Talk:Person/RfC archive

people or persons

I would say the correct gramatical usage is the words people. If people disagree pleease provide evidnce tp the contrary and lets discuss the rationally rather than reverting.--Lucy-marie 00:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy-marie, I have done on your Talk page (User talk:Lucy-marie#Persons v. People) as you know but you refuse to take this in. You are wrong - please accept this and revert your edits, which may be regarded as vandalism now that you have been told. Your edits here and elsewhere of persons/people have made those articles nonsense (and there is absolutely no excuse for making edits to extracts in quote marks from cited books). Emeraude 11:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 Dec, in a series of edits, User:Lucy-marie went through this article globally changing "persons" to "people", stating in her first edit that "persosns is an icorrect grammar pluralisation it is people or a person or a person's rights and carried out a clean up". In later edits, she completed the process and also altered every occurence of "personhood" (a technical term explained and used in the article) to "being a person". I put the following note on her talk page( User talk:Lucy-marie#Persons v. People), and reverted:

I have seen a couple of pages where you have unilaterally altered 'persons' to 'people' on the grounds that persons is an incorrect grammar pluralisation it is people or a person. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple and in the examples I've seen, particularly Person you are, in fact, quite wrong.

Generally, 'people' is used to mean a mass (e.g. "People don't like this" or "There were so many people."). 'Person' is used to denote an individual, so when referring to several individuals who remain individuals and are not a mass, we should say 'persons'. Look in your dictionary. I even notice that 'personnel' is defined in my dictionary as 'the persons employed in a company...'.

In your edits of Person you also altered every use of 'personhood' to 'being a person'. This is not the same at all. A 'knighthood' is not the same as 'being a knight'; similarly 'sisterhood' and 'being a sister'; 'adulthood' and 'being an adult'; 'royalty' and 'being royal'. In each case, the first is a status, the second is what we do. More importantly, you even made this alteration within a quote from a book which is clearly the wrong thing to do. You may not like the word (neither do I as it happens, it sounds very clumsy) but neverthless it is a correct word, is well-understood within the topic and is properly explained in the article.

I have reverted through the article. If you have changed person to people elesewhere, you might want to check that you have done so correctly. Emeraude 00:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Her reply was:

:If you have more than one person eg two you have two people not two persons please give me a sentecne were the exclusive word the can be used is persons--Lucy-marie 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

to which I responded with the following examples:

"All persons proceeding beyond this point must be in possession of a valid ticket." Or, if you prefer, just two uses from the Chambers Everyday Paperback Dictionary: "personnel(Fr.), the persons employed in any service, as distinguished from the materiel (equipment, supplies, &c.)" and "personal.... aimed offensively at a particular person or persons (e.g. abuse, remark)". Going further, when I look up people I find "...the mass of the nation: persons generally". Emeraude 10:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

However, Lucy-marie did not wait for this explanation but reverted back, stating in her edit:

Undo revision 97430721 by Emeraude (talk) as no clear reasonsning given as to why persosn is used it dosent read correctly and is bad grammar

and starting this discussion thread.

I have done what Lucy-marie asked in providing evidence that 'persons' is a real word. She has not yet admitted her error and re-corrected the changes she made. The first time I can accept that a genuine mistake was made, but having been shown that persons (and personhood) are perfectly acceptable and correct I fell she should now have the grace to change the article back to its original state (with the exception of 'whomb' and similar correct edits). If not, I shall do it myself later, but it is a big job. Emeraude 16:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to sound beligerant but as this is one opinion against another and no other user has commented on the changes i have made i think it more a diffrence of gramatical interprtation rather than vandalism. If loads of people were all having a go at me then maybe i would consider i was qrong but as it is just you and me i think this is a difrence of interpritation rather than me being a vandal.--Lucy-marie 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I have given you examples from a British dictionary soit is not one opinion against another and opinion is irrelevant anyway - this is not about opinion but correct English usage. Have you checked in a dictionary like I suggested? Have you a qualification in English Language? Who else have you checked with? Keep in mind that this is not a frequently read page, so responses are not going to run into large numbers. Check your facts - use a dictionary. Ask an expert (such as an English teacher like me). Emeraude 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or use Wiktionary where if you look up person you will find that the plural is persons:

Noun

person (plural: persons, people (by suppletion)) person

And if you look up people you will find uses of 'persons':

Noun

people (collective and common noun; plural peoples)

1. A body of human beings considered generally or collectively; a group of two or more persons.

2. (plural peoples) A group of persons forming or belonging to a particular nation, class, ethnic group, country, family, etc; folk; community.

3. A group of persons regarded as being employees, followers, companions or subjects of a ruler.

4. A person's ancestors, relatives or family.

5. The mass of community as distinguished from a special class; the commonalty; the populace; the vulgar; the common crowd; the citizens.

Translations

a body of human beings; a group of two or more persons people

Emeraude 10:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wictionary is not a reliable enough source for this please do not try and make that your profession has anything to do with this. I have had an encounter wih you before and did not find the tone used before to be construcive (see Talk:British National Party). I am no not go to be co operative with you as you are trying to say you are the perfect fountain of knowledge by brinnging your profession in to this. Consider this a sttement of me withdrawing my co-operation.--Lucy-marie 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What co-operation? Your reference to the BNP discussion was an issue where you misread what I had written, as another user has pointed out to you when you complained about me! Wiktionary has its faults, but this isn't one of them. And Chambers dictionary? My profession is irrelevant - I suggested you ask an English teacher and I bet you haven't. I suggested you use a dictionary. I bet you haven't. Please grow up and admit you are wrong. Emeraude 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: persons v. people

This is a dispute about the use of the words "persons" and "personhood" in the Person article. Emeraude 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

User:Lucy-marie has globally altered every occurence of 'persons' to 'people' on the grounds that there is no such word as 'persons'. Similarly, she has altered every occurence of 'personhood' (a technical expression fully explained in the article) to 'being a person' (including an alteration in a quote from a cited source). On her talk page, I attempted to show her the error and, in response to her request, provided evidence (see User talk:Lucy-marie#Persons v. People) and reverted most of the changes she had made. She later reverted again, on the grounds that I had not proved her wrong. Not wanting to enter a 'revert war', I continued the discussion above, providing further evidence and links to Wiktionary (see Talk:Person#people or persons). Lucy-marie has now stated that she has withdrawn her co-operation. Emeraude 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Persons" is an entirely valid word in the English language. Generally, it is correct to use "persons" when one is referring to a group of people as individuals. This may be somewhat confusing, but as an example-"All living persons have a head on their shoulders". In this case, each individual person has a head on their shoulders-it's not something the group can have in aggregate but an individual can lack. On the other hand, "A group of people carried the casket" correctly uses "people"-in this case, it is the group which has the casket, not each individual person. It's a very tricky point, but hopefully no one ends up in trouble here over a grammar dispute! Seraphimblade 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with your example I think the correct grammar useage is "All living people have a head on thier shoulders." For the sentence reads better. I mean which reads better
"All living people have a head on thier shoulders."
or
"All living persons have a head on their shoulders."--Lucy-marie 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Persons" is definitely an acceptable plural of "person", although it is less colloquial than "people" in many contexts. In other contexts, though, "persons" is the only correct plural. The plural of grammatical person can only be "persons" (as in "Some Native American languages have pronouns in four persons rather than the three persons familiar from European languages"); also the Christian Trinity is said to consist of "three persons", the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In neither of those cases would it be possible to say "people" instead of "persons". —An gr 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok lets put youir cliam to the test that the word person cannot be used instead.The word people is also not a coloquialism the word persons is more coloquial and bordline amiercanism.

"Some Native American languages have pronouns in four people rather than the three people familiar from European languages")
"Some Native American languages have pronouns in the fourth person rather than just the third second and first person familiar from European languages")
Trinity is said to consist of "three people", the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If anything the word persons is a lazy way of writing english. Just like other word whihc have been lazied by dropping letters such a U.
I Have just successfully used the word people in the above sentences you used as examples.--Lucy-marie 15:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't. While the Trinity example could arguably go either way, the Native American langauges example cannot. But then, 'person' in grammar is not the same thing as 'person' meaning a being. And 'persons' is not, as you say "bordline amiercanism". The examples I've given you before from a BRITISH dictionary prove this. I bet you still haven't looked in one, have you? Emeraude 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is very derogatory and until you stop with the tone i will not co-operate with you i will co-operate with other people who make valid contributions.--Lucy-marie 15:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you have not co-operated. You stated earlier that you would not co-operate. That is why I made a Request for Comments. Please point out what is derogratory in my last post. Emeraude

I bet you still haven't looked in one, have you? This sent me to get a derogatory tone from the statement. You also claimed to be an english teacher which i now doubt highly as you have started a sentence woth and.--Lucy-marie 16:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that you looked in a dictionary on several occasions because I knew that if you did you would see the answer. Why is that derogatory? But you haven't have you? And there's a sentence starting with 'but'. English language rules are not hard and fast. You are not getting any support here, so please will you look in a dictionary or ask an English teacher - show him or her this discussion and ask for a comment. (By the way, your final sentence about me being an English teacher probably IS derogatory, but I'll let it pass.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emeraude (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry everyone. Forgot to sign above. Emeraude 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you read the last sentence correctly (It was to make you feel how I did) and I have allready asked an Englsih teacher who said the following: the word people is the correct pluralisation but the word persons is being used more and more, but is not strictly the correct terminoligy.--Lucy-marie 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, per wikipedia rules, your talk to your english teacher is not acceptable evidence. It is Original Research. --- Skapur 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also willing to let all insults or percieved insults slide now so we can get back to the actual debate. I do not think we will ever come to a satisfactory conclusion here.--Lucy-marie 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have a solution (not very workable though). Split this article into two articles: Person (British usage) and Person (American usage). --- Skapur 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its because im from where im from..but I have never..ever heard the word 'persons' ever spoke to me, not once, its person, if its more than one..then its people. ive never used 'persons' and until thirty seconds ago I didnt know the word existed...so i think it should be people..not persons Fethroesforia 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article is PERSON not PEOPLE! Lucy-Marie does not accept the consensus of the other editors on this issue. This article should be left in its pre-peopleized state till the RFC is resolved --- Skapur 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now asomeone on my side as well backing me up so the concensus is more slipt. I agree that splitting in to two articles would resolve this issue.--Lucy-marie 02:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this clinches it:

person noun (persons or in sense 1 also people) 1 an individual human being. 2 the body, often including clothes • A knife was found hidden on his person. 3 grammar each of the three classes into which pronouns and verb forms fall, first person denoting the speaker (or the speaker and others, eg I and we), second person the person addressed (with or without others, eg you) and third person the person(s) or thing(s) spoken of (eg she, he, it or they). 4 (Person) Christianity any of the three forms or manifestations of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that together form the Trinity (sense 2). 5 in compounds used instead of -man, -woman, etc, to denote a specified activity or office, avoiding illegal or unnecessary discrimination on grounds of sex, eg in job advertisements • chairperson • spokesperson. Compare chairman, chairwoman, etc. be no respecter of persons to make no allowances for rank or status. in person 1 actually present oneself • was there in person. 2 doing something oneself, not asking or allowing others to do it for one.

Source: Chambers Dictionary (about as British as it gets) from Chambers Reference Online. Note that it says the plural of 'person' is 'persons', with 'people' also allowed in sense 1. Emeraude 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC) This is a definition from the online dictionary of the word people.[reply]

1.persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4. the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.
5. the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.
6. the ordinary persons, as distinguished from those who have wealth, rank, influence, etc.: a man of the people.
7. the subjects, followers, or subordinates of a ruler, leader, employer, etc.: the king and his people.
8. the body of enfranchised citizens of a state: representatives chosen by the people.
9. a person's family or relatives: My grandmother's people came from Iowa.
10. (used in the possessive in Communist or left-wing countries to indicate that an institution operates under the control of or for the benefit of the people, esp. under Communist leadership): people's republic; people's army.
11. animals of a specified kind: the monkey people of the forest. –verb (used with object)
12. to furnish with people; populate
13. to supply or stock as if with people: a meadow peopled with flowers.
So according to the above definition it can be used to represent a collective and according to the first defintion it can be used to represnt individuals so therefore it can be used to reprersnt both.--Lucy-marie 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion about the correct usage of the words "persons" and "people" is irrelevant: it is the only the opinions of dictionaries that matter. No "consensus" can overrride the opinions of reliable sources. (By the way, the Church always refers to the Trinity as a union of three persons, never "people"—read the Catechism or any official Church document.) -- WGee 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment of yours is particularly outrageous: "If people disagree pleease provide evidnce tp the contrary and lets discuss the rationally rather than reverting." The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion—that is a universal rule to which you ought to get accustomed. So far you've provided no credible evidence to support your opinion: your faulty rhetoric and the opinion of your English teacher do not qualify as evidence. -- WGee 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to attack me if you have a problem with me please can you leave a message on my talk page and not on a public discussion.--Lucy-marie 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to justify your unverifiable original research. Present reliable sources to support your contributions, or don't expect them to remain in the article for long. -- WGee 22:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy-marie's dictionary evidence above has six uses of the word 'persons', so it's clearly a word which exists. The forked articles Person (American English) and Person (British English) have been deleted following debate elsewhere (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Person (British English)). I see no point in prolonging this discussion and propose repairing the article to the 19 December version, with the inclusion of later edits not relating to 'persons'/'people' and 'personhood/being a person'. Emeraude 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That version exclusivly uses persons so according to both definitions the exclusive use of the word persons is wrong and a mixture is required if we are to get the article correct,--Lucy-marie 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your argument doesn't follow at all. Your conclusion that a mixture is required also doesn't follow. The fact that it exclusively uses 'persons' in defining 'people' is because 'persons', in the context, is the right word to use. There is a time to say persons and a time to say people and your extract merely backs up what I and everyone else has been saying all along. Look at my dictionary quote: it clearly says that the plural of 'person' is 'persons' and that 'people' may also be used in the the first, and only in the first, definition. It does not say, imply or suggest that one has to use a mixture of the words. In the context of this article and others where you have made changes, 'persons' and 'personhood' are absolutely correct, as so many other people (not persons) on here have said. Emeraude 15:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look you and i are never going to agree and i think you and I should step back and let other people decide on the wording as we are just going to keep on butting heads. Also, please can neither of us influence the views of others by talking to them about this issue through e-mails or by using firends or on talk pages or by posting any more comments on this talk page. You and I have both had fierce arguments over this and I think we shoud let other decide before we get what happened previously happening agian. I think it is the best way for us to get a fair and balanced result.

(Lucy-marie - You didn't sign above). It's precisley becasue I want to let others decide that I started this Request for Comments strand in the first place. No, we are never going to agree, quite simply because you are wrong as others here have pointed out, as evidence I have presented to you has shown and as the evidence even you presented shows. Remember, your original assertion was that there is no such word as 'persons' in English (whether British, American, Australian, whatever doesn't matter). That part is now resolved - the word is perfectly valid in British English (and others). I would also point out that you subverted the RfC process by declaring it closed, blanking a page and creating two new ones, which I nominated for deletion and other users speedied. I have been more than happy to let others decide, but given the weight of evidence and opinions already expressed here and in the deletion pages, is there any point in prolonging it? Is it time that you accepted that you have learned something and that the Ebglish language is a wondeful thing that never cease to amaze us? Incidentally, I have just come back from the Co-op where the sign next to the bacon slicer reads: "Persons under the age of 18 may not operate this machine." Emeraude 16:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i do think we should prolong this so we can see exactly what the disinterested views of other users are and i am not sure what the Ebglish language is i think you meant English language. I'm sorry i forgot to sign above and don't know how to do the unsigned thigey. So i think this page should be archived and a fresh discussion should be initated excluding the pair of us. this would satisfy me and would settle the argument as i would wholy accept the outcome. I also refer that we should not contact anybody on this issue at all until the RFC is completed and fully implmented. So can you agree to my proposal? Also I do not think either of us should close the rfc either.--Lucy-marie 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy-marie, you are getting personal again which doesn't help. I made a typing mistake. So what? Have you never made any? For your information, the easiest thing to do if you forget to sign something is just to go back and do it underneath with a little apology. I will do it now as a demonstration.

Sorry - forgot to sign above. Emeraude 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I scanned the article. A number of the usages of "people" in the article are wrong, and in no case is "persons" wrong. There are a few instances where "people" might be a better use in colloquial English (American or British), but it is probably better to have no instances of the word "people" in the article except possibly as a reference to the alternative use as a singular collective noun (definition 2 of wikt:people). If I were to make an arbitration ruling (not Wikipedia:arbitration), I would revert to the version with "person" and "personhood", and see if any individual edits since then were appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I proposed. Emeraude 21:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]