Talk:Q28937368

Strange merge

@ChristianKl: are you really sure about you merge of human being (Q28937368) (a philosophical concept, invented by humans some centuries ago) and human (Q5) (a biological concept, created by nature millenias ago). This make no sense to me. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but the biological concept is Homo sapiens (Q15978631). --Yanik ^B 14:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: You are wrong when you call human (Q5) a strictly biological concept. The item for the strictly biological concept is Homo sapiens (Q15978631). human (Q5) subclasses natural person (Q154954) which is a man-made legal concept and person (Q215627) which you could also call a philosophic concept. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: obviously human (Q5) is more than just biological which is already Homo sapiens (Q15978631) (exactly like frog (Q3116510) is more than just Rana (Q72738)). But Q28937368 and Q5 seems to be clearly two different concept anyway, one being mainly (but not only) biological and the second being clearly only philosophical. This is like merging Dasein (Q404130) and existence (Q468777). If we really want to merge human being (Q28937368), then human nature (Q742609) is a better candidate as it's a closer concept. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

FrWiki has no other page for "human" but it does have it's own page for human nature (Q742609). Doing the merge this way is benefitial for having interwikilinks. Plenty of Wikipedia's have seperate items for Dasein (Q404130) and existence (Q468777) that provide different meaning to the terms that prevents merging.

I don't agree that human (Q5) is mainly biological. When I think about who authors a scientific paper I care more about the person who authors it then I care about the organism that authors it. Most relations we care about are quite detached from the biological basis of humans. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: let's forget about human (Q5) for a minute. Take a look at fr:Être humain, does is really look like to be the same as en:Human, de:Mensch, zh:人, es:Humano? (or articles in any other language) The fourth is a redirect to Homo Sapiens and the three others mention it in the first sentence and talk a lot about biology (see the categories). Meanwhile, the French article doesn't talk at all about about biology (Homo Sapiens never appears) but only about different philosophy approach and philosopher's point of view (especially Heidegger, he's mentioned 72 times, which is logical when you know his work and the work and the Wikipedia editor who created this article). And most of all, I was planning to create an article in French about Q5, how do I do now? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My French is on a very basic level and I don't know the particular reasons of the history of why the French Wikipedia has no separate article for "human" if that's not due to an intentional decision and you create a separate item for "human" in the French Wikipedia I do agree that it would make sense to undo the merge. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The explanation is the simple usual wiki-way style. On French Wikipédia, for a long time (between 2004 and 2016), "être humain" was a redirect (to various similar articles, Homo Sapiens for the most time), like it still is on some Wikipedia (the Spanish Wikipedia for example). Then someone decided that the name could be used for something else, the philosophical concept developed in particular by Heidegger, which the same name (BTW, I'm asking right now on the article talk page to rename it to make it clearer, we'll see how it's unfolding). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)