Talk:List of animals displaying homosexual behavior/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Split article?

Even if we do some miracle shrinking of references I think the article will still be too large. I think we should split off mammals and birds onto their own articles with all linking to the main. Benjiboi 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me SP-KP 17:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll read up on transcluding content (I'm pretty sure we can do it) and deal with this in a day or so if no one beats me to it. Benjiboi 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward - give me a shout if you get stuck. SP-KP 17:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, split is done. Mammals check in at 66k, Birds is under 30k and this list at 41k which will help all those accessing the content. Separate lede and footer templates were created so that intro and outro is identical so vandalism reverts and corrections are easier as well as updating. Benjiboi 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Talk pages are transcluded as well as talk page to do lists which are separate. Benjiboi 01:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this synthesis?

Just a though here - from the to do list above Add further sources - use the primary research papers in Bagemihl's end-of-chapter reference lists as a good starting point; I'm not sure we can do this, my understanding is that Bagemihl went through the work of other researchers findings and he did the synthesis - I could be wrong. Maybe we can find the original research and it will be clear but we have to be sure and not just cite the same source he does as that implies we were able to verify the original source. Benjiboi 18:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. We shouldn't just make assumptions about theses refs solely because they appear in the book - we need to check them out to establish what they say, unless Bagemihl states specifically & unequivocally that reference X says Y. We should word the to do list entry more clearly - any suggestions? SP-KP 18:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think his entire book is stating exactly that these animals have documented homosexaul yada yada behaviors as he has gone through previous research and saw that male animal x was mounting other males yet the original researcher dismissed this or never saw that behavior as homosexual. So I'd rather leave the sythesis to him. In the tables (some animals in text, some in tables, some in both) he denotes animal Y exhibits at least 1 of 4 options with many exhibiting several. I'm really failing to see the need to double reference these items but I could possibly see a separate article built (also intertwined with this one) around just selected species noted for transgender attributes as that could be interesting and useful. Really we could probably spin dozens of articles around this book. Benjiboi 18:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, I'm sure what you are saying is correct, i.e. that the original paper mentioned a particular behaviour in passing, and it was Bagemihl's reinterpretation of the behaviour as homosexual. However, many of the research papers cited in Bagemihl are straightforward articles such as "Nesting of two male swans" or "Female-female pairing in Western Gulls" - we can't really say that these sources don't explicitly document homosexual behaviour, can we? Or have I missed your point? SP-KP 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, if the original doesn't require us to do any synthesis then it sounds fine although a lot of extra work that might not be needed. Benjiboi 21:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's concern

Resolved

Has anyone been back in touch with Jimbo now that the referencing has been completed, to check whether he's now happy with the state of the article? SP-KP 19:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally have avoided it as his drive-by comment started the whole issue so my choice of words would probably be less kind. SqueakBox revealed they follow Jimbo around in some fashion so the whole situation seems ... peculiar. Benjiboi 02:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, thank you for sending him a note. He did, in fact, leave a note for me saying he now loves the list or something to that effect. Benjiboi 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible reference solution

Resolved

We could rework (sigh) all the refs as they have on Freddie Mercury thereby cutting down on the excessive repeating of the same info. Essentially a Bibliography section is added listing the full cite and the ref simply states the author name and page number. Benjiboi 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks similar to the approach I used for some of the birds ... I thought you weren't keen, or did I misunderstand your reply when I asked previously? SP-KP (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally missed that. This would be an elegant solution and I guess I just needed to see it in action. Previous I thought you meant just trimming down the cite info but this is a different method that I agree would compliment what we're doing. Benjiboi 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. All the refs in the lede have been converted, In Birds all the Bagemihl ones have been converted and I'm in the middle of doing the same on Mammals. This is helping reduce the size immensely so that those who have slower or poorer connections are more easily able to access is worth the extra effort. Benjiboi 09:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Mammals Bagemihl refs have been converted and will do animals page next. Benjiboi 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Main article done. All Bagemihl ref are now Harvard format (I think it's called Harvard format). I'll next be working on linking current Bibliography articles to online sources and then converting current references to the Bibliography format. Benjiboi 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Update, Birds article refs have all been converted. Benjiboi 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Mammals article refs have all been converted. Benjiboi 21:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. all references have been converted over. Benjiboi 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

sourcing

this article would be much much improved if it were sourced to the original papers in addition to bagemihl's book. bagemihl only compiled existing research, so it would be better for readers to verify the claims of these articles with the papers of the authors who made the original observations, rather than bagemihl's take on them, if possible. i would keep the bagemihl citations as well, because his book is probably more accessible to the average reader who may not have access to scientific journals. 68.163.170.150 (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bagemihl did the synthesis in many cases which is good because we cannot. He is the (undisputed?) authority on the subject as well. A project to first clean up the formatting on the references, consider the options for further denoting what behaviours each animal displays and double-referencing the original research is also under way. Benjiboi 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lede images

Resolved

I added penguins to the lede because having just giraffes on the birds list was getting really confusing.  ;-) Kelvinc (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine as mammals and birds are the two split-off lists. Benjiboi 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Images on both birds and mammals have been turned to gallery format. I will try to add to each. The initial goal was to have at least one image for lede and two additional for each article so we've already done that. Benjiboi 22:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've tweaked the formatting a bit in the lede to avoid image stacking and we now have one bird and one mammal represented, if we spin off insects or fishes we should consider adding a rep for those as well but I think that is way off in the future. Both birds and mammals gallery have four photos with brief captions and all photo captions are referenced as well. Benjiboi 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

why list other animals? (in reference to birds on mammals, etc.)

Resolved

Why list bird, reptiles and the other creatures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly related to the subject matter, but you're right, these doesn't belong here as subsections as birds, fish, and insects are not subsets of mammals. I've collapsed it into a "see also". section Stevecudmore (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll rework it so it's more clear, thank you for pointing it out. Benjiboi 21:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've added extra statement and see also links right after the table of contents on each split article which can be amended if this grows into even more articles. Benjiboi 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So Bagermihl is the only source for the vast majority of these?

That worries me. 82.71.48.158 (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

His landmark research book is what the article is based upon and it looked at previous research on animal's sexual behaviors through a more contemporary cultural filter/ Resurveying other researchers work is a common practice but in this case looking to see if animals behaviours should be labeled as homosexual or transgender was new. I have a physical copy of the book on order but my understanding is the first several chapters are devoted to researcher bias with the remainder discussing the actual research results. There is a project underway to sort out how best to add the original references from Bagemihl that he used and possibly at the same time tableize additional information specific to each animal listed. Benjiboi 21:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Two points about the giraffe thumb

Resolved

Two points regarding the giraffe thumb:
1. Is it really necessary to write "Two (2) giraffes in Kenya"? Isn't "(2)" a bit redundant?
2. The "You Are Being Lied to: The" ref is displayed as "{{cite web" on List of birds displaying homosexual behavior. I couldn't find the error, so many maybe someone who knows the template structure can help. The ref is displayed correctly on the List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior though.
Aecis^Brievenbus 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Amended out "two (2)" language as not needed; citation error was from flamingos image description and I've corrected it, thank you for catching those! Benjiboi 00:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Still some problems

This is a very well-referenced list. I have a few concerns though. (PLEASE SEE SUB-SECTIONS BELOW FOR EACH DISCUSSION)

• (1) It seems to be just a list of the animals listed in Bagemihl's book. This means the article is overly reliant on a single source. It would be better if other sources were used as well.
• (2) The lead section says the article concerns "documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting". Unfortunately it then fails to distinguish between homosexual or transgender behaviour. If fails to distinguish between sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. This is at odds with the title. If some of this "homosexual behaviour" is in fact transgender behaviour in parents (ie. males acting like the female parent), then this needs to be made clear. The article also fails to distinguish between homosexual sex (the physical act) and homosexual behaviour (a wider term covering social interactions, among other things).
• (3) Alternative theories. These need to be mentioned and sourced, otherwise the article is unbalanced. off the top of my head, the alpha male domination theory needs to be mentioned (eg. in chimpanzees). It also needs to be made clearer that the motivations for homosexual behaviour are diverse, and that human motivations (eg. love) should not be applied to animals, certainly not the 'lower' animals. Some discussion of instinctive behaviour needs to be present as well.
• (4) The hermaphrodite sentence: "...a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue." Mixing up the physical condition of hermaphrodites with being bisexual is misleading in this context. As is talking about animals having "issues". That is overly anthropomorphic.

Does anyone agree with the above concerns? Carcharoth 01:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can we section each of these concerns as subheading to facilitate dialog? I think it will help and having dug through a lot of text i think we can easily address at least a couple of these. Benjiboi 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You have raised some very good points, Carcharoth, and they need addressing. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is a LIST and NOT an article, is all of that really necessary?? Put all of that in the articles of each animal and there's your source. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, although you've headed this section "problems" some of them seem to be not to be problems as such, but improvement suggestions. They seem like good ideas to me - thank you. The way we typically capture these is to add them to a To Do box at the top of the article's talk page, so that future editors are given some ideas of things they might like to work on. I've done that. SP-KP 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Overly reliant on one source

• (1) It seems to be just a list of the animals listed in Bagemihl's book. This means the article is overly reliant on a single source. It would be better if other sources were used as well.

Other sources are used but as has been previously noted Bagemihl meticulously documents dozens (perhaps hundreds) of sources in the book and is considered the authority on the issue. Benjiboi 03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you source the claim of being an authority on the issue? If we are going to have an article heavily based on his work, we should be sure of this. Carcharoth 13:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well he did write what seems to be the only exhaustive book on the subject (1999) and no one seems to dispute that, perhaps reading some of the book reviews might help? Benjiboi 14:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Not immediately but in the near future a companion article for the book itself will be created to help address this issue and is a better repository for criticisms as well. Then this article can summarize any perceived shortcomings as worked out on that article. Benjiboi 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Differentiating between homosexual or transgender behavior

• (2) The lead section says the article concerns "documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting". Unfortunately it then fails to distinguish between homosexual or transgender behaviour. If fails to distinguish between sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. This is at odds with the title. If some of this "homosexual behaviour" is in fact transgender behaviour in parents (ie. males acting like the female parent), then this needs to be made clear. The article also fails to distinguish between homosexual sex (the physical act) and homosexual behaviour (a wider term covering social interactions, among other things).

The book does differentiate amongst behaviors to a degree but I don't think in all cases which then would require synthesis on our part. It would make more sense to consider rewording the lede for accuracy and possibly retitling once the lede had been addressed. Benjiboi 03:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. After a referencing overhaul takes place an effort to table-ize all or a portion of the list is underway. As part of this process documentation for various transgender behaviours will be looked at to determine the best route to accurately portray the information to make the contents more useful and meaningful. Benjiboi 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories

• (3) Alternative theories. These need to be mentioned and sourced, otherwise the article is unbalanced. off the top of my head, the alpha male domination theory needs to be mentioned (eg. in chimpanzees). It also needs to be made clearer that the motivations for homosexual behaviour are diverse, and that human motivations (eg. love) should not be applied to animals, certainly not the 'lower' animals. Some discussion of instinctive behaviour needs to be present as well.

This is easily rectified by expanding the lede - this will expand the observer bias portion as we only have a sentence or two yet Bagemihl devotes at least a chapter as to the possible reasons. This is also a good reason to find other sources and might all easily be dealt with by looking at Homosexuality in animals which continually is targeted and has developed some decent verbiage on the subject. Benjiboi 03:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Lede has been expanded to address above concerns and Homosexuality in animals remains, for now at least, the best place to address alternative theories. Perhaps when an article about the book is created the subject should be addressed there as well. Benjiboi 23:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hermaphrodite quote

• (4) The hermaphrodite sentence: "...a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue." Mixing up the physical condition of hermaphrodites with being bisexual is misleading in this context. As is talking about animals having "issues". That is overly anthropomorphic.

Does anyone agree with the above concerns? Carcharoth 01:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a quote so changing it isn't a great option but it could be integrated into the text and simply balanced with "although bisexuality is distinct from ____" and then something to address anthropomorphic concern. Benjiboi 03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the three concerns above can all be addressed by expanding the lede. Even though it is a list, this supporting text in the lede is needed to give general context. A brief summary from Homosexuality in animals might be the best bet. Carcharoth 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made a try at it. Benjiboi 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, template used for ledes

Templates should usually not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. This does not apply to templates which are transcluded onto multiple articles, such as templates that display the introduction for a long list (which is split into multiple smaller lists), because it would be extremely tedious to edit the same text in many different articles every time a change is made.

— per Wikipedia:Template namespace

Documenting template as lede policy with lists being the exception to the rule that templates normally do not masquerade as articles. Benjiboi 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That was added 18:35, 14 October 2007 and has been since been removed. I am here as a result of trying to improve the 'lede' in a couple of lists, this template complicates that. That should not occur, it should remain simple to edit. The page title (only) should be placed in bold, the 'lede' modified and copied to each list, then the template removed. Am I overlooking something? cygnis insignis 11:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. this is a list with identical lede information transcluded to three articles and the source is here. I've made the formatting changes you mention so even though tempklates for transclusion is discouraged in the case of lists I still think it can be an appropriate solution where none others exist. My first interest was to transclude the lede to the other two articles but transclusion apparently pulls the entire article so thus was useless. Benjiboi 16:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the solution, but I am not sure I see the problem. Why do the pages need to have identical ledes? cygnis insignis 08:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In a theoretical sense because it is one list divided into three parts for navigation; in a practical sense because updates, corrections (and vandalism) are isolated to one article that changes are made to rather than making the same edit on three articles and the ongoing task of comparing each version to the other. Benjiboi 21:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The current guideline states;

Templates should usually not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.

— per Wikipedia:Template namespace

... and this seems to be the sensible path. The template hinders the improvement of each page by restricting the information that might be included. There would be, presumably, different facts and sources for each page, the lead would need to summarise this. The leading text could be altered for each page, then included there, making it simple for editors to improve each page - without disrupting others. The links could be included as 'see also' templates or sections (or the humble wikilink), improving navigation for the reader. Perhaps the best path is a return to basics, an article with this name could summarise and link each list. cygnis insignis 06:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective this is one list divided into three parts. I followed the guidelines in place at the time and even WP:IAR allows that exceptions to rules are sometimes fine. As is this is a well-sourced list. If any of the sections are expanded or for some reason change significantly that the corresponding article's lede would need adjusting I would say we deal with that then. I fail to see what information is being prevented from inclusion. And if the matter was made absolute that we could simply not ever use a template in that fashion I would then say fine convert it to an article and transclude the information in that manner. The goal is to present the information uniformly on each section of the larger list and as of yet there doesn't seem to be a need to have distinct but similar versions rather than the same version. Benjiboi 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Images in lede

Resolved

This template puts a picture of penguins on a page about mammals! And a picture of giraffes on the page about birds. Please, please fix that. I was going to delete the penguins from the mammal page, but saw that it was part of the template. It looks bad having these animals picuted on pages about another class entirely. Aleta (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've flipped the photos so the bird photo appears first and added to lede - "This list includes animals (birds, mammals, insects, fish, etc.)" to address this. Benjiboi 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What bothers me is having penguins (at all) on the list of mammals page and having giraffes (at all) on the list of birds page. They can each be on the respective pages they match, and both on the list of animals page, but it stikes me as wrong for them to be on the pages with the classes that they are not. Aleta (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I can do a workaround for the photos. I have an idea! Benjiboi 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that should solve it. Benjiboi 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for fixing that! :) Aleta (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. I had to take a step back and figure it out but your point was completely spot on and we want to educate not confuse so we all win! Benjiboi 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK tags, FYI

Resolved

Both Birds and Mammals lists were featured as "Did You Know" items but the DYK templates are page specific so have been added to those talk pages above this talk content which is transcluded to each article talk page. Benjiboi 00:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

145 citations

Resolved

with 90% from the same source...? That is more than just a little concerning. Unfortunately, nothing will ever happen to improve this dreadfully obvious lack of sourcing. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo Wales actually thanked the editors who sourced it, so if you're unhappy, take it up with him. Jeffpw (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"dreadfully obvious lack of sourcing" - wow, almost every sentence has at least one reference and that's still not enough. Exactly how many references per sentence were you looking for? Also, for anyone who's interested i do have a copy of the book, and yes, there are simply reams and reams of citations if we needed to add them but I hardly feel it's needed or the best use of my time. Benjiboi 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and think it is poorly sourced. And what; Jimbo is god king and since he thanks someone for adding at least "a" source, that signifies the article should be nominated for FA? C'mon, almost the entire article is based on one book. I don't care how much crap the book spews about referencing other peoples work in their hunt for gay animals, it's still "one book" - therefore one source. I noticed that others stated on this talk page that they feel the same. Perhaps it might be wise to address these concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.190.139 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is likely one of the best sourced articles around, every statement seems to be sourced, every animal listed is sourced. You may want to look at what WP:V and WP:RS states on the subject. Just because you may not agree that animals exhibit homosexual behavior hardly means this encyclopedia should not dispassionate report the same. Benjiboi 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nom

Resolved

I'm new to GA process but seeing as this list is vastly improved it seems like a smart move for all three articles. Benjiboi 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This nomination has been quick-failed due to the fact that it is a list, and not an article. Please nominate this at WP:FLC instead. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Will do, Thank you for the heads-up. Benjiboi 19:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

template name

Resolved

{{List of Gay and Trangender Animals lede}} (missing s) should be at {{List of Gay and Transgender Animals lede}}, right? — brighterorange (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I'm not the best speller. It's been moved. Benjiboi 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)