Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 3

descriptions of behavior
some descriptions are too loose and subject to interpretation, and not really describing actual events, such as in the dolphins section it says "ardent sexual play with each other." what is that? this article really needs some help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.243.218.124 (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. It seems that we have all come to a conclusion (as the article name change and above discussions suggest) that animals exhibit homosexual behavior, and cannot be considered homosexual in the human sense and understanding of the word. As such, it is time to reorganise the article. I have begun with the Bonobos by referencing a scientific explanation for why the Bonobo exhibits homosexual behavior i.e. to diffuse tensions. The same should be done where possible for each species.


 * It is illogical for us not to take a scientific stance on this article. Opening with an image of Roy and Silo and the Bruce Bagemihl referencing fest seems to suggest that previous writers thought otherwise. As it is now, it offers little to the reader in the scientific sense, and shies away from what the vast majority of scientists believe is a purely instinctive, and in virtually all cases, a temporary aspect of animal behavior. Let's keep the general tone, bias and explanations in the article to the biologists (not human rights activists); then perhaps a section to Bagemihl, Roy and Silo and the scientifically contested school of thought which they belong to. That sort of bias better reflects the scientific community, and the NPOV nature of Wikipedia. If we have disallowed the religious from affecting the scientific bias of this page, then let's avoid a double standard by allowing a GLBT bias to exist in this one. Jaw101ie (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heres the article in full. . The article does not mention 'homosexual'. So what you have done is OR. See WP:NOR. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify, if you wanna say something like 'animals exhibit homosexual behavior, and cannot be considered homosexual in the human sense and understanding of the word', the article should be talking about that. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is in essence what the section "Applying the term "homosexual" to animals" is saying. It is also referencing Bagemihl, but he do give the subject a rather thorough treatment, so I feel referencing him is warranted. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference for nasal sex
Hi, I'm currently translating this article to Chinese version. There may be more questions coming. First I have read about the Birds do it, bees do it... report in Timesonline.co.uk, it is full of helpful data. But it is being the sole source for the nasal sex behavior of Amazon River Dophin, well you can guess the report mentions no single thing about the River Dophin or the nasal sex. I wonder if the reference is misplaced or there's other source to support the River Dophin section. P.S. Page of reference Gay Penguins Resist is no longer available in 365gay.com, may need a mirror site for the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Times article - A model — the one that invariably draws most giggles from the exhibition’s younger visitors — shows a male Amazonian river dolphin penetrating another’s blowhole. “This is the only example of nasal sex we have in nature,” Brockman observes. I've added the Bagemihl refs as well. -- Banj e  b oi   01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry I'm so careless to miss that line. Thx. I added a line in my translation about the "sin(ning)/crime against nature" from medieval Christianity. But even the Anal sex also lacks the source to support the claim. I understand that Timesonline.uk memtions about this particular info (maybe Bagemihl's document as well), just I am looking for other source over the journal source that writing about animals homosexuality. No single word about homo is involved in Council of Nablus. After googling, there's 1 personal site in Wiki format documents the history of homosexuality in the Middle Ages, . If it is useful in the English version. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. And thanks for the link - William A. Percy would likely fly through as a reliable source so I would feel fine about using most of his published works as cites. How are you weaving it in? -- Banj e  b oi   14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * After "because these findings seem to point to the natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans" I add this in my translation, "also it counters the 'sin against nature (peccatum contra naturam)' established since the Medieval Christianities [source]." If you're interested, I am working the translation in my ZH WP sandbox zh:user:Sameboat/sandbox. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call! And keep up the good work! -- Banj e  b oi   11:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hyena section
Does anyone have any idea why the hyena section is deleted every now and then?Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the research is, at best, divided. Sources used explain the historical misconceptions, which I think are useful to point out, as well as what some of the latest research has found. Banje boi  14:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, citing bout sides get the section deleted? I fail to understand that stand.Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people are bold and delete entire sections they don't agree with. Consensus builds articles partly in this way. They have been reverted each time so consensus has been to keep that content. Banje boi  23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Even your own content clearly states that it is a misconception that they display homosexual behavior. It should not be listed with the rest that do. That is poor writing. 144.92.58.224 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the thing is that they do that too! The females will mount each other. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Only the juveniles will mount each other. That is a common part of play in all animals and not homosexual behavior. I agree that it (as well as some others possibly) should be moved to a separate section. Spidey104 (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has written against my proposal to move it to a separate section since I proposed it almost a month ago. I don't want to change it if people disagree, but without dissent I see no reason not to change it. Spidey104 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Same-sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals"
Here is an article stating that same-sex sexual behavior is nearly universal in the animal kingdom: "Same-sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals, Review Finds" (17 June 2009). Science Daily. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good find! Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dogs and cats?
Great article, very interesting. One thing though. Is there nothing to be said about ordinary dogs and cats? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They are covered under "In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species, from sheep, cattle and horses to hamsters and budgerigars". I should perhaps specify cats and dogs as examples. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, there doesn't seem to be a specific or detailed section on Canis familiaris domesticus or F. catus. I'm just thinking that "what better example than your every day house Cat/Dog". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.63.105 (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cross Species Sex
So I was wondering like so many other people have (3 was it?) why this is in the article I read the brief and to my dismay, heavily lacking in verbosity and resolution, Cross Species Sex in the archives. This paragraph seems to be, irrelevant and there are no indicators inside the article to support its relation to homosexuality. As in all of the pairings described are heterosexual, not much more needed to be said as to why this is a problem. Did we ever come to some secret resolution that I don't know about or did people just lose interest? If anything we could keep the paragraph here or in the archives just for it's preservation, or if their is a truly related article that deserves this paragraph move it there. Aryeonos (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up again. I previously suggested that this section is entirely misplaced here. It should be moved to Homosexual_behavior_in_animals. Some of the content already exist there.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 13:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it could be trimmed down but there is something here. The section starts off with "research regularly records that many animals are sexual opportunists" which would seem to be a core aspect of what this article is about, that is why do animals exhibit homosexual behaviors. This is a possible explanation. Another aspect that is not stated here is that opponents of LGBT rights frequently claim that homosexuality is unnatural using erroneous notions about animal behaviour to support their claims. To this day. Cross-species sex thus is an aspect of that dialog. I'm not sure we have proof that there is or isn't any homosex cross-species behaviours but if there is any research let's see what is written. -- Banj e  b oi   01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about this section being too long or anything. It is simply misplaced here. Us trying to guess and explain why animals exhibit homosexual behavior is original research / synthesis (and besides that, I doubt the cross-species sex section does a good job in explaining that). Letting the section stay just because of the opponents of LGBT rights, violates neutrality. We are not here to make LGBT policy. And finally, opposing the removal of te section because there is no proof that there isn't homosexual cross-species behaviour, turns wikipedia rules upside down. Only the existence of a reliable source, justifies putting in information at the first place. Just to give an example of how absurd this is: Why isn't there a section about necrophilia here? Until we find a reliable source that states there isn't any necrophilia among same-sex animals, we should include a section about it...  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 05:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Benjiboi here. The section has relevance to the article as it helps explain a few things about sexual urges in animals. As such, it should stay. It could be reworded a bit, and perhaps incorporated into a larger section on "Why does animals have sex in the first place", but it is relevant.Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is "cross-species" the correct terminology for researchers? What terminology should we be looking for to find sourcing to address this content? -- Banj e  b oi   18:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Vultures in love?
I think we can do without this line: "...the two male vultures fell in love," from. Isn't this anthropomorphizing just a little too much? Novernae (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree absolutely - "fiery romance" - "fell in love and became a couple"? - the whole section sounded like something written by Jackie Collins. I've toned it down to something that sounds a bit more scientific

Incest and pedophilia
Critics of the gay liberation movement are not really arguing that animals do not practice homosexuality, they are instead saying that homosexuality is sociologically correlated to incest and pedophilia (cf speech given by Mgr Angelo Bagnasco). Therefore, it would be interesting if we could have additional material on incestual behavior in animals as well as pedophile behavior in animals, and try to verify whether it is related to homosexual behavior in animals. ADM (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * EDIT: The personal feelings of a Roman Catholic priest is hardly relevant to this article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heterosexual behaviour is also 'sociologically correlated to incest and pedophilia'. But incidentally,not from its very nature. The same is true of homosexuality.--Gazzster (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Transgender???
I do absolutely agree that there are transgender behaviour among animals. But an article about homosexual behaviour among animals can´t be about gender identity/gender expression (or whatever you should call it among animals, they have "gender expression" but do they have "gender identity"?) And since renaming the article to GLBT-individuals among anomals seems as a stupid thing to do, I have erased the "transgender" refferals. I do hope someone write an article about cross-gender-behaviour among animals though. I suggest a start with hyenas and go on with animals as clownfish (changes sex), paradise birds(males making "home"), seahorses(male "give birth"), lions(females do most of the hunting) or other spieces that seems to fit. Theres lot to write about, and most of it can be found in the same sources as this article have, I suppose.--Godfellow (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you check out Roughgarden and Bagemihl, you will see frequent references to "transgender animals". I agree it sounds curious, and very much on your point on sexual identity, but it is the wording used in the cited sources, and as such belong where it is. Feel free to expand the section of "Applying the term "homosexual" to animals" to cover the problem of applying the term "transgender". Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Morality - rape and murder
Why were my additions to the article removed? Is it not true that animals rape and murder each other? I can get links to specific surveys.207.5.224.226 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it was removed for the rather non-encylopaedic wording rather than content. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's true that animals rape and murder but wikipedia is about what is verifiable not what we know to be true. I removed it because, as I said in the edit summary, it was not referenced. All the rest of the section is referenced and it doesn't improve the article to add an unreferenced bit on the end. However, it's no good just finding references for rape an murder in animals - I'm sure there are lots of them. You would need to find a reference that talks about animal rape and murder in the context of the argument against homosexuality being natural - otherwise it becomes synthesis, which is not acceptable either. In wikipedia we have to use arguments made by other people rather than construct our own, even though it's very tempting to do so. Richerman (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If I can simply find articles on the internet that show that animals rape and murder, isn't there an extremely simple step of logic to realize that these are the same animals that practice homosexuality? In fact, I don't think it is a step of logic at all, it is a given. Am I right? 207.5.224.226 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A number of animals species rape and kill members of their own species. In some of these species we also know examples of homosexual behaviour (e.g. humans), in some we do not. I am not aware of any casual link between rape/murder and homosexuality, neither in humans nor in other animal species. If your assumption is that it is the same animals (whether species or individuals) that rape/murder that also exhibit homosexual behaviour, then the answer is no. The argument that animal behaviour can justify human behaviour is well treated in the link to Appeal to nature. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, read wp:synthesis and the first paragraph says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Richerman (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The terms 'rape' and 'murder' imply a moral context, and not applicable to non-human animals. Unless of course it can be demonstrated that some animals have moral codes. Better terms might be, 'forcing sexual intercourse', and 'killing another of the same species for no apparent reason'. --Gazzster (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

the name
Is there a correct name for 'homosexuality in animals'? To me the word homosexuality is only about people or other mammals which are of the 'homo' species--Xania talk 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're confusing two terms here. The root of the word "homosexuality" comes from homos meaning "same" not "homo" as in Homo Sapiens. See Homosexuality for a fuller explanation. Richerman (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "or other mammals which are of the 'homo' species" The only extant species in the genus Homo is Homo sapiens. Good job showing your ignorance Xania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.58.224 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on a second here. If Xania had stopped her sentence with "...only about people." it would be an important issue that i was also pondering, and that issue is that the use of the word applied to animals seems unduly anthropomorphized.  "Same sex behaviors" might be a better way to refer to it.  Some researchers have heavily criticized the use of the word "Homosexual" as a noun for animals.  However, this discussion may overlap into debating the issue in general and not about editing the article.  I am going to start an NPOV discussion to further this one to avoid any overlap as the question of a better term for the phenomenon is not raised in the article already.  I have two sources now that i can infer would believe a different term is needed, but they do not directly say so.  I'm not sure what can be done with the article about this.  Any thoughts?David4442 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd sentence in lead
The following sentence in the lead seems to be causing some problems:

"The natural existence of homosexuality in non-human animals is considered controversial by conservative religious groups who oppose LGBT social movements because these findings seem to point to the natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans."

Someone added a "weasel words" tag - although I didn't understand the point they were making - and it's recently been removed again. However, I don't understand what the sentence means as it seems to put two unrelated points together. "The natural existence of homosexuality in non-human animals is considered controversial by conservative religious groups" OK that's fine, but that's not because of these findings - they would oppose it anyway. Also, I can't find anything in the reference given that seems to fit the whole sentence anyway, just the first statement.

Should the sentence actually read:

The natural existence of homosexuality in non-human animals is considered controversial by conservative religious groups who oppose LGBT social movements but these findings seem to point to the natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans? Richerman (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think cutting the sentence up with a comma might help:


 * "The observation of homosexuality in non-human animals is considered controversial by conservative religious groups who oppose LGBT social movements, because these findings seem to point to the natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans."


 * The sentence is suffering from trying to serve too many facts at once. We may also simplify the whole thing a bit: "Homosexuality in nature has been seen as an argument for natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans. (source: Bagemihl and Roughgarden) The findings are considered controversial by groups opposing the LGBT social movements. (Source: I'm sure we can find some sites that claim these findings are all bogus)"


 * Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "The frequent observation of homosexual behaviour in non-human animals has been seen as an argument for the acceptance of homosexuality in humans as natural,(source: Bagemihl and Roughgarden) however, this conclusion is considered controversial by groups opposing the LGBT social movements and many experts in the field are reluctant to extrapolate from animals to humans"


 * By the way, did you read this recently in New Scientist? Richerman(talk) 15:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That wording will put it well beyond doubt, but some of the idea behind the original sentence (I think, I didn't write it), is that there are (or at least were when it was written) groups who would argue against the observations themselves too, not just the interpretation. I guess that has changed a bit now that the animal homosexuality has become more generally known, perhaps the sentence as such is becoming dated. If no-one has any reservations, I'd go with your suggestion. Great article BTW, it should be included! Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The word controversial means that something is in dispute. Both sides of a disputed subject ought admit that the dispute exists; it doesn't speak to who is correct. The way it is currently worded seems to unfairly detract from the position that maybe animals aren't as homosexual as they seem. Wouldn't the sentence more fairly read:

"The natural existence of homosexuality in non-human animals is a controversial issue because conservative religious groups who oppose LGBT social movements dispute findings that might seem to point to the natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans."

Also, is there no-one that opposes LGBT social movements besides conservative religious groups? I have read some biologist's opinions that explain many so-called homosexual behaviors in animals. I see a lot in this article that could be tightened up.

I will not edit at the moment, but see if there is any serious objection to this. I plan to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.128.207 (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made the proposed edit in substance though not in the exact wording above to reflect that there is in fact a controversy, rather than only one side of the issue having aa controversy. The previous wording had the effect of dismissing the view of those in opposition to LGBT without any sort of authority for it.  Stating that there IS a controversy rather than "some groups consider controversial" much better reflects NPOV becasue it doesn't take the side of LGBT, i.e., there is no controversy because LGBT is correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David4442 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

References?
I thought statements in Wikipedia were supposed to be referenced to credible scources. For example:

On Black Swans:

"An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[31] More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.[32]

[edit] Gulls "Studies have shown that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild exhibit homosexual behavior.[33]"

Reference 31 is MSN, Reference 32 is to BBC, reference 33 is to the San Francisco Chronicle. People read this article and think they are reading about science and they are really reading magazine articles. This is ridiculous!

I plan on making changes

David4442 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think most of these references ultimately come from Bagemihl. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * wouldn't it be better to cite Bagemihl, then? I'm new to this by the way.
 * wouldn't it be better to cite Bagemihl, then? I'm new to this by the way.David4442 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even better, dig up Bagemihls sources and cite them. Edit: I've fixed the swans. I left in the news articles, as they accessible online, and provide easy reading for those unused to read scientific journalsPetter Bøckman (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You shoud read wp:reliable sources and wp:verifiability. Magazine articles and the like are quite acceptable but are obviously not considered as reliable as scientific publications. News organisations like the BBC are considered particularly reliable, as they have a good system of fact checking and editorial control. We're not writing scientific papers here - it's an encyclopaedia. You will find that in most of the science-based articles like this one, anything that's way off-beam gets challenged and removed fairly quickly because the people who created it, like Petter Bøckman, know their subject. Also, there are lots of people like me who know enough about science and the way wikipedia works, to recognise bullshit when we see it :) Richerman (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read wp:reliable sources. It states that a scientific peer reviewed source is always preferable to ordinary news when it comes to certain subjects such as science.  I have seen time and again where a reporter, not understanding the science, rephrases a statemnent so that it is no longer accurate according to the source.  I'm not saying that is the case here, but any time it is possible to cite the primary source it is not just preferable (in my opinion) but far superior to cite the actual source.  A lot of the time Wikipedia has good stuff.  Sometimes i read it and wind up shaking my head because of the trash that is in it.  For instance, In the Gulls bit i also cited, the only reference to a scientist in the story was one who said the museum displays were politically motivated.  That issue is of all the more concern when the news source is the San Francisco Chronicle reporting on a gay issue.  About as credible as Prada in 1952 reporting that Capitalism was failing.  Overall, the article is improved, even if it was acceptable before.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David4442 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if something is preferable it's obviously superior - I don't see what you're arguing about. Obviously if someone has access to the original scientific publications they are the best ones to use but most people don't have access to them. And yes, sometimes articles in magazines and newspapers are wrong interpretations of the science but that doesn't mean you have to disregard them all. Richerman (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * David4442 is right about choosing scientific sources over news sources, but in this case I think knowing the history behind the article will help him understand why it is as it is. Back when this article was expanded from a short (and not very good) article to what it is now, some of the basis of interest and knowledge was the exhibition Against Nature?, the exhibition mentioned in a lot of these more general news articles. (I was involved at scientific advisor (i.e. slave) to the exhibition, I'm this shady "Bøckman" character mentioned here and there.) There was very little general knowledge of animal homosexuality, I'm fairly certain I was the only Norwegian to have actually read Bagemhil and Roughgarden from cover to cover at the time. When the article started expanding, our exhibition and the many news articles covered it was thus used by many as sources. As time ha passed, the subject has become better known and less sensational, and the sources has slowly been replaced proper scientific ones. Whan I get back to work, I'll see if I can find my gull sources. Having said that, Richerman is quite correct in that good news articles are perfectly acceptable sources, and this being Wikipedia where we are free to use what space we need, we can include bout "light" and "heavy" sources. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for shedding light on the history of the article, (is it Dr.?) Dr. Bockman. I didn't mean to imply anything about you. Perhaps i read the article too quickly, but i was referring to what i thought was the only quote from a scientist in the story. Richerman, i don't think we were having much of an argument per se...i just inquired about something that might have needed tightened up.  I know too many idiots who take anything on the internet as God's own truth (pardon the phrase, please, any militant atheists) and don't do much checking.  Is it objectionable to anyone if i preface any statements based on ordinary news (especially ordinary news that isn't quoting or citing a scientific source) in a manner such as "according to the BBC,..."  I am not complaining (at the moment) that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards.  What i am saying is that the average reader of Wikipedia is likely to read a series of statements that are solid academically and then move into shaky ground without quite realizing it.  I'd like readers to think a bit more in the event that maybe a reporter might have gotten it wrong.  I'd just like to clearly distinguish between the light and heavy sources in the body of the article.  I don't see any having any real conflict with this idea so i will edit.  It won't bother me if someone removes my edit(s) after providing the prefered source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David4442 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and find better sources. There have been some interesting work going on since I read up on the subject. To answer your question, I'm just a Cand. Scient., a sort of glorified master. My only claim to fame her is actually having read Bagemhil and Roughgarden and tracking down and checking some of their sources. I have (or rather had has as of 2006) a fairly good overview of the field, but the only subject where I can claim any personal authority is landscape ecology of amphibians. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in "Research On Homosexual Behavior in Animals"
I am not meaning to accuse anyone by framing my complaint as an NPOV complaint, I'm just a bit green as a wikipedia editor and I am not sure of a better way to present the problem. In the above section it is stated "Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term "homosexual" is preferred over "gay", "lesbian" and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to the human condition.[14]" I would propose the following edit "Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term "homosexual" is preferred by some researchers over "gay", "lesbian" and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to the human condition,[14] while some researchers view the term "homosexual" as very inappropriate in discussing the phenomenon.[15]"

I can source this to 2 sources: 1) Dr. Antonio Pardo: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction." Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos mŽdicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89. this quote can be found online by following this link:http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html and 2)Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH): "The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach." "Exploding the Myth of Constitutional Homosexuality," National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/exploding.html. (same link as above) I believe that this edit would more properly reflect the totality of the views in the scientific community. Some researchers do not "prefer" the term homosexual when applied to animals at all. NARTH of course has the point of view that homosexuality is behavioral and can be addressed which is in counterpoint to the views of other sources used in this article. NARTH appears as credible or more credible than some of the other sources in this article to me. We have sourced news articles that trumpet "Gay" animals which everyone seems to recognize is a problem. If we are going to accept that then we should accept NARTH as a source for a weblink, which in turn sources to peer reviewed academic work, unless someone knows something about NARTH and these researchers i don't. I realize that their view has been around longer and some recent work it is argued discredits their views. But this view, that Homosexual shouldn't be applied to animals, is a credible view and it does exist. It should be included and i intend to edit the article as i have proposed above.
 * hmmm the funny little box. It's a mistake, sorry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David4442 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't really edit someone else's post on a talk page but I've fixed the box problem - it's caused when you inadvertently leave a space at the beginning of a line. To add a fact tag you add the word "fact" enclosed in double curly brackets which produces . I've not read the whole of this post yet as it's rather complex and at 3.15 am I really need to go to bed. However I have made some changes to the article over the last hour or so - you were right, the section on Penguins was abysmal :) Richerman (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * in this case i don't mind your helping my format a little, I thank you actually. It is late but tomorrow i will comb through the references and try to find all the bad links and such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David4442 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources from NARTH have little bearing on the use of the term in animal studies, as NARTH don't do animal research. Also, article The Animal Homosexuality Myth is a bit lacking in the science department. It is not based on any research by the autor, and what sources Solimeo do offer, are rather variable, and some appear questionable. I'll leave you with this little quote from one of the pages that the artile links to :


 * Part of this article has, unfortunately and without my prior knowledge, been quoted in "The Animal Homosexuality Myth" by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo and in adaptations of that publication on the web and on usenet newsgroups. I, Sarah Hartwell, of www.messybeast.com, wish to make it clear that the quotation was used without my permission, has been used out of context and has been used to support a point of view that I do not support.Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Petter: I just finished reading Sarah Hartwell's article and rereading Solimeo's article. (BTW I do not claim Solimeo's article as a credible source.  Just a handy place online to find the sources I do claim are credible and relevent to the article.  Some questions about Sarah Hartwell's complaint.

1) Permission. first of all i don't see why permission would matter.  Sarah Hartwell doesn't appear to be a credible expert either, so what is it if soemone quotes her?  Evidently she had no right to keep Solimio from using her material, judging from the fact she hasn't gotten it removed.  What on earth would her permission have to do with NARTH's credibility?

2) After re-reading both articles, i do not think Solimio abused her statements at all. He used them exactly as she meant them.  Unless she means that the overall theme of her article wasn't 'homosexual' activity in cats (although the quote in question is relevant to such an issue) and his was focused on homosexuality, and thereby "taken out of context."

3) Does no credible scientist ever take a fact observed in one peer-reviewed academic source and qouote it in support of a different point? What is wrong with this?  Who cares if Sarah Hartwell didn't want her observation to be used in an argument that cats make mistakes due to their instincts and therefore may be confused who to mate with?  Who cares?  Sarah cares.  She went on to state that "...and, had permission been sought, would not have granted permission for its use in an article that promotes discrimination on sexual or religious grounds." (which i note you left out) With this statement we see why it matters.  Sarah Hartwell is sympathetic to the LGBT movement.  I saw no way that NARTH itself promotes discrimination.  It is well known that a high percentage of gays have depression problems.  The reasons are debatable.  NARTH offers hope to those homosexuals who might subscribe to the theories NARTH subscribes too. NARTH is there to help homosexuals, not discriminate against them. Sarah Hartwell is a cat-lover who supports LGBT. Who cares what she thinks of NARTH? If i produce someone who doesn't like how a gay website quoted him, are we going to take down the links to gay websites?

At any rate, the link to the website NARTH is only suggested as a handy reference to the quotes of the doctors. These quotes are sourced independently.

NEXT ISSUE:  Dr. Pardo and Dr. Socarides. I concede to your argument concerning Dr. Pardo. Your point is good that he doesn't study animals and therefore his opinion may not be relevant. However, i do not concede Dr. Socarides' opinion because it is relevant for another reason: He is addressing bad science due to anthropomorphizing animals. This is relevant to the issue of 'applying the term "homosexual" to animals.' A psychologist is qualified to address the issue of other scientist's anthropomorhizing animals and producing bad science. It's directly relevant to the issue. Bruce Bagemihl has had his crack at debunking traditional theories with his those-scientists-were-all-afraid-to-tell-the-truth approach. Let's now let a credible authority mention what's wrong with Bagemihl's approach: Anthropomorphization or over-anthropomorphization. Bagemihl himself had a disclaimer about using the word homosexual to refer to animal behaviors, though he seems to have somewhat ignored it the best i can tell. (I haven't read his book, if he didn't call animals 'homosexual' throughout it please correct me. From secondary sources it appears he is very free with the word.)  Should we stick that quote in there as well? Do we need his permission? Is it out of context if he looks like a fool as a result? Will he be upset if it is taken to reflect a view that does not support the LGBT movement? Again who cares?

The other side of the coin should be brought to light. That word homosexual is not merely preferred over gay and lesbian. Some experts feel it is inapropriate because it leads to researchers projecting themselves onto the animals they study and bad science.

The article in general suffers from the same NPOV problem: Despite noting in the artiocle itself that it might not be the best way to discuss the issue, "homosexual" and "homosexuality" appear in the article 117 times collectively--the vast majority of which were used to characterize an animal, a few were used describing the problem of the word itself--  contrasted with 18 times "same-sex" appeared. The use of 'same-sex' instead of 'homosexual' would appear closer to NPOV in my opinion because its not so anthopomorphic. The title of the article even bears consideration for changing.

I still intend the original proposed edit (not replacing every instance of 'homosexual' with 'same-sex.') concerning the use of the word homosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David4442 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Petter: ok i see that Sarah Hartwell's stuff appears to be copyrighted, and that looks bad for Solimio in that regard. At any rate, as i explained above, both Sarah's opinions and Solimio's are irrelevant. forgot the four tildes again last time, ha ha but not this time!David4442 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * David, I agree with a lot of what you say above but "NARTH is there to help homosexuals, not discriminate against them"? - I don't think so! They are clearly trying to push their own agenda that homosexuality is unnatural and should be treated. Just look at the list of "resources" under "Gay Activism in the Schools" on their website. They are all pushing the agenda of "this stuff shouldn't be taught to our kids". In the story "Gender Confused Teenage Boy Wins Right To Wear Girl's Clothing To School" there is even a bit added at the end where the President of NARTH says

"No matter how much this boy wants to be a girl--and dresses in a more 'girly'' style than do biological females--he cannot possibly be one, and for the media to conspire with his fantasy is absurd. All his DNA reflects the fact that he is male, and nothing can change that. It's ironic, though, that the same mainstream media that brackets the term 'ex-gay' in scare quotes is willing to call a boy who wears high heels a 'she."
 * That's hardly a neutral viewpoint.
 * I'd also like to comment on Dr Pardo. Yes, it is a possible reference for the point that some "scientists" don't like the term homosexual but he's talking about something out of his field of expertise and his argument is based on the shaky premise: "homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex." That is an assumption that is not based on any research and it doesn't take account of other research such as this that found "the maternal relatives of homosexuals had higher reproductive success than those of heterosexuals" which suggests that there could be a genetic basis for homosexuality that wouldn't cause a "Darwinian Paradox". Richerman (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just noticing i screwed up, the sentence i was complaining of is in the section 'Applying the term "homosexual" to animals' and not "Research On Homosexual Behavior in Animals." Dr. Socarides' view is relevant.  Whether we choose to put his view in terms of 'oppression' or of 'help,' Wikipedia's policy is to show all credible sourcable views.  A particular point of view from a source is acceptable.  To leave it out for the reason that it is oppresive to homosexuals would be akin to saying only that which is considered favorable to the LGBT movement is acceptable.  It is acceptable to quote Soviet-era Pravda in an article about the soviet union?  Of course it is, and Pravda's point of view is exactly the reason for quoting it, especially if all we would otherwise have is Western sources for the article.  NPOV is the goal of the wikipedia editor, which is faithfully executed by showing both (or additional) POV's of an issue.  I don't quite get your argument anyway: do you mean that in order to be neutral you have to call a person with XX genes a she?


 * In considering the issue of whether Dr.Socarides' opinion is relevant to the issue of whether the use of the term homosexual--a term which concerns humans alone--his opinion that "...For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex," is irrelevant. He could be quoted and ellipses used for that portion for me to make my point.  I'd quote him but undue weight for his view might be the result.  Quotes from all the viewpoints might be in order, since space is no object. David4442 (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. do you mean that in order to be neutral you have to call a person with XY genes a she?David4442 (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry David4442, but to be blunt, the article you link to is not acceptable as scientific sources. It fails at the most basic criteria. If you want to know whether some work will pass the test, ask yourself:


 * Do the writer offer relevant and testable tests, observations or experiments, or does he provide a summary of the current knowledge of the field?
 * Do the writer back up all his key statements with the above?
 * Is the writer a worker in the field or seem aware of the current knowledge of the field?
 * Do he cite relevant works that are credible, honestly cited and themselves offer proper citations, tests or observations?
 * Is the writer free of vested economic, political or religious interests, and if not, does he state so up front and back up his opinions with citations, tests or observations?

If the answer to one or more of these questions is "no", then your are not dealing with a credible scientific source. This is why scientific paper go through peer-review, to check if they comply with these standards, the key here is wp:verifiability. In this case, the source you offer fails in all of them.

Just to take the cat-question: Solimeo uses the Hartwells page to back up the claim that all infanticide in cats is due to "confused instincts", while Hartwell only offer that as one explanation, and indicate that genetic reasons (as in lions) may be another. This does not matter much anyway, as Hartwells page (nice as it may be) is not itself scientific work (does not state sources, does not cite ant testable experiments and observations). As for Dr. Pardo Caballo, the statement from him is 1) dated, 2) not from someone working with animal bahaviour (he's working in animal ethics), 3)is not verifiable (no backing up of key statements, as Richerman pointed out). Dr. Pardo Caballo was (at the time he wrote that) obviously not aware of the current knowledge in the field.

The source you have provided is not useable to "prove" the term "homosexuality" is not the preferred term in the field. It could however be used as source in a sentence like this:

"The group NARTH, that offers conversion therapy for homosexuals, argue that homosexuality does not actually exist in animals, and that the use of the term is misleading or LGB propaganda. (source)" Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NARTH is a fringe organization. In the The Holocaust article, we dont say "according to Neo-Nazis, only 100,000 people died". Include that info in NARTH's own article.  Phoenix of9  09:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying you couldn't you shouldn't use those sources - I was challenging you're point about NARTH being there to help homosexuals and saying that the president's views illustrate their standpoint - even though in that particular case I might personally agree with him. I was also pointing out the flaws in Dr Pardo's reasoning and saying that, these are his personal views which don't have any scientific backing and, if used at all, they shouldn't be given undue weight. Richerman (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't use that link as saying NARTH is the source, NArth is a website where the quote from Dr. Socarides can be found. If that is unacceptable, why are gay rights websites acceptable?  And what makes NARTH "Fringe" except for disagreement with the LGBT movement?  I am quickly coming to the conclusion that ONLY Bagwmihl's view is acceptable to the editors of this page.  This article is actually "LGBT views of homosexuality in animals."  The view that Homoesexcual is an inappropriate word that applies only to humans DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE PREVAILING VIEW AMONGST SCIENTISTS for inclusion. SEE WP:NPOV. I really can't believe that a gay rights website linking to a newspaper article is acceptable on this page but the opinion of a credible acamedician is rejected because you think a website where the quote can be found is "fringe" because it expresses the view that homosexuality in humans is a mostly learned behavior that can be unlearned.  Fringe?  It has been the prevailing view for a long time!  Now show me a scientific experiment that meets your qualifications that BAgemihl did for the basis of the statement that Homeosexual" is preferable to gay or lesbian.  Is it the book?  What kind of study do you do?  Psychologists are qualified to judge the anthropomorphic effect of the use of the word homosexual on researchers.  All he needs to know is the scientific process.David4442 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not the gay websites that are acceptable, it is who they quote. Are those quoted considered trustworthy, and are the sites and media quoting them considered trustworthy in how they quote? The citation from Dr. Antonio Pardo Caballos on the NARTH website is not quotable, since NARTH is 1) a marginal part of the Medicine (not Zoological) community, and 2) NARTH have just proven themselves to be less than honest in their quoting (cat example). If the citation where to be of any value, we would need to know what publication it is from, so that it can be checked that that is actually what the good doctor is saying. Anyway, he is not in the field of animal research, and his opinion has no bearing on how the expression is used in that field. Dr. Antonio Pardo Caballos is a philosopher, here are the only two publications I have found in his name ÉTICA DE LA EXPERIMENTACIÓN ANIMAL and LA DETERMINACIÓN DEL COMIENZO DE LA VIDA HUMANA. My Spanish is limited, but bout has English summaries. The quote from Dr. Antonio Pardo Caballos could be used as source if this article has a section on critique of the use of the term from the philosophical community. For that to be the case, one would need to find that there is such a critique coming from a substantial part of the community. I am not aware of any such movement. As the Norwegian proverb goes: A lone swallow does not a spring make. My guess is that the general philosophical community couldn't care less.


 * As for this article only citing articles that agree with the use of "homosexuality", I only three weeks ago put in a new and relevant source that prefer "same-sex sexuality" in stead (for the reasons you mention) and amended the section accordingly. I have re-worded it to make it more explicit now. Source: New Scientist. Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes NARTH a fringe organisation is nothing to do with disagreeing with the LGBT movement but everything to do with disagreeing with mainstream scientific opinion. To quote from the Homosexuality article:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists states: Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states: The current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists states that it "shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish," and added that "The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field."

Richerman (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the statement that only LGBT is allowed. I hadn't yet read the bit on assuming good faith, and i will endeavor to behave more fairly myself.  Sorry.


 * 1)Ok, Petter. Let's get this straight. I am not arguing for inclusion of Dr. Pardo's statement, I conceded that his was inappropriate the first time you objected, as i agree he does not study animals and his quote concerns animals alone.  It is Dr. Sacirides' view that i am pushing for because his statement concerns the researchers who study animals.  He is (was, he is dead) qualified (Ph.D. psychiatrist) to observe the danger of animal scientists (No, not the dogs studying doorknobs in the Far Side, JK, needed comic relief) projecting themselves onto those they study by using a uniquely human term.  I agree, we should not use Pardo. (BTW  ÉTICA DE LA EXPERIMENTACIÓN ANIMAL, is probably best translated to "Ethics of Animal Experimentation" which if i had a copy, i might argue something in it is worthy of inclusion for the same reason; but he might be talking about things like testing cosmetics etc.)


 * 2)Gay Websites and reliability in general including NARTH and mainstream news sources: I have seen gay activists time and again misquote or stretch the truth. For instance, when Simon LeVay said he noticed some possible brain structure differences between homosexuals and straights, the gay activists trumpeted "Gay Gene found" and cited LeVay.  This was not what he said.  It should be easy to find an instance of Gay365.com over-stating a conclusion.  I am not necessarily arguing that the statement linked to them has to come down (BTW i think there is still a bad link to GAY365.com, i flagged it) i think the statement itself is accurate and can be sourced elsewhere.   Likewise we have News Sources who have stories (For example, Roy and Silo the chinstrap penguins) that declare penguins to be gay.  So far i feel safe in saying that none of the researchers we have cited would have said that.  The news sources do not cite a relevant scientist's opinion of Roy and Silo.  It is unclear who it is that thought Roy and Silo are (were, silo left Ray for a female penguin, the hussy) "gay," it might have been the zookeeper (in general, i am very unsure that a zookeeper is qualified, it doesn't take that much education to get a job like that. You can start out as assistant zookeeper at the Sedgwick County (Ks) zoo if you are 18 yrs old, i believe. I am unsure at the moment what it takes to be head zookeeper, i am trying to find out ATM) but it may have only been the reporter's opinion as no-one is quoted.  The story doesn't tell us where to find out who thought the penguins were gay.  But to lend the story a "scientific feel" animal researchers are quoted about animal behaviors; but the researchers quoted don't offer an opinion that the animals themselves are homosexual.  To me, that is an unreliable source, because it is a manipulative story.  Nevertheless, in general, News agencies are a verifiable source (in general, News Sources are reliable; but sometimes they drop the ball, particularly in areas of social controversy, like the LGBT movement. Let us not forget that News sources are for-profit organizations that do indeed concern themselves with grabbing a headline, and sometimes do stoop to sensationalism.  I think the Roy and Silo story is a good example of sensationalism)and i am not arguing News Sources must come down.  What i am getting at, Petter, is that while we discussed the preferability of scientific sources over general news sources in a scientific article, we still agree that news sources are allowable.  But now it seems you are insisting that a source has to be a peer reviewed scientific paper or quote such paper and source it so it can be verified.  I am in general confused here.


 * 3)Thank you for the clarifying statements in the section Petter. It is better, but still not where i'd like to see it.  My problem is that, as best i can tell, ALL the researchers of animal behavior have some kind of disclaimer about using the word homosexual.  Nevertheless it is their preferred term.  I understand the difference in using the word with these restrictions in mind and using the word as it is used in common parlance.  It's not the same thing; I would propose that we replace "homosexual" with "same-sex behavior" or another term we can agree on in every instance where it is not an animal researcher using the term but instead a reporter using the term.    My reason for desiring to do this is that Wikipedia is for the public in general and not specifically for scientists.  The article will have a more neutral impression on the average reader i feel.  The mainstream considers homosexuality to be a life-long unchangeable condition wherein the opposite sex is completely rejected.  In hardly any of the examples of "homosexual" cited here in the article is it clear that homosexuality is the case, but instead it seems mostly bisexual or possibly no sex involved at all in male bonding or alternative (to humans) parenting.


 * 4)On Narth in general. Sometimes a copyright violation is done accidentally. I mean to contact NArth and see whether they refuse to remove the cat quote.  It may be that a copyright is only claimed and does not actually exist. I have claimed a copyright before for my writings when i didn't have one in order to deter theft of my ideas.  This may be the case.  If there is no actual copyright, the credibility of NArth should not suffer just because the author complains of being quoted.  After closely comparing "mainstream" views and Narth's views, i have to say that there is a great deal of overlap in what Narth says and what the mainstream says.  They are in agreement in general i think.  For inc=stance, Narth does a lot of what we here at wikipedia are doing...clarifying what researchers actually said.  Narth does it to counter media over-generalization, mostly.  The major area of disagreement with mainstream science is the treatability of homosexuality in humans.  In reading Narth papers i find that they are not in general taking issue with the conclusions of mainstream scientists, i.e., critiquing the viability of the science.  They are underscoring what the scientists say themselves in most cases.  Occasionally they offer the opinion that a particular researcher has done bad science, for instance, Simon Levay's assumption that having had Aids=homosexual and being Aids-free=heterosexual for the purposes of his study concluding brain structure differences between the two.  He actually found some slight differences in the brains of Aids victims compared to people dying of other causes.  Yes they critique thing of that nature.  I would agree Narth might be fringe on the issue of treating homosexuality (although it begs the question, why are they successful in many cases of conversion therapy).  They offer conversion therapy to homosexuals who believe this is possible and do not want to be gay.  I do not view this as any kind of oppression, they are not advocating forced conversion therapy for all homosexuals; i would find that oppressive.  Gay activists are over-eager to apply the words discrimination and bigot anytime they hear of opposition to their agenda.  It's not politically correct to oppose LGBT's agenda.  This however is not a scientific issue.  Once a gay, always a gay just isn't true.  The LGBT claim that these aren't real homosexuals that convert to heterosexuality is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy and i don't buy it.  Gay activist: "Being gay is a permanent condition."  Straight: "I know a former homosexual who converted." Gay activist: "No true gay converts to heterosexuality."  In this case the gay activist has changed his definition of "homosexual" to exclude those who desired and were successful at changing their orientation.

Ok i am getting far afield. Let me put it this way: Let's say a moon-landing hoax website denies that man went to the moon but agrees that the moon is approximately 250,000 miles away, and quotes a mainstream respected scientist and a verifiable source for the astronomer's statement. This fringe website could be used because the statement at question, the moon is 250,000 miles away, is mainstream. I am not arguing a non-fringe website wouldn't be better, but the fringe site could be used in preference over nothing. My point: The statement in question isn't fringe. Other positions of Narth may be "fringe." The statement in question is in agreement in general with the mainstream: Homosexual as it is used in humans should not be used for animals. The mainstream then redefines homosexual for the opurposes of animal behavior to include many behaviors that aren't homosexual in humans taken alone--two males raising a child, for instance. Dr. Socarides' statement only differs in degree. All recognize the dangers of anthropomorphizing animals, Dr. Socarides however goes so far as to say it is bad science. The mainstream note this and use the term anyway. In my opinion, i think that gay researchers such as Bagemihl have some political motivation--i.e., if gay rights hadn't been in the forefront of western consciousness, he wouldn't have written his book. He may not have favored the use of homosexual in describing animals (despite his disclaimer) except for hopes that he is transitioning a concept into the public consciousness. This is accomplished by using the word homosexual despite his disclaimer and the media picking up the word homosexual and repeating it without such a disclaimer to the public. But my suspicions of his motivations are inappropriate here at Wikipedia.


 * Overall--it seems that I have consensus with Richerman for the content, but not Narth as a source. Narth was only a way to get to Dr. Socarides' statement, not a source in itself.  Petter i think suggested above the problem could be solved perhaps with quoting Dr. Socarides? (There's a lot of text above, forgive me if i err).  If i am in error, and there is no consensus we can reach in using Dr. Socarides' statement, then i propose that we quote Bagemihl and Mann, whose statements will lead the casual reader to the same conclusion that Dr. Socarides came to. It ought not be done.  Can we simply quote them?  I think it makes Bagemihl look silly, but we aren't here to protect reputations if a researcher has himself said something silly, correct?  We should not distort something they have said in order to make them look silly, but if they themselves look silly as a result of there own ridiculousness, i think it is fair to bring it out.  I think Bagemihl is silly without having read his book, of course; what i can tell about it looks ridiculous in a number of ways.  I know of a man who lives wioth his father; he also has a son. No women are in the household.  Both father and granfather mated with females and then chased the females off after producing a child.  If they weren't human and saying they aren't gay (they aren't, occasionally they have their one-night stands or short-lived relationships--they hate living with women but like sleeping with them) Bagemihl would call them homosexual, from what i can tell.  I think he is ridiculous, but of course wikipedia isn't here for my opinions.  I wish i could find a verifiable source to point this out.  If i do, i will definitely bring out this BAD SCIENCE in anthropomorphizing animals and over-generalizations about their behaviors.  Just plain BAD SCIENCE.  No-where is any animal researcher discussing the fact that Humans know how babies are made and as far as we can tell, animals DON'T.  It seems of key importance, but i haven't read Bagemihl's book.  Does he discuss this issue at all?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David4442 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Golly, here we go again:


 * 1) You can find a copy of Dr, Pardo Caballos article by following the link I provided, and if you feel like it you can run it through Google translation. You won't find his quote there though, it is from a magazine article.
 * 2) All the stories was sensational when they came out. You will however notice that there is a whole section in the Wiki-article detailing how the term homosexuality (and gay/lesbian) is to be understood in the article: As "exhibiting homosexual behaviour". Is it your position that wee need to repeat this for every time any of the less scientific words are mentioned in quotes?
 * 3) The term homosexual is the preferred term in the behaviourist community. We are not in a position to rename it. It would be like demanding that we rewrite the article on the Space Shuttle and replace every reference with "returning space vessel", as a shuttle strictly speaking is a kind of boat. Sorry, that is NASAs call, not ours.
 * 4) The copyright is not the issue (never was). The issue is that they have quoted Hartwell as implying something she did not. That is dishonest, and mean that they have excluded themselves as a reliable source. I hope you can see that there is a difference between a magazine article using "gay" when meaning "exhibiting homosexual behaviour", and a site that portray themselves as scientific and then try to twist a source.
 * 5) I'm sorry to say, but Dr. Socarides' opinion is rather irrelevant to this article. He belong to a section of the psychiatry field that may seem acceptable from a US perspective, but is generally laughed at on the international scene. He is thus fringe, and he do not represent any sizeable part of psychiatrists community, nor is the psychiatrists view terribly important anyway. The critique of anthropomorphizing is very well covered by Bagemihl in the chapter 2, "Humanistic Animals, Animalistic Humans", where he summarizes all, from the ridiclous to the relevant. If you feel that Dr. Socarides has something to ad, then I suggest you read just this chapter (40 pages, and fairly light reading) and see just what the article is quoting.


 * On a sidenote: Dr. Antonio Pardo Caballos statement is from a magazine article in Nuestro Tiempo ("our time"), Jul/Aug edition 1995, pp 82-89, titled "Aspectos médicos de la homosexualidad," (medical aspects of homosexuality). If you really want it, I can have a look for it and see if my wife can translate it (she's Spanish). However, basically what the statement is saying is that only reproductive sex can be called sex, thus homosexuality is not sexuality. He is very clearly not aware of the field of study. Back when he wrote that, it would have just marked him as uninformed in scientific circles. If he maintain it to this day, he has moved from merely uninformed to a very small (but very vocal) fringe group that mainstream science frankly do not take seriously. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Petter: I will note that this is the third time i have said i do not want to use Dr. Pardo Caballos, you convinced me the first time that his quote was inappropriate. Please do not expend time translating the good doctor. Likewise I do not want to use the Article by Luiz Solimeo. It is irrelevant.  Nevertheless, Luiz said "Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts." then he quotes her.  He did not distort her view at all.  He never claimed anything other than what Sarah herself claimed.  It is very obvious tht Sarah Hartwell's real complaint is that mistaken instincts can be used to argue that animals are not "homosexual" if they have misidentified the opposite sex.  This article seems to whitewash any other explanation for perceived "homosexual" behaviors with a tired LGBT propaganda tool: previous researchers would have said the animals are homosexuals if they weren't homophobics.  Therefore there is no dominance or mistaken identities possible, these are homophobe ideas.  The article is extremely slanted to LGBT views.  I still mean to find a way to fix the article, but it may tke me a while.  In the meantime, i am not planning on using Solimeo's article.


 * You are misunderstanding wikipedia policy, Petter.
 * 1)Wikipedia has a policy about fringe theories. You are engaging in the logical fallacy that if Dr. Socarides subscribes to a fringe theory, then he is a fringe person and cannot therefore everything he says is fringe.  This is not the case.  What i want to quote Socarides on is a mainstream view--EVERYBODY discussing the issue at all points out the flaws in the use of the word Homosexual.  I want particularly to use Dr. Socarides because he says it more succinctly.  However, if Bagemihl has said that anthropomorhizing can result in flawed scientific methodology somewhere in the 40 pages you cite, i do not have a problem with sourcing to Bagemihl instead.  It is relevant, it is NOT fringe, and it is necessary to maintain an NPOV.  Otherwise wikipedia will be misleading in the idea that just because the term is preferred that solves any problems with bad science.  It doesn't.  I don't have a clue why these researchers do not prefer "same-sex behaviors" except they want to blur the line between animals and humans.  If Bruce Bagemihl has an LGBT agenda to pursue, Wikipedia is NOT here to pursue his agenda for him.  He may not have such an agenda, but i think it is fair to infer that he does.
 * 2) Even though a theory may be fringe, it can still be used in a wikipedia article if it is a NOTABLE fringe theory. Therefore NARTH is suitable as a source (it may not be suitable for other reasons) because its position is NOTABLE.  You can see it left and right in the news.  However, the fringe theory of NARTH is that Homosexuality is a condition that can be treated.  Once again, its the theory, not the group or individual to be considered fringe per Wikipedia policy.

I am going to edit again because you either fail to address my points or are basing your arguments on a flawed understanding of the policy. WP:BeBold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.128.207 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I was unclear, I did not intend to imply that you wanted to use Dr. Pardo Caballos, though I can see that that is exactly what it looks like. My bad.

In his book Bagemihl spends a lot of ink on the problem of anthropomorhizing. This is why he discarded "gay" and "lesbian" which he sees as purely human (not to mention Western) expressions, which has to do with social identity rather than sexual preferences. He landed on "homosexuality" because it relates to sexuality. His argument (backed up by the whole field of research) is that the sexual behaviour exhibited by the various critters are really sexual, driven by the same basic neuron pathways. The conclusion is kind of hard to escape when male killerwhales bring each other to ejaculation and female orangutans dildo each other. Dr. Socarides point is that it isn't sex because ist's not procreation, which is simply redefining sexuality, not refuting the argument.

As for the cat question, my point is that Dr. Socarides quotes Hartwell as saying that tomcats only kills due to "confused instincts". That is not what she wrote. I quote: When a new tomcat takes over or inherits a territory (...) he may also be driven to destroy any kittens in order to 'found his own line'. Socarides is all into "confused instincts", and try to twist the cat-page to fit with his views.

This leavs Socarides out in the cold when it comes to scientific honesty. He can be quoted for being a vocal proponent of the field being LGB-propaganda, but not for having any scientific significans. I will leave it to other American to judge whether NARTH is relevant to the article. As a Norwegian I am a bit culturally impaired I guess. I fail to see that their opinion has any bearing on anything except other NARTHers. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr. Socarides DID NOT write the article wherein you complain Sarah Hartwell's words were twisted. Luiz Solimeo did.  Sarah Hartwell did write that male cats will kill off the offspring of other cats in securing her article, but she also spoke of another type of situation--that toms will confuse play and hunt with their own offswpring as well, which is exactly what Luiz said.  Look again at the two articles.


 * Luiz Solimeo also quoted Dr. Socarides. Solimeo only got into this nonsense because it is one place Dr. Socarides' quote can be found. Dr. Socarides said:

"The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach."

I am not a NARTHer, but i think Dr. Socarides has a good point. I am fine with using Bagemihl for a source to make the same point, but more bluntly than the article does--anthropomorhizing the animals by using the word homosexual risks bad science. The biggest problem i see, while it is clear that animals have sexual pleasure with the same sex, is that animals don't know what they are doing. I mean they know it feels good, that much is blaringly obvious. But they don't know how offspring is made. David4442 (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the mixup of all the doctors. My point is still that the article presents Hartwell as saying that it is only a matter of "confused instincts", which is twisting the source. As for interpretation of animal behaviour, Dr. Socarides is out on a limb. Generally, behaviour is interpretated in an evolutionary context, which is quite safe. The last 20 years or so there has been a change in in the field, as emotional response of animals (at least vertebrates) can be seen and measured in brain scans, endocrine activity (notably of dopamine) and so on. I suggest you take a stroll in a zoo and look at chimpanzees, than come back here and tell us that Dr. Socarides is right in that animal behaviour can't be interpretated as emotion. He was probably an old man when he wrote that, and I don't blame him for not being aware of the development of a field of science that was not his own, but he can hardly bee quotes as an authority. Also, I fail too see your point that what animals feel make the term "homosexual" problematic. Are you suggesting that humans, knowing what goes on, only have sex for reproductive purpose? If you count the number of coita a couple performs, and the number of babies they produce, I think you will find that sexuality in humans (as in a number of social species) is mainly serve social functions rather than reproduction. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ????Emotion wasn't mentioned by Dr. Socarides. Motivation was.  These words are not related.  Motivation deals with why you do something.  Emotion is what you feel.  Emotion can be a motivation, and probably nearly always is in animals, but there is an exception.  In animals it probably is.  Humans have morals, however, and so emotion is not always acted upon.  For instance, to use an example no-one will disagree with, many humans may feel a murderous rage about something, but this rage is not always translated into action. Some humans do murder and their emotion becomes a motivation.  In animals i think it is safe to say any emotion is acted upon. A "murderous" rage will translate into violence or "resentment."  In settings like prison, we observe sex used for dominance.  Animals do not know that sex has another, specific, purpose of reproduction. We can only speculate on how animals would behave if they were aware of self-awareness.  Dr. Socarides said the same thing Bagemihl did--we can only infer an animal's motivation from their behavior.
 * An example: I know three males who all live together, a grandfather, his son, and his grandson. Both the father and the grandfather mated with a female and then chased her off shortly after she reproduced.  Both father and grandfather will look for a one-night stand, but neither can tolerate living with a woman.  They just don't like women for any reason other than sex.  These men do not have sex with each other.  I suspect, were they and Bagemihl of differing species, Bagemihl would project himself onto them and call them homosexual.  After all, he knows the biggest reason he doesn't want to live with a woman.  But they have another reason.  Their reason is misogyny, a hatred of women.  Bagemihl's reason is a desire to have sex with men.  The situation of these three males i know is similar to the black swans presented in our article.  (If they have sexual behaviors our article doesn't say so.  I presume if they did, the article would say so.  The difference between these men and the swans?  The men can say they have no desire to have sex with men.  The swans can't.  Awareness of self-awareness and the ability to communicate are huge issues in this topic.


 * I would be interested in reading Bagemihl's book. I will look into getting a copy as i am a book dealer.  Business is slow after christmas though and i am not sure when i can afford it.  I doubt i will come to a different conclusion than i have already about Bagemihl's motivation in choosing the word homosexual over same-sex sexual behavior.  That motivation, i believe, is a desire for the media to repeat "homosexual" without the scientific qualifications, with a goal of manipulating public opinion to further the LGBT cause.  Norwegian culture does differ from American in this regard.  Here, we see all kinds of distortions in the media to further gay rights.  Our legal principles are mutilated; our religion is mutilated; as soon as a scientist announces that he may be onto a possible genetic factor in inclining a person to be gay the media will announce that "the gay gene" has been discovered and they forget all about the same scientist saying it is still a combination of nature and nurture like Simon Levay did.  They misquoted the heck out of Levay and cared not about his fallacious scientific notions that an AIDS cadaver was gay and a non-Aids cadaver was straight OR Levay's caveat that environmental factors play a part in a person being gay.David4442 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about skipping a few steps in my motivation/emotion answer. What I meant is that nowadays there's actually possible to detect when animals react emotionally (at lest in the lab), so that using emotions as explanations isn't just speculations anymore. One of animal that's hardest to interpret is actually Homo sapiens, because our ability to plan and override impulses for long time goals makes the road from urge to action so long and complicated (like you showed with your example with tree men). If you would like to read Bagemihls book, why not try a library?


 * The legal status of gay and lesbians in the US society is not the subject of this article. I’m not going to comment on it, except to say that the whole thing looks blown way out of proportion from my non-US viewpoint. As for LeVays brain results, you’d be interested to know that the same size difference has been reported from heterosexual and homosexual rams (and that is from a very large sample), so LeVay is not likely to have bogged things up due to AIDS in his study objects. Also, note that something being environmental does not mean it is reversible. Your first language is for instance American English, and that will not change even if you moved to Shrewsbury and lived there for the rest of your life. When it comes to why some individuals end up homosexual and other do not, the truthful answer is that science does not know. For all we know, there may be multiple ways people can end up homosexual, making the search for the one answer doomed from the outset.


 * Back to the article. If you want to change the “Applying the term "homosexual" to animals”, I suggest you write the wording you want here, so that we can discuss it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, your typo 'tree men' instead of three men had me scratching my head wondering how ENTS had gotten into it! Tolkien did say the Ent-wives had been lost for a long time, now that i come to think of it.  I trusdt Bagemihl did not go so far as to discuss these fantasy creatures.  If we have to discuss fairies too this article will be ridiculous! JK ROFLMAO!!!


 * Thanks for reminding me of the library. I live in a small town and my bookstore is bigger than the public library.  Therefore i usually forget about the library.  I will see if they have a copy of Bagemihl and read it if they do.  Perhaps they can get it on loan from another library if they don't.  I will get back to you on this issue.  Perhaps BAgemihl himself said what i am looking for.  I know for sure in my universxity classes i was taught the dangers of anthropomorphizing animals by attributing human behaviors to them.


 * In the end I suspect that animal homosexual behaviors is a mixture of many things, including dominance behaviors, misidentification, confused instincts loneliness, as well as possible true cases of sexual preference. I'll bet if Roy and Silo could talk they'd say--"what? you can't hatch a chick from a rock? You mean it's called an egg and it has to come out of a female? Man, forget this...."


 * One problem we MAY HAVE (I am not saying we do, but it should be watched out for) is this: 1) the article says that every usage of the word "homosexual" is according to scientific usage. 2) IF we have a news source wherein no credible authority has exmined the animals in question and 3) If it is merely the reporter's opinion thatthe animals are "homosexual" and 4) we use the word homosexual to describe the animals in the article, then we would have engaged in original research and or synthesis in order to say so becuase we have said all use of the word is in the scientific sense. We can't switch back and forth between say, Bagemihl using the word in its scientific sense (which includes a lot of behaviors that aren't "homosexual" in humans) and reporterzs using the word in its ordinary sense.  I still have not gone through every citation in the article to be sure this is not the case.  I am working on it.David4442 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I certainly agree that LGBT issues are blown out of proportion by BOTH sides in the United States, and also agree it is not the subject of the article.  It was only a thought about my suspicions of gay researchers setting the standards.  Somewhere there ought to be a happy common political ground, but both groups insist on extremes.  I am politically a libertarian and would be inclined to support the LGBT agenda if they did not distort every scientific finding into somethingthat clearly supports their agenda.  We need to treat homosexuals kindly and decently, and with compassion--many have a deep seated dislike of their condition.  However this doesn't mean that we have to redefine "marriage" as it has traditionally been understood to accomodate the LGBT movement.  If a gay wants to leave his property to his lover when they die, instead of screaming about persecution, if this is truly their complaint, they could have written a will, for instance.  Problem solved.  Why don't I support the LGBT agenda?  Because if i state this reasonable opinion they call me prejudiced and a homophobe and a bigot and god-knows-what-else, when i actually have a kindly attitude toward them--when they are reasonable.  I had a job where a flamboyant gay man constantly sexually harrased the straight men.  He got punched once for feeling a guy's crotch and the straight man wa fired.  He screamed persecution.  After several years the gay man was fired for sexual harrassment--and he filed a lawsuit and saqid they fiored him over his sexual orientation.  To him, gay rights  meant that all the straight men were there to be persuaded and felt up.  We hated this guy.  My honest opinion?  Everybody, straights included, ought to keep their sexuality to themselves. OKAY, this is off-topic and i will get off the soapbox.  Just venting, lol.  Feel free to delete this P.S. if anyone has a problem with being off-topic.  David4442 (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

fact tagging footnote #20
The article says:

An example of overlooking homosexual behavior is noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur between males.

Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.[20]

The source does not attribute this quote to Bagemihl, although it does have the quote.24.206.128.207 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit: Fixed. The original work was Leuthold, W. (1977): African Ungulates: A Comparative Review of Their Ethology and Behavioural Ecology. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact tag, footnote #24 (23) Gay Penguins from website Gay365.com
I have NOT fact tagged footnote #24 (formerly #23) because it links (supposedly) to a story found at Gay365.com. I have fact tagged it becuase the story "Gay Penguins Resist Aversion Therapy" no longer can be found either by the provided link or by searching Gay365.Com.

I never argued that we can't use this website. I argued that IF we cannot use a website because of unreliability, that this is a likely candidate for unreliability. I was arguing in favor of keeping the other source (NARTH) not getting rid of this one. I keep tagging this because the link is bad, not because I think we cannot use Gay365.com.

However, it may be true that we should not be using a gay website to cite a scientific fact. But that's not why i tagged it. The link is bad, and as such the statement is unsourced.David4442 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It also occurs to me that since the two most celebrated penguin couples (Roy and Silo and the S.F. zoo couple, one of which was Pepper) "broke up" because one penguin in each case eventually preferred a female over their male partners, perhaps it is not exactly the best thing to cite to a story which (presumably) claims the poor penguins can't change. I'd resist someone forcing change on me too, but that doesn't mean i don't change when i want to.  IF the story is based upon either of these couples, it might be misleading.  However, since the link is broken i am speculating on what this story says, because i can't read it.David4442 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You assume there was change. Maybe the penguin was bi all along. Duh! Get a blog if you wanna ramble, wiki talk pages are about articles only.  Phoenix of9  17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)