An {{Q|43229}} is not necessarily a {{Q|16334295}}. Consider the United Nations, which is an organization and not a group of humans. So I am again going to remove this subclass link in the near future.
Topic on User talk:Hannolans
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The UN is an organisation with many humans employed, so a group of humans.
How so? If the UN is a group of humans then each of these humans is an instance of the UN, which you might (but might not) think of a member of the UN. But no human meets this criterion. If the UN has instances then these are the member states of the UN - so the UN is in no reasonable way a group of humans. Just because some item is an employee of some organization doesn't make them a member of that organization, let alone an instance of that organization.
Consider even an organization that might be thought of as having humans as instances - for example some sort of social club. The employees of that organization are not necessarily members of the organization, and definitely not necessarily instances of the organization.
States are the members of the UN, but humans are employees of the UN. They meet, they eat, they create works together like books and reports.
But the humans are definitely not instances of the United Nations, so the UN should not be a subclass of group of humans. Neither are the employees or directors or shareholders instances of a company, so again not a subclass of group of humans.
It depends if you see organisations as an organised team of humans that work together for a certain goal, for example the goals of the United Nations, or if you see organisations as a legal concept.