Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Fox on Orangutan behaviour

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

Sample

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

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

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

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

Talk

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

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

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

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

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

According to Fox

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

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

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

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

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

Sheep != Primates

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

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

She said "the only primate species"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So lets continue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primates

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

Оrangutans

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

Talk (Fox on Primates)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk (Fox on Orangutan behaviour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would suggest something along the lines of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Original cite Nathan W.Bailey et al.: "For many people, the issue of same-sex sexual behavior in animals is more than just academic. Bagemihl’s [16] compendium documenting same-sex behavior in nearly 450 species has been frequently cited in media articles and websites dealing with gay rights issues in humans. First, greater communication between researchers working on human sexual behavior and researchers engaged in non-human animal work would enhance the research programs of both. These two fields can most effectively communicate with each other if efforts are made to avoid politicizing research results and drawing parallels between human sexual identity and animal behavior when they are clearly not merited". [21]

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

Can anyone clarify or supplement this proposal?

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

• Can you please normally explain what you are trying to do ? Why you give us those quotes and what are you trying to prove with that ? Please try to explain your suggestions more normally. And then it will be possible to discuss the topic. M.Karelin (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Explain that in this text you do not understand. There is a certain phenomen. He is described in scientific work. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give knowledge of this phenomen. Homosexual behavior in animals was used in court as an argument. As an argument, it is used to protect the rights of gays. What's not clear? I did not correctly retell? Give your varinant. --Путеец (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The purpose of Wikipedia is to give knowledge of this phenomen - Ohh really, I did't know that. Now I have learned what IS the purpose of Wikipedia. As of the topic: are you trying to put a "thousand" of quotes in the article again(?), why despite of those warnings - [22] , [23], you continue to do that ? Are you trying to change a name of existing section, or create a new one ? Are you tring to prove us the US Supreme Court case is a "political case" ? What does it mean "use in politics" - are you trying to tell us that the science makes falsification to push some agenda ? What exactly those quotes (which you mentioned above) trying to tell us (in your opinion) ? When you make a suggestion, please try to express your thoughts more clearly - we are not here to read your mind. M.Karelin (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I do not express my thoughts, can you correct the quote? --Путеец (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Uhhh, I just asked you a few questions above, to find out what are you going to put in the article, and why ? Besides, I reminded you about warnings of other editors as of excessively quoted pieces are not welcome here. Instead of explaing me about your suggestion more detaily , you aksed me to "correct the quote" ? And what does it even mean "correct the quote" ?? M.Karelin (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Where do you see excessive quoting? I suggested not adding the entire quote, but a brief retelling. Please do not make noise in the dialogues. Speak as a matter of fact. If you have no suggestions for improving the retelling, let's add it as it is. Thank you for understanding. --Путеец (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
            • AGAIN - I can not understand WHAT exactly you are you going to do, and where ?? Is it so hard to understand ?? Clarify your suggestion !! Answer my questions (above). How can I be agree or disagree if I dont even understand what EXACTLY do you suggest ?? Try to not act like this. If you make a suggestion, make it in a clear and understandable way !! Stop wasting my time. M.Karelin (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry you can't understand. Ask other editors or administrators to help you with this. --Путеец (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
                • If you answered to my questions (see above), I'd probably would understand what you trying to tell us. M.Karelin (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Polecat "exclusive homosexuality" reference

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

1. [24] addition by 90.12.20.155 on 15:57, 3 February 2008 (section Polecat);

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

2. [25] edit by 99.18.173.49 on 00:10, 21 October 2010;

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

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

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

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

Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

”Deliberate exclusive homosexuality with mounting and anal penetration in this solitary species apparently serves no adaptive function,” means “we don’t know why they’re gay” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.38.178 (talk • contribs) .

References

In Captivity or In the Wild

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

• In many studies, observations were indeed made of animals in captivity. --Путеец (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

The gorilla entry could be changed to the more accurate text: "Homosexual behavior among males is believed to play a role in social bonding and occurs more often in all-male bachelor packs in the wild. Homosexual behavior among female mountain gorillas has also been documented." The source is the same ([42]). Ajñavidya (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make. Please make a precise request about what you want to change or add, providing reliable sources to back up any claims, as appropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Could you please change the text in the "Gorilla" section from "Homosexual behavior among female mountain gorillas has been documented.^[95]" to: "Homosexual behavior among gorilla males has been studied. It is believed to play a role in social bonding and occurs more often in all-male bachelor packs in the wild. Homosexual behavior among female mountain gorillas has also been documented.^[95]" Ajñavidya (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 11:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References