Talk:Great ape personhood

message: " plus the non-hominid Orang-utan" ... but Hominid seems to include orang-utans in the gorup -- Tarquin 19:19 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
I think what the article meant to say is that orang-utans are not members of the groups Homininae or Hominini, as gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Orang-utan

message: This strikes me as rather POV - for instance, it doesn’t mention the problems of assigning personhood to apes, such as the concept of accountability going along with rights. --Ahruman 16:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a philosophical position. It's a matter of personal opinion whether rights necessarily entail duties. After all, small children and the mentally incapacitated have no concept of responsibilities and they are still granted equal rights to the rest of us. Individuals from non-Western societies have different concepts of rights and responsibilities, yet they are not treated like second-class citizens when in our countries. It might be worthwhile mentioning these philosophical objections in a 'controversy' or 'criticism' section perhaps. JF Mephisto 02:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the scientific arguments related to this issue here … Homo Sapiens have this amazing ability of gross over population, environmental unbalance, and expanding their civilization to grandually cover all natural wild spaces.  Since we are bringing our society and economic pressures to them (deforestation and habitat destruction, hunting, global climate changes, etc.), the idea of giving them personhood would better allow humans to better take in account the real costs of their destruction (such as the possible destruction of our own species).  :-)  C'est la vie.  Nonprof. Frinkus 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I have read research proposing personhood not only covering Great Apes, but Whales (including Dolphins), Elephants and possibly even Giant Octopi.  Should that be covered in a linked article here, or if one already exists, should it be linked?  Nonprof. Frinkus 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support linking to equivalent articles. --205.201.141.146 19:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expantion of Personhood in the Future 

message: I have removed the claimed supporters as all three are living people and there were no sources:
"Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Mdbrownmsw 18:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographies of living persons 

message: I have just removed some material that seems to be related to the topic, but fails under WP:OR:
"That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."
The material I removed and the two sources cited do NOT specifically discuss "Great Ape personhood".
Mdbrownmsw 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: It is clear that Richard Dawkins has weighed in to the debate on Great Ape personhood, but I'm not sure it's fair to cite him as one of the three best known advocates.  A search for "Richard Dawkins" Great-Ape personhood results almost entirely in Wikipedia mirrors.  The support he expresses in  is hardly unqualified, being as follows:
:Nevertheless, it must be conceded that this book's proposal to admit great apes to the charmed circle of human privilege stands square in the discontinuous tradition. Albeit the gap has moved, the fundamental question is still 'Which side of the gap?' Regrettable as this is, as long as our social mores are governed by discontinuously minded lawyers and theologians, it is premature to advocate a quantitative, continuously distributed morality. Accordingly, I support the proposal for which this book stands.
-81.79.242.103 12:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Dawkins 

message: Jane Goodall, Richard Dawkins, Noel Edmonds, Peter Singer. Is it really necessary to have Noel Edmonds in this list? Totnesmartin 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd one out

message: Shouldn't the box on the right have a picture of a great ape, rather than a baboon?Petter Bøckman 06:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Either a bonobo or common chimpanzee.  Eperotao (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the discussion page to point that out myself. The picture should definiely be of a great ape. Baboons are monkeys, not great apes. *They have tails!* 24.252.142.184 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: One of the links is now owned by a cyber-squatter. Should be removed? 70.252.90.57 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: Has anyone pointed out in a reliable source the obvious problems in his rights vs responsibilities claim? It seems a little simplistic since children and people with severe mental impairment or major psychological problems have few responsibilities and those who ignore their responsibilities are still guaranteed certain rights in most circumstances. If not, has anyone came across Steve Jones arguments in other sources? Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Jones 

message: Hi Lisa, could you say what your objection is to this phrase? It seems fairly straightforward, so I'd be interested in hearing how you see it as mistaken. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we just removed the parenthetical? No information would be lost, and the controversial bit would be gone. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing controversial about the phrase "non-human great apes" that I'm aware of, and we'd be losing the information that bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans are the non-human great apes (see here, for example). I'd like to hear why Lisa feels it's inaccurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it was reverted and came to the talk page demonstrates controversy. And because the page is titled 'great ape personhood', it is already clear that bonobos, chimps, gorillas and organutans are great apes; moreover, I'm pretty sure it is known that they aren't humans. So no, nothing is lost. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A fact doesn't become controversial because one person keeps removing it without explanation. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is expected to explain the title and the contents of the article. So it makes sense to explain at the start that "great ape personhood" applies to the four non-human great apes: bonobos, chimps, gorillas and organutans. I hope Lisa will come here to explain her objection rather than continuing to revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I've added sources as requested.  SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything remotely controversial about "non human great apes" and Lisa has offered no explanation for her objections. The sources added by  SlimVirgin make the description quite clear.Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-human great apes 

message: I have removed bonobos from the list in the 1st paragraph, since it's misleading as it seem to state that gorillas and orangutans are species, if people really want to list bonobo, list all species, it will be like this: bonobos, (common) chimpanzees, western gorillas, eastern gorillas, Bornean orangutans, and Sumatran orangutans, but this seems too long. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  All or none 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Great ape personhood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150521131353/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/germany.animalwelfarel to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/germany.animalwelfarel
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great ape personhood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160909212513/http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2015/04/20/judge-recognizes-two-chimpanzees-as-legal-persons-grants-them-writ-of-habeas-corpus/ to http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2015/04/20/judge-recognizes-two-chimpanzees-as-legal-persons-grants-them-writ-of-habeas-corpus/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great ape personhood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430234057/http://news.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/habeas%20update.pdf to http://news.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/habeas%20update.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified