Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals

In Captivity or In the Wild

This article fails to specify when these behaviors have been observed only in captivity or if they have also be observed in the wild. Without this distinction the article is of little value at best and deceitful at worst, because it is to be expected that animals will dramatically alter their behavior under the conditions of captivity.

Fox on Orangutan behaviour

Миша Карелин You started the war of revisions, and distorted the quote to Fox. Bring her back. Full cite: "Homosexual behavior was observed two times: once at Suaq Balimbing and once at Ketambe. Both interactions were between males. The homosexual inter-action at Suaq Balimbing occurred between males that, based on both physical (body size, dark eyelids and palms) and behavioral (avoidance of flanged males, forced copulations with adult females) characteristics, were classified as repro-ductively mature, developmentally arrested subadults [Rijksen, 1978; Maggion-calda et al., 1999, 2000]. The single interaction at Ketambe involved two adolescents." [1]

Sample

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Путеец (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[7] [8] [9] --Путеец (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

[10] --Путеец (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

[11] --Путеец (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk

• Well, you added that paragraph recently. The User Ravenswing made a correction, but you brought it back again. I guess this is again is a result of your misunderstanding of the quote. Lets see what native English speakers whould tell us about it. M.Karelin (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • why understand the quote? I wrote it as it did in the source? Are you laughing at me and other editors? Cancel your vandalism. Do not stop working for those who read the sources. Путеец (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • "Why understand the quote" ?? Because this is not an aphorism or proverb. If you are writing something from a source, it should not be taken out of context. He did not mean that the homosexuality of the orangutans was ONLY twice observed at all. He meant something completely different. By the way, I am repeating again: the first correction was made not by me, but by Ravenswing. So the only one who is "laughing at me and other editors", is you. M.Karelin (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Hello, a native English speaker here. I saw the message about this page on the Teahouse and thought I'd see if I could help. But it would be good if we could cool the tone of the discussion a bit, don't you think? Why doesn't everyone take a moment first to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, or (insert your favourite calming activity here)? FrankP (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, I've checked the source paper. It's very clearly written, which helps (not all scientists write like that). "Homosexual behaviour was observed two times" is an accurate quote. However, I think what others are saying, Путеец, is that to fairly summarise a source it is not always sufficient to select one short snippet verbatim. In this study, orangutans were observed at two sites in Sumatra, and homosexual behaviour was observed in two pairs of orangutans, one pair at each site. The behavioural description is very thorough, in one case it involved a number of interactions over two days, in the other case the interaction was briefer. A total of 9900 hours were recorded, and this is the context for "two times". During this study, at these sites, over this period of observation, two pairs of male orangutans were observed engaging in sexual behaviour. FrankP (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• • • • Beyond those comments -- which I endorse -- Путеец, you want to take the advice of other editors and calm down, and may want to take 331dot's advice and walk away from this article altogether for a while. You are far too willing to use inflammatory language, far too ready to demonize those who disagree with you, and far too prone to claim that edits you don't approve of constitute vandalism. These are unacceptable behaviors on Wikipedia, and you must cease them at once. Ravenswing 22:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please count how many times the opponent accused me of vandalism. And canceled my edits. Look at the quality of his work and reasoning. You will see that the main motive of these actions is the censorship of uncomfortable scientific data. These are double standards. I hope that the truth, and truthful scientific information, will improve the article and Wikipedia. As you can see, in most cases - the opponent is not right. I hope for a joint fruitful work, colleagues. I ask you to evaluate the actions indicated in the section "Sample". Путеец (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• User Путеец, vandalsim is a deleting of an info based on normal sources. You did it several times here. As of quality and reasoning of my works - did you even notice that no one is agree here with your conclusions and understandings of sources ?? Did you notice that ?? M.Karelin (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In your opinion, if no one supported me, then I'm wrong? Or were the opponents mostly speaking? Путеец (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Fox

Please, guys, could we bury the hatchet and focus on content? Does anyone want to discuss what Elizabeth Fox has said in her paper on orangutans, and how best to represent it in the article? I thought that was what you wanted a view on? FrankP (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• According to Fox: "Humans are the only primate species in which individuals form homosexual pair bonds to the exclusion of heterosexual behavior. In other Great Apes, with the exception of the bonobo (Pan paniscus), homosexual behavior is infrequently reported from wild populations" at the beginning of the section on primates.
• According to Fox, Homosexual behavior in orangutans "was observed two times: once at Suaq Balimbing and once at Ketambe. Both interactions were between males"

An exact quote from the source. Путеец (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

An exact quote, perhaps, but also a clipped quote. I mentioned this before (taking short snippets verbatim). It is not honest. FrankP

• • Please pay attention to this comment (regarding Orangutans). M.Karelin (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In her source, Fox said: "Humans are the only primate species in which individuals form homosexual pair bonds to the exclusion of heterosexual behavior. In other Great Apes, with the exception of the bonobo (Pan paniscus), homosexual behavior is infrequently reported from wild populations" . But this is contradicting to what the other sources says about domesticated sheeps (I mean about exclusive homosexual orientation of some domesticated sheeps). M.Karelin (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sheep != Primates

• • Sorry, but can someone show me what exactly Fox said about bonobos ("Humans are the only primate species......."), I could not find that source and the quote. M.Karelin (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Then I can tell you Fox isn't entirely up to speed on the wild and wacky field of animal pair bonding. True, very few mammals form exclusive homosexual bonds, because very few mammals form exclusive bonds at all, homosexual or otherwise. Lifelong pair bonding is on the other hand not uncommon in birds, with exclusive homosexual lifelong pars being known from various species of parrots, sea birds, penguins and flamingos. Animals with liflong strong homosexual preferences are also known from most (if not all) domestic mammal species. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

She said "the only primate species"

We will invite authors of the work on domestic sheep here and they will confirm to you that their research was conducted with errors. I can point out all the errors of their research. You have already tried to remove my edits from the article, in this regard. Путеец (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1) Stop making original reserches (you can not tell us about errors), 2) pay attention what Bockam wrote just above 3) show me the exact quote of Fox about bonobos. M.Karelin (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You have all mixed up. Firstly, not a bonobo but an orangutan, and secondly I gave exact quotes. Путеец (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• (1) I have the Fox article. If anyone wants me to send them the PDF I am happy to do so. The complete abstract says "Wild male Sumatran orangutans at two study sites engaged in homosexual behavior. These observations demonstrate that homosexual behavior is not an artifact of captivity or contact with humans. In separate instances, homosexual behavior was associated with affiliative and agonistic behaviors. These observations add orangutans to the list of primates in which homosexual behavior forms part of the natural repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior." FrankP (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• (2) She does give a brief note on published results for other ape species: "Humans are the only primate species in which individuals form homosexual pair bonds to the exclusion of heterosexual behavior [Kirkpatrick, 2000]. In other Great Apes, with the exception of the bonobo (Pan paniscus) [Kano, 1992], homosexual behavior is infrequently reported from wild populations. It has been observed in female and male mountain gorillas, with prolonged copulatory thrusting and/or frottage, copulation vocalizations, and, in some males, ejaculation [Harcourtet al., 1981; Yamagiwa, 1987] (D. Watts, personal communication)."
• (3) Another note about primates more generally, "Homosexual behavior forms part of the sexual or sociosexual repertoire of a large array of primate species [Vasey, 1995; Kirkpatrick, 2000]. For species in which homosexual behavior is observed in the wild, its frequency of expression ranges from rare to common." All these quotes from the first page of Fox 2001. FrankP (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• FrankP Thanks a lot for those quotas. You are amazing. M.Karelin (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

When you next time make a war of revisions, call me. I give exceptionally accurate quotes, because I can not retell them! Путеец (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Since everyone was convinced of the accuracy of my citations, and no one opposed the addition, I add this information --Путеец (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So lets continue

I think the discussion of the quotes from Fox, and the discussion about Orangutans section is not over. So lets contunie it here. Untill that I hide the info about Primates and Orangutants. M.Karelin (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• On what grounds. Do you have a job Fox? Do you have a claim to its reliability, do you have any claims to the quality of quotations? Have you read Fox's work? Can you voice your suggestions? --Путеец (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I have to repeat it 100th time: without consensus with active editors do not make changes (as admin told you). When you made aditions in "Neurobiological basis" section, nobody reverted it, because there is consensus (kind of consensus) on Talk page. But I do not see a consensus about Primates, and especially about Orangutants. Moreover,, Frank (see above) made some objections about Orangutans, have you noticed them ?? M.Karelin (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • By the way, it would be better to discuss "Orangutans" and "Primates" sections separatelly. M.Karelin (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you have a source Fox? Why did not you speak earlier? Since February 26, enough time has passed. Inform your intentions on this fragment. --Путеец (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Return the information to the article. You do not work on it, just stop work. I have not finished this section yet. --Путеец (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Have you seen this edit (pay attention to the comment to the edition)? Or didnt you seen my comment  ? Did you pay attention to what FrankP wrote above about quotas refereing to Orangutans ? Why do you pretend to be forgetful and make changes despite normal objections from colleagues ? M.Karelin (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • "Orangutans" and "Primates" sections separatelly Do you understand the difference between them? --Путеец (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Calm down and stop showing your bad manners. What I mean is those two sections were hidden by me because of different reasons, thats why it would be better to discuss those issues separately. M.Karelin (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you read Fox's work itself? Can you say something on the text? Why do not you answer the question, do you have this research and have you read it? Or are you just blocking the work? If you read it, then you did not have any questions! I do not see any reasoned opposition. Tell me what embarrasses you or does not understand. --Путеец (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• If you been so kind and read what I wrote above, you would notice my objection about Orangutans section. Do you agree to back Orangutans sectno to the article in the way it was done by Ravenswing ?? You agree ?? M.Karelin (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No, my option is correct. --Путеец (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • And that's your problem !! You never hear what other editors tell you, especially Native English speakers (in this case - Ravenswing and FrankP). Your option is absolutely wrong, and it is a result of your poor English. You never agree with anyone else and never ready for consensus. M.Karelin (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • When I'm right, as with 1500, I do not agree with opponents who are wrong. When I'm not sure, we come to a consensus. --Путеец (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • No one of your opponents told you that you are right or wrong about "1500". We just asked to wait until Bockman will clarify the issue. Besides, one thing is counting and comparing figures, and absolutely another thing is misundrestanding of long English texts - in those cases you d better hear what English natives speakers tell you. M.Karelin (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • You should know if you read the article, but You didn't do this and interfering with my work. Do you have a valid offer? Cancel the editing I will continue to work. --Путеец (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Once again - the administrator told you to not make changes without consensus. Put your drafts here, and let other editors to make changes and amendments in it !! M.Karelin (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
          • If you do not have a reasoned claim, let me continue to work. No one spoke on February 26. The source describes two episodes. Read it. I ask you to. Of approximately 9,000 hr of focal observation at Suaq Balimbing, homosexual interactions were observed on only two occasions! --Путеец (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
            • That's not quite what the study states; it states that such behavior was observed in those locations, not that it was only observed on two occasions, anywhere in the world. READ what your opponent tell you, especially because of your poor English !!!! M.Karelin (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
              • I repeat, read the study. It describes ONLY two interactions in the wild. Only two. Not one hundred copulations in two places, but two interactions. Both interactions are described in detail. How much more time do you take from me? You did not let me finish the rest! NeilN Flyer22 Reborn Help me! --Путеец (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Fox say: "Previous studies of orangutans reported homosexual behavior only among cap-tives housed in artificial conditions [Maple, 1980] or, in the wild, among recent rehabilitants [Rijksen, 1978]. In the single observation at Ketambe, one partici-pant (Herman) is the descendant of rehabilitants. Yet orangutans at Suaq Balimbing form a wild population, demonstrating that homosexual behavior forms part of the behavioral repertoire of wild male orangutans. Clearly, however, it is a rarely employed part of that repertoire. Of approximately 9,000 hr of focal obser-vation at Suaq Balimbing, homosexual interactions were observed on only two occasions. By comparison, 211 heterosexual interactions were observed during the same study [Fox, 1998]." You did not let me finish the article. You spent a lot of my time. I see the only way to contact administrators. --Путеец (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Миша Карелин since you interrupted my work on the section, finish it yourself. In addition, you have broken the section structure. --Путеец (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I know what is written in the source. You do not correctly convey the meaning of what is written there. As a result of your bad English, the meaning of what you write is completely different - so it turns out that orangutans were only involved in same-sex relations two times all over the world, but this is not correct. The source just states that such behavior was observed in those locations, not that it was only observed on two occasions, anywhere in the world. Do not distort what is written in the source. Why do not you hear what all other editors tell you ?? .M.Karelin (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I made you a suggestion (see above), based on objections of other editors, but you disagreed, claiming that your option is correct (despite the objections of defferent editors). So thsi is not my fault, you just never accept other people's objections. M.Karelin (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If you want to continue working on the section, write a draft here. Let all other editors amend it. And then the final version will be included in the article. You need to reach a consensus with other editors. This is how Wikipedia works. M.Karelin (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You do not correctly understand the source. In natural conditions, only twice observed the homosexual interactions of orangutans. The rest you did not let me finish, I'm so tired that I ask you to finish the section. If you have information about other observations - also add. --Путеец (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This petty bickering needs to stop. While this could be worded better and the unnecessary quote removed, does anyone have objections to having material about orangutans in the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Dear NeilN, The best option was suggested by Ravenswing. Thats the best undesrtanding what the source said. No objections about Ravenswing's option. M.Karelin (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a misunderstanding that does not correspond to the source. In addition, this violates the rule of quoting - distorts the quotation. You do not understand? --Путеец (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • So, in your opinion two editors (Ravenswing and me) are misunderstanding the source and you understand it better ? And what rule are you talking about, show me please ? M.Karelin (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You wrote: According to Fox: "Homosexual behavior was observed two times: once at Suaq Balimbing and once at Ketambe. So what does it mean for someone, who reads the article (?), is that mean that Orangutans in whole world were engaged in homosexual behaviour only twice ?? Do you even read what you write ?? M.Karelin (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I will remind you that there were many more people talking about 1500 species of animals, including the media. And they were all wrong. And I'm right. How can I prove anything to you if you do not read the sources? --Путеец (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Today, I replied you once about "1500" claim, and expalined the differencies about those two situations. Please read it again. M.Karelin (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
          • I did not finish the article. I quoted a portion of what I did not have time to add. You do not see what I'm writing? Read and add yourself. I'm tired of primates. --Путеец (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
            • The article is not a Sandbox and not even a Talk page. Do not make experiments in the article. If you did not finished something, put the drafts here and allow other editors to work and amend it as well. I told you this 1000 times. M.Karelin (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors need to look at content from a reader's point of view. Is "Suaq Balimbing and in Ketambe" significant? If so, why? And who is Fox? The article makes no mention of them up to that point. Are editors using Fox's study to make a general statement about homosexual behavior of orangutans or just as a source for a specific example? Is the content of that section consistent with similar sections with regards to general statements/specific examples? Are there other sources that can be found to flesh out the section? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. Thats why I suggetsed User Путеец before making changes in the article put drafts here and allow other users to change and amend it as well, only after it the consensus version will be written in the article. There are a lot of questions here (and not only here). M.Karelin (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • NeilN Fox is the best source for the Orangutans. She specializes in them. The rest I was going to finish on Bagemihl. Information is relevant to the section, article. The names of the points are not important, it is important that there were only two observations in the wild. But we quote. About homosexual behavior in captivity, I already wrote here. I did not have time to add it, as I had not time to add other details. Notice, the work is interrupted by a person who does not know about it, who does not read the sources.--Путеец (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Please pay attention that this User again makes non-ethical claims about me. Besides, he just does not hear what other people tell him. He does not understand that the quote has absolutely different meaning and this edition is a nonsence (just read it). He does not understand when we telling him not to make amendments without preliminary consensus. He just does not want to hear other people. I am so tired of this !!!! M.Karelin (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Read Fox's article, make sure I'm right, and we'll all rest. --Путеец (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Путеец: "Who is Fox?" was a rhetorical question as highlighted by my next sentence above. And there was a thirty minute gap between your edits and M.Karelin's. Hardly an interruption. I suggest you work out wording on the talk page before copying it into the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Primates

According to Fox: "Homosexual behavior forms part of the sexual or sociosexual repertoire of a large array of primate species. For species in which homosexual behavior is observed in the wild, its frequency of expression ranges from rare to common. In a subset of these species, homosexual behavior occurs rarely in the wild but is frequently observed in captive conspecifics. In others, the expression of homosexual behavior is limited to primates living in artificial conditions and having extensive contact with human caregivers. The contexts in which homosexual behavior occurs in wild populations support hypotheses for its functional significance in the formation and maintenance of social relationships and social support. Humans are the only primate species in which individuals form homosexual pair bonds to the exclusion of heterosexual behavior. In other Great Apes, with the exception of the bonobo, homosexual behavior is infrequently reported from wild populations" [12]

Оrangutans

While homosexual behavior has been noted in captive orangutans, it has only been observed twice in the wild: once on Suaq Balimbing and once in Ketambe. Both interactions were between males. Anal introduction was not confirmed. Homosexual behavior in different social contexts was associated with affiliated and agonistic behavior. In one case between adults, in the second case between adolescents. According to Fox: "Previous studies of orangutans reported homosexual behavior only among captives housed in artificial conditions or, in the wild, among recent rehabilitants. Due to its solitary ranging patterns and low frequency of social interaction, the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) is predicted to exhibit homosexual behavior at lower rates than any Great Ape". [13] --Путеец (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk (Fox on Primates)

I suggest adding as is. Are there any reasoned objections? --Путеец (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• In a subset of these species, homosexual behavior occurs rarely in the wild but is frequently observed in captive conspecifics. Show me the quote from the source which lead you to wrote this. I couldnt find it. M.Karelin (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• In others, the expression of homosexual behavior is limited to primates living in artificial conditions and having extensive contact with human caregivers. Same about this statemet please. M.Karelin (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• In other Great Apes, with the exception of the bonobo, homosexual behavior is infrequently reported from wild populations - is this again a quote of Fox which was taken out of context ?? M.Karelin (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to remind you that - In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Thats why I ask you detaily answer to all my objections (since those are different objections please answer to them separately). M.Karelin (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC) The burden of presenting the appropriate details is on you, since exactly you are going to contribute this information to the article. Taking into consideration of fact, that previously you already misunderstood the sources, I ask you to provide the answers very detaily. M.Karelin (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Your statement that I do not correctly understand the source is not relevant until you read it. Not only am I talking about this. I will be happy to talk with someone who has read the article. See WP:CIV. Now a full quotation is given, without exclusion from the context. You can offer a retelling that will be very useful. Thank you. --Путеец (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I showed you my serious objections one by one to each sentence you try to add. Until I get detail clarification what quotas and statements led you for such draft here, it wont go to the article. M.Karelin (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not the only one who keep telling you about your HUGE language barrier. ALL native English speakers keep telling you that. You misunderstood the sources many times, you put out the quotes out of context and tries to use it here. This is not acceptable. So, please, I still want clarifications one by one to each my objection. JUST ONE QUOTE FROM THE SOURCES IS NOT ENOUGH, THIS IS ENCYCLOPEDIA !! M.Karelin (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Миша Карелин You are violating WP:CIV. Stop Ad hominem, plese. I understand the texts perfectly. Can you suggest retelling this quote from a scientific source? Or do we add it with attribution? --Путеец (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
      • You DO NOT understand the texts and the sources well, MANY ENGLISH NATIVE SPEAKERS TOLD YOU THAT !! You try to put in ENCYCLOPEDIA a nonsense (and this is not the first time). So, answer to all my objections one by one very detaily (to be sure you dont misendertsood the texts AGAIN and not put out the quotes from the main context). After it we can see will it go to the article or not. Other editors have to see your explanations as well. M.Karelin (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0 consider, please, the introduction of a general quotation on primates, or its retelling. Thank you. --Путеец (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Human10.0: [14] Add this, please. --Путеец (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, despite my objections (see above), you are asking another editor to add that section ?? M.Karelin (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец: Why do you want an introductory section to be added on primates? The Wiki article does not have such sections on other orders such as the Cetartiodactyla, Procellariiformes, Anseriformes, etc. so help me understand what makes the primate order special, in your opinion, to warrant its own section? Note that I'm not opposing or supporting the idea of adding an introductory section, I just want to hear your reason for wanting to add such a section.

I do have reservations specifically about the paragraph you want to add but I first want to know why you want an introductory section. Also, I plan on getting the disruptive edits you made addressed by higher authorities before adding anything further to the article. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0 In my opinion, it is logical to describe the general features of homosexual behavior of primates, as it was done for insects, so as not to repeat in each individual species. This quotation gives a good general description. --Путеец (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец: What info exactly is being repeated in the sections of each individual primate species? —Human10.0 (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0 I think that they all be replenished. The general description, already now, will improve the general understanding of the behavior in all primates. (Homosexual behavior forms part of the sexual or sociosexual repertoire of a large array of primate species. etc) --Путеец (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец: I don't understand what you mean by the first line ("I think that they all be replenished"). And kindly answer my question: What information is being repeated in the sections of each individual primate species? —Human10.0 (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

All sections will be updated over time. Including a General description of the primates. But the General description of all primates very well describes common characteristics behavior, as this done in section insects. [15]--Путеец (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk (Fox on Orangutan behaviour)

@NeilN: --Путеец (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Please help finish this section. --Путеец (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to be commenting on specific content per WP:INVOLVED. I'm just trying to move discussion forward so that blocks or other restrictions aren't needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I invite interested editors to add materials. --Путеец (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• About Orangutans: As I claimed more than 10 times today, quoting of Fox in this way is an absolute nonsence. She does not mean that only two orangutants in the whole world were engaged in homosexual behavior ever. User Ravenswing and I commented about this (I did it 10 times today). This option is very wrongful, and the better option was suggestd by Ravenswing and accepted by me (althought, even this option is debatable). When you make editions in the article, try to read what you wrote, and look at content from a reader's point of view. As of other sentence (Previous studies of orangutans reported homosexual behavior only among captives housed in artificial conditions or, in the wild, among recent rehabilitants) - again, the quote was put out of context. Fox just claims that before her observation nobody has seen Orangutans who grew up in freedom engaged in homosexual behaviour. Thats the ONLY thing she means. Lets not to put this proposed nonsence in the article. I suggest other editors to make amendments and changes in the proposed section, curently it's just in a terrible condition. M.Karelin (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
• As of Primates proposed section, I partially agree and partially disagree, however my commnets will be done during 1-2 days, I am toooo tired today. Lets other editors also be involved in the process. M.Karelin (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Fox unequivocally says that only two times in all time there was homosexual behavior. In the text, if you still read it, both interactions are described in detail. She claims that before that ALL of the observations were in unnatural conditions. Everything, including those described by Bagemihl, in his earlier work. You do not understand, not the two monkeys participated in the observed interaction, but four. Two pairs. 1) Dio+Lito 2)Eibert+Herman --Путеец (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Fox unequivocally says that only two times in all time there was homosexual behavior. Facepalm !! How can someone claim that ???? This is how you read the sources ?? Please, have a rest. Till tomorrow. M.Karelin (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I do not understand how you can say anything about scientific work without reading it. Try to do it. And you will be convinced of my correctness. Two episodes of homosexual behavior. They lasted different times. One pair was fixed for two days, the second one day.--Путеец (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
        • If after all this clarifications you still say the same statements, that can mean only two things: or you are trolling us here or you have huge language barrier. M.Karelin (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Answer the simple question: did you read this study? Yes or no. I propose to read, and then it becomes clear who is engaged in trolling. --Путеец (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
            • I noticed that there was a dispute here after visiting the ANI page for another matter. As I have a background in anthropology and psychology, and, more specifically, have something of a background in evolutionary anthropology, this falls under things I have studied; humans, and related primates. Frankly, if this "Fox" has stated that homosexual behavior has occurred exactly twice in orangutans, she is, and I say this as sincerely as possible, an idiot. Homosexual behavior is incredibly well documented in primates, and has been documented in orangutans. The main issue with documenting certain primates in the wild is that they've been driven to near extinction. The logic that "It has only been seen in the wild twice, therefore it has only happened twice" is, frankly, absurd. Icarosaurvus (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
              • I have not found other studies describing the behavior of oragnutans in the wild. As Fox says, all the other studies were in captivity . Can you show other descriptions of homosexual behavior of oracutans in a wild environment? --Путеец (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                • Icarosaurvus "was observed" Help us find other works describing the same-sex behavior of the Oragnutans in the wild, please. According to Fox: "Previous studies of orangutans reported homosexual behavior only among captives housed in artificial conditions or, in the wild, among recent rehabilitants. As it should be in Wikipedia, I follow the source. --Путеец (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • Путеец, why you don't understand that Fox did not mean that, you misunderstood her words. How many times we can repeat you the same ?? M.Karelin (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                  • Путеец, once again please read this comment. And pay attention to what other editors tell you. M.Karelin (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                    • You do not understand this. I understood her words correctly. Finish this. Read her work at last! Find another description, and we'll add it. --Путеец (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                      • Do not go around in circles. I explained why this formulation does not match the source. Read it at last! --Путеец (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                        • I firmly believe the issue is a misunderstanding of the text. Fox did not state that only two pairs of wild orangutans had homosexual sex; simply that this was all she saw. This does not mean that she is claiming that these are the only times it has ever happened; she is simply stating that these are the only times she observed it happening. This is an incredibly important distinction, and is a key component of the text. Given that it has been observed both in the wild and in captivity, it is arguably a feature of the species, rather than a behavior only captive orangutans engage in. Also, as an aside: It is generally best practice to avoid primary sources, and to avoid sources behind paywalls. Dr. Fox's research fails on both counts. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                          • Icarosaurvus Well ... and you just believe. Faith is not a scientific method. Read the work or this section. I have already made several quotations. Fox is a famous specialist. She is very authoritative in orangutans! Путеец (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
                            • I was attempting to be polite. Allow me to state it more plainly. As a scientist, in a related field to that of Fox, I can state she was unequivocally not claiming that there were only two instances, ever, of homosexuality among orangutans. To do so would be bad scholarship on her part, and would make her the laughingstock of the entire field. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Colleagues, the text must be written by sources, and not according to the editors mind. Sources:

«Homosexual behavior was observed two times: once at Suaq Balimbing and once at Ketambe. Both interactions were between males.» «Previous studies of orangutans reported homosexual behavior only among captives housed in artificial conditions or, in the wild, among recent rehabilitants.» «Of approximately 9,000 hr of focal observation at Suaq Balimbing, homosexual interactions were observed on only two occasions. By comparison, 211 heterosexual interactions were observed during the same study.» «These observations add orangutans to the list of primates in which homosexual behavior forms part of the natu-ral repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior». «Due to its solitary ranging patterns and low frequency of social interaction, the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) is predicted to exhibit homosexual behavior at lower rates than any Great Ape.»

Shamash (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! "These observations add orangutans to the list of primates in which homosexual behavior forms part of the natural repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior". So this is the first observation in the wild. Icarosaurvus please read. Why do we lose so much time, to prove to those who do not read the sources? Путеец (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have never stated that it was not the first observation, simply that the author, Fox, would not claim that these were only instances of homosexuality to ever occur in orangutans. The above quotes do not counter my point in any way. What she is claiming, and what you are stating she is claiming differ; there, she was stating that these were the first observations. We have only observed a small number of neutron stars; this does not mean that these are the only neutron stars that ever have or ever will exist, simply that these are the ones we have seen. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus So you agree with the opinion of the distinguished scientist? This was the first observation in the wild. There are no new ones, I did not find. When we find it, we'll add it. If we write otherwise, we will violate Wikipedia rules. You agree with me? --Путеец (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC).

No, I do not agree with you. One of the aspects of science is that it can be generalized. Two pairs of orangutans were observed engaged in homosexual behavior in the wild. Many have been observed engaged in homosexual behavior in captivity. From the source itself, «These observations add orangutans to the list of primates in which homosexual behavior forms part of the natu-ral repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior». This shows that Fox believes her research is, indeed, generalizable, and that these were, indeed, not the only two instances during which this occurred. Elsewise, she would have made a less general, and more specific claim. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

She writes unequivocally. Read the study. It describes both interactions, the names of orangutans.1) Dio+Lito 2)Eibert+Herman --Путеец (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus We have here two people who have read, and two have not read. Articles are written by sources. There is a statement, it means that it is transmitted with attribution to the author's opinion. No more, no less. Find a new source - rewrite it. --Путеец (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• The article is written by sources. Own conclusions without support of the source conclusions - WP: OR. --Shamash (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We have here two people who have read, and two have not read. No its not the truth. We have three editors who read the source and undrestood it right (two of those editors are native English speakers) and we have two editors, whos native language is Russian, and who misunderstood the source. Period !! M.Karelin (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

To quote another user here, who I believe is an admin, No, in fact, it doesn't. It's a common misconception that NOR prohibits drawing a conclusion from a source. That's not in fact true. NOR prohibits drawing a conclusion or inference from a work that isn't stated by the source. (That being said, your #1 above is apt.) Ravenswing . I am drawing a conclusion based upon my knowledge of the field, of the English language, and the author's text. Thus, it is not original research, as per the policy. While things may be different on the Russian wiki, this is how they work here. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes Icarosaurvus, I know it, and I agree with your viewpoint. M.Karelin (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The above was actually directed at Путеец; I placed it after yours due to an edit conflict. Apologies for any confusion. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus In general, I propose to add this quote to the article as it is. And when new data appears we will supplement them. Or suggest another formulation that does not violate WP: OR. Your Миша Карелин opinion does not matter, and the argumentation is not valid, without reading the sources. Do not interfere with speaking out to those who read. Thank you for understanding. --Путеец (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Icarosaurvus. No, the WP:OR rule is the same for all WP sections: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. --Shamash (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you even read what Icarosaurvus wrote ?? He is not making original researches, he just claims that because of your language barrier you misunderstood the source. Is it so hard to understand ?? Nobody makes original researches here. M.Karelin (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Миша Карелин, do not disturb, please, talk. --Shamash (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I did not understand what you wrote here. Its because of language barrier I guess. M.Karelin (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        • You do not understand the subject of the discussion, you do not know the sources. And you understood me perfectly, do not interfere in someone else's conversation.--Shamash (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Your last statement is a violation of WP:CIV. I suggest you to stop talking that way. P. S. Besides, I suggest you to learn English to understand the sources better. M.Karelin (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Please do not interfere with the conversation when you do not have sources. Especially do not interfere in someone else's conversation. Thank you. --Shamash (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
              • Please dont tell me what to do here. Thank you. M.Karelin (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus No, this applies to Миша Карелин . Forgive me if my text seemed so. I have a very respectful attitude to the interlocutors. But the translation is sometimes not accurate. --Путеец (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• What does it mean this applies to Миша Карелин ?? Who told you that you can be disrespectful to me ?? M.Karelin (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Icarosaurvus I want to say that without having a source and not reading it, it's difficult to substantiate one's argument with arguments. For it is not based on the knowledge of the source. Suggest another formulation that does not violate WP: OR Based on the source or the quotations given here --Путеец (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I have read sections of your source, and I do not take issue with the source itself; we are drawing different conclusions from the same material. I do not take issue with the quotations listed here, though I disagree with how you are interpreting them. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Make your offer. It seems necessary to finish with this. --Путеец (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I will see what I can do, though it may take me a bit. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Thank you! I hope for your help. Did you get the source? Please look at it. I think that we spend a lot of energy. We must work with the source. --Путеец (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Icarosaurvus, This was suggested a few days ago. M.Karelin (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Миша Карелин This distorts the source WP:V WP:OR --Путеец (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This understands the source right !! M.Karelin (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest something along the lines of:

While homosexual behavior has been noted in captive orangutans, it has only been observed twice in the wild: once on Suaq Balimbing and once in Ketambe.

This gives the reader the relevant information, and lets them draw their own conclusions. Fox does state that it had previously been noted in captive or recently released orangutans; but stated that she only saw the behavior twice during her wild observations. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

IcarosaurvusThanks for the help. Without you, I could not prove anything to a colleague who does not read the source. I will correct my project now, since I want to specify the details of the interaction.--Путеец (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What you proved now ?? If you dont noticed the difference between suggestion of Icarosaurvus and your suggestion, that means you have a REALLY huge language barrier !! Thats why we got Talk page. M.Karelin (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And next time, do NOT add thing which were not discussed on Talk page. I made some corrections here - if you disagree, we ll back to Talk page again. M.Karelin (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Next time try to not make such tricky moves. I delete all unnecessary things you added. If you disagree, let's back to the Talk page again. M.Karelin (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not you find that your edits can be vandal? The only thing that you disputed is the fact that the interaction of orangutans in the wild was observed twice. Have proven it four people. I repeat, the reference to the language barrier is a violation WP:CIV. I understand scientific sources well, and I read them, unlike you. The only thing with which it is bad, is with retelling. Think about your behavior, please. This can become too noticeable and lead to blocks. --Путеец (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Listen carefully! You have been told 10 times to not make edit without consensus !! Why you added those unnecessary things ? Who allowed you ? Why you added quote AGAIN ?? Not turn the Encyclopedia into a garbage. This is not a place where you can add anything you found in Internet. STOP DOING IT !! M.Karelin (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Besides, if some editors are agreed to add very specific thing, that does not mean you can added anything else. This kind of tricky actions are not welcomed. M.Karelin (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

As for the blunder, the question arose only from the number of observations, I add as it is. If there are additions and corrections - do it in the article. Three people confirmed the accuracy of my quotes, including me. I'm tired of proving the obvious. --Путеец (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I made CORRECTIONS !! Now tell me, why you added things that were NOT discussed on the Talk page ?? Why you added a quote, dispite the warning of other edtitors that quotes are not welcomed here (see the same in the topic bellow). Why you never hear what other people keep telling you ?? M.Karelin (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'm tired of proving the obvious. - o really ?? I am tired to ask you to read and understand what other editors tell you. If even after this long discussion you still think that you were right, you d better stop editing, or learn English ! Dont you see the difference between your option and the option of Icarosaurvus ?? If no, you d better not to edit English Encyclopedia. M.Karelin (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop and have some tea. Read what is written here by other editors, and what you wrote. If you carefully read, you will see that I vzal disputed part of the quote, from this proposal. The rest of the quote was not disputed. Have you read the article, and can you make constructive suggestions? I think you'll understand. My best regards. --Путеец (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Read what I wrote above a few minutes ago. M.Karelin (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
      • You must have noticed that you're wrong about all the arguments you've had with me. At first you proved that 1500 species are the correct number, then you proved that orangutans were not observed twice in the wild. You were wrong on both occasions. You don't make any conclusions about your knowledge and mine? --Путеец (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Human10.0 Hello! Did you get acquainted with the source and this dialogue? There are direct quotes that you deleted, three people confirmed relevance. [16] [17] [18] [19]. Please consider these proposals. In my opinion, after your edits the information about the orangutans less corresponds to the source. --Путеец (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
          • In this talk page section, I have described in thorough detail how this user's editing totally misrepresented the source. Even on this talk page, he and the user Shamash are misrepresenting the source and cherry-picking quotes to push their personal anti-homosexuality POV in the Wiki article (even though the actual conclusions of the study they're citing, Fox (2001), contradict them). I see that users M.Karelin and Icarosaurvus had also tried to explain above how Путеец is misinterpreting the source but it's clear Путеец is too biased to admit his fault. I am not pinging anyone because I do not wish to engage in bickering in this thread. I just wrote this so people have a factual idea of what's going on after Путеец falsely claimed I strayed from the source. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
            • The proposed text was not a complete final version. I invited all to add and expand the material. Removing information about the observed number of interactions distorts the article, as does removing information about the agonistic variant of interaction. I propose a return this information. --Путеец (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
              • This user cherry-picked quotations from the source, Fox (2001), to try and make it seem like homosexual behavior is not naturally present in orangutans and made an orangutan section out of it. The source's conclusions were the opposite of what this user's version of the orangutan section was conveying. Why add clearly misleading sentences, sentences that other editors had told him were misinterpretations, to a section in the first place, even if the section apparently was "not a complete final version"? Kindly see the 'Misleading orangutan section' that I made below to see how the section was a misrepresentation of the cited source. This user accuses me of "removing information about the agonistic variant of interaction" (since I was the one who corrected his misrepresentations of the source in the Wiki article, this accusation is obviously directed at me). He has accused me of this before in the Misleading orangutan section too. Here is the edit I made. Where is any "agonistic variant" info that I supposedly removed? I've explained to him in the 'Misleading orangutan section' that any such info was not part of the article when I edited it, yet here he is, still making this false accusation. He's also saying "I invited all to add and expand the material." Check the Wiki article's edit history. He added misleading and POV-pushing sentences, falsely claiming there was consensus on them, and other users had to repeatedly remove those misleading sentences from the article. —Human10.0 (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0 I'm sorry. Apparently, I mixed up, the agonistic interaction was removed by another editor [20]. Please consider the possibility of returning it with the correct wording. --Путеец (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for editing in the apology. For the record, the study does not say there was an "agonistic interaction". It says, more accurately, that there was "homosexual behavior accompanied by agonistic behavior" in a case and that "this single observation of homosexual behavior accompanied by agonistic behavior did not mediate dominance". What I'm trying to say is that the study does not paint the relevant homosexual interaction as an agonistic one the way the term "agonistic interaction" implies. The study also says that homosexual behavior was accompanied by affiliative behavior, which brings me to the subject of correct wording: I notice that in the Wiki article, you wrote that homosexual behavior was "associated with affiliated and agonistic behavior" even though the correct term used in the study is "affiliative behavior." In this section, you said that you just add quotes from the source (i.e., "the finished text") into the Wiki article but that's not what happened here. Your wording changed the meaning. One is left to wonder what "affiliated" behavior means, and in context with the rest of the cherry-picked statements, that line gives the misleading impression that 'any homosexual behavior in orangutans (if present at all) was a non-sexual, dominance-establishing behavior.' —Human10.0 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

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. [21] [22] 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 [23], Roselli, referring to 8-10% of "homosexual" sheep, refers to two studies: (1) Price et al. (1988)[24] - 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) [25] - 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." [26]

• 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". [27] 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." [28]

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 [29]). 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. [30] 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. [31] 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. [32]"

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 [33]--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" [34] --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 [35]. 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. [36]. 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. [37].) 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. [38] 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)

Same-sex behaviour in animals and the rights of gay people

Original cite Nathan W.Bailey et al.: "For many people, the issue of same-sex sexual behavior in animals is more than just academic. Bagemihl’s [16] compendium documenting same-sex behavior in nearly 450 species has been frequently cited in media articles and websites dealing with gay rights issues in humans. First, greater communication between researchers working on human sexual behavior and researchers engaged in non-human animal work would enhance the research programs of both. These two fields can most effectively communicate with each other if efforts are made to avoid politicizing research results and drawing parallels between human sexual identity and animal behavior when they are clearly not merited". [39]

I propose to add this cite to "Nature or nurture" - Same-sex behavior in animal frequently cited in media articles and websites dealing with gay rights issues in humans.

Can anyone clarify or supplement this proposal?

--Путеец (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Can you please normally explain what you are trying to do ? Why you give us those quotes and what are you trying to prove with that ? Please try to explain your suggestions more normally. And then it will be possible to discuss the topic. M.Karelin (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Explain that in this text you do not understand. There is a certain phenomen. He is described in scientific work. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give knowledge of this phenomen. Homosexual behavior in animals was used in court as an argument. As an argument, it is used to protect the rights of gays. What's not clear? I did not correctly retell? Give your varinant. --Путеец (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The purpose of Wikipedia is to give knowledge of this phenomen - Ohh really, I did't know that. Now I have learned what IS the purpose of Wikipedia. As of the topic: are you trying to put a "thousand" of quotes in the article again(?), why despite of those warnings - [40] , [41], you continue to do that ? Are you trying to change a name of existing section, or create a new one ? Are you tring to prove us the US Supreme Court case is a "political case" ? What does it mean "use in politics" - are you trying to tell us that the science makes falsification to push some agenda ? What exactly those quotes (which you mentioned above) trying to tell us (in your opinion) ? When you make a suggestion, please try to express your thoughts more clearly - we are not here to read your mind. M.Karelin (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I do not express my thoughts, can you correct the quote? --Путеец (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Uhhh, I just asked you a few questions above, to find out what are you going to put in the article, and why ? Besides, I reminded you about warnings of other editors as of excessively quoted pieces are not welcome here. Instead of explaing me about your suggestion more detaily , you aksed me to "correct the quote" ? And what does it even mean "correct the quote" ?? M.Karelin (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Where do you see excessive quoting? I suggested not adding the entire quote, but a brief retelling. Please do not make noise in the dialogues. Speak as a matter of fact. If you have no suggestions for improving the retelling, let's add it as it is. Thank you for understanding. --Путеец (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
            • AGAIN - I can not understand WHAT exactly you are you going to do, and where ?? Is it so hard to understand ?? Clarify your suggestion !! Answer my questions (above). How can I be agree or disagree if I dont even understand what EXACTLY do you suggest ?? Try to not act like this. If you make a suggestion, make it in a clear and understandable way !! Stop wasting my time. M.Karelin (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry you can't understand. Ask other editors or administrators to help you with this. --Путеец (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
                • If you answered to my questions (see above), I'd probably would understand what you trying to tell us. M.Karelin (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(Other editor comment as requested). I am sorry to say this Путеец but it is not clear what it is exactly you want to have added to the article. Please try and come up with a couple of sentances that you think need to be added, not give us a long quote and expect someone else to guess what it is that you think. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

IdreamofJeanie I propose to add this cite to "Nature or nurture": "Same-sex behavior in animal frequently cited in media articles and websites dealing with gay rights issues in humans". Based on the above quotation from scientific work. Thank you. --Путеец (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean adding a section on the social implications of homosexuality in animals? It is a rather new concept after all, lots of controversy and discussion over what this means for gay people, I think it’s a good idea 24.18.38.178 (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the big reason against homosexuality was because it was “unnatural” but it looks like it’s completely natural   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Misleading orangutan section

The orangutan section (as seen here) was misleading and contradicted by the source cited so I edited it to reflect what was actually stated in the source. I will mention what the section previously stated (in italics) versus what problem with that statement is:

While homosexual behavior has been noted in captive orangutans, it has only been observed twice in the wild: once on Suaq Balimbing and once in Ketambe.

This statement is written in a non-neutral manner and is WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead of saying something like "Homosexual behavior has been noted in captive orangutans. It has been observed twice in the wild", the use of "only" draws an unwarranted comparison between the former and latter sentences and gives the impression that homosexual behavior in orangutans is a result of their captivity (a conclusion contradicted by the source).

And even if the statement were written in the neutral way I proposed, the claim that "it has only been observed twice in the wild: once on Suaq Balimbing and once in Ketambe" would still have been factually incorrect. The use of "twice" is not accurate because it gives the impression that only two homosexual encounters have ever been observed in the history of wild orangutan research. Actually the cited source, Fox (2001), mentioned that homosexual behavior had been previously observed in the wild in rehabilitated orangutans by earlier research. Fox (2001) herself reported seeing wild orangutans engaging in a number of homosexual sex acts at different homosexual encounters at different times of the day at Suaq Balimbing, and engaging in one homosexual encounter at Ketambe. Fox (2001) does say that "Homosexual behavior was observed two times: once at Suaq Balimbing and once at Ketambe" in her study but she also states that for her own observations, she defined homosexual behavior "as same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation." So in the 'two times' sentence, she's talking about the two times 'same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation' occurred during the observation period. In her study, she mentions in detail other homosexual sex acts that also occurred and she discusses them as parts of the homosexual encounters. So basically, Fox (2001) states that homosexual behavior was recorded in wild orangutans by earlier research in addition to the study itself.

Anal introduction was not confirmed.

This sentence suggests that anal intercourse was not confirmed at both Suaq Balimbing or Ketambe. Actually Fox (2001) has been selectively quoted. Anal intercourse could not be confirmed at Ketambe only (though the wild male orangutans there did engage in anilingus and anal fingering, among other sexual behaviors). The relevant statement is: "Herman reapproached Eibert and briefly made oral contact with Eibert’s anogenital region. Eibert moved to enter an old nest, and Herman followed, penis erect. Eibert reclined in the nest with spread legs. Herman, penis still erect, entered the nest and positioned himself in upright posture between Eibert’s legs. Slight thrusting movements occurred, although anal intromission could not be confirmed. Neither male vocalized. It is unclear which male terminated the encounter. No aggression was observed, and the males simultaneously left the nest and resumed feeding on cambium at the previous feeding site."

And Fox (2001) definitely reports anal intercourse at Suaq Balimbing between the orangutans Dio and Lito: "I observed ventro-ventral contact of the anogenital region (Dio sitting, Lito reclining on back) with Dio thrusting."

According to Fox:"Previous studies of orangutans reported homosexual behavior only among captives housed in artificial conditions or, in the wild, among recent rehabilitants. Due to its solitary ranging patterns and low frequency of social interaction, the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) is predicted to exhibit homosexual behavior at lower rates than any Great Ape

This sentence is part of the introductory paragraph of the study. The study went on to establish that homosexual behavior also occurs in wild orangutans that have never experienced captivity and that homosexual behavior is not an artifact of captivity (even in captive orangutans). But this conclusion of the study wasn't mentioned in the Wiki article. Mentioning the According to Fox ... any Great Ape sentence in the Wiki article, without mentioning the actual findings of the study (even though they're in the Abstract of the study), furthered the impression that homosexual behavior in orangutans is an artifact of captivity, which is misleading.

The fact that the actual conclusions of the article establishing that homosexual behavior is part of the normal behavior of wild orangutans were not mentioned, coupled with the cherry-picked sentences, non-neutral language and all I stated above, give me the impression that the section was written in bad faith. There should be consequences. Frankly, I don't think those who misrepresented the source should be allowed to edit this article. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0 In my opinion, the current proposal is still not in line with the article. But I think that by joint efforts we will come to a more qualitative exposition. Indeed, in the wild, homosexual behavior was observed twice. This is claimed by the source. If you have a description of other observations, then you must add them. I added the formulation by relying on the authority of a scientist working in this field, and speaking in English. It's easier for me to just quote the finished text. In addition, the section is not finished yet, as the edits are actively canceled. I also have additional material describing the behavior in captivity. I suggest that you propose an addition that indicates the presence of only two observations in the wild, and an indication that homosexual behavior in orangutans is less common than in the other monkeys. The article does not have enough editors who read the sources. You have also deleted an important description of partnership and agonistic behavior. I think this is also not a neutral point of view. I'm in no hurry with the definition of the ability to edit articles in this regard. So as am counting on cooperation and a joint addition articles. I apologize in advance if my text is confusing or not polite, this Google translator. With respect, --Путеец (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"former and latter sentences and gives the impression that homosexual behavior in orangutans is a result of their captivity (a conclusion contradicted by the source)." Maybe it's a play on words, and elusive sense to me. I didn't get that impression, given this statement: "In a subset of these species, homosexual behavior occurs rarely in the wild but is frequently observed in captive conspecifics. In others, the expression of homosexual behavior is limited to primates living in artificial conditions and having extensive contact with human caregivers." --Путеец (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец: Indeed, in the wild, homosexual behavior was observed twice.

Misleading statement. 'Same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation' was observed two times in that specific study. I've explained above that the author defined 'homosexual behavior' in a very restrictive way (i.e., as 'same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation'). Based on that definition, she stated that 'homosexual behavior' was observed two times. This wiki article does not define the term 'homosexual behavior' in that restrictive way. Besides, Fox (2001) observed various homosexual encounters, involving various sexual acts between males (the 'same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation' occurred two times during those encounters). The number of encounters and types of homosexual acts performed are more than two, and Fox (2001) recognizes that things like "ventro-ventral contact of the anogenital region" followed by thrusting or the ventro-ventral 'hugging' with erect penises for 9 minutes were homosexual acts as she describes them as part of homosexual encounters.

If you have a description of other observations, then you must add them.

Fox (2001) describes a homosexual sexual encounter at midmorning, then another encounter 30 minutes later, then one at midday, etc. The study also mentions that homosexual behavior had been recorded in earlier research among rehabilitated orangutans in the wild. This is all in the source. Did you not read it?

I suggest that you propose an addition that indicates the presence of only two observations in the wild

Such an addition would be untruthful and misleading as I explained earlier so that's not going to happen.

and an indication that homosexual behavior in orangutans is less common than in the other monkeys.

Fox (2001) opined that homosexual encounters might be less common in orangutans than other apes (not monkeys; the orangutan is an ape). She did not verify this prediction in her research. So I am not going to add that opinion as if it is confirmed fact, unless there is any research that states that homosexual behavior is indeed less common in orangutans than other apes. And let me emphasize that the reason she thought this, as mentioned in the study, is that orangutans are solitary animals that do not meet each other as frequently as other apes (who are much more social).

You have also deleted an important description of partnership and agonistic behavior.

I did not delete it; the line was never part of the Wiki article. And the line meant that one wild orangutan pair used reciprocal kiss-squeaks during homosexual interactions while another shared food. Not mentioning this detail did not affect neutrality. And refrain from making additions such as this and this to your reply after you've posted it. Just write in a new line with a new timestamp.

Maybe it's a play on words, and elusive sense to me. I didn't get that impression

You didn't get the impression when the Abstract literally states: "These observations demonstrate that homosexual behavior is not an artifact of captivity or contact with humans" and "These observations add orangutans to the list of primates in which homosexual behavior forms part of the natural repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior"? I have a hard time believing that. The statement you quoted, as anyone with access to the source knows, is again cherry-picked. The lines preceding that statement are: "Homosexual behavior forms part of the sexual or sociosexual repertoire of a large array of primate species [Vasey, 1995; Kirkpatrick, 2000]. For species in which homosexual behavior is observed in the wild, its frequency of expression ranges from rare to common." The statement is not specific to orangutans, and as the study went on to establish, homosexual behavior was present not only in orangutans in captivity but also in the wild. You are again misrepresenting and selectively quoting the source to imply a conclusion that the source does not support, the way you did in the misleading orangutan section. —Human10.0 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus Please tell us your opinion. In my opinion, the current version is misleading and needs to be supplemented. --Путеец (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not actually disagree with Human10.0. My suggestions were largely an attempt to find a compromise between our positions; I interpreted the source similarly. While their edits are more WP:Bold than anything I would do, I do not disagree with their interpretation of Fox's research. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus: Thank you for your input. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Миша Карелин: Have you had a chance to read this conversation? I would like to hear your thoughts. Also, I believe that Путеец has displayed several of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Should an ANI report be filed? —Human10.0 (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0, feel free to revert him. I've already noted that his additions are not fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It's easier for me to offer material. In order for native English speakers to add it to the article. Let's improve the article together. --Путеец (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, I doubt that you are here to improve the article. User Human10.0 is right - you have displayed several of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. M.Karelin (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User Human10.0, I have read your comments, and I agree with you. M.Karelin (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Миша Карелин: Thank you for your feedback. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Polecat "exclusive homosexuality" reference

Can someone explain the following edits with respect to the claim of exclusive homosexuality in polecats;

1. [42] addition by 90.12.20.155 on 15:57, 3 February 2008 (section Polecat);

European polecats Mustela putorius were found to engage homosexuality in non sibling animals. Deliberate exclusive homosexuality with mounting and anal penetration in this solitary species apparently serves no adaptive function.

2. [43] edit by 99.18.173.49 on 00:10, 21 October 2010;

"Exclusive homosexuality with mounting and anal penetration in this solitary species serves no apparent adaptive function."

A review on animal homosexuality (written 4 years later) contradicts the claim of exclusive homosexuality in polecats. Was "exclusive homosexuality" here a mistranslation of the French? Or perhaps it was a non-technical commentary on the animal's sexual behaviour? Exclusive homosexuality has a very precise scientific meaning (exclusive means exclusive, even in the presence of available heterosexual mates).

Unless evidence (citations/quotes) can be found to support the claim of exclusive homosexuality in polecats, I suggest we revert this text to;

"Deliberate homosexuality with mounting and anal penetration in this solitary species serves no apparent adaptive function."