Talk:List of animals displaying homosexual behavior/Archive 1

Merge?
I don't really understand why we have a page for this. It doesn't have very much information, and doesn't explain its self. Are these species where most the animals act homosexual, or a few for some odd reason tend to...? Maybe we should merge it with Animal homosexuality. What do you think? Chooserr 05:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a good precedent for keeping long lists separate from the article describing the list. Non-human animal sexuality (nee Animal homosexuality) adequately describes what's going on and points to this list. If you disagree, you should be bold and update either article to make the connection better. I think you will find resistence to merging the two together, though. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look how long the list is. Merging this long list with an existing page seems like a bad idea. It seems that your problem is not with redundant content in the list, but the nature of having a list such as this to begin with.--Andrew c 18:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At least it's a good article to point the nth homophobe ignorant troll to (somehow the brand of people claiming homosexuality is a purely human perversion of nature never dies out) without having to refer to original research (anyone who has had a lot to do with animals can easily disprove such arguments, but Wikipedia is something of an authority by comparison). &mdash; Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we also need a list of animals with cancer for all those intolerant cancerophobes? charon 22:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Keeping a list so one can use it as a debating cudgel is not good. The best argument for keeping this list is that it is interesting, homosexual behavior is not often useful from an evolutionary standpoint, so the existence of it in a species is interesting. JoshuaZ 02:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the issue of homophobia (which there's no evidence of here) this article isn't really very good. A list of species with a covering line indicating all these species display homosexual behavior? The information given is so tenuous it verges on the point of non-existence. MK2 20:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This list is only the POV? Biased/One Sided article
If anybody want to prove "animal homosexuality" in a such big numbers of animals - HE MUST give some SCIENTIFIC examples and references TO EACH CASES! Alexandrov 11:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The majority of this list was taken from a publication that provides those references (I believe it is Baghamil, Biological Exuberance). We don't need to provide all of those references again, we only need to provide the reference to the publication we took our data from. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't there any sources for this list? Where did this list come from? What scientific research supports its claims? It would seem that more explanation is necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tendo (talk • contribs).
 * See List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior - UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly I haven't this book, but usually one named (bee, goat,...) "animal homosexuality" for only "animal hypersexuality"!
 * - and there isn't same phenomena!
 * What about the scientific articles in the Net? Alexandrov 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Baghamil cites plenty of scientific references. I'm sure some of them are online now, but I haven't the time to hunt them down and add links to them here, nor do I have do. Citing Baghamil is good enough. As other folks add more, they should cite the sources for those additions. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest the proponents of the homosexuality POV explain the following: In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality by stating: "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."  ken 14:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * How about this: "Bagemihl, Bruce. Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin's Press, 1999. ISBN 0-312-19239-8" - UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: 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.ken 14:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * That logic is countered in Bagemihl. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2006
 * You fail to show why and you failed to address this quote: In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality by stating: "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."ken 15:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * Go read Bagemihl. He does address that. I no longer have a copy of Bagemihl, and I"m editting from work. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your criticism is misplaced. This article is not "list of homosexual animals", it is animals that display homosexual behavior. The first sentence explains this clearly. --Andrew c 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One needs to first define "homosexual behavior". If my pet dog decides to hump my leg (excuse my graphic example) does this make 'dogs' now a member of this list? Is the fact that the male half of most species seeks sexual relief more than relationship define all male 'halfs' of all species as exhibiting 'homosexual behavior'? This is definitely a POV article that demeans Wikipedia by even having it here. Junk science all the way. Agthorn 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Agthorn 12:48 PST, 08 June 2007
 * The observation about your dog and the sexual relief it seeks points more to masturbational behavior. Also, the article is not about sex between men and animals. Bagemihl's book is an excellently balanced scientific study, collecting data from many other scientific journals and books. It's not only a catalog of animals among which homosexual behavior (not orientation!) has been observed, a large part has been dedicated to discussion subjects as the above. Instead of grumbling, find a copy of the book and read it before you start POVing. Even if homosexual behavior might not be your cup of tea, the book can be interesting. Soczyczi 23:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So I don't know anything about science, but if "animal homosexuality doesn't exist," what was going on between those two penguins at the New York Zoo? 24.19.19.228 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

African Amorous Ape?
For some reason, I have a bit of trouble believing the factuality of the first animal on the list. Should I just go ahead and delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trebs (talk • contribs).
 * I've gone ahead and removed that and other joke entires of the same editor. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

criticising this list
Isn't this list just going to grow until it includes pretty much every sexually reproducing species on Earth? I doubt that there are much species where homosecuality is entirely absent. (If there are, a list of such species might be a better idea :)

Personally I strongly oppose including long lists that are hard to mantain, likely targets of vandalism or unsourced additions and will never be complete. The only use this list seems to have is debunking the good old "it's not natural" anti-gay argument. I fail to see any scientific value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rain74 (talk • contribs).


 * These pages are easy to maintain, and if they can serve any purpose they should be included. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-12-18 16:38Z

Where is real proof in the tiger actually showing homosexual behaivour? Personally I believe tigers would only be prone to show anti-homosexual behaivour, is it because of this people believe they might actually be closet homosexuals? --195.234.243.2 14:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This list seems to be pointless when there's this article: Homosexuality in animals. -Freak104 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not lists, so this "article" should probably be deleted. -Freak104 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your link doesn't say anything about "Wikipedia is not lists"... &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-09-11 16:58Z
 * Probably because lists are an important component of wikipedia. Benjiboi 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What I think would go a long way to make this an "article" as opposed to a "list" is citing references. I realize that a lot of these animals are probably in the book that is listed as a source at the bottom, but maybe using the referencing style to cite which page those animals are on. And for the animals that are not included in that book to cite the reference for that. -Freak104 19:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'll notice in the Sources discussion above all the animals on the list are from the original book which, in turn, is a compilation of many researcher's work. Additions to the list are to be added with references but I agree that doesn't always happen. I don't see compelling someone to add a page ref for each of the book's list as needed but since this is a controversial subject to some it's not a bad idea to add a ref for every entry utilizing the original book as ref for those it covers and then sourcing the remainder. Benjiboi 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Spotted hyenas
See the discussion here. Don't reinsert it. -Freak104 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you're edit warring on another article doesn't justify the same action/results on this article (although in both cases I think you're mistaken and the results will be to keep). Ordering others to do or not do something is also likely to backfire. Benjiboi 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't do anything now
But this list strikes me as one that could use a massive sourcing crackdown. I mean, especially of the red-link animals. These are animals about which Wikipedia knows absolutely nothing other than that (without a source, mind you) they MIGHT BE GAY. I think it doesn't take much imagination to understand that this list could easily be full of hoaxes and jokes.--Jimbo Wales 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I tagged it as, I hope that I used the right template (I also can't do much now, I'm meant to be doing a maths assignment!)  PhilB   ~ T/C 18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some logical flaws in Jimbo's argument, but I completely agree that the lack of sourcing is a problem. I'll make a start on the birds section. SP-KP 19:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect Stuart's Marsupial Mouse is a good example of a hoax. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. See Brown Antechinus. Benjiboi 10:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed all unsourced red links and the 3 sections which did not contain a single source but all the unsourced material should be deleted. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-added them all, every item checks out as was indicated in the lede. Benjiboi 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats bogus and you know it. Any quick glance at the quote at the top of the article or the main reference book indicates that most animals exhibit some behavior. Lack of source only means no one added it yet - like which are from the main source and which are not directly cited there so need a source. And red-linked articles? they have to be fake because no article means it don't exist, right because unless wikipedia has article its not real. get a grip. maybe allow more than 8 hours from the mighty Jimbo words before deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.3.188 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read our policy about sourcing, any disputed material must be sourced or removed immediately not in some indeterminate future. I did not remove all the red links but all the unsourced red links. And please do nott ell me to get a grip, its uncivil. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on linking and sourcing the list and must agree with the bogus sentiment above. The majority of the list is from one source and editors are having to look up every entry and add a ref for each to determine which aren't reffed in that book. Deleting entire sections that no one has yet gotten to contradicts what the article states and what a quick look at the main source for the entire list also supports. Please gain consensus here before deleting half the list and consider doing a quick online search before deleting species wikipedia has no article for; scientists have yet to discover untold (millions?) of species and wikipedia is hardly the authority whether one exists or not. Benjiboi 10:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an example, Gray-headed Flying Fox is one of the largest species in Australia and should have an article but simply doesn't yet. I will add a link to Bat and will add the ref after I've wikilinked as many as I can. Hard to see mass deletions as good faith but will more easily see that demonstrated when you contribute to the article by adding sources as most everyone agrees should happen. Benjiboi 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. I hope to have the mammals section done within a few hours, haven't found a single hoax yet (FYI). Benjiboi 11:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Fish section done, all real. Benjiboi 13:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Mammals done, all real. Benjiboi 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. I'll skip over birds for now since SP-KP has been reffing those; if I finish the rest then I'll return to birds. Benjiboi 15:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Other vertebrates done, all real. Benjiboi 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the excellent work. I know it's tedious but it really is needed (and much appreciated) in bringing this article up to Wikipedia's standard. I also understand and agree with Squeakbox's initial reaction that the best thing to do, if no sources were quickly forthcoming, was to trim the redlinks.  Thanks to your excellent work that won't be necessary. --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree, the entire list was sourced as is laid out in the lede. I don't see deletions as good faith but now it matters less as individual sources have been added. Not a single hoax item so far. And every item on the list was fine, I could have added quite a few as well but just trying to keep things from being deleted for now. Benjiboi 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done, Benjiboi for the hard work. I'll hold off from tackling more birds until you've done the rest of the species, to avoid the inevitable edit conflicts. Just one thing though - following my earlier message on your talk page, I've noticed that you're using "cite web" - if we want to go with full citations, rather than the abbreviated version I was using, isn't this the wrong template? Cite book is correct, surely? I looked at where the web links go, and they're all pointing to the same URL, unless I've missed something, so if we want to reference an online catalogue entry for the book (I think that's what you're trying to achieve?) how about we do it just the once, at the bottom, in the references section? SP-KP 17:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it up to others to decide, I feel if I'm accessing via the web and not a book then I should cite web instead (and provide a link); I think it's pretty much the same version of the book so I imagine all the links will eventually be cleaned up in some fashion - I would suggest keeping the link on each ref there so someone can easily click a ref and be vectored to the online book. Benjiboi 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I must be missing something then - the links take me to a Google Booksearch catalogue entry, that's all, not to an online book. What's the link to the online book? SP-KP 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what I meant, it takes you to the Google book copy so those who don't have or are less inspired to get the actual book can see the book itself online. Benjiboi 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Insects and other invertebrates is done. All real. Benjiboi 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is looking better, I am happy to wait a few days but will then remove all unsourced blue links. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And then I'll put them back. No one "owns" an article and I'm curious when you were elected this article's governor? --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This list has been watched over and now the vast majority have been referenced individually. Hard to see your "contributions" as anything but antagonistic and indeed seem to go against consensus building. Jimbo's original comment was valid but he didn't decree that the items had to go just that sources need to be introduced and they have been by leaps and bounds. If you have a specific item you think is a hoax then bring it up. If you want to reference something then please help. If you want to play content judge and executioner for a list that's been pretty stable then maybe an encyclopedia isn't a good match. We're trying to expand knowledge not burn books. Benjiboi 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Asking for sources and owning an article are as far apart as it is possible to be and any editor has a right to demand that unsourced material be removed, or remove it themselves, otherwise the encyclopedia could fill up with junk. See WP:Reliable sources. And the fact that the article is dramatically improving is a tribute to the hard work of everybody involved. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You weren't asking for sources as others have done you were deleting valid content despite numerous editors posting throughout this talk page that they were all cited in the article and that source was added to the lede and all those listed were available for anyone to check up on the google book site. As has been pointed out there pretty much was no junk that was filling up the article, Jimbo's concern was hoaxes - there didn't seem to be any. I hope your draconian style doesn't haunt you too much when articles you've worked on are gutted without due cause because every moment of information isn't cited explicitly. Benjiboi 08:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Squeakbox, while I am sure you're acting in good faith, you seem to have BLP concerns about queer animals, for God's sake! I assure you, nobody will be suing Wikipedia because we said that the spotted woolly rhino had a gay fling. The animals are being sourced, the article had sat here for eons before Fearless Leader dropped by to state his (mild) concern. You can go back to editing your normal field of interest now, safe in the knowledge that things are under control here. My thanks to the editors who have worked so hard on this. I'll try to add some refs myself tomorrow. Jeffpw 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. Bird section done. No hoax on my watch found. Benjiboi 11:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it is not BLP but we are an educational encyclopedia and we don't want people to be thinking so and so an animal is gay when they are not. The sourcing is excellent, and while I may be being criticised I do believe my insistence ont hat has transformed the article, which is so much better than it was. Perhaps we can get it up to FA standard, it just looks so much better than the other day, and of course being ref'd people will take it seriously rather than tending to, say dismiss it as pro-gay propaganda, which was certainly possible in the past but not now. My normal editing pattern is to edit a wide range of articles, the common thread being that they need attention, I certainly won't be removing it from my watchlist until the POV problem is sorted but otherwise I will again applaud everyone's hard work on making a better article. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I think the animals will recover from the stigma of being thought homosexual or transgender. I'll bring it up at the next convention and see if any of them care. I have a funny feeling it's only the human ones (in America) who are overly concerned if other animals aren't heterosexual acting and behaving as the article seems to indicate. Benjiboi 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost done
I need to get off to bed now, but wil return to this tomorrow if there's still work outstanding. What's particularly pleasing is that we've only found one hoax in all this work: This edit on 12 July was the source of Scabrous Codcatcher. So, in fact, at the point Jimbo raised his concerns, the article was hoax-free. SP-KP 23:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've finished with the refs and updated the editor's note (hidden text). Benjiboi 11:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"possibly due to....."
I have edited this section "The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people. Homosexual behavior is widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates." to remove the part about social attitudes towards LGBT people. Unless this can be cited, this is pretty weaselly and unnecessary commentary/speculation. Thanks, --Tom 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a classic piece of agenda based POV pushing. We find this everywhere on wikipedia and it is not welcome anywhere. This article is about homosexuality in animals, it is not about human attitudes to homosexuality. But obviously a reliable source would be helpful in then deciding if such info were notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. That is something that should be discussed in another article - not in a list of animals. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-11-13 18:45Z


 * No POV-pushing needed as it's documented. I've re-added with ref as cultural taboos certainly effect what, how and who researches and the "sudden" emergence of research material came about because a researcher with an understanding of cultural bias in other researchers went back and demonstrated this bias. Benjiboi 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Even referenced it is inappropriate because of neutrality concerns, and as Brian says, this is about a list. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hardly non-neutral to point out that researchers have bias', it would indeed seem to be POV-pushing to remove that fact. Benjiboi 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is just some activists opinion that observers allegedly had bias, a classic example of trying to impose moden views on the past and a classic example of POV pushing. If you wish to push the gay agenda here you leave me no choice but to tag the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for someone else to remove the neutrality tag but at least your agenda has been made quite clear. First you deleted entire sections because the weren't sourced and then once hundreds of references for every single item reverted your deletions you've turned your attention to the lede. The book devotes an entire chapter to systematic bias against anything non-heterosexual (in the nuclear-family, binary-gender scheme) and documents the "passions and prejudices of the time." I welcome any non-homophobic editing and constructive criticism as that indeed can result in a better article but simply deleting things you don't agree with seems pretty POV to me and I hope some admins will help watch over your work as wikipedia needs editors who contributing to building better articles not dismantling them for whatever reasons. Benjiboi 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon. You were edit warring so you cannot deny there is a dispute and if nobody should remove the tag without sorting the dispute and for you to imply that that should happen is not really fair on the article. This article is nott he place to discuss the undoubtedly real systemic boias against homosexuality, I am sure there are articles where that would be appropriate but you seem to be saying every article on homosexuality should be tagged in this way. Does the chapter specifically mention homosexualit in animals as if not it is a poor ref and needs removing. Can you please confirm the chapter specifically mentions homosexuality in animals. Please remain civil, which you seem to be struggling with right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I do not consider adding references and quotes as edit warring. Indeed I'm letting the sources speak for themselves. You weren't happy with the word possible so it was removed. Bagemihl was quite clear that it was prejudices of the times (going back several decades) so that would make sense and apparently homophobia and transphobia still exist presently. As I indicated, I'll leave it to someone else to determine if the tag is appropriate since I'm now a major contributor to the article so I stand by that statement that I don't think it's appropriate for me to remove it. Does the chapter specifically mention homosexuality in animals? you ask - why yes, the entire book is devoted to it and the chapter I reference is devoted to the systematic discrimination of researchers against anything non-heterosexual. Thanks for the tip on civility I always appreciate what I'm able to learn from other editors who's actions seem unique. You may want to check out NPOV FAQ. Benjiboi 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor, I have removed the tag after reading it. Squeakbox, the only one I see pushing a POV here is you, both in the article and more overtly on this talk page. The article is extensively reffed and the opening clearly quotes and cites the sources. If you want to find a rebuttal source, be my guest, But don't slap a NPOV tag on the article just because it doesn't endorse your point of view. Jeffpw 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon, Brian also expressed concerns about the POV pushing which is certainly not even backed up by one of the edits. Do not remove an NPOV tag while knowing that bthe dispute has not been resolved, that is a sign of bad faith. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag once again. As I stated before (perhaps you overlooked it), the facts are sourced. If you don't like it, find another source to rebut it. To continually place a NPOV tag on an article because you disagree with the facts presented is simply POV pushing. It is not bad faith on my part, just common sense. Jeffpw 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition?
Carl Zimmer's book Parasite Rex mentions homosexual blood flukes in the genus Schistosoma if no one objects I'll add them here with a citation to his book. JoshuaZ 16:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Benjiboi 08:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted species
Here's a list of the species in the recent referencing exercise which could not be found in Bagemihl:


 * Least Darter - SP-KP 18:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Least Darter is a fish and it was in Bagemihl but not in the bird section! I've re-added with ref under fish. Benjiboi 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update:


 * Roseate Cockatoo is a duplicate entry - this is a synonym of Galah. I've created the redirect & will remove from the restored list. SP-KP 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update:


 * Scabrous Codcatcher is .... guess what ... not a real bird. It took all of my vast ornithological prowess to work that out :-) That won't go back in the list either. SP-KP 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Update:


 * Grayling - not a bird - could be a fish or butterfly. Not in Bagemihl index. SP-KP 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a fish listed in the appendix but not the index, I'll re-add to the proper section. Benjiboi 10:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible rephrasing
Perhaps we should say "which Bagamihl attributes to..." if that is accurate. That way we aren't stating it as fact that that is the reason, only that it's what Bagamihl says is the reason. I haven't read the source material - is that phrasing accurate? Aleta 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which phrase? the quotes are accurate. Benjiboi 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, anything that seems more encyclopedic is fine it's the deletions I have issue with and weasel words (like possibly) that others had issue with so any suggestions appreciated. Benjiboi 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, just to clarify my murky writing what I meant was that Bagamihl attributes the lack of obvservation of homosexual behaviour in animals to bias amongst researchers. I think that's what you agreed to, correct?  I'll go ahead and make the change, so I hope this is right!  :)  Also Benjiboi, may I compliment your hard work on this list!  It's fantastic now with the detailed references!! Aleta 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Change looks fine and thank you. Let's hope this keeps some of the special editing to a minimum - I'm always glad to save good content. Benjiboi 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a little tweaking to that sentence. I am also glad that this material is now attributed to a specific researcher rather than just inserted into the article. Anyways, I am not disputing the "truth" of that sentence, just that is properly sourced and is contectual sound. Anyways, thanks, --Tom 20:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ps, I tried to look at the citation to see exactly what Bagemihl writes but couldn't find it in that article. Can anybody please cut and paste it or write it here verbaitum?? I would like the article to read as closely to Bagemihl's words as possible, thanks, --Tom 20:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, which phrase? (first couple of words?) I will have to deal with it after i get home but I'm happy to transcribe it (the page should be in the cite but google book doesn't seem readily available to all. Benjiboi 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about this......"Bagemihl writes that the presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s due to possible observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people making the homosexual theme taboo." Does that accurately reflect what that author said? Anyways, the way it reads now looks ok to me as long as it accurately reflecs what the author wrote. No biggie and thanks! --Tom 18:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it certainly does. And he actually seems to devote three chapters:


 * Chapter Three. "Two Hundred Years of Looking at Homosexual Wildlife" with
 * Chapter Four. "Exlaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality"
 * Chapter Five. "Not For Breeding Only" Benjiboi 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)