he's still pushing discredited social explanations.

So basically past studies have checked if raising rams in mixed-sex groups (i.e., with direct and indirect acecess to ewes/"females") will prevent development of homosexual orientation in rams and have found that whether you raise rams in all-male groups or whether you raise them in mixed-sex groups, a subset of rams still develop a homosexual orientation. User Путеец has clearly read Roselli et al (2004) which explicitly says "Studies have failed to identify any compelling social factors that can predict or explain the variations in sexual partner preferences of rams." yet he's still pushing discredited social explanations.

If I may be blunt, Путеец is lying to you and all other readers of the talk page. He's displayed bad faith too many times before on multiple LGBT-related wiki pages (including this one, e.g., about orangutans) for me to think that he's doing this out of benign misunderstanding. I am tired of him misrepresenting research to everyone reading this talk page (even after it's been explained to him how he's wrong) in order to get rid of the info about homosexual orientation in rams from this Wiki article because that doesn't suit his anti-homosexuality agenda (I feel it's obvious if one reads all his posts on this talk page that he's worried that acknowledging homosexual behavior in animals as sexually motivated will help the LGBT rights movement and prove that homosexuality is natural, i.e., not a human invention, which is why he is constantly pushing for discredited social explanations for homosexual orientation in rams of Ovis aries). His behavior is disruptive and I think it's high time action was taken against him.

PS - I just noticed that in 2018, a month after I explained to him how he was misrepresenting research on sheep, he posted a response to my explanation which is again full of misrepresentations, his personal opinions and some repetitions of how homosexual behavior in Ovis aries is social even though I've explained before (with citations and by quoting cited research) that it's been established to be sexual via subsequent research. He also conveniently forgot to PING me (and posted his response in a different section than the one my response was in). It's going to take me a whole day to reply to him to explain how all his many claims in his response are wrong but, as I have experienced before, he just refuses to get it, so what's the point? What more can be done in such a situation? I much rather actually contribute to the wiki article than explain for the nth time how Путеец is wrong and/or lying. —Human10.0 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I cited a new study that confirms that homosexual behavior in ungulates is associated with growing conditions without females. In addition, the figure of 8% is not supported by all studies. --Путеец (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

«It is concluded that bucks that were reared in permanent contact with adult female goats during their pre-pubertal period preferred social contact with non-estrous females than with males, while those that were reared isolated from them did not show any social preference for males or females» [20] Apparently, you have not studied my previous explanation of the calculation, and you are undeservedly blaming me. It would be wrong to introduce controversial meanings in the preamble. --Путеец (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Путеец Please PING me if you want to talk to me or reply to me. I will read this study you've linked to (that from a cursory look, seems to be about goats) to see if it verifies your claim. Stop trying to muddle the discussion with your issue with the 8% statistic. Let's just focus on this rearing conditions claim you've made. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Human10.0, thanks for taking the time to explain. The persistent debate with Путеец is not something I'll be significantly involved in, but I can listen to both of your arguments and weigh in that way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to do so Flyer22 Reborn.

Here is Путеец's claim: "a new study that confirms that homosexual behavior in ungulates is associated with growing conditions without females."

The cited study, which he linked to, is Lacuesta et al (2018) 'Bucks reared in close contact with adult does prefer to interact with females than with males.' Small Ruminant Research (162):22–24.

I have read the study and found that it is about Saanen goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), not rams (Ovis aries), and it didn't even study sexual preference of bucks (male goats), it studied social preference of bucks (i.e., whether bucks preferred more to be in the presence of an unknown adult male or an unknown, non-estrous, adult female). This study does not prove that homosexual behavior (in either sheep or goats) is the result of being reared without females.

The aim of Lacuesta et al (2018) was: "to determine if heterosexual environment during rearing influences adult bucks’ social preference for a female or a male goat." (In the study, "heterosexual environment" had a non-sexual meaning: an environment in which both males and females are present).

To do so, one group of 7 baby goats (named "FEM kids") were reared in contact with 4 adult female goats, and the other group of 9 baby goats (named "ISO kids") were reared without contact with females. When the bucks were 1 year old, females were removed from the pen of the FEM bucks, and both FEM & ISO groups were joined, remaining together until the experiment was performed. When bucks were 23 month old, all bucks were subjected to a preference choice test. This preference choice test involved putting each buck individually into a square arena for 5 minutes. At the two opposite corners of of this square arena were tethered an unknown male goat and an unknown non-estrous female goat, equidistant to the place from where the tested bucks entered into the arena. "Proximity areas" were marked on the floor 1m far from each corner where the male or female goat were tied. (There's a diagram of this arena on the website that makes it a lot easier to comprehend).

"Social preference" was judged by recording "the first proximity area at which the bucks entered, the time spent in each area, and the number of times that each buck entered into each area" (For the record, this arena/apparatus for this (social) "preference choice test" for bucks is different from the apparatus that is used for the "sexual partner preference test" for sheep).

The results of the study were: "Bucks of FEM and ISO groups did not have significant differences in which area they entered first or the number of times that FEM or ISO bucks entered into each area. There was no significant difference in the time that ISO bucks remained in the female or the male areas, but FEM bucks spent more time in the female than in the male area." (There is no report of any sexual activity occurring).

At the end of the Discussion section, the study acknowledges that social/rearing conditions do not prevent homosexual orientation in sheep or goats: "Despite FEM bucks recognized and preferred contact with females, it is possible that rearing males with females does not guarantee sexual preferences for females [...] even though pre-pubertal sexual environment is important in the social preferences of males, it is not the only factor determining their sexual preferences." This last part also shows that Lacuesta et al (2018) believe "social preference" and "sexual preference" are not synonymous (so the findings of this study do not prove that FEM bucks have sexual preference for females, nor that ISO bucks have sexual preference for males and females).

It also acknowledges in the same Discussion section that even rearing male sheep with female sheep does not prevent homosexual orientation in those male sheep: "Katz et al. (1988) identified rams that are male-oriented although they have been reared with ewes." (contrary to what Путеец is trying to prove).

I can send you the study if you want to verify all this. So basically, Путеец cited a study on social preference of goats (that is affected by rearing conditions) to mislead us all into thinking that homosexual preference in sheep (that has been determined to be unaffected by rearing conditions) and in goats is affected by rearing conditions (even though the cited study itself acknowledges that this is not accurate). —Human10.0 (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, Roselli in their review 2011, on page 3 / 166, when mentioning “Overall, exclusively male-oriented rams account for ∼8% of all rams in the populations studied [43;53;61], cites under [53] Price EO, Borgwardt R, Orihuela A. Early sexual experience fails to enhance sexual performance in male goats. J.Anim Sci. 1998; 76:718–720. - which is, let me quote you “isn’t even about sheep; it examines sexual behavior in goats”. Well, let me guess, is it like this, that the relevance of information depends on the correspondence to a certain point of view? Again, when you comment on Ungerfeld et al. (2013), a wording with a connotation of possibility is enough for you to downgrade its importance to “some of many”, whereas commenting on the wording of Resko et al (1996) see above, with equal connotation of possibility is upgraded to “one and only”. If you read my explanation, which I wrote in 2018, then you would not have to write all this here. This is a quote from my explanation that you are not reading. --Путеец (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop copy-pasting unrelated "quotes"/paragraphs from your 2018 comment here again in an effort to make me respond to it here (I have read that comment by the way, after I became aware of its existence recently). I'm assuming you're upset with me for highlighting that Lacuesta et al (2018) is about goats? Let me be clear: I won't mind if you cite a goat-centric study that incidentally has some ram (Ovis aries)-related info to support a ram-related statement.

What you cannot do (but did so here) is cite Lacuesta et al (2018) (a study on social preference of goats that found that social preference of goats is affected by rearing conditions) to (mis)lead us into thinking that homosexual preference in sheep and goats is affected by rearing conditions, even though Lacuesta et al (2018) does not say that homosexual preference in sheep and goats is affected by rearing conditions and on the contrary, says that rearing males with females does not guarantee a sexual preference for females or prevent a homosexual orientation. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

When I cited Lacuesta et al (2018) and Lacuesta et al (2015), “Adult male ruminants that were reared in contact with females display greater sexual behavior than those reared in single male groups,” I cited additional information that characterizes generally similar behavior of rams and goats, including social, given that one of the hypotheses of same-sex behavior is social. I was hoping you read the main evidence from Roselli (2011) where he himself cites an article on goats to prove the homosexuality of some sheep. Homosexual behavior in male goats is more frequent during breeding season and in bucks isolated from females — In conclusion, homosexual behavior was more frequent during the late breeding season than during the early and the non-breeding seasons, and in males isolated from females than in males housed near estrous females. This says that in ruminants, homosexual behavior changes over time, and does not persist for life! Also, I took into account that homosexual sheep are counted as part of all inactive sheep. The rams were not tested in the natural environment in which their lives usually go. Here you again tried to get away from the topic, arguing that the rams are pets. But I'm talking about something else. The fact that the rams were fixed in special devices, where the smell of the female naturally was. The fixed pose of four animals, two of which are females, is not a natural environment with moving rams in the pen. It is not indicated whether these rams were low-ranking or not. It is known that these could be social interactions for establishing a hierarchy. You are trying to refute additional evidence of similar ruminant behavior by ignoring the core. But this is not the main claim to quotes about sheep. The main concern is the lack of evidence that 8% of rams with homosexual behavior were randomly taken from the whole herd, and not from the selected inactive rams, there is no information about the further fate of all these animals. As we know, a short acquaintance with females in mice, after breeding in isolation from females, eliminates same-sex behavior. With the orangutans, I concluded the discussion, relying on your knowledge of English. But here are the numbers. To prove the significance of 8%, you need to provide a simple formula. The total sample, the method of its formation, the number of homosexual rams, and the further fate of these rams. All. I have demonstrated that this is not in research. Moreover, according to available data, the figure is much less than 8%. In Russia, in a peer-reviewed journal, an article was published where the calculations of 8% are refuted. The shortcomings of the method are described, and all available hypotheses of such behavior are presented. Blaming lies, missing the main evidence before reading it, violates Wikipedia's ethical rules. I urge you to understand the complexity of expressing thoughts in English, and to respect the work of Wikipedia editors.--Путеец (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ungerfeld (2014) wrote: «Male homosexual behavior is observed in many ruminant species, including goats, sheep and cattle (see review: Dagg, 1984). Nevertheless, the factors that influence the expression of this behavior have been scarcely studied. Some researchers claim that male homosexual behavior is related to social hierarchies (see review: Dagg, 1984; Klemm et al., 1983). In this sense, Grubb (1974) proposed that Soay sheep impose social dominance through homosexual matings. However, it has been reported that other environmental and social factors, such as seasonality (Holečková et al., 2000) and isolation from females (Ungerfeld et al., 2013), also affect the display of homosexual matings in male ruminants. Many species of male ruminants show seasonal reproductive patterns (Prendergast et al., 2002). In male goats, the concentration of testosterone, the main hormone related to male sexual behavior (Hull et al., 2002), varies with seasons (Howland et al., 1985). In male Iberian Ibex goats, the highest frequency of male–male mounts was observed at the beginning of the breeding season (Freitas-de-Melo et al., 2014) and in Dama deer bucks during the early period of antler growth, when the testosterone concentration is increasing before the onset of the breeding season (Holečková et al., 2000). Thus, homosexual behaviors in male goats may also have a seasonal pattern and may be related to testosterone concentration. The social environment in which male lambs are reared influences the sexual behavior of rams (Casteilla et al., 1987; Katz et al., 1988): rams reared in all-male groups show little interest in females when they are used for breeding (Zenchak and Anderson, 1980). Srivastava et al. (1989) reported that homosexual behavior in rams is a consequence of prolonged isolation from females and exclusive contact with males. In the same vein, Ungerfeld et al. (2013) recently reported that bucks reared in isolation from females displayed mating behaviors to-ward a greater number of novel bucks than bucks that were reared in permanent contact with females. This led these authors to propose that males that were reared in isolation from females considered other males as possible sexual partners. Therefore, isolation from females may be a determinant of a greater frequency of male–male sexual interactions.» --Путеец (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I need other editors to check if the sources Путеец has cited actually state that:

• homosexual orientation in rams (Ovis aries) is caused by rearing/social conditions (specifically isolation from females) and;
• homosexual orientation in rams (Ovis aries) changes over time to a heterosexual orientation.

I want these claims to be checked because they are the opposite of what other researchers have found in studies on rams. Which editors would you recommend me to PING for help? I will be checking Путеец's claims myself too.

Editors: Males of both domestic sheep and wild sheep are called "rams." But the dispute between me and Путеец is specifically regarding domestic rams (Ovis aries), i.e., the males of domestic sheep (which are a specific species called Ovis aries). If a study you come across just says "rams" (i.e., doesn't specify if it's referring to domestic or wild sheep), please check if by "rams" the study means the males of domestic sheep (Ovis aries), and not males of wild sheep (which are of species other than Ovis aries).

Editors, please also note that when Путеец says "given that one of the hypotheses of same-sex behavior is social", the link in that statement links to his original research and personal analysis on his sandbox. He has been known to misrepresent studies related to homosexuality (I will cite evidence if you want) to reach conclusions not stated by those studies, so please take the info in his sandbox with a grain of salt. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I join the request for the participation of interested editors. The question is difficult. Usually they examine domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and goats, in all the works mentioned, in my explanation that you have not read, wild sheep are mentioned, but this is for example. I did not use these works in the sandbox, for a draft for the social reasons of homosexual behavior. Roselli's work (2004,2011), older than Ungerfeld (2014), which I quoted quite fully. Roselli does not respond to mail calls. Maybe this is due to pressure on him. --Путеец (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец In your September 3rd comments above, kindly green-text the quotes from studies so that we know when text is a quote from a study and when text is your own personal speech.

Also, you said: "When I cited Lacuesta et al (2018) and Lacuesta et al (2015)". Please direct me to where you cited Lacuesta et al (2015). I can't locate it.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by: "I cited additional information that characterizes generally similar behavior of rams and goats, including social, given that one of the hypotheses of same-sex behavior is social." Are you saying that Lacuesta et al (2018) and Lacuesta et al (2015) show that social behavior of sheep/rams and goats is similar, and sexual behavior of sheep/rams and goats is similar? I don't understand.

Regarding your saying "I was hoping you read the main evidence from Roselli (2011) where he himself cites an article on goats to prove the homosexuality of some sheep", I have read Roselli et al (2011). At the end of one line, it cites two sheep articles and a goat article. I don't know what the goat article says that made Roselli et al (2011) cite it. But anyways, what's your logic here? Are you saying, since Roselli et al (2011) cited a goat study once for some reason, you should be able to cite any article on goats and generalize that article's findings about goats on domestic sheep, even if the article doesn't explicitly specify that its findings are applicable to sheep?

You said: Roselli's work (2004,2011), older than Ungerfeld (2014). But what you're omitting is that even though Ungerfeld (2014) was published in 2014, he's quoting initial studies on sheep to conclude that homosexual orientation in sheep is affected by rearing. On the other hand, Roselli et al (2004) & Roselli et al (2011) examined some of those initial studies along with subsequent studies and came to the conclusion that past "Studies have failed to identify any compelling social factors that can predict or explain the variations in sexual partner preferences of rams" or in other words, homosexual orientation in sheep in not affected by rearing/social conditions.

"Maybe this is due to pressure on him."

I don't think this essay/article has even been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or any reliable source for that matter. Has it? Some of it is pure speculation! Flyer22 Reborn, in this case, I request you to please see the essay Путеец has linked to. I think Путеец is trying to imply to new editors/fact-checkers that any findings about rams by Charles Roselli which agree with my position and disagree with his are the result of Roselli being pressured by LGBT activists and are not his true findings. I think this is an attempt to unfairly bias any editors I may PING here. Is such behavior allowed on Wikipedia? —Human10.0 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Human10.0I think Путеец is trying to imply to new editors/fact-checkers that any findings about rams by Charles Roselli which agree with my position and disagree with his are the result of Roselli being pressured by LGBT activists and are not his true findings. This is an erroneous conclusion, apparently ad hominem. I suggested that Roselli did not respond to the letters we sent him because of the pressure exerted on him. --Путеец (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You're still suggesting/implying that Roselli didn't respond to you because he was afraid of sharing his 'true' findings with you out of pressure from LGBT activists who would get angered - a baseless claim.

I appreciate that you have green-texted quotes from studies as per my request.

By the way, you said "Roselli did not respond to the letters WE sent him"

Who are these "we"? How many people are involved in your attempts to edit Wikipedia? —Human10.0 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not. I understand his hard communication experience. I would not answer anything in his place. I asked different scientists to turn to Roselli. As I understand it, he did not answer anyone and did not look here. We must respect his decision.--Путеец (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец You're suggesting that Roselli feels pressurized from LGBT activists (a baseless claim) and because of that pressure, he's afraid to talk about some findings (also baseless). Anyways, please name these scientists. And will you email me the letter you sent to Roselli? —Human10.0 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Human10.0, letter to Roselli «Hello. There is a discussion of your works regarding rams in Wikipedia. Would you like to join in and clarify the details of your research? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#domestic_rams_8% Thank you!». Letter to scientist: «Hello,In Wikipedia there is an ongoing discussion of Dr. Roselli's study on rams and some important questions require an answer. Upon closer observation of calculation methods of "8% of homosexual rams" it appears that the original data does not add up to the stated value. Since our several letters to Dr. Roselli remained unanswered, we hopefully seek your kind clarification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Talk2 Sincerely,Wikipedia editors.» --Путеец (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец I see.

"Letter to scientist: «Hello [...] Sincerely, Wikipedia editors.»"

Please answer these three questions: Which scientists did you contact? How do you know they contacted Roselli and were unsuccessful in getting a response from him?

"Since our several letters to Dr. Roselli..."

"our" implies you weren't the only one sending letters to Roselli. Who else was sending the letters with you? —Human10.0 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Human10.0, I wrote: "As I understand it, he did not answer anyone and did not look here." I wrote to scientists who work with ruminants. There was no answer, and no one joined. Peter Bockman, once responded, and corrected a mistake about 1,500 species of animals with homosexual behavior. Yesterday I sent messages to everyone whose publications I cited here, today I will send it to other scientists quoted by Roselli. If you help me write a letter correctly, I will be grateful. In the near future I will meet with Russian scientists for field verification of Roselli's data, since such publications are promising. I will ask them to write him a letter from the Academy of Sciences, for clarification. There is still a colleague in Germany, maybe he is also investigating this issue there. Perhaps I will find someone in the USA to meet Roselli in person and ask questions. I think we will clarify this issue. I can try to translate a Russian article on homosexual animal behavior. She was reviewed by a doctor who teaches zoopsychology at the Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. This is the Academy under the President of the Russian Federation. Most of my evidence is from this article. --Путеец (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Today we discussed such an experiment, but improved. Let's try to conduct a study next year. It is necessary to use radio sensors that will transmit signals about the approach of animals, and webcams, for documentation. Unnatural testing conditions in a closed room, with the immobilization of four individuals - do not take into account the ethology and characteristics of animal behavior. Observation should be carried out in a free pasture during the entire breeding period, including all males. --Путеец (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец Please name these "scientists who work with ruminants" that you had contacted earlier.

Please also name the scientists you sent messages to yesterday and the scientists that Roselli has cited that you wish to send messages to.

Please also name the Russian scientists you will meet.

You said "Today we discussed such an experiment, but improved"

Am I correct in understanding that you are going to be conducting your own sheep study with other people?

And who are these other people? Kindly name these people who will conduct the sheep study.

Also, please answer my earlier question: Who else was sending the letters to scientists with you?

I will appreciate answers to all these questions. —Human10.0 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The figure of 8% is used together with the figure of 1,500 species of homosexual animals in many large media, for example, DW, etc. An attempt to correct both of these numbers is met with stiff resistance. Although I have already corrected one of the numbers, the second is not so obvious, I'm talking about a specific value, which may be less (1-2%), or more than 8%. The available information makes us doubt this value, and describes the conditions that could affect such conclusions. Therefore, scientific research with a larger sample is required, based on all available limitations. You scared me and convinced me that this number is politically important for protecting the rights of LGBT people. I just wanted to clarify that the exact value of 8% is based on small samples and unnatural experiments that do not take into account social influences on sexual behavior and the harmful effects of selection. Now, I am afraid for the people to whom I wrote the letter. I will not give a complete list, except for what I have already voiced. I have already sent an article that talks about pressure on Roselli, I do not want to happen to them either. --Путеец (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like somebody's preparing for ANI. So you will not name any scientist. I see.

I have not opposed the correction of the 1500 figure because I was persuaded that the figure was an error. I am opposed to your changing of the "~8-10% of rams are homosexual" line because I think you are factually incorrect. I have addressed your issues with the "~8-10%" statistic here even though I said I'll only respond to it when I respond to your 2018 comment. But I was forced to respond to it at the new location in which you had again brought it up for the nth time. Please if you have anything more to say about the stat, say it over at the linked location.

"You scared me and convinced me that this number is politically important for protecting the rights of LGBT people."

Post evidence. Link me to where I affirmed that the "~8-10%" statistic is "politically important for protecting the rights of LGBT people." I do feel that you think the existence of the 8-10% statistic in the Wiki article will provide support to the LGBT rights movement which is why you hate it and want to get rid of it from the Wiki article. —Human10.0 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец's latest posts have not established that homosexual orientation in rams is caused by social conditions, nor that it changes. Is it being disputed that raising sheep in an unnatural sex-segregated manner increases homosexual behavior? It doesn't seem so. The issue is that some rams no matter what have a same-sex orientation. The Ungerfeld 2014 paper doesn't contradict that. The Casteilla paper doesn't seem to have any findings about homosexual behavior. The Katz paper states Follow-up tests revealed that two of the RMF [raised with males and females] rams and one RM [raised with males] ram developed and maintained a sexual preference for males. Srivastava says It was observed that rams in Group A had normal sexual behaviour, shorter reaction times and lower failure rates, and rarely showed homosexual tendencies. Rarely, not never. The Russian paper he pointed us to is of no value at all, since we can't read it, and I doubt it's a very prestigious journal. I haven't read this entire conversation thoroughly, but I have seen Путеец misusing sources and engaging in original research. I don't think Путеец is ever going to get consensus for the changes he wants, so he should stop wasting our time. WP:NOTGETTINGIT may apply here. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

To comprehensively understand my point of view, it is not enough to read the last post. It is really hard. Without doing this, we will again leave the information, which subsequently will be refuted anyway. Ruminant sexual behavior is very similar, although there are slight differences not related to homosexual behavior that can be described further. This is proved both by the work of Roselli, who cited the work on goats, and other works. The homosexual behavior of ruminants has a seasonal change, and depends on growing conditions. This is a complex set of behaviors that are influenced by many factors. For example, sexual activity in low-ranking rams increases if another male breeds sexual activity nearby. Roselli put forward various hypotheses. When he writes about the growing conditions, he does not take into account the new works that I cited here. They are newer and complement his research. I have already managed to remove from Wikipedia false information, which was here for a decade. Then I was also accused of everything and the original research, but the invited author of the error admitted it, and the error was corrected. Similarly, we can correct the error with 8% -10% rams. Unable to develop heterosexual behavior, units of sheep from the entire sample, according to some scientists. This is far from the figures indicated by Roselli, relying on old works with a poorly described calculation method. Roselli himself, unlike the author of the error about 1,500 species of animals does not answer, and did not come here, for clarification. There is evidence that some sheep have problems determining the smell of the female, which is a sexual stimulus. For reproduction to occur, females must communicate their ovulatory status and males must accurately detect those cues. Cues of eminent ovu-lation are received by the male’s sensory system where the significance of those cues is extracted and the ram responds with the appropriate behav-ior. Although sexual behavior seems innate and simple, successful execution of reproductive behav-ior requires complex processing of sensory cues. Sensory information necessary for the identifica-tion of sexually receptive females differ by species. Ewes do not mount other females in estrus or show other overt signs of ovulation. Ewes exhibit pro-ceptive behavior and seek out rams and affiliate with them to garner attention of the ram (Perkins and Fitzgerald, 1994). It is a subtle behavior put-ting greater importance on other sensory signals to ensure successful reproduction. This is also a factor that affects homosexual behavior. But such sheep are not 8-10%, but much less, but the exact number has not yet been determined. --Путеец (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Many works done before and after Roselli's work claim that growing conditions influence the development of heterosexual behavior in many animal species. For example: Rearing young post-puberal males in all-bachelor groups can delay or inhibit the subsequent expression of heterosexual mating behavior. In many sheep works, Roselli’s works are not mentioned at all, but the works that Roselli used are mentioned. In many sheep works, Roselli’s works are not mentioned at all, but the works that Roselli used are mentioned. As I have already shown, rams exhibiting same-sex behavior in other works are classified as unproductive rams. This article excludes other opinions using only Roselli's work. This is against Wikipedia rules. --Путеец (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

These two comments by Путеец are utter lies. Factual information about homosexual behavior and orientation in rams is present in the Wikipedia article.

Crossroads1 Thank you for your input. Please do not engage with Путеец on these claims. This is his modus operandi. Whenever he is caught lying, he makes a ton of additional claims to distract from the fact that he has lied and to compel others to focus on his new claims instead. He's made most of these claims before and it has been explained to him on this talk page how he's wrong yet he keeps making the same claims again.

EDITORS: PLEASE DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY Путеец's LATEST MISLEADING COMMENTS. PLEASE FOCUS ON VERIFYING THE CLAIMS HE MADE ABOVE ON 3 SEPTEMBER 2019. I will check them too when I get the time. —Human10.0 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors: Please study all the evidence. I do not see that you are trying to constructively understand the issue. Do not read my full explanation from 2018. Trying to present the additional information that I gave as inconsistent with the general line of evidence. Now you propose not to pay attention to the new evidence that I added here. The previous opponent, who defended the false figure of 1,500 species, chased me in all instances, accused me of lying. But he had to admit the correctness of my editing. I am aware of the complexity of the issue, and will try to invite scientists working with ruminants here. --Путеец (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Addition 1 Damián et al (2017) (Polwarth rams): In conclusion, the lack of the mother during rearing negatively affected the sexual motivation and the testosterone response of rams to oestrous ewes in competitive tests, effects that were more evident when adults. Neither the absence of the mother during rearing nor competition for oestrous ewes affected the stress response (evidenced by increase in cortisol concentration) in rams during both seasons. Similarly, the endocrine response was less affected by competition in rams that had been reared by their mothers. It seems that the more important effects generated by the lack of the mother during rearing was a lower sexual motivation, evidenced by the decrease in ano-genital sniffings, lateral approaches and attempts to mount. This study expands results from rodents [20] to sheep, a species with a strong selective mother-offspring bond [21, 22] and slower reproductive development. In male rats these differences are related to changes in the medial preoptic area, including cell activation or the action of certain neurotransmitters (e.g., oxytocin) [23-25]. It would be interesting to determine if the differences between AR and DR rams are explained by similar changes. Although sexual behaviour in pen tests is not a direct predictor of rams’ sexual behaviour in field conditions [26, 27], sexual motivation of the rams has a strong influence on field sexual performance [27]. <..> Considering the great individual variability in the strength of the ewe-lamb bond [3, 4, 28], this should be considered in explaining the variability in sexual behaviour of rams in competitive breeding [29].--Путеец (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Addition 2 Patel et al (2005) Due to many types of social interactions, mating performance of rams may decrease or increase. <..> It was found that subordinate ram’s mating behaviour was inhibited by mere presence of a dominant ram out side without physical contact. However, when ram exposed to oestrus ewe(s) along with competitor ram, both dominant and subordinate rams spent much of their time in guarding activities instead of mating. It was concluded that in a limited space the interaction of two or more rams might affect the number of services adversely. These additions clarify my proof. Artificial trials do not demonstrate free breeding behavior. The presence of a competitor in the test pad could change the results of the activity. This casts doubt on the exact value of the number of inactive rams exhibiting homosexual behavior. In this regard, I suggest instead of "8% or 10%" to write - "some rams" Given many other factors that affect sexual behavior - problems with smell, same-sex cultivation.Naturally, this is not necessary to indicate in the preamble. And in the section itself, it is necessary to indicate the limitations of the experiments, and possible explanations. --Путеец (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Do not read my full explanation from 2018"

Путеец, for the last time, I have read your explanation and I have told you this in multiple replies on this talk page (do you not read my replies?). Your explanation is quite dubious. I have found misrepresentations of studies in it. Didn't convince me.

"Now you propose not to pay attention to the new evidence that I added here"

These are more claims. I haven't even found any editors to contact to fact-check your 3rd Sept 2019 claims when you made more claims on 4th Sept 2019. So, I wrote a note to the 'editors that I have yet to contact' to focus on fact-checking your 3 Sept claims first rather than additionally fact-checking even the later claims you made on 4th Sept (most, if not all, of them the same recycled claims you have made before). Because fact-checking one set of claims before moving on to the next ones is easier than responding to all your claims (that you keep making on a daily basis).

(User Crossroads1 has fact-checked your 3rd Sept 2019 claims and found them to be wrong. I didn't contact him, he came to the page on his own and graciously fact-checked your claims).

I have read Damian et al (2017). What do you think Damian et al (2017) proves about homosexual behavior and orientation in sheep? —Human10.0 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you think Damian et al (2017) proves about homosexual behavior and orientation in sheep? This is not the question I'm trying to prove. No one doubts the homosexual behavior of ruminants. It is widespread among them and varies depending on the season and method of cultivation. But the numerical value of 8% -10% calculated by Roselli, we can not reliably verify, since the initial data are not complete. Roselli did not take into account the ethological data that I cited here, and which could affect this number. I hope you understand that all I ask to consider is the removal of rams from the preamble (1), replacing the exact value of "8% -10%" with "some" (For example, count how many percent of rams in this work have never shown heterosexual behavior. There were a total of 104 rams) (2), and in the main part of the article add information from these new publications (3). --Путеец (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец I didn't ask for more claims. Please explain: What was the point of mentioning such a long quote from Damian et al (2017) if you didn't have a point to prove about homosexual rams/orientation/behavior in sheep? What were you trying to prove by mentioning that quote from Damian et al (2017)? —Human10.0 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This article states that: "Although sexual behavior in pen tests is not a direct predictor of rams’ sexual behavior in field conditions." So the tests made by Roselli does not describe the behavior of the rams in the field. Which casts doubt on the specific figure of 8%. Therefore - it is better to spell the word "some." Also, "This study expands results from rodents [20] to sheep, a species with a strong selective mother-offspring bond [21, 22]." I cited work on rodents that showed same-sex behavior if females were not available to them when breeding, but getting to know the females changed the behavior and functioning of the brain. Dependence on contacts with females is confirmed by other works on rams and goats. It could also affect Roselli's results. In addition, sheep breeding is a person’s choice of the properties he needs, which are not always useful for animals. Alexander (2018) wrote: "Rams are selected for genetic traits a producer desires to propagate in his flock. Even though practically all sheep are naturally bred, rams are rarely evaluated for expression of sexual interest or behavior. Research at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station reported that the propor-tion of rams with limited interest in ewes was nearly 30% of the total number of breeding rams". Путеец (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец, you say: "This article states that: "Although sexual behavior in pen tests is not a direct predictor of rams’ sexual behavior in field conditions" So the tests made by Roselli does not describe the behavior of the rams in the field."

The only test referred to as a "pen test" in Damian et al (2017) is the test that they used themselves. This pen test is described in Damian et al (2017), and it's obvious from its description that it is vastly different from the 'sexual partner preference test' that Roselli and other sheep researchers have used to determine sexual orientation of sheep in their studies. Damian et al (2017) don't mention the 'sexual partner preference test' in their study at all. So how do you know, Путеец, that they are talking about the 'sexual partner preference test' when they criticize pen tests? We don't know that. it is only an assumption on your part. The only "pen test" that we can say with certainty that they critiqued was the pen test they themselves used (the only pen test that they mention).

I'd also like to mention some general info for editors about Damian et al (2017):

• it isn't a study about homosexual behavior or orientation in sheep. It doesn't talk about homosexual behavior or orientation in sheep, nor does it talk about homosexual/male-oriented rams.
• The 'sexual partner preference test' wasn't carried out nor mentioned. (In the 'sexual partner preference test', an individual ram is exposed to equal number of rams and ewes to see which sex they prefer to mate with).
• All 27 rams in this study were put through a pen test in which they were exposed only to ewes and the rams mounted ewes.
• This study does not claim that its findings apply to homosexual rams or explain homosexual orientation in sheep.

"Dependence on contacts with females is confirmed by other works on rams"

Exposure to females only improves heterosexual ram's sexual skills. It does not change the sexual orientation of homosexual rams to heterosexual. Research states: "sexual partner preferences appear to be stable throughout adulthood in rams suggesting that they are organized during an early period of life, probably during fetal development when sexual differentiation of the brain occurs."

"This study expands results from rodents [20] to sheep, a species with a strong selective mother-offspring bond [21, 22]."

The rat study cited as "[20]" is Akbari et al (2008). The sentence above does not mean that Damian et al (2017) expands all findings of rat studies to sheep. It only means that findings of Akbari et al (2008) regarding rats were similar to findings of Damian et al (2017) regarding sheep. Damian et al (2017) does not say that homosexual orientation in rams is caused by those rams not being raised with their mothers. Unless reliable sources say says that, I don't think we can add such a claim to the article.

"Alexander (2018) wrote"

Please tell me the full name of this study so I can read it. And does it say that homosexual orientation in rams is caused by human management of sheep as you imply? —Human10.0 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I've noticed Путеец that what seems like a single quote from Damian et al (2017) in your comment above is not a single quote. You've re-arranged different quotes from different parts of Damian et al (2017) to compose that quote in green that you've mentioned above.

If we arrange the text in the order it is in the study, it reads:

Similarly, the endocrine response was less affected by competition in rams that had been reared by their mothers. It seems that the more important effects generated by the lack of the mother during rearing was a lower sexual motivation, evidenced by the decrease in ano-genital sniffings, lateral approaches and attempts to mount. This study expands results from rodents [20] to sheep, a species with a strong selective mother-offspring bond [21, 22] and slower reproductive development. In male rats these differences are related to changes in the medial preoptic area, including cell activation or the action of certain neurotransmitters (e.g., oxytocin) [23-25]. It would be interesting to determine if the differences between AR and DR rams are explained by similar changes.

Although sexual behaviour in pen tests is not a direct predictor of rams’ sexual behaviour in field conditions [26, 27], sexual motivation of the rams has a strong influence on field sexual performance [27]. Therefore, as rams normally compete in field conditions, growing up without a mother may negatively affect the sexual performance in competitive situations during their adult life. This is also supported by the lack of a testosterone increase in AR rams after contact with females in competitive tests. Considering the great individual variability in the strength of the ewe-lamb bond [3, 4, 28], this should be considered in explaining the variability in sexual behaviour of rams in competitive breeding [29].

[...Lots of text in between...]

In conclusion, the lack of the mother during rearing negatively affected the sexual motivation and testosterone response of rams to oestrus ewes in competitive tests, effects that were more evident when rams were adults. Neither the absence of the mother during rearing nor competition for oestrous ewes affected the stress response (evidenced by increase in cortisol concentration) in rams during both seasons.

Why did you re-arrange the text Путеец? —Human10.0 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Patel et al (2005) is a study on 6 heterosexual/female-oriented rams. The researchers specifically selected female-oriented rams to do their research on. The study has no implications for homosexual orientation in rams nor does it claim to have any such implications.

User Путеец says "The presence of a competitor in the test pad could change the results of the activity." But the thing is, during the sexual partner preference test (used to determine sexual orientation in rams), rams are tested individually. There are no competing rams who could "change the results of the activity." So all the studies that used the sexual partner preference test and found that around 8-10% of rams are homosexual are valid & User Путеец's criticism is invalid. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk2_Final

Why did you re-arrange the text.

1. You probably don’t understand what exactly I'm trying to prove, and I propose for correction. I single out only those quotes that I use to prove several points. You do not need to quote all the work for this. So. Damián et al (2017) writes "... sexual behavior in pen tests is not a direct predictor of rams’ sexual behavior in field conditions [26, 27]. " You are for some reason stating that this applies only to testing Damián. But you are silent about what the author refers to. Look at the source [27], it says that: “The level of sexual behavior of rams can be both stimulated and inhibited by their social environment. <..> Furthermore, when rams are joined in groups to ewes social interaction between rams is inevitable and has been observed to have both inhibitory and stimulatory effects on the sexual behavior of individual rams.<..>The sexual behavior of rams may be influenced by their early sexual experiences and there is evidence that the practice of rearing rams in all-male groups may contribute to low levels of sexual activity and to homosexuality.<..> Furthermore, it seems that the sexual preferences of rams can be modified by rearing in all-male groups. A number of authors have noted a direct relationship between a lack of interest of adult rams in ewes and a high level of courtship and mounting being directed towards male pen mates during rearing (Zenchak et al., 1973; Zenchak & Anderson, 1980; Katz et al., 1988). Zenchak et al. (1981) found that rams that had been reared in all-male groups, and had previously shown little response to oestrous ewes, directed their sexual behavior towards a tethered ram rather than a tethered ewe. <..> In contrast, during the "adolescent" phase male sexual behavior became selectively oriented towards females (Thwaites, 1982; Orgeur & Signoret, 1984) and sexual segregation during this period led to a delay in the onset of copulatory activity, although the frequency of sexual behavior patterns were not adversely affected (Orgeur & Signoret, 1984).” In addition to this, the work of Stellflug, Berardinelli (2002): “... test conditions, such as restrained and unrestrained ewes and number of serving capacity tests, may affect conclusions in studies that evaluate sexual performance of rams. <..> Other researchers have reported that sexually inhibited rams began breeding ewes after a period of time if left in breeding pens with marking harnesses and where human activ-ity was either absent or minimized (Hulet et al., 1964, Mattner et al., 1973). Hulet et al. (1964) reported that 35% of 23 inhibited rams began breeding within 24 h, and 70% started mating within 48 h, after they were placed into breeding pens with marking harnesses. Therefore, human presence and associated activities may be important in determining the level of sexual performance in some rams” Conclusion 1: Tests with tied rams, in experimental conditions, do not demonstrate free behavior. This may affect the results..
2. Conclusion 2: The sample in the works that demonstrate 8% of homosexual rams is small. There are works where a different percentage was shown. Sample: Price (1999) In the second year four rams were sexually inactive, however these rams, as the authors note, were never tested for sexual orientation. The authors only presume that "they may have been male-oriented" or "likely male-oriented", but that's assumptions only. Relying on the data provided by the study, we have 0% male-oriented rams. Anyhow, supposed those four rams ARE male-oriented — 4 rams out of 104 — that's 3.8% not 8% (please double-check these calculations) , Stellflug, Berardinelli (2002): Only one male-oriented ram was identified in either line.... ≈1%-2%.
3. Conclusion 3: Given Conclusion 1 and Conclusion 2, the exact value of 8% should be replaced by “some”. It is required to indicate that the selection of rams, according to the characteristics set by the breeders, could affect the behavior of the rams. That research was conducted under unnatural conditions that did not take into account social influence, and human influence on the experiment. --Путеец (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 Reborn, Human10.0, I hope that I have proved the need to change the figure of "8%" to "some" and remove this information from the preamble. And also, describe the specified details in the body of the article. --Путеец (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an obvious proposal of WP:SYNTHESIS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. You have failed to make your case. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Crossroads1 This is not my point. This is a summary of a Russian-language review published in a peer-reviewed journal. Wikipedia article should take into account all existing studies, and not just those that are convenient. I have cited two articles that refute 8% and explain the reason for the exceptional homosexual behavior associated with the conditions of detention and the characteristics of the experiment. He showed additional sources not indicated in the review, confirming this point of view. --Путеец (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• "I single out only those quotes that I use to prove several points."

I didn't ask why you singled out quotes from Damian et al (2015) to mention, I asked why you rearranged those quotes here on this talk page to make those re-arranged quotes seem like a single quote from Damian et al (2017). You have not answered this. You have also not mentioned what study you meant by "Alexander (2018)."

The reference "[27]" in Damian et al (2017) is "Tilbrook AJ, Cameron AWN. The contribution of the sexual behaviour of rams to successful mating of ewes under field conditions. In: Oldham, C.M., Martin, G.B., Purvis, I.W. (Eds.), Reproductive Physiology of Merino Sheep, School of Agriculture. The University of Western Australia, Perth, 1990, p. 143–160."

I could not find any free version of this book and the version I did find cost more than $100. Please email me your copy of the book so I can check if it really says what you say it says and to see what pen tests it considers non-predictive of sexual behavior.

Assuming the selected quotes you've mentioned here really are in the book, when the book says "There is evidence that the practice of rearing rams in all-male groups may contribute to low levels of sexual activity and to homosexuality," I think this "evidence" is bound to be early studies on rams which hypothesized that maybe homosexual orientation in rams is caused by rearing in all-male groups but this hypothesis was discredited by later studies. The part of the book quoted by you does mention some of these early studies: "Zenchak et al., 1973; Zenchak & Anderson, 1980; [...] Zenchak et al. (1981)" and a study later than all of these, i.e., "Katz et al., 1988." While you've quoted the book discussing Zenchak et al. (1981), you have not mentioned if and what it is says about Katz et al (1988). I'd be interested in reading what it says about Katz et al (1988) because that was one of the later studies that found that homosexual orientation in rams is not promoted or inhibited by rearing rams in all-male groups or rearing them in mixed-sex groups, as mentioned in the 2011 review by Roselli, Reddy and Kaufman:

As previously mentioned, domesticated rams are commonly reared in all male groups, which raises the question of whether this environment leads to sexual preferences for other males later in life in a manner perhaps analogous to “sexual imprinting” [30]. Katz et al. [27] tested the hypothesis that exclusive exposure to males after rearing and lack of social experiences with females could lead to male-oriented preferences in rams. These investigators compared a group of rams that had been weaned and then raised in a mixed sex group that included estrous ewes with a group of rams that had only been exposed to other rams after weaning. The rams reared with females mounted more and achieved more ejaculations with estrous ewes than those reared with males only, suggesting that postnatal learning contributes to the development of sexual behavior. However, the majority of rams in both groups later developed a female-oriented mate preference. The exceptions were 2 out of 25 rams reared in the mixed sex group and 1 out of 23 rams reared with males only. Price et al. [51;52] also found that early experience with estrous ewes either direct or through fence line contact enhances sexual performance scores later in life, but does not prevent male-oriented behavior in rams. These results indicate that early social experience and learning increase the likelihood that rams will become sexually active at an early age, but do not prevent or promote same-sex preferences in rams.

I don't know what you're trying to prove about homosexual rams by quoting Stellflug & Berardinelli (2002). Explicitly state it.

• "The sample in the works that demonstrate 8% of homosexual rams is small. There are works where a different percentage was shown."

The sources cited in the wiki article for the statement "around 8-10% of rams have an exclusive homosexual orientation" are:

1. Perkins A, Fitzgerald JA, Price EO (July 1992). "Luteinizing hormone and testosterone response of sexually active and inactive rams". Journal of Animal Science. 70(7): 2086–93.
2. Roselli CE, Larkin K, Resko JA, Stellflug JN, Stormshak F (February 2004). "The volume of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the ovine medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus varies with sexual partner preference". Endocrinology. 145 (2): 478–83.
3. Roselli CE, Larkin K, Schrunk JM, Stormshak F (November 2004). "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams". Physiology & Behavior. 83 (2): 233–45.
4. Roselli CE, Stormshak F (March 2009). "Prenatal programming of sexual partner preference: the ram model". Journal of Neuroendocrinology. 21 (4): 359–64.
5. Roselli CE, Stormshak F (May 2009). "The neurobiology of sexual partner preferences in rams". Hormones and Behavior. 55 (5): 611–20.
6. Poiani A, Dixson AF (2010). Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective. Cambridge University Press. p. 179
7. Levay S (2011). Gay, Straight, and The Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Oxford University Press. pp. 70–71. (it's cited in the lede)

This list of citations includes one primary and multiple secondary sources (i.e., books, studies that reviewed past studies) that give the 8-10% statistic. Indeed, the 8-10% statistic is the most cited statistic for homosexual orientation in rams in research.

The "works where a different percentage was shown" (or you think a different percentage was shown), as mentioned by you are:

1. Resko JA, Perkins A, Roselli CE, Fitzgerald JA, Choate JV, Stormshak F. (July 1996). "Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams." Biol Reprod.;55(1):120-6
2. Stellflug JN, Berardinelli JG. (Oct 2002). "Ram mating behavior after long-term selection for reproductive rate in Rambouillet ewes." J Anim Sci.;80(10):2588-93.
3. And today, an unspecified "Price (1999)"

(To clarify for anyone reading our conversation, Resko et al (1996) and Stellflug and Berardinelli (2002) did not mention the number of homosexual rams in their samples in percentages. User Путеец calculated percentages on his own based on his own understanding of the two studies).

In your linked comment, you said regarding Resko et al (1996): "In the paper by Resko et al, (Resko,JA; Perkins,A; Roselli,CE; Fitzgerald,JA; Choate,JVA; Stormshak,F (1996): Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams. Biol. Reprod. 55, 120-126.) they started with 400-500 rams and tested them for “homosexuality”. Finally after all the tests only 6 classified as homosexual."

In reality, this does not seem to be the case. Resko et al's (1996) Material and Methods section, when read in its entirety, is vague and confusing. They seem to have put 400-500 rams through "Preliminary tests": Preliminary Tests: In August through October of the second year of life, the sexual behaviors of these rams were tested as follows: Rams were paired, individually, with mature ovariectomized ewes in which estrus was induced by exogenous hormone treatments as described previously [28]. Each ram was tested with an estrous female six or more times. Repeated tests revealed three groups of rams: those that mated with estrous females again and again (female-oriented), those that mated with estrous females occasionally but at least once (low-libido males), those that did not mount estrous females (potential male-oriented subjects). After these tests were completed, the size of the male population reared together was reduced to 25-30 rams of mixed sexual preference. [...] Rams that would not mount estrous females in the preliminary tests mentioned above mounted male pen-mates in the group setting. Resko et al (1996) do not mention the number of rams that were "potentially male-oriented", "low-libido" or "female-oriented" (though a later line in the Discussion section says 7 female-oriented rams were identified in this Preliminary test). The line about 25-30 rams seems to suggest that they reduced their sample size from 400-500 rams to 25-30 rams of mixed orientations. The study then mentions that they carried out the sexual partner preference test on (an unmentioned total number of) rams that didn't mount ewes in the earlier Preliminary test, and in this sexual partner preference test: rams were exposed simultaneously to two restrained estrous females and two males that were chosen at random for use. Rams that courted and mounted males in preference to females during a 30-min test that was repeated at least three times were classified as male-oriented. Male-oriented rams were given an additional preference test 5 days before they were killed. Resko et al (1996) say that using this method, they identified 6 male-oriented rams. A few lines later in the Material and Methods section, they mention that there are 7 female-oriented rams; in the Discussion section, they explain: seven males that consistently mounted and displayed sexual behaviors toward estrous females when paired individually [i.e., in the preliminary test]. We classified these latter rams as being "female oriented.". Resko et al (1996) compared a total of 6 male-oriented rams with 7 female-oriented rams for the purposes of their study. It's not clear if Resko et al (1996) found 6 male-oriented rams among 400-500 rams (like you claim) or 6 male-oriented rams out of 25-30 rams, and it's also not clear if they found only 7 female-oriented rams out of 400-500 rams or at least 7 female-oriented rams out of 400-500 rams.

You have stated twice in your linked comment and once in another part of this talk page that Stellflug & Berardinelli (2002) found "only one homosexual ram in a test group of 84 rams." This is untrue. Though I have read the full study, even if one only reads the Abstract of Stellflug & Berardinelli (2002), it is evident that sexual preference of only 48 (not 84) rams was tested in this study: ram classification consisted of exposing each 22- to 24-mo-old ram (n : 48) to three unrestrained ewes in estrus for 18, 30-min tests. So one homosexual ram was found among the 48 rams tested.

Even if one accepts that Resko et al (1996) found 6 homosexual rams out of 400-500, and that Stellflug & Berardinelli (2002) found 1 homosexual ram out of 48 rams (or even the incorrectly stated number of 84 rams), it does not matter. Researchers of those studies (e.g., Resko, Stellflug, Roselli, Stromshak) have themselves stated that around 8% of rams are homosexual in their later 2004 study (Roselli CE, Larkin K, Resko JA, Stellflug JN, Stormshak F (February 2004). "The volume of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the ovine medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus varies with sexual partner preference". Endocrinology. 145 (2): 478–83.): approximately 8% of rams display sexual partner preferences for other males and therefore are classified as male-oriented. The male-oriented sexual preference of rams does not appear to be related to dominance or flock hierarchy. No early social factors have been identified that can predict or alter sexual partner preference in rams

The most reliable percentage I have come across is the one researchers arrived at after doing multiple studies on sheep: "We have confirmed these distributions in our own studies. Over the past 2 years, 584 rams were tested. Of these 12.5% were asexual, 55.6% mounted and attained ejaculation with ewes, 9.5% mounted other rams, and 22% interacted sexually with both males and females." This is the largest number of sheep to have their sexual orientation determined. But despite the researchers saying "we confirmed these distributions in our own studies" you have claimed without a shred of evidence in this comment that "their own studies, however [...] were not published" in an effort to discredit the 9.5% statistic (that by the way, is within the "~8-10%" range mentioned in most studies and this Wiki article).

Even if you manage to cite some other primary source wherein you think the percentage of homosexual rams is less than "around 8-10%", I think it will be WP:UNDUE to highlight the percentage in the article (as if there is equal scientific agreement on that stat's validity as there is regarding the 8-10% stat), or to remove the "around 8-10%" statistic from the article. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You probably did not see the characters <..> with which I separated the different parts of the quote. I added links in previous comments. A large number of citations of the same studies does not make them more reliable. On the contrary, it is necessary to ask questions to their authors why they did not mention the work, where other values ​​were observed. Stellflug & Berardinelli (2002) is really hard to calculate. In experiment 1, 15 sheep from high-productivity sheep and 14 from low-level sheep participated. The sheep were tied. In experiment 2, closer to natural conditions, 25 and 23 with loose sheep participated. Only 1 "male-oriented ram", "in either line", was found in all lines. So, a total of 77 rams participated in the tests, and I can’t understand how they counted 1 out of 84 or 1 out of 77. In any case, this is much less than 8%. Do not forget the work of Price (1999), where depending on the interpretation, 0 to 3.8% is obtained. The Roselli samples (2011) 25 and 23 are small. There could be random results. It’s even strange that he took into account such weak statistics. "Over the past 2 years, 584 rams were tested" - he did not publish these studies in detail. There is no description of the methods. If he used the methods described in early studies, and the same method of cultivation, then he received unreliable results. This is not a reliable source. I believe that reporting the results of unpublished studies is not correct. Today we have very different works with a poor technique that does not take into account the ethology of the rams. Therefore, a specific percentage should not be indicated. 1%, 3% 8%, 10%, 30% etc. You correctly noted that the work of Resko et al (1996) is difficult to understand. Even if they made a preliminary selection, and possibly inactive sheep, then we must consider the number from the whole herd - 400-500. And then it will be like other work with low values. But still, let's do it neutral, without indicating any percentages at all. You must specify "some". This will not contradict all the works. I have an answer from one of the scientists mentioned here. I asked him to make more detailed explanations. I do not know the procedure for providing evidence, and whether he wants to do it. Maybe we will see this answer here. --Путеец (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• "You probably did not see the characters <..> with which I separated the different parts of the quote."

Don't play dumb. I'm asking why you re-arranged text here: The line "In conclusion, the lack of the mother [...] in rams during both seasons" is mentioned much later than the line "Similarly, the endocrine response [...] by their mothers" in Damian et al (2017), yet you mentioned the "In conclusion" line immediately before the "Similarly, the endocrine response" line and no, you did not separate them with "<...>." You presented all that re-arranged text as if it were a single quote from Damian et al (2017). Your repeated lack of an explanation says a lot.

• "A large number of citations of the same studies does not make them more reliable"

Secondary sources and studies keep citing them because they consider them reliable.

• "Stellflug & Berardinelli (2002) is really hard to calculate."

No it isn't. In Exp 1, they were making 29 rams mate with a device they called "artificial vagina". It was only in Exp 2 that they give 48 rams a sexual partner preference test. This is clear from a mere reading of the Abstract. The study doesn't say 84 rams anywhere at all. You made that up.

• "Do not forget the work of Price (1999)"

I have already explained how removing or replacing the "~8-10%" statistic will be wrong. But please do answer my previous question by specifying what study you meant when you say "Price (1999)".

• "he did not publish these studies in detail. There is no description of the methods."

Where does it say that he didn't publish these studies?

• "I have an answer from one of the scientists mentioned here."

Name him. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

And email me the book "Oldham, C.M., Martin, G.B., Purvis, I.W. (Eds.), Reproductive Physiology of Merino Sheep, School of Agriculture. The University of Western Australia, Perth, 1990." —Human10.0 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• I read the article in random order, and singled out citations important for proof from it. If you still do not understand this, then please do not insult the editors. Within the framework of the theses that I demonstrated, the meaning does not change.
• Secondary sources and studies keep citing them because they consider them reliable. If they consider these works reliable, this does not mean that they are correct. Judge for yourself: In a 2011 review, Roselli et al, stating that “approximately 8% of males in the studied populations exhibit exclusively same-sex behavior,” refer to three publications: (1) their own 2004 review article (Roselli et al. 2004); (2) published by Perkins et al. 1992 (which is indicated in the 2004 survey); (3) for publication by Price et al. 1998 - in this publication, the reproductive activity of male domestic goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) was investigated. At the same time, they do not indicate work with a larger sample, denying this data - Price et al. (1999) and Stellflug & Berardinelli (2002)! I was already presented with secondary sources that indicated 1,500 species of homosexual animals: DW, BBC, The Guardian, SUN, Time, but it turned out to be fake. It also says about 8% of sheep. I have serious questions for the listed scientists. Why they did not take into account the ethology of the rams, and used unnatural testing methods with fixing the rams in a closed room. Under these conditions, as I showed, they did not observe the natural behavior of the rams.
• No it isn't. In Exp 1, they were making 29 rams mate with a device they called "artificial vagina". It was only in Exp 2 that they give 48 rams a sexual partner preference test. The description of the first experiment says: Five 30-min tests with estrual ewes restrained in a breeding crate were used to evaluate sexual performance during training for collection of semen by AV (Nasco International, Atkinson, WI) at Montana State University. Ewes were identified in estrus by epididectomized rams. I understand that the rams of the first experiment also had interactions with females, and therefore did not show exclusively homosexual behavior, and they can be considered non-homosexual by adding to the sample. Even if you take n = 48, it will be 2%, but not 8%, especially not 10%.
• But please do answer my previous question by specifying what study you meant when you say "Price (1999)". Price (1999)
• Where does it say that he didn't publish these studies? If you know where these of his works are published, with a full description of the experiment, tell me. In the Russian review it is written that these data are not published.
• Name him. We will wait for his reply. Perhaps he does not want to voice it here, but simply publishes a scientific article analyzing the situation.
• And email me the book. The book is in the public domain, just click the "Download full-text pdf" button --Путеец (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец, regarding this paper, it is from a predatory journal, so it fails WP:RS and is junk. See all the signs here, and how the journal is not listed in indexes. [21][22] I couldn't even find it on Google Scholar. How did you find it?

And, I just found earlier that you stated, I suggested that Roselli did not respond to the letters we sent him because of the pressure exerted on him. Who is 'we?' And why are you sending letters to researchers anyway? Even if they reply, any alleged response from them is not a WP:RS, so it's useless. And trying to do this makes your efforts appear to be original research, which is not how to approach Wikipedia.

Your direct answers would be much appreciated. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I correspond with many scientists, and discuss various problems. For example, research on the topic under discussion is planned for sheep next year, after my letter. Given ethology and accumulated knowledge. The scientist did not want to comment on anything here before their completion. The publication is not predatory. The article is in Google Sholar. This is a good overview of existing publications. It can be used as a collection of links. I thought, maybe my mail does not send Roselli's messages, and asked friends to ask him about the methodology for calculating the 8% in his work. Roselli did not answer anyone. Perhaps they will turn to him from the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the near future. --Путеец (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

And why are you sending letters to researchers anyway? If I see a mistake, I'm trying to fix it. As an example, «1,500 species of animals were recorded».--Путеец (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Путеец, how did you find that paper? -Crossroads- (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is widely discussed now in Russia (Russian Science Index). She was reviewed by a scientist teaching zoopsychology. In Google Sholar it can be found by the Russian name (Проблема антропоморфной интерпретации поведения животных в контексте дискуссии об особенностях сексуального поведения человека). On the Internet - in English (The pitfalls of anthropomorphic interpretation of animal behavior in discussions on the aspects of human sexual behavior). --Путеец (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk3

Ok, Human10.0. View my entire answer. The sexual behavior of ungulates and goats is similar. If necessary, I will find this information. My main complaint is to 8%. This value is not confirmed by a careful study of the work. --Путеец (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Adult male ruminants that were reared in contact with females display greater sexual behavior than those reared in single male groups. [23] --Путеец (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Human10.0 Thank you, but I made the statement that in ruminants, contact with females improves sexual behavior. We must consider all the subtleties of research. Do we know what happened to the rams after Roselli’s work? They formed heterosexual preferences or not. Also, it must be borne in mind that this is a laboratory test, with artificial fastening of animals, and the calculation of homosexual individuals was not from the whole population. In this regard, it is not correct to indicate unverified values ​​of 8% or 10% in the preamble. They are better indicated in the article with a detailed description of this experiment. In addition, it should be pointed out that sheep breeding highlights the properties people need. A sufficiently large percentage of sheep are sexually inactive. --Путеец (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You just made me read a 2018 study on goats while giving us all the impression that it proved that homosexual behavior in sheep is a result of rearing conditions even though that goat study did not prove so. I have caught you lying again so I am no mood to entertain your 2018 comment.

• "sexual behavior of ungulates and goats is similar"

I think you meant to say "sexual behavior of sheep and goats is similar"? Need this claim to be verified. But even if you manage to cite a study that says homosexual behavior of domestic goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) is affected by rearing/social conditions, it will not necessarily mean that homosexual behavior in domestic sheep (Ovis aries) is affected by rearing/social conditions too (because "similar behavior" does not mean "same behavior" and because studies have checked and verified that homosexual behavior in sheep is not affected by rearing/social conditions). And no matter how many initial studies on domestic sheep you cite that speculated or hypothesized that rearing/social conditions might cause homosexual orientation in domestic sheep, it will not prove that they really are the cause because subsequent studies have tested such hypotheses and found that homosexual orientation in rams is not a result of rearing/social conditions (You have been told this. 2004 and 2011 reviews of sheep studies by Roselli and colleagues have been cited and quoted to you as evidence).

• "Adult male ruminants that were reared in contact with females display greater sexual behavior than those reared in single male groups."

You cited Lacuesta et al (2015) (another study on goats) for this statement. Lacuesta et al (2015) further cites Katz et al (1988) to back up this concept. Katz et al (1988) indeed found that "Rams reared with males and females (RMF) exhibited more mounts and more ejaculations [with estrous ewes] than rams reared only with males (RM)" but it also goes on to say that "Nine rams were sexually inactive in the sexual performance tests. Follow-up tests revealed that two of the RMF rams and one RM ram developed and maintained a sexual preference for males. The six remaining rams eventually mated with females when tested in familiar pens and subsequently exhibited normal levels of sexual performance even when tested in an unfamiliar enclosure. Exposure to ewes during the postweaning prepubertal period enhanced sexual performance. However, early exposure to females did not ensure that all males developed sexual preferences for females." So essentially, female-oriented rams show greater sexual behavior (i.e., more mounts and ejaculations) with ewes if reared with them rather than without them but male-oriented rams stay male-oriented, whether they are reared with ewes or without them. This is the conclusion Roselli et al (2004) and Roselli et al (2011) also came to (they have been quoted in the above section for you months before and as recently as yesterday).

So basically, that sentence you quoted and its citation do not mean that homosexual orientation in rams is a result of rearing/social conditions. It just means that being raised with females increases mounts of ewes by (female-oriented and maybe bisexual) rams (but does not affect male-oriented rams even if they are raised with females/ewes).

• "Do we know what happened to the rams after Roselli’s work? They formed heterosexual preferences or not."

In all the studies of male-oriented rams I have read, I have never found any that said that after a ram was confirmed to be male-oriented/homosexual, it later somehow turned female-oriented/heterosexual.

• "it must be borne in mind that this is a laboratory test with artificial fastening of animals ... it should be pointed out that sheep breeding highlights the properties people need."

I haven't read doubts about the reliability of the sexual partner preference tests for rams in research literature. Fastening of rams and ewes in that sexual partner preference test increases its accuracy as I have told in 2018 (I cited and quoted the relevant parts of a study). Homosexual orientation in rams does not appear to be a result of captivity or human management of sheep. We've talked about all this before. Stop re-posting your discredited criticisms of the studies.

• "A sufficiently large percentage of sheep are sexually inactive"

And what's your point? Those are asexual rams. They are sexually inactive with both male and female sheep whereas male-oriented/homosexual sheep are sexually inactive with ewes but sexually active with rams. I don't see the relevance of talking about asexual rams. —Human10.0 (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

According Perkins (2007) Among the group of rams identified as sexually inactive, are rams that will not mount females but will mount male pen-mates. Homosexual rams are included in the inactive group.There are other studies that show other meanings of homosexual behavior in rams. Therefore, it is not advisable to indicate 8% or 10% in the preamble, in addition, we are not sure how their behavior developed after an artificial experiment. In nature, this is not observed. It is necessary to cite others that you mention. If you do not want to read my arguments from 2018, administrators will read them, with a final decision. I find it difficult to have a conversation in English, and I may be misunderstood. When making a final decision, please familiarize yourself with these findings. --Путеец (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• According Perkins (2007)...

Link me to this study. I do know that male-oriented rams are mislabeled "sexually inactive" by people just because they are sexually inactive with ewes, even though they are sexually active with rams.

• There are other studies that show other meanings of homosexual behavior in rams.

The behaviors displayed by male-oriented rams in the studies cited in this wiki article are consistent with the definition of "homosexual behavior" in the article. What other definitions of homosexual behavior in rams are there other than "courtship and/or mounting behaviors displayed by rams for other rams and not for ewes"? Please list other definitions of homosexual behavior in rams you know with citations.

• we are not sure how their behavior developed after an artificial experiment. In nature, this is not observed.

Well I just quoted a study above saying "two of the RMF rams and one RM ram developed and maintained a sexual preference for males." And since no one has reported homosexual sheep turning heterosexual, it's obvious that they stay homosexual. I am not going to remove content about homosexual orientation in rams because you suspect they turn heterosexual one day and incidentally no one has ever recorded this.

By "In nature", I assume you mean "in the wild"? Domestic rams (Ovis aries) obviously do not typically live in the wild, they are a domesticated species. Wild sheep species are not the same species as Ovis aries. We don't need Ovis aries to live in the wild nor do we need to find homosexual orientation in wild (non-Ovis aries) species of sheep to mention in this wiki article that some rams of Ovis aries have an exclusively homosexual orientation. The fact that some of them have a homosexual orientation (regardless of where they live) is enough. And since research states homosexual orientation in rams does not appear to be the result of captivity or human management of sheep, it is clear that it is a result of nature.

• "please familiarize yourself with these findings."

Most of that text is your opinions, misrepresentations of research, mixed with an anti-gay conspiracy theory rather than any findings of studies. —Human10.0 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"two of the RMF rams and one RM ram developed and maintained a sexual preference for males." This is not 10% or even 8% of all rams population. I indicated the ambiguity of calculating this value in the section that you do not consider necessary to read, calling it undeserved epithets. It is your right. It is in the general interest to protect the article from unverified information, such as 1500 species of animals, which I corrected, although these edits were not accepted. Thanks for the joint work, we pass the baton to the administrators. I will not comment on the demagogic tricks that are more elegant in your performance than those who tried to leave an error about 1,500 species. Flyer22 Reborn Wellcome! --Путеец (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your question about whether homosexual rams stay homosexual throughout life or not, research has found: "Once established, sexual partner preferences appear to be stable throughout adulthood in rams suggesting that they are organized during an early period of life, probably during fetal development when sexual differentiation of the brain occurs."

• I indicated the ambiguity of calculating this value in the section that you do not consider necessary to read

I had read it, which is why I described it as "your opinions, misrepresentations of research, mixed with an anti-gay conspiracy theory." I hope to respond to it but that will require more time than I can give right now.

• This is not 10% or even 8% of all rams population.

Sure, don't apologize after being caught repeatedly misrepresenting studies or explain yourself or answer the questions I asked, just keep trying to make me engage with you on your objection to the "around 8-10%" statistic. I'll reply to your objections with that stat if/when I reply to your comment that you linked to. I don't plan on replying to it in all the other random places you have brought it up (and keep bringing up) on this talk page because it derails from the original discussion taking place there.

• I will not comment on the demagogic tricks that are more elegant in your performance

I don't trick people, Путеец. When I put a citation at the end of a statement, the citation actually says what the statement I wrote says. But a lot (if not most) of the time you cite research, that research doesn't even support what you claim it supports (this wastes verifier's time and even money if the research is pay-walled, as is often the case). It's pretty clear who's tricking who. Anyways, kindly link me to "Perkins (2007)" study like I requested you to in my earlier comment. —Human10.0 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

References