Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Let's be constructive here

The users M.Karelin and Путеец have alerted us to the fact that ne numbers I cited were wrong. Obviously we need a rewrite. I suggest the following:

In the lede we stick to citing the "over 450" as the number of species where homosexual behaviour is well documented with frequency and often function understood. We mention that several hundred more documented cases exist. We put in the caveat cited by the sources Путеец suggested.

Further down, perhaps in the "In relation to humans"-section, we expand a bit on the terms "homosexual behaviour" vs the term "homosexuality", which is what Путеец have suggested (with good sources). A seciton on homosexual behaviour in insects (ref found in the article Путеец linked to) chould go in the "Basis" chapter, perhaps under "Neurobiological basis".

Is this a suitable solution? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this decision. The section of the "Basis", I propose to supplement, but the additions are not ready yet, I will inform you when I will do them. --Путеец (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The most accurate, consistent, taking into account new species, both homosexual and heterosexual animals, the total number of which may be more than a few million, this is what I suggested from the very beginning. These are two quotations. Supplement them if required. I think they describe the current knowledge and the content of the article sufficiently well. And relevant in the preamble. Details can be described below. --Путеец (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if we find 10,000 species, this will not change this formulation.--Путеец (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The formulation can be added in the article, but not in Intro. We can write only most important things in Intro, the main info about the topic. The rest can be put in the article, if there is no objection from other editors. M.Karelin (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If you leave the wording in the form in which it is now in the article, it is misleading, not scientific, the author's quotation is distorted. WP:V The lines I offer are very important, because they help to understand the entire article correctly. --Путеец (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

They do not contain the kind of information that deserves to be in the preamble. The preamble is now very overloaded with superfluous quotes. The preamble needs to be cleaned up, not to be added by a new unnecessary information. If you want to put these quotations in the article, find a place in the article itself, and not in the preamble. M.Karelin (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggested how you can clear the preamble. In addition, with my edits agreed Petter Bøckman --Путеец (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion Petter Bøckman and Путеец. This basic information will be included in the preamble. Petter Bøckman, what do you think? --Shamash (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What opinion of Petter you agree with ?? Please more details about "his opinion". And what does it mean "basic information" ? What exactly you mean ? M.Karelin (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way I agree with Petter Bøckman, I mean his siggestion We mention that several hundred more documented cases exist. Since we mention the number in Intro (which is important info), we can also mention about several hundred more documented cases. I wish to know the opinions of other active editors here: FrankP and Flyer22 Reborn are you agree with Petter ? M.Karelin (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to be off-line for long periods of time. I have a busy schedule I'm afraid. I agree the preamble/lede is too long. The section on various animals is fine, but chapters 1, 2 and 3 need some attention. I think it will be easier to make a coherent lede reflecting the content of the article after we have made sure the first 3 chapters are up to scientific scratch. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion for an added section to "Neurobiological basis":

Homosexual behaviour in insects and arachnids have been difficult to interpret. Most species has a very limited registry of social interactions, making homosexuality as a functional adoptions as seen in social vertebrates less likely. In a review of reports of homosexual behaviour 102 arthropod species, as much as 80% of the observations was suggested as being due to mistaken identity. The authors speculate that the fitness costs to males in same-sex copulation would be less than the cost of ignoring a female, and that the energetic cost of a sensory apparatus with better accuracy outweigh the fitness cost of occasional homosexual behaviour. In some species exhibiting traumatic insemination (e.g. bedbugs), male homosexual behaviour will usually cause the death of the inseminated male, which may make such act a form of male combat against competitors.

</references>

Fine. Add this - The Australian beetle Julodimorpha bakewelli gained fame after it was discovered that males of this species exhibit sexual behavior to special beer bottles, called "stabi". In this case, the males ignore the real females, and as a result of similar attempts to mate with the bottle, male beetles even die from heat or attacking ants. [1] [2] --Путеец (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we discuss the Neurobiological basis section in other place please ?? There is a special topic here about "Basis" section development (see above). That would be better to not confuse what we are discussing. And that would be easier for other editors as well. M.Karelin (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: What has Путеец suggested regarding "homosexual behavior" vs. the term homosexuality? Whatever it is, I want to note that homosexuality, as made clear in the Homosexuality article, does not only refer to sexual orientation. But I and others have opposed this article being titled "Homosexuality in animals." This is per what is now seen at Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 4#Requested move (2). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn in the scientific world, there was no common practice in qualifying this behavior. After all, scientists also fall into two categories - supportive of homosexuality or not. In addition, one-sex behavior of animals is used in politics [3], to protect the rights of LGBT people [4], legalization of same-sex marriage Lawrence v. Texas, as one of the evidence of the normality of this behavior. Unfortunately, this affects the definitions. If I understand correctly, we can not invent concepts ourselves. But we can use the advice of scientists. I added such to the article. This behavior is not homosexual in most cases. But there are cases that are very similar to human homosexuality, for example in bonobos. But, it's still different. Bonobos use sexual intercourse as a social interaction, as an analog of a human kiss, which we do not consider homosexual. Bailey et al. says: "Homosexual: in animals, this has been used to refer to same-sex behavior that is not sexual in character (e.g. ‘homosexual tandem running’ in termites), same-sex courtship or copulatory behavior occurring over a short period of time (e.g. ‘homosexual mounting’ in cockroaches and rams) or long-term pair bonds between same-sex partners that might involve any combination of courting, copulating, parenting and affectional behaviors (e.g. ‘homosexual pair bonds’ in gulls). In humans, the term is used to describe individual sexual behaviors as well as long-term relationships, but in some usages connotes a gay or lesbian social identity. Scientific writing would benefit from reserving this anthropomorphic term for humans and not using it to describe behavior in other animals, because of its deeply rooted context in human society". I have already shown how in politics they used sheep [5], distorting the research, without mentioning the details of the study. Animals, unlike humans act instinctively, and part of the sexual practices they use for social interactions, and the establishment of a hierarchy. At the same time, the contact of the genital organs is very rare, and is occasional. I am preparing a section of the basics in the sandbox. I invite those who wish to work together. As for the title of the article, as I said, there are two opinions. Same-sex behavior, in my opinion, and opinion of the majority of scientists is more correct. According to Bagemihl (1999): "Same-sex behavior (comprising courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and parental activities) has been documented in over 450 species of animals worldwide. While this may seem like a lot of animals, it is in fact only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million species that are known to exist." According to J. Michael Bailey et al. (2016): "Although same-sex interactions involving genital contact have been reported in hundreds of animal species, they are routinely manifested in only a few. In this sense humans are rare, but we are not unique." Add this to the intro, and the whole article will become clear. --Путеец (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

As the text above stands now it is argumentative and not at all neutral in that it calls for a change of use of terminology. Worse, it does so with reference to politics. This is not encyclopaedic. Moreover, some of the unsourced statements are dubious, like "Animals, unlike humans act instinctively, and part of the sexual practices they use for social interactions, and the establishment of a hierarchy.". Who says humans don't react instinctively during sex? Is sex in humans never used to social, rather than reproductive reasons (comparing the number of times humans have sex and the number of children they conceive as a result strongly suggests otherwise). The terminology used in this article conform to Bagemihl, de Waal, Vasey, Roughgarden etc, and to change that would need substantial sources of different use. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2018‎ (UTC)

Instinct is behavior from which the animal can not refuse. If a person at the sight of sexual stimuli, like an animal immediately produced sexual acts, he immediately found himself in the police. Bagemihl, de Waal, Vasey, Roughgarden, do you know what their orientation is? Bagemihl does not have a biological education, he is a linguist [6]. I suggest giving words to different scientists. Rainbow of knowledge, then full, when it has all the colors.--Путеец (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There may be a language barrier here, but behaviour that can't be modified by the brain is usually called reflexes, not instincts. Any animal with a bit of brain (typically mammals and birds) are able to modify or even deny their instincts in most cases. The same goes for humans. We will instinctively draw breath when the CO₂-content of the blood rises above certain levels, but is is possible to hold ones breath until you faint (not that I would recommend it). Instincts typically take the form of urges to do or not do certain things (eating, sleeping, mating, competing, protecting offspring etc), and humans has them just as any other mammal. What we have in addition is a better ability to override and modify our instincts, courtesy of our big and costly brain. All this is well outside the scope of this article though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Petter Bøckman, the question of changing the name came unexpectedly. I propose to prepare part of the article in my sandbox. [7] --Путеец (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, I don't know what you are arguing. Definitely a language barrier. You stated, "After all, scientists also fall into two categories - homosexual and heterosexual." Are you stating that scientists cannot be bisexual? And some of what you are stating seems to be your personal opinion. And like I told you in the #The scientific value of mentioning 1500 species of animals and homosexual behavior section above, pedophilia is an "in humans" matter rather than "in other animals" matter since it's crafted around humans and we haven't a clue if the same thing exists in non-human animals. Sources incorrectly using the term pedophilia does not make the matter pedophilia. To reiterate, "there are cases of non-human adults being sexual with non-human juveniles, but that does not make it pedophilia. We have no idea what is going on in the minds of non-human animals. Furthermore, even in the case of humans, child sexual abuse is not the same thing as pedophilia." Whatever you are proposing, I think that the current section in the article on terminology is adequate when it comes to the issue of assigning sexual orientation labels to non-human animals. The section needs some tweaking, but it's adequate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your draft at User:Путеец/sandbox is an excessively quoted piece of text that I do not support being added to this article. Also, do keep WP:Copyvio in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that animals have sex with children. But it's not important, I'm talking about the other. Flyer22 Reborn Look at my suggestions here for the intro. As I understand it, there are both consonants and those who are against. Evaluate the argument. At the expense of the language, please make a discount. I think we'll find a common language. The draft is not ready yet, I think they will help me to make a retelling. While I collect quotes. Help us. [8] --Путеец (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I suggest canceling these two edits [9] [10] There's only one person against. But he does not read the sources. --Путеец (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Who told you that "only one person against" ?? Who supported you (?), show me. With whom you discussed that edits ? But he does not read the sources. - Once again, do not violate ethical norms. M.Karelin (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

We put in the caveat cited by the sources Путеец suggested [11]. I like that wording! It is strictly on source and strictly factual. [12] And [13] --Путеец (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you even understand what Petter wrote ?? Did you even read the whole thing he wrote, or as always you just put it out of context and tried to use it here ?? With whom you discussed the quotes you added in the Intro ? Why you think that people are so naive here ? M.Karelin (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The text Путеец made in his sandbox is not suitable in it's present form. It cite a very selective set of sources giving the impression that no homosexual behaviour in animals is actually asexual in nature. The insect example cited above shows that the term "humosexual" as understodd in humans is irrelevant in many cases (which is why we use "homosexual behaviour"), but Путеец argues the behaviour is not sexual, which is obviously not the case.

Paedophilia is also irrelevant to this article, Путеец is of course free to make an article on paedophilia in animals. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about pedophilia in general in a different sense, perhaps a language barrier, did not let you understand. Forget about it. In occasion of the sandbox, come to my talk page, help me, that here not to flood. I describe the social causes of homosexual manifestations in animals there. For some reason, these reasons are not described in the article. [14]--Путеец (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Petter Bøckman , please pay attention to this edition, since it was made claiming that it is "your suggestion". If you have some objections about that, please made amendments. Thanks. M.Karelin (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I just swapped order of the two sections, I think it flows a bit better that way. Also, Mice are far more relevant than insects in this case. I'd like to put in the beer-bottle mating beetles as an example of a simple attraction mechanism in insects. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman Yes, I suggested, with a source above. Just correct the text. [15] --Путеец (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman, per what I've stated above, I would nominate a "Paedophilia in animals" article for deletion or propose that it be renamed, and then alert WP:Med to the matter. And it would be deleted or renamed per what I've stated above.

Путеец, regarding User:Путеец/sandbox and what you've added to the article, I'm going to go ahead and ping Diannaa to review this. Путеец, I repeat: Your text is nothing but excessively quoted pieces. Not improvements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I retold it in my own words. --Путеец (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The name (and content) of an article on any of the countless sexual behaviours of animals is one thing, my suggestion was merely to keep it out of this article to keep it on topic. Coming to think of it, the story of Julodimorpha bakewelli and the beer bottles is also irrelevant to this article as it does not involve any form of homosexual behaviour. It would possibly be a case for the article on superstimulus. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter BøckmanThis applies to identification errors, as in Drosophila. But the reasons are different. Do not add. Look at my suggestions 1) on the Basis, 2) on primates and oragnutans, 3) the change of the line in the intro about the sheep 4) the full quote of Bagеmihl about the animals with the refinement of Bailey. Thanks. --Путеец (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I ll respond to your suggestions: 1) The Basis will be discussued when you finish the work, 2) on primates it is acceptable only partialy, on orangutans it is not acceptable at all, 3) The line about sheeps you can change in the article, not in Intro, the Intro needs to be cleaned up, 4) No more quotes in Intro, it is already very overloaded (you can add those quotes in article after discussion with other editors). And now my question to you, Путеец. Bockam suggested to add in the article's Intro the info about number of species (We mention that several hundred more documented cases exist. ). You agree with Bockam's suggestion ?? M.Karelin (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

All the completed offers are in my sandbox. [16] --Путеец (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I see only one completed thing there - "Isolation from females" section. Move it here for further discussion. M.Karelin (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned the intro, and the section on the sheep is considered by a colleague FrankP. --Путеец (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

When I told you about cleaning the Into, I meant some quotes. Did FrankP or someone else agreed with this ?? When you have discussion with someone that does not mean they agreed with you. M.Karelin (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I regarded your report as consent to remove the disputed data about the sheep. In addition, no one opposed the topic of this. [17] Let's wait for the opinions of others. --Путеец (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

My words are referring to the quotes in Intro. The discussion on rams has not finished yet, and Frank has some objections there. M.Karelin (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Petter Bøckman suggested to add in the article's Intro the info about number of species (We mention that several hundred more documented cases exist. ). You agree with Bockam's suggestion ?? M.Karelin (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The rest of the basis, I will do later, you can join this work. Now I propose to add a ready-made section. --Путеец (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to remind you that your Sandbox is your own space. If you have finished proposals, you have to move those proposal here, clearly offer those changes to other editors, and after it the discussion will show would we reach a consensus or not. M.Karelin (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you will see what I transferred from the sandbox for discussion [18] --Путеец (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If you been more carefully, you ll see that I noticed that proposal and made a comment about it. We still waiting for other editors comments. M.Karelin (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way Путеец, you still did not answer us about Petter's suggestion (see above). So what would you say ?? M.Karelin (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No objections about Petter's suggestion (see above)? Shall I add it ? M.Karelin (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец You got objections ?? M.Karelin (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is, I have a suggestion. But I haven't finished them yet. Will you offer add-ons? [19] --Путеец (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

______

References

Misleading orangutan section

The orangutan section (as seen here) was misleading and contradicted by the source cited so I edited it to reflect what was actually stated in the source. I will mention what the section previously stated (in italics) versus what problem with that statement is:

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 statement is written in a non-neutral manner and is WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead of saying something like "Homosexual behavior has been noted in captive orangutans. It has been observed twice in the wild", the use of "only" draws an unwarranted comparison between the former and latter sentences and gives the impression that homosexual behavior in orangutans is a result of their captivity (a conclusion contradicted by the source).

And even if the statement were written in the neutral way I proposed, the claim that "it has only been observed twice in the wild: once on Suaq Balimbing and once in Ketambe" would still have been factually incorrect. The use of "twice" is not accurate because it gives the impression that only two homosexual encounters have ever been observed in the history of wild orangutan research. Actually the cited source, Fox (2001), mentioned that homosexual behavior had been previously observed in the wild in rehabilitated orangutans by earlier research. Fox (2001) herself reported seeing wild orangutans engaging in a number of homosexual sex acts at different homosexual encounters at different times of the day at Suaq Balimbing, and engaging in one homosexual encounter at Ketambe. Fox (2001) does say that "Homosexual behavior was observed two times: once at Suaq Balimbing and once at Ketambe" in her study but she also states that for her own observations, she defined homosexual behavior "as same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation." So in the 'two times' sentence, she's talking about the two times 'same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation' occurred during the observation period. In her study, she mentions in detail other homosexual sex acts that also occurred and she discusses them as parts of the homosexual encounters. So basically, Fox (2001) states that homosexual behavior was recorded in wild orangutans by earlier research in addition to the study itself.

Anal introduction was not confirmed.

This sentence suggests that anal intercourse was not confirmed at both Suaq Balimbing or Ketambe. Actually Fox (2001) has been selectively quoted. Anal intercourse could not be confirmed at Ketambe only (though the wild male orangutans there did engage in anilingus and anal fingering, among other sexual behaviors). The relevant statement is: "Herman reapproached Eibert and briefly made oral contact with Eibert’s anogenital region. Eibert moved to enter an old nest, and Herman followed, penis erect. Eibert reclined in the nest with spread legs. Herman, penis still erect, entered the nest and positioned himself in upright posture between Eibert’s legs. Slight thrusting movements occurred, although anal intromission could not be confirmed. Neither male vocalized. It is unclear which male terminated the encounter. No aggression was observed, and the males simultaneously left the nest and resumed feeding on cambium at the previous feeding site."

And Fox (2001) definitely reports anal intercourse at Suaq Balimbing between the orangutans Dio and Lito: "I observed ventro-ventral contact of the anogenital region (Dio sitting, Lito reclining on back) with Dio thrusting."

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

This sentence is part of the introductory paragraph of the study. The study went on to establish that homosexual behavior also occurs in wild orangutans that have never experienced captivity and that homosexual behavior is not an artifact of captivity (even in captive orangutans). But this conclusion of the study wasn't mentioned in the Wiki article. Mentioning the According to Fox ... any Great Ape sentence in the Wiki article, without mentioning the actual findings of the study (even though they're in the Abstract of the study), furthered the impression that homosexual behavior in orangutans is an artifact of captivity, which is misleading.

The fact that the actual conclusions of the article establishing that homosexual behavior is part of the normal behavior of wild orangutans were not mentioned, coupled with the cherry-picked sentences, non-neutral language and all I stated above, give me the impression that the section was written in bad faith. There should be consequences. Frankly, I don't think those who misrepresented the source should be allowed to edit this article. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0 In my opinion, the current proposal is still not in line with the article. But I think that by joint efforts we will come to a more qualitative exposition. Indeed, in the wild, homosexual behavior was observed twice. This is claimed by the source. If you have a description of other observations, then you must add them. I added the formulation by relying on the authority of a scientist working in this field, and speaking in English. It's easier for me to just quote the finished text. In addition, the section is not finished yet, as the edits are actively canceled. I also have additional material describing the behavior in captivity. I suggest that you propose an addition that indicates the presence of only two observations in the wild, and an indication that homosexual behavior in orangutans is less common than in the other monkeys. The article does not have enough editors who read the sources. You have also deleted an important description of partnership and agonistic behavior. I think this is also not a neutral point of view. I'm in no hurry with the definition of the ability to edit articles in this regard. So as am counting on cooperation and a joint addition articles. I apologize in advance if my text is confusing or not polite, this Google translator. With respect, --Путеец (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"former and latter sentences and gives the impression that homosexual behavior in orangutans is a result of their captivity (a conclusion contradicted by the source)." Maybe it's a play on words, and elusive sense to me. I didn't get that impression, given this statement: "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." --Путеец (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец: Indeed, in the wild, homosexual behavior was observed twice.

Misleading statement. 'Same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation' was observed two times in that specific study. I've explained above that the author defined 'homosexual behavior' in a very restrictive way (i.e., as 'same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation'). Based on that definition, she stated that 'homosexual behavior' was observed two times. This wiki article does not define the term 'homosexual behavior' in that restrictive way. Besides, Fox (2001) observed various homosexual encounters, involving various sexual acts between males (the 'same-sex genital contact and/or manipulation' occurred two times during those encounters). The number of encounters and types of homosexual acts performed are more than two, and Fox (2001) recognizes that things like "ventro-ventral contact of the anogenital region" followed by thrusting or the ventro-ventral 'hugging' with erect penises for 9 minutes were homosexual acts as she describes them as part of homosexual encounters.

If you have a description of other observations, then you must add them.

Fox (2001) describes a homosexual sexual encounter at midmorning, then another encounter 30 minutes later, then one at midday, etc. The study also mentions that homosexual behavior had been recorded in earlier research among rehabilitated orangutans in the wild. This is all in the source. Did you not read it?

I suggest that you propose an addition that indicates the presence of only two observations in the wild

Such an addition would be untruthful and misleading as I explained earlier so that's not going to happen.

and an indication that homosexual behavior in orangutans is less common than in the other monkeys.

Fox (2001) opined that homosexual encounters might be less common in orangutans than other apes (not monkeys; the orangutan is an ape). She did not verify this prediction in her research. So I am not going to add that opinion as if it is confirmed fact, unless there is any research that states that homosexual behavior is indeed less common in orangutans than other apes. And let me emphasize that the reason she thought this, as mentioned in the study, is that orangutans are solitary animals that do not meet each other as frequently as other apes (who are much more social).

You have also deleted an important description of partnership and agonistic behavior.

I did not delete it; the line was never part of the Wiki article. And the line meant that one wild orangutan pair used reciprocal kiss-squeaks during homosexual interactions while another shared food. Not mentioning this detail did not affect neutrality. And refrain from making additions such as this and this to your reply after you've posted it. Just write in a new line with a new timestamp.

Maybe it's a play on words, and elusive sense to me. I didn't get that impression

You didn't get the impression when the Abstract literally states: "These observations demonstrate that homosexual behavior is not an artifact of captivity or contact with humans" and "These observations add orangutans to the list of primates in which homosexual behavior forms part of the natural repertoire of sexual or sociosexual behavior"? I have a hard time believing that. The statement you quoted, as anyone with access to the source knows, is again cherry-picked. The lines preceding that statement are: "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." The statement is not specific to orangutans, and as the study went on to establish, homosexual behavior was present not only in orangutans in captivity but also in the wild. You are again misrepresenting and selectively quoting the source to imply a conclusion that the source does not support, the way you did in the misleading orangutan section. —Human10.0 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus Please tell us your opinion. In my opinion, the current version is misleading and needs to be supplemented. --Путеец (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not actually disagree with Human10.0. My suggestions were largely an attempt to find a compromise between our positions; I interpreted the source similarly. While their edits are more WP:Bold than anything I would do, I do not disagree with their interpretation of Fox's research. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus: Thank you for your input. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Миша Карелин: Have you had a chance to read this conversation? I would like to hear your thoughts. Also, I believe that Путеец has displayed several of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Should an ANI report be filed? —Human10.0 (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Human10.0, feel free to revert him. I've already noted that his additions are not fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It's easier for me to offer material. In order for native English speakers to add it to the article. Let's improve the article together. --Путеец (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Путеец, I doubt that you are here to improve the article. User Human10.0 is right - you have displayed several of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. M.Karelin (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User Human10.0, I have read your comments, and I agree with you. M.Karelin (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, Миша Карелин: Thank you for your feedback. —Human10.0 (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)