Jump to content

Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of Short Description

[edit]

In accordance with WP:BRD, the description has been removed, seemingly unilaterally. I believe the description to be entirely appropriate, and am about to revert the removal. Now we are discussing it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs updating

[edit]
"Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

This statement appears in the lead and should by all accounts be removed.

Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following material, which is 28 years out of date:
Simon LeVay stated that "[a]lthough 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."[1]
Also removed this old research from the lead:
A previous 1999 book by Canadian biologist Bruce Bagemihl states same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide.[2]: 12

References

  1. ^ Levay S (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207. ISBN 9780262121996.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bagemihl was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Infections

[edit]

Elmidae, I've re-removed the infection content because of the exclusive reliance on primary sources. Per WP:SECONDARY, policy states: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

Cooley et al. is an exploratory study. It would be strange to put that kind of primary source in WP:VOICE. Lots of papers in biosciences do not replicate, or come with caveats unearthed by further research. It would be more appropriate for the user who added it to find a chapter or review. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing the sources, I agree that the cited papers do not make unambiguous claims about homosexual behaviour alterations, so it seems fine to remove them on that basis. However, I do disagree with justifying that removal on any WP:PRIMARY concern, which simply is not sufficient as a sole reason to remove material cited to reliable sources. Sections and entire articles can be and often are based entirely on primary sources, with nary a review or meta-analysis in sight, and that is just fine as long as each statement is given as per source and clearly attributed. For one thing, that approach would kill off a few tens of thousands of species articles... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]