Talk:Non-human

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Robotics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Personhood#Humans|human animal]] The anchor (#Humans) has been deleted by other users before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

I've started this page because I was irritated at being re-directed to the Human page when searching for non-human. I look forward to seeing if/how others elaborate on my initial attempt at introducing non-humans to Wikipedia! (FrauKramer (talk))

Good idea! Does anyone mind if I move it to "non-human" or nonhuman"? I don't think I've seen "non human" written like that, or at least not often. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead. They were both 'taken' as re-directs, and I wasn't sure how to move an article. I did change their re-direct to this page though. (FrauKramer (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC))Reply

Do you have a preference between "non-human" and "nonhuman" as the main title (with the others as redirects)? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not really. I think they're interchangeable, although I've seen Non-human more often, and that's how Latour uses it. (FrauKramer (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC))Reply

I changed 'animals' back to 'actors' because the definition of non-human is wider in scope than just relating to animals. See the introductory paragraph of the Jim Johnson pdf: "the author chooses one very humble nonhuman, a door-closer." Maybe 'nonhuman animals' need to be elaborated on as a specific (and perhaps dominant) sub-catagory. (FrauKramer (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC))Reply

Reference incongruity

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While I'm a big fan of MacIntyre's work, and I think this article's subject is important and that the article itself well-written, the reference supplied does not seem to be directly relevant to the text of the article. The problem of what is or isn't sufficient to comprise human rationality is a separate problem from the agency of, and human dependence on, non-humans. I don't have a copy of DRA handy, so can someone who does select a more pertinent quote, or replace it with something from Johnson or Latour?

Thanks. Walkinxyz (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Reference incongruity