The original def input was "# (usually preceded by the) The characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality." This seems to suffer from listing some of the things that make up the human condition but not all - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- Keep, I think it is more than the sum of its parts. Similar to human nature (which many others have). There is a little bit of lemming here too (M-W, their definition is pretty bad). - TheDaveRoss 16:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Means much more than just human + condition, as reflected in the current definition. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The definition is not substitutable and looks like a verbose attempt to obscure the SoPitude of the NP: "condition of being human". Compare, for example, urban condition, mammalian condition, authorial condition. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The definition is verbose because it's hard to define. That doesn't mean we should delete it. By that logic, we should delete postmodernism. Those terms you listed are not relevant - they are no where near as commonly used and understood as "human condition" is. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that the definition is a verbose way of explaining exactly what the term literally means. I am not sure that this means the entry should be deleted though. Although I am probably not always entirely consistent in my approach, I increasingly feel that the inclusion criteria should be adapted so that these kinds of clear set phrases that "have their own identity" can be included even if they are explicable as the sum of their parts. Mihia (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)