Talk:Human–animal hybrid

message: 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
*You have to vote here.--Pharos 04:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: Shouldn't this article be merged with Parahuman? --Atlastawake 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Is President Bush's use of the term "animal" to refer to non-human animals that worthy of note? See Animal#Usage of the word animal which indicates that such usage is common. That's why there's a joke that goes:
:Q: What animal would you be if you could be an animal?
:A: You already are an animal.
--Metropolitan90 08:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the big deal? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Humans are not animals. 

message: 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; compare axis 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.--Pharos 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep but merge/redirect with/to Bushism (linguisitics).  This article explain the subtle semantical difference in the usage of words (ie animal) by Bush.  aCute 03:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to vote here.--Pharos 04:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of Language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human–animal hybrid. 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/20150901080606/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_cat_returns to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_cat_returns/
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) 14:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
thread_title:  wrong use of source 

message: More or less for the reasons I outlined in my PROD 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)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[:Theriocephaly]] into [[:Human–animal hybrid]]  

message: * human–animal hybrid, each cell has both human and non-human genetic material
* an individual where some cells are human and some are derived from a different organism, called a human-animal chimera
* A human chimera, on the other hand, consists only of human cells, from different zygotes
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)
thread_title:  Scope of articles