Talk:Personhood

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Start‑class High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Start‑class High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History Start‑class High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Question: are there any other organizations within this movement other than Personhood USA and its affiliates? If so, what are they? -- Gigacephalus (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Personhood legislation"?

The focus on the movement may be mistaken. I'm inclined to think that our coverage should be at Personhood legislation, with a section in that article about the people advocating such legislation. In another article, I'm doing an edit referring to the legislation, which I'll make a piped link here while waiting to see what other editors think about a move. JamesMLane t c 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Personhood"?

This article is about a variety of issues related to "personhood" not just one movement. USchick (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women

Whether the 14th Amendment prohibits sex discrimination or not is not a question of women's "personhood" as defined in this article. If the Constitution required discrimination, then it would obviously be relevant to personhood. But at most, according to Scalia who believes that it does not prohibit sex discrimination, the Constitution is silent regarding women's personhood. In fact, Scalia would argue that the Constitution also does not prohibit discrimination against men as a class. If neither men nor women are persons, then who is left? Obviously, this controversy has nothing to do with personhood and does not belong in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The debate continues in the U.S Supreme Court over "personhood" as defined by law and in this article. If that's not relevant, I don't know what is. The information is sourced. Please do not revert without consensus. USchick (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is ot about personhood in US legislation. I think it is rather irrelevant to the larger topic of personhood how any particular American judge chooses to interpret the American constitution. Also it's recentism. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parochial

The article reads fairly parochial in its focus on many US specific constitutional debates such as Roe vs Wade and the recent commentary on the personhood of women. Such debates do not matter for the personhood of the vast majority of the world's population. In comparison the article doesn't even mention important debates such as the Valladolid debate of 1550 where Spanish colonizers debated whether the people of the new world should be considered full persons with legal and religoius rights. Women's rights and abolition movements were not US specific movements either.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

There is an article, non-human, that currently acts as a content fork to the non-human personhood section in this article. In addition to being completely unsourced, it also has an incomprehensible section on artificial intelligence and has a title that is an adjective (something we try to avoid. I think the article is completely salvageable and should go the way of non-human animals (i.e. a redirect). Thoughts? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging this article with the personhood wiki page. As previously stated by another author on December 8, 2011 "This article is about a variety of issues related to "personhood" not just one movement." The term non-human is a general term that covers a variety of uses. For example, www.dictionary.com defines non-human like this:

1.not human.

2.not displaying the emotions, sympathies, intelligence, etc., of most human beings.

3.not intended for consumption by humans: nonhuman products such as soaps and detergents.

This definition doesn't restrict the term solely to the animal right/personhood arguement. I do agree that there needs to be more sources and references for this article, but the lack of sources doesn't justify merging it with the personhood article. It means we need to add more sources. In regards to to the section which you find incomprehensible, please tell me what you don't understand and I will rewrite it so that it is more understandable.DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as well due to the inclusion of non-human (Artificial Intelligence) which has nothing to do with personhood. The AI usage of "non-human" is used across the Internet Advertising industry to refer to any online activity not performed by a human. If you want to merge the first portion of this article with the personhood article feel free, but the other portion needs to be retained in some fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E0:EE43:0:0:0:4 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should be merged; also the quality of what few sources this article uses are questionable and the part on hypothetical beings is completely un-sourced. It would actually look more journalistic to call that section "In popular culture" and to just be quoting science fiction stories than to be using original research. Even if someone actually knows some sentient machines, or happens to be an alien; half animal, or some kind of undead or spirit, than unless that information has been published before, and read by a substantial amount of people, than there's no reason to be mentioning it here. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circular reasoning Circular definition

This is ~~circular reasoning~~ circular definition because:
Personhood is the status of being a person. But simultaneously:
A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood,[...] 85.193.232.131 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not circular reasoning, because it doesnt involve any reasoning. It is just a definition of two mutually definitory concepts. Definitions are by definition circular.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is not circular reasoning but it is a circular definition. According to you "definitions are by definition circular" Are you serious? 85.193.232.131 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! MaynardClark (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The circular definition is nice? ;-) 85.193.232.131 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. :) USchick (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to suggest a different definition? Personhood has legal status and a legal definition that means something in court. A person is a being. USchick (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of personhood was correct. The real problem is with a person. All my activity here was unnecessary. Sorry about that confusion. 85.193.232.131 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]