Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Эдуард Шерешевский, welcome to Wikipedia. Please take a few moments to read up on the core principles of how things are and aren't done here. We do not change verified, reliably-supported text simply because it does not agree with our opinions and preferences. We report what the sources say. Moreover, your edit summary did not justify the edit you made. No claim is made that the majority of 30 million species is homosexual, so your refutation of such a claim is spurious. Your change to the article has been reverted. —ScheinwerfermannT·C18:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello Scheinwerfermann, I would like to thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I have read parts of the article about Homosexuality, and I believe that it does not represent a NPOV. To start off with, 6 out of 7 of the so-called reliable references for the sub-category [behavior in animals] are passage and excerpt from a biologist named Bruce Bagemihl. This biologist is also homosexual and he is also a gay rights activist. This does not sound to me as a reliably-supported article and certanly does not represent a Neutral Point Of View.
My summary included facts from a reliable website that I found yesterday with a reliable website that i can no-longer find. For your convenience I have attached an other reliable link: [Fish and Wildlife Service.] This link states that there are around 10 to 50 million species in the world. This being said, it is rediculous to use the word "widely" since the research has only been conducted by Mr. Bruce Bagemihl and he found that only 450 animals supposedly have homosexual tendencies. I do not think that the word "widely" should be used in describing less than .000045% of animals. A more suitable word would be "seldomly/almost never" or to compromise the word that you reverted "sometimes".
You said the following;"Nope, we'll report what the sources say, not Эдуард Шерешевский's POV on what s/he thinks it should say." When I look up resources and spend my time contributing constructively to Wikipedia, I do not appreciate when someone ridicules and mocks my contributions. What you wrote basically means "you cant give your oppinion, but, we can." Is this correct? Is this what Wikipedia is all about? Эдуард/Edward20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is an encyclopædia. Neither your opinion nor mine counts. What counts is not what we know, or think we know, or believe, nor our viewpoint on a fact. It's what we can prove that matters. Your assertion regarding Bagemihl borders on the scurrilous; you seem to be saying that anyone gay cannot possibly be a good scientist. I urge you to take it down a notch and spend some time reading and absorbing the tenets of Wikipedia before diving, unequipped, right into controversy with those who have more experience than you here. —ScheinwerfermannT·C22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Never have I written any derogatory remarks concerning Bagemihl. Nor have I ever suggest that homosexuals cannot be scientists. What I am asserting is the following; when research on a certain subject has not been conducted by multiple parties, that research cannot possibly be reliable since it has not been verified. Have you read the following articles? Please do not bite the newcomers, Be bold. I am simply abiding by Wikipedia’s policies. You may conclude what you want from what I write, but the best thing about writing is that nobody can bend my words. P.S. Thank you for adding more references to support your thoughts! Эдуард/Edward01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Further to what's already been said, I think you reached your 0.00045% figure through a pretty dubious manoeuvre. I'm guessing the researchers didn't survey all 50 million species and find that only 450 exhibit homosexual tendencies. More likely 450 is a significant number of the species that they chose to sample, hence the use of 'widely' in the article. This is perfectly legitimate and I'm also guessing that you know that. I won't speculate about why you chose to pretend otherwise. – Steel01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
It looks as if we’re almost on the same page over here. I, just like you, do not believe that they have surveyed all 50 million species since only 2% have been found. What I do not find right, in my humble opinion, is the fact that the word “widely” is used here. If 450 or 1500 is a significant number in their study they should state that. Ex: “Homosexual behavior is also widely observed in the animals observed (or studied).” instead of “Homosexual behavior is also widely observed in animals.” The last excerpt induces readers into believing that homosexuality is common and usual in the animal kingdom (when we both know that this is not the case). Эдуард/Edward02:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
offline
