Plenty of academic research referenced in detail at the wikipedia article on homosexual behavior in animals. Roughgarden and Bagemihl have done extensive research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Roughgarden en.wikipedia.org/.../Homosexual_behavior_in_animals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bagemihl http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10139001.php www.amazon.com/.../031225377X www.amazon.com/.../ref=sr_1_3
Isa, you are a wiki scholar? Surely you are not quoting wikipedia to prove a point! Wiki is a joke. Many incorrect things have been posted on Wikipedia as gospel by its loyal followers. This is hilarious. please, you are joking, right.
Oh right. I forgot. That means everything on wikipedia is a lie. Idiot. It's a valid resource. Especially when the vast majority of information on wikipedia is cited. Perhaps Isa was too lazy to follow the footnotes and cite the original scientific articles, but you're a fool for discounting the facts in that manner.
Actually wiki is not a valid source of information. Writing any essays at University level would be an instant fail if you quoted from Wiki because it's just so simple to change the information. If they had linked from the original source, then fair enough. A friend of mine had once changed the entire "Roman Catholic Church" section of info on wiki to "Does not exist." That stayed up for 3 days. He also became the King of Tesco's for over a week, is wiki is to be believed.
No, David is right. "It's on Wiki" is absolutely not a valid reason to discount information. It's not exposing false information, and "I had a friend once who..." is also not valid. I find it quite ironic that the very people who harp on the ease of misrepresenting information never have documents of these whacky vandalism experiments, since they seem to be so commonplace. The fact of the matter is that Ise is not using Wiki in an inappropriate manner. S/he is simply saying that it details a lot of research. Because that's what an encyclopedia DOES, it doesn't generate the information, it DOCUMENTS it. Be honest, if s/he had listed 2 dozen links to every single source Wiki had, you wouldn't bother to read them, either. So, what is the difference if s/he uses one source you aren't going to check, as opposed to another?