Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=low }}
{{WikiProject Animals|importance=mid }}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid }}
}}
{{to do}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 95K
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(45d)
|archive = Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive %(counter)d
}}
__TOC__
Removal of Short Description
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)
- 'Oppose removal but there may be better wording 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Article needs updating
:{{tq|"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.
- Anderson KA, Teichroeb JA, Ramsay MS, Bădescu I, López-Torres S, et al. (June 20, 2024) [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304885 Same-sex sexual behaviour among mammals is widely observed, yet seldomly reported: Evidence from an online expert survey]. PLOS ONE 19(6): e0304885.
- Devlin, Hannah (June 20, 2024). [https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jun/20/animal-homosexual-behaviour-under-reported-by-scientists-survey-shows Animal homosexual behaviour under-reported by scientists, survey shows]. The Guardian.
Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:I removed the following material, which is 28 years out of date: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."{{cite book |title=Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality |url=https://archive.org/details/queerscienceusea00leva |url-access=registration |last=Levay|first=Simon | name-list-style = vanc |year=1996 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |page=[https://archive.org/details/queerscienceusea00leva/page/207 207]|isbn=9780262121996 }}
: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.{{r| name=Bagemihl|p=12 |q= Homosexual behavior occurs in more than 450 different kinds of animals worldwide, and is found in every major geographic region and every major animal group.}}
{{reflist-talk}}
Infections
{{u|Elmidae}}, I've re-removed the infection content because of the exclusive reliance on primary sources. Per WP:SECONDARY, policy states: {{tq|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)
: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)