Talk:Human–animal hybrid
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theHuman–animal hybrid article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article was nominated fordeletion on 2006 May 17. The result ofthe discussion wasredirect toParahuman. |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The content ofTheriocephaly wasmerged intoHuman–animal hybrid on 15 November 2020. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page. |
 | Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error |
This is nothing. I've not heard anything about this "Bushism" since the week he said it... All I see this entry as being is a way to advertise the T-Shirts shown in the picture on the article.Kujila
Shouldn't this article be merged withParahuman? --Atlastawake16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth keeping this one separate; that bit of the speech stood out. -Kris Schnee
Is President Bush's use of the term "animal" to refer to non-human animals that worthy of note? SeeAnimal#Usage of the word animal which indicates that such usage is common. That's why there's a joke that goes:
--Metropolitan9008:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can classify us with monkeys and other all you like this doesn't makes monkeys human(even trained monkeys).People have complex society,langauge,logical reasoning,etc(thousands of things animals lack),and are socially progressive while animals will forever be animals(they might evolve/mutate into other animals or selectively bred to be pets/livestock but it never changes the issue).
None of what you said changes the fact that we are animals.AnarchistiCookie (talk)22:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I also listened to the speech live at the time, and yes, the "human-animal hybrid" thing did strike me as a particularly hyperbolic piece of rhetoric. That said, this particular phrase in a Bush speech doesn't at all seem worthy of its own encyclopedia article; compareaxis of evil for a phrase that certainly does.
Also, the meaning of "animal" as "non-human animal" is not at all uncommon, and hardly requires the highly speculative exploration of Mr. Bush's personal theology we have now.--Pharos16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did Wikipedia become a place to put your favorite (or least favorite) quotes from someone's speech? This is not appropriate for Wikipedia. This page should be deleted, all useful information should be moved toParahuman and the page should redirect there.--Dakart02:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page currently uses idioms such as "in the same boat" and "dead end". It also employs imprecise and uncited musings such as "something like one percent or less". I suspect this would make the article difficult to understand for readers whose primary language is not English. It also reduces the article's perceived credibility.Harrysargent (talk)20:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onHuman–animal hybrid. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)14:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"However, mixing between species in the wild both now and through natural history have generally resulted in sterile offspring, thus being a kind of dead end in reproductive terms.[23]"- Business Times or similar magazines should not be counted as an authoritative source, especially for genetics.- the cited source doesnt even make the above cited broad statement about sterility of hybrids.- the cited statement is simply false. it could be rephrased like "mammalian hybrids have generally a reduced fertility, many combinations being close to hundred percent sterile. the closer (more similar) the cromosomal structure of two speciemens the greater the chance for viable offspring." - also the use of the source is wrong because the cited article is about non human related hybridization.maybe it would be best to divide the article into two parts: one about mythological human-hybrids like centaurs, anubis, minotaur, etc, and one about real hybrids and THEN merge both chunks with the articles they belong to.80.99.38.199 (talk)20:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
More or less for the reasons I outlined in myPROD rationale: an absence of substantial coverage of this specific concept in reliable sources, and an apparent absence of any use whatsoever of the term "Theriocephaly" prior to the creation of a Wikipedia article under that name. I suspect, however, that some brief discussion of the target could be a useful addition to the proposed target (perhaps as a paragraph following the one beginning "For example, Pan"?). – Arms & Hearts (talk)20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
YMerge completedKlbrain (talk)21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]So where does discussion of human-animal chimeras belong? This article,Human chimera, or its own article? Currently it's in both. —Omegatron (talk)18:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
