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.

The scientific value of mentioning 1500 species of animals and homosexual behavior

To the best of my knowledge the “1500” number was coined by Petter Bøckman, work as a ”jack of all trades” at the museums school service, who got inspired by the book of a gay linguist Bagemihl, published by a publishing company devoted to romance and fantasy novels, and edited by “Stonewall inn” — the famous gay bar. No scientific publication I have come across cites this number. Bagemihl mentions in his book “more than 450 species”, of which about 100 are insects and worms, whose same sex behavior happens due to errors in identification of a partner because of disability or traces of female pheromones of on male’s cuticle. Birds in same-sex relationship also do not engage in sexual activity, for example, geese—according to Lorenz— mate only with females. Lorenz also describes how primates simulate coital movements as display of dominance. It has no sexual meaning or sexual motivation whatsoever. In fact, none of the species in nature actually engage in penetrative homosexual activity. We are talking about same sex behavior that in nearly all cases has no sexual context . As wrote Frank Beach: “I don't know any authenticated instance of males or females in the animal world preferring a homosexual partner. There is mounting of males by males, but without intromission of the penis or climax. There's also mounting of females by female (and makes by females) I'm not even sure we should call mounting sexual.” In addition, cannibalism, “pedophilia”, “coprophagy”, “necrophilia” are usual in the animal world, and occur in a much larger number of species, and are much more common. I regard the mention of 1500 species with homosexual behavior as manipulative and misleading, that only reflects the bias of the author. Therefore I suggest to remove this unsubstantiated and misinforming number and use the number of species whose same-sex behaviour has been documented, that is about 450. Путеец (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is unclear and seems to pit the numbers 450 and 1500 against each other, but the sources attached to the sentence citing 1500 seem to consistently use the word "observed", while the 450 number's references use "documented". Perhaps you haven't come across this figure in literature because they're simply instances of observed behavior, and haven't been published (which is what I think the distinction is between observed and. documented). Also, this is just any behavior and not specifically sex. Do we have reason to distrust the University of Oslo's exhibition which utilized the number in 2006? You haven't provided any sources which might discredit this claim, so I don't think the sentence should be removed just yet. I don't know who Joan Rugganger or Lorenz or Frank Beach are. Rhinopias (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that this edit gives less credibility to the number. Rhinopias (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The authors of numbers 450 and 1500 are not neutral. Путеец (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Something went wrong with the editing. Путеец (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: You deleted the statements of biologists, but left a quote from a linguist who does not have a special education. Please return this text [1]. Путеец (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any of the quotes from the lead. I removed your contributions with that edit of mine for two reasons. One, your text In all other animal species, with the exception of humans, individuals who participate in same-sex sexual interactions are also involved in heterosexuals is a mischaracterization of the reference you used, Bailey et al.. On pages 68–69: "Exclusive same-sex sexual orientation across the life course is, however, extremely rare among animals …" (emphasis mine). This is not what you wrote.

Two, the lead section of this article is already a mess. The purpose of the section is to be "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", not to be a place for many detailed quotes or information not present in the body of the article. Subsections could be added to #Research. I only removed the content that you added and did not purposefully evaluate other content in the section. Rhinopias (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Bailey et al. says: "Approximately 6% to 10% of rams in these domestic breeds choose to court and mount other rams, but never ewes, when given a choice (Roselli, Larkin, Resko, Stellflug, & Stormshak, 2004). During some mounts between rams, penile-anal intromission and ejaculation occurs (Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). In all other animal species, with the exception of humans, individu-als that engage in same-sex genital interactions engage in heterosexual ones as well." Путеец (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, so you added a copyright violation not a misinterpretation.

I don't think the sentence is very clear; some content in #Research contradicts the statement that Bailey et al. make of all "individuals" besides individuals of the few species specified. Regardless of that being a very large statement for the authors to make without directly attributing any other published work, all of this doesn't belong in the lead. A quick summary (such as "Rarely do non-human animals engage solely in homosexual behavior") is all that is warranted. The research on this particular aspect of homosexual behavior in non-human animals can be expanded in the body of the article. Rhinopias (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals. Here [2] is the news of the exposition in the scientific source (Nature). About 500 species are mentioned. The number 1500 was used for political and propaganda purposes, as they say in the very news of BBC, where the number 1500 was first published. [3] "An American commentator said it was an example of "propaganda invading the scientific world". Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive"." All references that contain this number (1500) are not scientific and should be deleted. Путеец (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: Help with this situation until it grew into a world war of revisions. Путеец (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Dont worry. Such called " world war of revisions" will be will be stopped by blocks. Especially after admins whould see your Modus operandi. For example, you just accused very famous Western medias in "political propaganda" - [4]. We are lucky you did not use the term of Russian law - "propaganda of homosexualism". M.Karelin (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• All self-respecting media, when making a mistake, make an announcement. I think after reading this page they will make a refutation. See scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals [5] Путеец (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Help! Путеец (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, WP:Pings only work with a new signature. Remember to sign your posts. As for this dispute, I don't have the time to help out with this. But I will state now that mental disorders do not apply to non-human animals. Not truly. Despite the term pedophilia sometimes being misused to apply to non-human animals, it is a human disorder. There are cases of non-human adults being sexual with non-human juveniles, but that does not make it pedophilia. We have no idea what is going on in the minds of non-human animals. Furthermore, even in the case of humans, child sexual abuse is not the same thing as pedophilia. When it comes to cannibalism, coprophagy and necrophilia, those are all acts that apply to humans and non-human animals. And something like necrophilia can be considered a disorder when applied to humans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

For some information on mental disorders regarding non-human animals, see Mental disorder#Other animals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually asked for help with the deletion of false information about 1500 species of animals, and with the opponent who is waging a war of revisions. Путеец (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that you asked me to help. I linked to it, and signed your post for you. You also stated above, "In addition, cannibalism, 'pedophilia', 'coprophagy', 'necrophilia' are usual in the animal world, and occur in a much larger number of species, and are much more common." I noted that I don't have the time to get involved with all of this. But since I saw the topic of disorders mixed in, I decided to comment on that. Disorders have been studied in relation to non-human animals, but they usually are not applied to non-human animals and some researchers have crafted different models for them due to problems with associating human disorders with non-human animals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"homosexuality has been observed in over 1,500 species" - disinformation without scientific confirmation! Why is she in the article? ! Путеец (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the sources - it is not a disinformation. And the info was given with the name reference, is not it enough ?? M.Karelin (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals. [6] This is the erroneous opinion of a jack of all trades helping to make an exhibition. Путеец (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Petter Bøckman I propose to change the line to quote:

From: "Bagemihl, in 1999, described more than 450 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, documented exhibiting same-sex sexual behaviors. According to zoologist Petter Bøckman, homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1,500 species."

To:According to Bagemihl: "Same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide. While this may seem like a lot of animals, it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species that are known to exist."

--Путеец (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Еveryone agrees that I made this correction and direct quote of Bagemih? --Путеец (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

For a week, no one gave a reasoned refusal to add a quote. --Путеец (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Help me with editing

I have collected extensive material on the topic, I will gradually add. But English is not native to me. I can not qualitatively retell the text of the quote. I ask you to correct my spelling, and if possible, instead of quoting, I should retell the quoted one. Путеец (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Modus operandi of the User:Путеец

User:Путеец, DO NOT DELETE the information from the article (escpecially from the intro) just because you dont like it. If the info in this artcle existe for month and years, you can NOT delete it without disscussion, especially if there is an objection against such removing an info. M.Karelin (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• You have made a lot of vandal removals over the last day. Including deletion of information from intro. Are these double standards? [7] Путеец (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You deleted very important info from the article (which existed here for month and years) without even discussions. The standrat of sources in en wiki and ru wiki are quite different. You can NOT call BBC a propaganda source here. M.Karelin (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Was the statement of Bailey in the article two days ago ?? M.Karelin (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I am sorry for deleting the statement of Simon LeVay, I did not notice it was in the article before. I am SORRY for that. M.Karelin (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • You also deleted very important information from the article (which existed here for months and years) without any discussion (Simon LeVay). Only I explained the reason for the deletion on talk page and you are not. Are these double standards? Путеец (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I said I AM SORRY above. I am human being you know. M.Karelin (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you think the BBC is not a source of information, but a blog source? [8] She writes and produces science comedy videos! Путеец (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Besides the BBC, there are many other sources about that event. Did'nt you notice that ?? M.Karelin (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you added other sources, such as comedy video authors. Scientific sources such as Nature, published 500. [9] Путеец (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thats why it is written - Other sources describe. If this was the only numbers in the Intro, I d remove it, but now its just show, that there are other sources too, and there is NO contradiction - one researcher can found 500 species, the other one - 1500. There is NO contradiction. M.Karelin (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

"there is a political motive"

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

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

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

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

No scientific source says 1,500 species of homosexual animals. [[12]] This is the erroneous opinion of a jack of all trades helping to make an exhibition. All that scientists observe, they publish in peer-reviewed publications. This erroneous private opinion of one person who himself did not observe 1500 species of animals, and could not read this information anywhere. He invented it. [13] No one has observed 1,500 species of animals with homosexual behavior. Путеец (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Any exaggeration without justification, capable of influencing social life or politics is political. Especially this exhibition was supported by the government. Remember the Colin Powell test tube. [14] [15] Путеец (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• You are not commenting on the topic that I raised. I regard the mention of 1500 species with homosexual behavior as manipulative and misleading, that only reflects the bias of the author. Ravenswing please see this discussion [16] Путеец (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The political motivation" - what it meant, and some notes of the 1500 species

Hallo people!

As I am the originator of the "political motivation" I'd like to give some context. The quote is from an English translation of an interview I gave to "Apollon", an university paper for the University of Oslo mostly reporting on research news, original article on-line here. The comment was aimed at the (at the time) well known initiative Archive, Library and Museum Development (abr. ABMU in Norwegian), a governmental committee to give grants to revitalize the usually somewhat dusty world of archives, libaries and museums. This initiative ran for a handful of years, and having largely achieved it's objectives is now disbanded.

The idea behind the initiative was to better engage these institutions in the popular debate by encourage them to comment on or exhibit on their knowledge on controversial subjects. This lead to various institutions publishing books or making exhibits on subjects like the history of Romani people in Norway, the lives of collaborators during the 2nd World War, asylums and orphanages and so on. The contribution of the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo where I work was the Against Nature? exhibition, on homosexuality among animals. At the time, it ended up being the by far most visible and most cited of all the ABMU initiatives. The political comment was an acknowledgement to the grant we received from ABMU helping financing the exhibition (the grant covered about 1/3 of the cost if I remember correctly).

My comment on the "political motive" is a reference to the ABMU. We made the exhibit as our contribution to exhibit knowledge on controversial topics. It was not a reaction to persecution by anyone at the museum, nor an attempt at pontificating about politics. We very conspicuously avoided any comments on politics, focusing instead on what animals engage in homosexual behaviour and in the cases where function known why. While the original exhibition stuck strictly to what we know animals are up to, a more politicized version was later shown in Stockholm, Sweden as "Rainbow Animals". You'll have to ask the Swedes about that one, I was not involved.

I'm sorry if this wasn't quite the conspiracy you were after.

The 1500 species bandied about is the tally on animals species where "non-reproductive" sex is known, compiled by Bruce Bagemihl from his book Biologival exuberance, which was the most thorough survey of homosexual behaviour in animals at the time. Most of this tally is based on reports of single or just a handful of observation, and is not well understood. About 500 of them are however larger or well known species (mostly mammals and birds) where we have a fairly decent idea of the frequency and/or social function of same-sex mating. Most of these species are covered in this article. The numbers are just reporting on the state of knowledge at the time, nothing more. I quite enjoyed bandying these numbers about at the time in interviews, as they are nice, memorable numbers and have good "shock value" showing we're not dealing with just a handful of queer cats and dogs.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity at the wording. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman Bagemihl mentions in his book “more than 450 species”. Do you have the rest of the list? ~1000 species? Путеец (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's been a few years, but I'll have a look at it tomorrow at work. Basically it's a whole species appendix at the back of Bagemihls book. If I remember correctly, it includes a few cases of animals with obvious hormonal disturbances like "perruque deer" who sometimes try to mate with males, single observations (there's a blue-ring octopus and a woodpecker that has only been observed mating in the wild once, both observations was of mating between two males) and a few where mating associated behaviour (displaying, necking and similar) were observed, but not the actual mating. This is the reason I stick rather strictly to the term "exhibiting homosexual behaviour", rather than claiming an animal is gay. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That is why we wrote "homosexual behaviour", but not they are gay, LOL. M.Karelin (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The name of article is Homosexual behavior in animals, I wish User Путеец understood this simple thing. M.Karelin (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman Appreciate the time you took for this extensive explanation! One more question, please. Bagemihl mentions in his book “more than 450 species” that engage in same-sex activity (which is not necessarily sexual, e.g. female seagulls rearing chicks together). That means that that the rest (about 1050 species) refer to heterosexual non reproductive activity, am I right? 100 are insects and worms, whose same sex behavior happens due to errors in identification of a partner because of disability or traces of female pheromones of on male’s cuticle. In the animal index in my eBook are listed about 626 species, including subspecies and transvestism. Would you be so kind to specify the exact number of species that have been spotted in homosexual behavior, excluding transvestism, hatching partnerships, etc. Thanks in advance. Путеец (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User Путеец, please read very carefully what Bøckman wrote, and do not try, as always, to change and distort the meaning of the words of another person. M.Karelin (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User Путеец, since English is not your native language, I ask you, before drawing conclusions from what the other editors write here, carefully read and re-read what is written one more time, and only then draw conclusions. And again - do not take the words out of context. M.Karelin (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ad hominem? Stop please. Petter Bøckman says: "The 1500 species bandied about is the tally on animals species where "non-reproductive" sex is known, compiled by Bruce Bagemihl from his book Biologival exuberance". My eBook are listed 626 species, include Nonreproductive, Alternative Heterosexualities and Parthenogenesis Путеец (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"The 1500 species bandied about is the tally on animals species where "non-reproductive" sex is known, compiled by Bruce Bagemihl from his book Biologival exuberance, which was the most thorough survey of homosexual behaviour in animals at the time." One again - READ more carefully. A "Non-reproductive" sex is a very large definition, and it includes such sex between a male and a female. Please don't tell me that the figures provided by Bøckman included sex between males and females. M.Karelin (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the observations of the 1000 species in question is of mating between same-sex partners, however it's mostly single or very limited observations, and the number do include a few dubious observations where the actual act is has not been observed or, the sex of the two involved is not 100% established and so on. This is the reason for the wording "has been observed" for that number, and the smaller number being restricted to more well observed and well understood cases. While the first category might seem unsatisfactory, it needs to be remembered that we do not know all a species terribly well. Most species are actually only known by a few anatomical traits, some are even only described from fragments, we don't really know their distribution, diet or habitat, let alone their sexual habits. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's very helpful of you Petter Bøckman to give us this extra background, thank you. On the question of "political motivation", it seems reasonable to me to interpret it in this context in a non-sinister way, as referring to the awareness-raising or educational aspect of the work. There is no reason why that can't be a proper goal of a funding institution, just as university professorships and other posts in Public Understanding of Science have become fairly widespread. This sort of initiative is political in that it has social or attitudinal change as its aim. It is therefore distinct from a more strictly "scientific motivation", where (for example) a conference will be organised with the aim of furthering research in a particular area for its own sake and not for purposes related to informing the public as such. Neither activity is necessarily better or worse than the other, they are simply different motivations. FrankP (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you FrankP, I too consider the Archive-Library-Museum Development initiative as being benign. They did not ask for any specific topics. We could have proposed anything we felt was likely to raise eye-brows, from man-eating animals to the benefits of ecological excluding humans from parts of the Globe (see Involuntary park). Also, the only thing we received was some extra funding for the specific exhibition. The initiative coincided with a debate on adoption, where the wording "unnatural" was bandied around, and we felt this was were our knowledge could have some relevance. Some years later we managed to get another small grant for the role of evolution in modern society and it's social impact with regard to immigrants from countries with little scientific literacy. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Petter Bøckman I appreciate the time you took to write this extensive explanation. My Bruce Bagemihl's ebook lists 626 species, among them are Nonreproductive, Alternative Heterosexualities and Parthenogenesis. Most observations are single or very limited, and some observations are quite dubious, where the actual act has not been identified or the sex of the involved was not 100% established and so on. Could you please clarify where the 1500 figure, and most recent 1000 came from? Perhaps you have another edition of the book or there are other sources? This number is very important and it in itself became political. It got into a lot of books and online publications, and I hope that the truth will be published here. I understand that same-sex behavior was observed in 626 species and documented in about 500 species. Путеец (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Look at the words of the User Путеец: "This number is very important and it in itself became political. It got into a lot of books and online publications, and I hope that the truth will be published here. " He still says the same things and use the same words, he did not undertand anything yet. M.Karelin (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I sympathise with your frustration Миша Карелин but I wonder if we should not stress too much whether the number of species in which homosexual behaviour has so far been observed / documented is around 500 or 1000 or 1500. It is presumably a hard to define and ever-changing (increasing) number. And we don't even know within an order of magnitude (or more) how many species there are on Earth, but it's many millions. Perhaps we should be less worried about attempting precision here. Just a thought FrankP (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Compare: 1) "homosexual behavior is widespread in nature and there are 1500 species of animals." 2) "Homosexual behavior is almost never found in nature, and is observed in about 500 species, out of 1200000 species, mainly in insects due to identification errors and in birds that do not have sex in couples." Where is the truth, and where is propaganda? Think and change the article so that I will not be accused of war. Путеец (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FrankP Do you see what's going on ?? He accused us in propaganda (see above), claiming us that we used the word "widespread" in Intro (no such thing), then he makes an original reserches (see his option N2). The only thing he does here, is POV-pushing. M.Karelin (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not talk about the intro. Путеец (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Misha, yes I believe I do see what is going on, I suppose what I am saying is that we all have choices about how we respond to what is going on. I did regret bringing in the number of species globally, but here's another suggestion for an interpretation: (3) out of X million (X unknown) species, for the few thousand which have been observed at all closely, in the minority of cases where observers have actively and honestly looked at whether homosexual behaviour occurs, then in at least 1000 species, and possibly more (difficult to tell, but does the exact number matter here?) it has been observed, and in many cases (half?) documented in detail, as a behaviour-type whose frequency varies greatly between species from rare to fairly common. Who thinks that is an accurate summary? 20:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a bit confusing. Current option is the best, maximum what we can change is make a small correction in 1500 figure (in the last sentence of Intro) after Bockman whould give us the exact number. M.Karelin (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Understood, I should have clarified -- I'm not suggesting this as wording for the article :) , but as a talking point within this discussion about the proper interpretation of the facts. FrankP — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankP (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I am very soory, but that would look very confusing for the readers. А lot of unnecessary figures in it. M.Karelin

Yes I agree. I said, "I am not suggesting this as wording for the article". FrankP (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't have time to recheck my sources at work today (had to do work related stuff), but I'll make sure to look it up for you Путеец. I'm fairly certain I checked and rechecked again the numbers, knowing fully I would get in hot water for being sloppy. This was the first museum exhibition we did with actual references in the label texts, due to the somewhat unusual claims we made. Asking for the specifics is absolutely fine, and I'll do my best to provide you with the proper reference. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman In Wikipedia, you corrected the number of 450 species for 1500 species only on August 13, 2007 [17], apparently after the end of the exhibition. Maybe this will help remember the methodology of calculating 1500 species. We are waiting for clarification, thanks! --Путеец (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanky you for trying to clear this up, Путеец. The number 1500 is actually found it the exhibition text (I looked it up yesterday), and the interview with the Norwegian language Apollon was done before the exhibition opened, so it's not something that was changed after the exhibition closed. I've tried to read up on our old sources to see if I can track down where I found those numbers, but I've had to back-to-back meetings all day and haven't made much time to read up. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Petter Bøckman! Could you participate in our work? There were a few questions, and there are not enough biologists. My edits, unfortunately, are immediately canceled. I apologize if you misunderstand me because of the translation, I see that if I translate some of my messages, they may seem strange. Today I translated my text from Russian, it's even worse. If you find that an error has occurred in the exhibition documents, apply this change, which I proposed here, or return it [18]. I want to say that what is written about me here, probably because of the translator, and because of the difficulties of translation. My opponent did not exactly translate my words. Please forgive him.--Путеец (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well this is not truth. When Путеец used the russian word "подтасовка" in ruwiki, that had only one meaning - "fraud", or "manupulation" (of facts). Besides, even here in en wiki when I ask him about his understanding of the words of Petter Bøckman regarding "politically motivated" statement, the User Путеец wrote: Any exaggeration without justification, capable of influencing social life or politics is political. Especially this exhibition was supported by the government. Remember the Colin Powell test tube. Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive" . So who wrote those words ?? Huh ?? User Путеец, you know we all can make mistakes, but instead to say sorry to Bockman, you still accusing me in misunderstanding. This is not nice. You could just say sorry to Bockman !! M.Karelin (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Give him time. If he, unlike us, does not have an e-book but a paper one, then it will be more difficult to search, and it will take time. In any case, and I'm sure of it, he will correct the error when he reads it. The book of Badjmil had two editions. What - I do not know. Миша Карелин, could you help Bekman? Please write here how many animals in your book. Look at your copy. I'm tired of writing this number. I just want Wikipedia to write the truth. Thank you. --Путеец (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The exhibition was held 12 years ago. Do not forget about it. Bockman hardly thought that someone would question his words that is why he does not keep the papers on his desk for you. But it means nothing - the exhibition was held at the University, it was organized by scientists, and it was widely covered by famous medias. M.Karelin (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The source of the figure is the book of Bagemihl. Find it please and find it here, how many species there are.Write here who has the book. Count please. --Путеец (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Take it easy, Gents. It's weekend, all the relevant stuff is in my office. I'll get back to try to retrace my steps on Monday. All this was a decade ago, surely it doesn't have to happen tonight? Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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." [19]

Sample

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Путеец (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

[25] [26] [27] --Путеец (talk) 06:13, 8 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)

More recent sources?

Hoping to move things on, Bagemihl is not the only source for an overview of this topic. It might be useful to consult Volker Sommer and Paul Vasey (eds), Homosexual Behaviour in Animals - an evolutionary perspective (CUP 2006). I have found a book review of this from the journal Animal Behaviour (can share a PDF if anyone interested), but I'm not currently in a position to lay my hands on a copy of the book. Does anyone else have access? FrankP (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, silly me, I see it is already referenced in the article. Perhaps there is more that can be got from this more recent source, anyway

As far as I'm aware, Bagemihl is the only comprehensive survey there that has been done across the whole field of zoology. Other works (Roughgarden, Sommer & Vasey, MacFarlane & al. etc) all centre on particular aspects of the field. Bagemihls book is starting to show some age, but it's still the only one of its kind (and I expect we won't see a similar volume any time soon). Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for info. FrankP (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bagemihl says: "Same-sex courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and/or parenting behaviors have been documented in the scientific literature in at least 167 species of mammals, 132 birds, 32 reptiles and amphibians 15 fishes, and 125 insects and other invertebrates, for a total of 471 species. (see part 2 and appendix for a complete list). These figures do not include domesticated animals (at least another 19 species; see the appendix), nor species in which only sexually immature animals/juveniles engage in homosexual activities" Путеец (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Full list on Bagemihl count 626 species in appendix include Nonreproductive, Alternative Heterosexualities and Parthenogenesis Путеец (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman if You did not use other sources, then these figures are the most accurate Путеец (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Friends, I call for peace. Believe it or not, the most accurate figure of animals that Bagemihl somehow considered homosexual is 490 471+19. Write a reference to him and to this figure. It will be exact, scientifically. Путеец (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• 1) Bagemihl did not considered animals "homosexual". This article is not about sexual orientation, this is about Homosexual behavior in animals. 2) Why you think, that the most accurate figure is 490 471+19 ?? M.Karelin (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not think, I just counted. Путеец (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I dont know how did you counted, but counting by your own violates this policy. M.Karelin (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
      • 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 01:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User Путеец about Bøckman and SCOTUS in Russian wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To prove the modus operandi of the User Путеец, just look what he wrote in ru wiki [28], [29], [30]. In two first sentences he accused Bøckman in fraud and propaganda, and in the third one he tried to prove me that the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) is a political instrument. That is the Modus operandi of the User. M.Karelin (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. [31] [32] Путеец (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

evidence

In a 2004 survey [33], Roselli, referring to 8-10% of "homosexual" sheep, refers to two studies: (1) Price et al. (1988)[34] - 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) [35] - 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." [36]

• 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". [37] 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." [38]

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 [39]). 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. [40] 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. [41] 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. [42]"

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 [43]--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" [44] --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)

Wrong place

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

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

Basis

Social Basis

Isolation from females and exclusive contact with males

Accoording to Rodolfo Ungerfeld et al. : "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".[46] 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.[47][48].

Hierarchy

According to Bagemihl (1999): "An unusual form of reproductive suppression also occurs among male Orangs. Although they become sexually mature at seven to ten years old, males generally fail to develop the full range of secondary sexual characteristics (such as the large cheek pads or “flanges,” a throat pouch, and a general weight increase) for another seven years, and sometimes this is delayed for as long as two decades. It is thought that this development is suppressed by the presence of a mature male, perhaps through social intimidation or stress, although the exact mechanism is not known. Nonbreeding males have been found to have higher estrogen levels than breeding males, so perhaps a physiological effect is also involved."

Talk

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

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

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

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

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

According to Baghemil

I wonder, did this edit was discussed with other editors before it was made ?? M.Karelin (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Please tell me who of the editors agreed to delete the source of Bockman ?? M.Karelin (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I proposed this change on February 28. Yesterday asked if there are opponents of this change. Today you performed the editing in the article. I thought that you are not against these changes. I ask the Administrators to evaluate the actions of Миша Карелин. --Путеец (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Show me that proposition. Where did you write about it ?? Where it was discussed (??), I would like to join to that discussion. M.Karelin (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, colleague, I will help you. [49] --Путеец (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I wonder who agreed to delete an info about 1500 species and Oslo exhibition ?? Did you suggest to delete an information about 1500 species and Oslo exhibition (??) (which is based on several sources). What does it mean "No one has objected to this change". ?? M.Karelin (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
          • 1500 species were observed only in the materials of the organizers of the exhibition. In nature, no one has observed as many species. --Путеец (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
            • What does it even mean ? I wonder is that what Bockman or sources said ? M.Karelin (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
              • He did not say anything, perhaps because of your false report accusing him of fraud [50], which was blocked. But he pointed out the source of this figure. I will forever leave Wikipedia, and free you from opposition if you find in it 1500 species of animals in book Bagemihl. Start counting, please. --Путеец (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
                • He said many things about that number, just read more carefully what he wrote. And please do not mislead colleagues again. M.Karelin (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman explain the reasons for which you indicated the number 1500. This became a policy. They try to block me, because I carefully read the sources. Help me. In Wikipedia, you corrected the number of 450 species for 1500 species only on August 13, 2007 [51] apparently after the end of the exhibition. Maybe this will help remember the methodology of calculating 1500 species. We are waiting for clarification, thanks! --Путеец (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Gents; I'm trying to reread the various sources we used for the exhibition to track down exactly where that number came from. It's a bit to go through, though (Bagemihl alone is more than 700 rather dense pages, and Roughgarden is not far behind), and I do have other things to do at work, so I will have to ask you to exercise some patience. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your attention to this is appreciated Petter Bøckman, but I agree we should be patient, and you shouldn't be made to feel up against a deadline. It's an important number, but I'm sure the article as a whole does not "live or die", so to speak, based on whether we can back up 500, 1000 or 1500 at this moment. Let's go with what we have good sources for at this time. FrankP (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia quite a bit myself, and know how frustrating it is to wait for slow editors. I would like to get to the bottom of this as much as anyone else, so I have no choice but to retrace my steps (in the middle of a busy work schedule). Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mouse

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

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

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

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

Source for 1500 species not found

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

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

According to Bagemihl: "Same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide. While this may seem like a lot of animals, it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species that are known to exist." According to J. Michael Bailey et al. (2016): "Although same-sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl, 1999), they are routinely manifested in only a few (Sommer & Vasey, 2006). In this sense humans are rare, but we are not unique." [52].According to Bagemihl: "Same-sex courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and/or parenting behaviors have been documented in the scientific literature in at least 167 species of mammals, 132 birds, 32 reptiles and amphibians 15 fishes, and 125 insects and other invertebrates, for a total of 471 species".--Путеец (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Petter Bøckman By this change [53] you have added the text "A review by Bruce Bagemihl (see references) shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species". But even in a complete list of all animal species (626 in Appendix), including parthenogenesis, hermaphroditism, children's games and behavioral features of animals that do not include sexual, homosexual behavior, a few are observed. Basically, these are social interactions, mistakes in identification of a partner in insects, partnerships for incubating eggs in populations with an uneven sex ratio. Many observations were made in abnormal conditions of detention. Scharf et al. says: "Males are more frequently involved in same-sex sexual (SSS) behavior in the laboratory than in the field, and isolation, high density, and exposure to female pheromones increase its prevalence. SSS behavior is often shorter than the equivalent heterosexual behavior. Most cases can be explained via mistaken identification by the active (courting/mounting) male. Passive males often resist courting/mating attempts". Scharf et al. continues: "SSS behavior has been reported in most insect orders, and Bagemihl (1999) provides a list of ~100 species of insects demonstrating such behavior. Yet, this list lacks detailed descriptions, and a more comprehensive summary of its prevalence in invertebrates, as well as ethology, causes, implications, and evolution of this behavior, remains lacking" [54]. You see, he does not even call these identification errors - homosexual behavior. Let's give the floor to biologists, ethologists, not linguists. --Путеец (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

In insects, it is almost always an identification error. Konrad Lorenz (On Aggression) say: "In a series of experiments with blond ring doves Craig removed the female from the male in a succession of gradually increasing periods. After one such period of deprivation he experimented to see which objects were now sufficient to elicit the courtship dance of the male. A few days after the disappearance of the female of his own species, the male was ready to court a white dove which he had previously ignored. A few days later he was bowing and cooing to a stuffed pigeon, later still to a rolled-up cloth, and finally after weeks of solitary confinement, he directed the courtship towards the empty corner of his box-cage where the convergence of the straight sides offered at least an optical fixation point. Physiologically speaking, these observations mean that after a longer passivity of aninstinctive behaviour pattern, in this case courtship, the threshold value of its eliciting stimuli sinks. This is a widely spread and regular occurrence; Goethe expresses analogous laws in the words of Mephisto, ‘Du siehst mit diesem Trank im Leibe bald Helena in jedem Weibe,’ and – if you are a ring dove – you do so even in an old duster or in the empty corner of your cage." The behavior of animals is often misinterpreted. Often homosexual behavior is attributed to the performance of standard instinctual rituals. People do not have that. Fixed posture is a sexual stimulus in some domestic animals. Do you remember how studies were conducted on sheep? I wrote above - they immobilized. Sample: [55] --Путеец (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman See how this number (1500) became "scientific": DW say: "Studies suggest that around 1,500 animal species practice same-sex coupling, from fish to birds and mammals." [56]. while the real scientists (Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M) say different: "Although same-sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl, 1999), they are routinely manifested in only a few (Sommer & Vasey, 2006). In this sense humans are rare, but we are not unique." --Путеец (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some reminder

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

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

Let's be constructive here

The users M.Karelin and Путеец have alerted us to the fact that ne numbers I cited were wrong. Obviously we need a rewrite. I suggest the following:

In the lede we stick to citing the "over 450" as the number of species where homosexual behaviour is well documented with frequency and often function understood. We mention that several hundred more documented cases exist. We put in the caveat cited by the sources Путеец suggested.

Further down, perhaps in the "In relation to humans"-section, we expand a bit on the terms "homosexual behaviour" vs the term "homosexuality", which is what Путеец have suggested (with good sources). A seciton on homosexual behaviour in insects (ref found in the article Путеец linked to) chould go in the "Basis" chapter, perhaps under "Neurobiological basis".

Is this a suitable solution? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this decision. The section of the "Basis", I propose to supplement, but the additions are not ready yet, I will inform you when I will do them. --Путеец (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The most accurate, consistent, taking into account new species, both homosexual and heterosexual animals, the total number of which may be more than a few million, this is what I suggested from the very beginning. These are two quotations. Supplement them if required. I think they describe the current knowledge and the content of the article sufficiently well. And relevant in the preamble. Details can be described below. --Путеец (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we find 10,000 species, this will not change this formulation.--Путеец (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The formulation can be added in the article, but not in Intro. We can write only most important things in Intro, the main info about the topic. The rest can be put in the article, if there is no objection from other editors. M.Karelin (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If you leave the wording in the form in which it is now in the article, it is misleading, not scientific, the author's quotation is distorted. WP:V The lines I offer are very important, because they help to understand the entire article correctly. --Путеец (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

They do not contain the kind of information that deserves to be in the preamble. The preamble is now very overloaded with superfluous quotes. The preamble needs to be cleaned up, not to be added by a new unnecessary information. If you want to put these quotations in the article, find a place in the article itself, and not in the preamble. M.Karelin (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggested how you can clear the preamble. In addition, with my edits agreed Petter Bøckman --Путеец (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion Petter Bøckman and Путеец. This basic information will be included in the preamble. Petter Bøckman, what do you think? --Shamash (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What opinion of Petter you agree with ?? Please more details about "his opinion". And what does it mean "basic information" ? What exactly you mean ? M.Karelin (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way I agree with Petter Bøckman, I mean his siggestion We mention that several hundred more documented cases exist. Since we mention the number in Intro (which is important info), we can also mention about several hundred more documented cases. I wish to know the opinions of other active editors here: FrankP and Flyer22 Reborn are you agree with Petter ? M.Karelin (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to be off-line for long periods of time. I have a busy schedule I'm afraid. I agree the preamble/lede is too long. The section on various animals is fine, but chapters 1, 2 and 3 need some attention. I think it will be easier to make a coherent lede reflecting the content of the article after we have made sure the first 3 chapters are up to scientific scratch. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion for an added section to "Neurobiological basis":

Homosexual behaviour in insects and arachnids have been difficult to interpret. Most species has a very limited registry of social interactions, making homosexuality as a functional adoptions as seen in social vertebrates less likely. In a review of reports of homosexual behaviour 102 arthropod species, as much as 80% of the observations was suggested as being due to mistaken identity. The authors speculate that the fitness costs to males in same-sex copulation would be less than the cost of ignoring a female, and that the energetic cost of a sensory apparatus with better accuracy outweigh the fitness cost of occasional homosexual behaviour. In some species exhibiting traumatic insemination (e.g. bedbugs), male homosexual behaviour will usually cause the death of the inseminated male, which may make such act a form of male combat against competitors.

</references>

Fine. Add this - The Australian beetle Julodimorpha bakewelli gained fame after it was discovered that males of this species exhibit sexual behavior to special beer bottles, called "stabi". In this case, the males ignore the real females, and as a result of similar attempts to mate with the bottle, male beetles even die from heat or attacking ants. [57] [58] --Путеец (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we discuss the Neurobiological basis section in other place please ?? There is a special topic here about "Basis" section development (see above). That would be better to not confuse what we are discussing. And that would be easier for other editors as well. M.Karelin (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: What has Путеец suggested regarding "homosexual behavior" vs. the term homosexuality? Whatever it is, I want to note that homosexuality, as made clear in the Homosexuality article, does not only refer to sexual orientation. But I and others have opposed this article being titled "Homosexuality in animals." This is per what is now seen at Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 4#Requested move (2). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn in the scientific world, there was no common practice in qualifying this behavior. After all, scientists also fall into two categories - homosexual and heterosexual. In addition, one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics, to protect the rights of LGBT people, legalization of same-sex marriage, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior, but for some reason pedophilia, coprophagy, are more common in animals. Unfortunately, this affects the definitions. If I understand correctly, we can not invent concepts ourselves. But we can use the advice of scientists. I added such to the article. This behavior is not homosexual in most cases. But there are cases that are very similar to human homosexuality, for example in bonobos. But, it's still different. Bonobos use sexual intercourse as a social interaction, as an analog of a human kiss, which we do not consider homosexual. Bailey et al. says: "Homosexual: in animals, this has been used to refer to same-sex behavior that is not sexual in character (e.g. ‘homosexual tandem running’ in termites), same-sex courtship or copulatory behavior occurring over a short period of time (e.g. ‘homosexual mounting’ in cockroaches and rams) or long-term pair bonds between same-sex partners that might involve any combination of courting, copulating, parenting and affectional behaviors (e.g. ‘homosexual pair bonds’ in gulls). In humans, the term is used to describe individual sexual behaviors as well as long-term relationships, but in some usages connotes a gay or lesbian social identity. Scientific writing would benefit from reserving this anthropomorphic term for humans and not using it to describe behavior in other animals, because of its deeply rooted context in human society". I have already shown how in politics they used sheep [59], distorting the research, without mentioning the details of the study. Animals, unlike humans act instinctively, and part of the sexual practices they use for social interactions, and the establishment of a hierarchy. At the same time, the contact of the genital organs is very rare, and is occasional. I am preparing a section of the basics in the sandbox. I invite those who wish to work together. As for the title of the article, as I said, there are two opinions. Same-sex behavior, in my opinion, and opinion of the majority of scientists is more correct. According to Bagemihl (1999): "Same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide. While this may seem like a lot of animals, it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species that are known to exist." According to J. Michael Bailey et al. (2016): "Although same-sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in hundreds of animal species, they are routinely manifested in only a few. In this sense humans are rare, but we are not unique." --Путеец (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

______

References