Talk:List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

AI content cleanup

I've voluntarily decided to participate in the AI content cleanup project and I am noticing the entire section on birds is ChatGPT.

It's in the typical bullet point style, and plus, it takes artistic liberties to call the Australian Black Swan an "elegant waterfowl," at one point. Should whoever included this content first disagree with my actions don't hesitate to get in touch. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Wolves

You guys forgot wolves. --24.237.228.197 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Anonymous

Merge Discussions

Considering that Homosexual behavior in animals page has a citation noting that homosexuality is a 'nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom,' I suggest we merge this article.

I would rather suggest that it be deleted for notablity, but there has been some impressive work done cataloguing citations that ought to be preserved. Nonetheless, do we need a page listing every animal in which a 'nearly universal phenomenon' has been observed? Jstanierm (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a List. Lists are a clear designated category in Wikipedia and this accords with their layout. See Portal:Contents/Lists_of_topics --Tediouspedant (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Noting specific LGBT behaviors for each species

I've removed Indicate, for each species, what category of behaviour has been observed as I have a few problem with this item and I'd like to explore the need (why) as well as the realities of doing this as well as the logistics. For instance, if it turns out we really need articles on bisexual and transgender behaving animals or are we setting up an extra system of some sort with tables or symbols or what. If the list were only 50 items then solutions would be more apparent but our base is 500-1500 items with that number only going up. Benjiboi 22:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I envisaged something along the lines of Bagemihl's categories (parenting, courting, pair-bonding etc). My reason is that a simple list, while useful, is much more informative if each entry has some supplementary information associated with it. Certainly for a Featured List quality article, which is what we have the potential of creating here, we should be looking at increasing the depth of information per entry. Let me know if you'd like to me to put together a small example to illustrate. SP-KP (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't say as of yet I'm devoted to the idea of working on getting any article to FA status but improving an article is hardly a bad idea. I've gone ahead an ordered a copy of Bagemihl's so I don't have to plotz online as much. Let's really think about the end game as much as reasonable so we come up with a structure that makes sense and is sustainable. We'd have to reference each bit of information as well but that seems do-able. if it's easy enough to put together an example then go for it. Benjiboi 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As I think of it each section (like birds) could start with a sortable table with sections as Bagemihl has; homosexuality (male/female) Intersexuality, Transvestism, Behaviors, Ranking, Observed In (footnotes as needed) with the remainder of the as yet tablelized items below as they are now. Benjiboi 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The appendix table I'm looking at now only lists homosexuality (male/female) , Transvestism and parthenogenesis. Benjiboi 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Help:Sorting and m:Help:Sorting has info on sortable tables. Benjiboi 09:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Title?

What does the part of the title stating "non-human animals" really mean? First, I found this page by looking at a list of non-mammals and was hyperlinked to this page. Claiming that the page lists all animals is misleading, since other animals are listed on a different page. Additionally, while the article claims to be about non-human animals, humans are listed. Shouldn't the title be returned to the original form, e.g. "list of mammals displaying homosexual behavior"? 98.135.74.15 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Humans are considered animals, see great ape for explanation, that's why the are included and the is a list broken into several parts so birds and mammals have their own sections (which are huge) so when we did an article split it made sense to give those sections their own pages. It's still one list however and they all refer to each other with wikilinks. Banjeboi 15:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize as I just notice, and reverted, the title change to the article. I hope that clears up this issue. Banjeboi 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Human's aren't animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.246.153 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Humans are animals. You may contend that we are higher animals or rational animals, but we are animals. We belong in the animal kingdom, as classified by Carl Linnaeus. Trujaman (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I was just going to comment and ask why humans aren't listed as being animals which sometimes display homosexual behavior, but I see that they are and have been giving their own page on the subject. Sheep also should I think as quite a bit of research has been done with that species. Swiftpaw (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

bad redirect

Resolved

I am having a bad redirect for pincher which is taking me to a page on Transformer Go Bots, and the bad link is there under the section titled: Selected images where I quote:

A survey of damsel and dragonflies reveals characteristic cloacal pincher mating damage in 20–80 percent of the males, [...]

Wgabrie (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed, good call. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Such propaganda

The Koran is very clear that sodomy is unnatural. Just more proof of Wiki bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.4.155 (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The views of the writer of the Koran have nothing to do with whether or not any animals practice it. Aleta ^Sing 15:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for this article to draw attention to factual inaccuracies in the Koran or in any other religious text. This is an article about biological facts not about religious teachings. --Tediouspedant (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

even though sodomy is not even a real word and was made up by homophobic humans just to state that the bible says something about homosexuality. sodomy is not a real word. if it was the real definition would be prostitution. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.47.44 (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"sodomy is not even a real word and was made up by homophobic humans" ...? I fail to see how that doesn't make it a 'real' word. Regardless of the views of those who coined it, all words were "made up by humans". Just because those particular humans were bigots doesn't make a widely used word any less 'real'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.48.253 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

71.30.4.155, not that I care about your Koran, but know that to get any meaning-full information you must google search (without quotes) "are there gay animals -wikipedia" i.e. dash wikipedia means exclude wikipedia.

Plenty of real research is there proving there are no gay animals.

Regarding the bias, leftist+liberal bias on wikipedia is out of control. There are more than 2 article of SIGNIFICANT length about gay animals. All based of research done by a single person. I just hope google search does't turn liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.54.46 (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientist sees animals engaging in homosexual behavior. Scientist records animals engaging in homosexual behavior. Scientist documents this behavior. Scientist reports findings, which are fact because they happened. Findings are posted to a scientific journal as evidence. Scientific journal findings are passed on to this Wikipedia article to document the fact. This is propaganda? Live in the dark if you wish, but don't call for the removal of something that questions your belief system unless you have facts of your own to present and counter with; if you wish to discredit the opinions of the scientists responsible for finding this information, then do so credibly and through proper channels. Get a degree in their field, prove them wrong, then post your own findings to a scientific journal. And no, opinions are not admissible. 71.165.5.136 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, when I saw the subtitle from the top, "Such propaganda", I thought this was going to be one of those anti-gay Bible-thumpers who are always complaining about "Wikipedia liberal bis". I was wrong! It was a Quran-thumper this time! Then again, the person spelled it "Koran", instead of "Quran", so it might actually be a Christian posing as a Muslim. And 71.165.5.136, I enlarged your comment, because it's good. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 21:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Single Source

Just from glancing at this article, it seems to heavily rely on a single source. Does Bagemihl actually list his references in his book? Angry bee (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Extensively. -- Banjeboi 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See also: "Homosexual selection: The power of same-sex liaisons" New Scientist, 07 December 2009 by Kate Douglas [1]   Will Beback  talk  08:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging/blanking this page

This page has been repetedly merged with Homosexual behavior in animals without any discussion. I have restore it awaiting discussion and consensus. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge is dumb. One is a list, the other isnt. Like GDP and List of countries by GDP (nominal) Phoenix of9 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a List. Lists are a clear designated category in Wikipedia and this accords with their layout. See Portal:Contents/Lists_of_topics --Tediouspedant (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the proposed mergeto page, as linked in the template; see Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals#Proposal to un-merge. Ash (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography is badly broken

By the 8th entry you find only one good link. There has got to be some more stable links.

Gaia?

Gaia is listed under the "other invertebrates" category. Is this to imply that the Earth itself displays homosexual behavior, or something else?

I removed it as a possible hoax, it was also not referenced. Insomesia (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Reindeer warble-fly

In the German Wikipediua and my son's "Animal Atlas" it is called "Oedemagena tarandi". I don't know enough about the anmila, hence would not dare to change the name in the article. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could comment and/or edit. Thanks. Bernburgerin (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks

Since this is not a comprehensive list anyway, would anyone object to removing the entries that do not lead to articles? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lions are Homosexual

This is why we have the expression 'Gay Pride'. Why doesn't the article mention this? I suspect the government don't want us to know that! They are LION to us!!! 70.238.219.174 (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewel Fish

The link for "jewel fish" otherwise known as the red jewel, or African jewel cichlid links to the page on Poelcilia - the molly. This is an entirely different fish altogether. Also, an additional reference for potential homosexual behaviour in red jewel cichlids would be - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B71PeYq5i6kAquakeeper14 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Documented Evidence"

Is there any kind of tape of documented evidence? All the information may look credible in data. But that can be easily manipulated into propaganda. Unless there is video proof of the work to confirm the claim. Wouldn't that make sense? Maratasden (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Video evidence for miracles would be a more appropriate thing to ask for, where real propaganda goes on, but yes, you can find lots of videos on YouTube (you know, if you're into that kind of thing). ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 21:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What does homosexual behavior mean?

It appears that this Wikipedia page is very vague because no one knows what homosexual behavior means? At what point does something because homosexual? What activities, how do we determine if something is homosexual, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.219.9 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Needs to expand sources

To whomever is interested in taking on a project, consider taking on this article. Sources need to be greatly expanded. There are multiple references used, but much of it comes from Bagemihl. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 21:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Outdated Research?

I'm curious as to why this article cites research from 1996, giving a figure of 500 for the number of species in which homosexual behaviour has been observed, when the bibliography includes more recent research from 2006, giving a figure of 1,500. I don't understand a source that's reliable enough to include in a bibliography, but not reliable enough to update the article with. Motion to change. Extenebris (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

1500 species, this is a mistake made by Peter Böckman, and recently corrected with his help. All sources that mention 1500 species of animals are not scientific and reliable. --Путеец (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing on a few moth species.

Currently the following species cite only page 232 of Bagemihl (1999): Grape berry moth, Larch bud moth, Silkworm moth, Spruce budworm moth. Bagemihl does not mention these by name in the book, however.

The only Lepidoptera species that's directly mentioned in page 232 instead of being grouped under "other" is Monarch butterflies. Neither of these 4 seem to have any mentions in the remainder of the text. The book, however, does provide sources that do talk about these species. I'd suggest replacing the references on these 4 entries with direct sources rather than Bagemihl:

For grape berry moths: Schmieder-Wenzel, C., and G. Schruft (1990) “Courtship Behavior of the European Grape Berry Moth, Eu-poecilia ambiguella Hb. (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) in Regard to Pheromonal and Tactile Stimuli.”

For larch bud moths: Benz, G. (1973) “Role of Sex Pheromone and Its Insignificance for Heterosexual and Homosexual Behavior of Larch Bud Moth.”

For spruce budworm moths: Palaniswamy, P., W. D. Seabrook, and R. Ross (1979) “Precopulatory Behavior of Males and Perception of Potential Male Pheromone in Spruce Budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana.” and Sanders, C. J. (1975) “Factors Affecting Adult Emergence and Mating Behavior of the Eastern Spruce Budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Lepidoptera: Totricidae).”

I did not find anything in the book regarding silkworm moths. Perhaps it may be indeed be talked about in one of the cited references, just without mentioning them in the name of the source. However, unless a source is obtained, I believe silkworm moths should be removed from the list, since the current source lacks them. --178.155.5.3 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if I did it right, but I made the edit myself, since the page surprisingly isn't protected. Haven't worked with sourcing on Wikipedia yet, so could be good to know if sourcing was done properly in my edit. Couldn't find the exact issue of the journal with the grape berry moth article, could be good if someone fixes it. 178.155.5.3 (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Useful sources for citing homosexuality in primates, (especially baboons)

Hamilton, G. V. (1914-09). "A study of sexual tendencies in monkeys and baboons". Journal of Animal Behavior. 4 (5): 295–318. doi:10.1037/h0075576. ISSN 0095-9928. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Dixson, A. (2010). Homosexual behaviour in primates. Animal homosexuality: A biosocial perspective, 3, 381-400.

Bolwig, Niels (1959-01-01). "A Study of the Behaviour of the Chacma Baboon, Papio Ursinus". Behaviour. 14 (1–4): 136–162. doi:10.1163/156853959X00054. ISSN 0005-7959.

Dagg, Anne Innis (1984-12). "Homosexual behaviour and female-male mounting in mammals—a first survey". Mammal Review. 14 (4): 155–185. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2907.1984.tb00344.x. ISSN 0305-1838. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Maple, T., Bernard, D., & McGlynn, M. (1977). Dominance-related ambisexuality in two male rhesus monkeys ( Macaca mulatta). Journal of Biological Psychology, 19(2), 25–28.

BhamBoi (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Anglerfish

Why are anglerfish on this list with no cited sources? Is it even possible for them to be homosexual? I found out the female anglerfish just absorb the really small male ones, so I don't know how (or if) they can be homosexual. Henry Di Persio (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why that is the case. I have researched this subject further, and I did not find many good results as to whether or not anglerfish have shown signs of homosexuality. JohnnyTman (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)