Talk:Non-human

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)

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))

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)

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))

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))

Reference incongruity

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)