Talk:Person/Archive 1

message: I'm new here, but I was surprised by the big notice questioning whether the sections on non-human persons belonged in an encyclopedia. The idea of a personal God is a major element in much Christian theology and pastoral discourse. That alone should qualify the topic for inclusion, I think. There would need to be a neutral, encyclopedia-appropriate discussion, which doesn't seem to be here yet, and I don't think I'm the one to write. But include the topic? Yes.
Greener72 03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, non-human personhood is encyclopedia stuff

message: The capacity to be loved is what makes a true person
::If your girlfriend died 30 seconds ago and you're not yet aware of that, you still love her, but she's no longer a person. Furthermore, pets can be loved too, but few people would argue they are people. --Army1987 11:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capacity to be loved? 

message: Personhood Theory isn't entirely new. Personhood theory looks at personhood as an objective science for the most part. It's mostly of interest to transhumanist and Psychiatrist like myself. I think a quick msn search for "personhood theory" may bring a lot up on it. I deal mostly with the Psychiatric aspects while some deal more with the hypothetical aspects. The criteria for personhood in personhood theory do not involve dreams and goals, but focus more on the capacity for self determination, self awareness, a Biographical self, and so forth. The reason I included what you so promptly moved is because it fits perfectly with the larger discussions in personhood theory, mainly the concept of an incomplete or developing person. I would like to have that paragraph that you moved, or something very similar, listed under personhood theory. user:lucavix
: I just wonder whether "personhood theory" is sufficiently mainstream for special mention? I mean, it's not that far removed from the criteria set out in the section above... Evercat 23:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personhood Theory 

message: I removed:
:Furthermore, this concept of person lead to a paradox regarding "person" in the objective sense. If an individual is not a person but is not not a person, ie. is a partial person, then if we are to use the word person in the objective sense the individual will be both a person and not a person at the same time. This has sometimes been countered by the argument that "person" is a subjective designation thus avoiding the paradox based in the objective sense. Although this can be further countered by the fact that if this is the case then persons are the ones defining what "person" means, which is circular reasoning meaning that "person" would be a meaningless concept which negates the meaningful nature that is needed for it in the field of ethics.
This is terrible. The whole point about having "degrees of X" is that you get away from the need to treat X as a binary "yes or no" concept. A different example would be intelligence. If someone said Bob was somewhat intelligent, and I said "What, you mean Bob both is and isn't intelligent? That's impossible!" I would just be making a mistake. Evercat 12:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph 

message: Don't get me wrong, though a bit on the Bioconservative side I do see many merits to transhumanism (especially in regards to radical life extension and self improvement) but there seems to now be a minor transhumanist slant that may be worth looking at. I'm not saying that Transhumanism is in any way a bad thing, even though I might not always favor some transhumanist arguments. I have realized in my past experiences here that I am extremely uncomfortable with withdrawing the categorization of person from a late term fetus or young infant, due to my own biases on the issue, so I'm not going to edit anything from fear of going overboard (my POV on this is reason enough to stay pretty much uninvolved). Anyway, I like most of what has been added to the Personhood Theory section, though I was slightly troubled with the suggestion that a sleeping human might be arguably not a person (Most secular humanist interested in personhood theory consider Periodic consciousness a first and primary criteria for personhood, but not continual uninterrupted consciousness). I would like to see some of Personhood Theory (not to suggest that all of it is represented with a slant, but some of it seems to be) represented from a more neutral and less transhumanistic slant. My main concern is that it may be percieved as too far from center if you will, and that some of the merits will be lost on some of the more conservative readers. --Lucavix 05:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploading proposals tend to assume that the mind does not persist through time in a substantial way (usually theoretically grounded on "eliminative reductivist" arguments that claim there is no soul or "self," but of more central importance, that conscious awareness itself is - somehow - an "illusion"), so making a "copy" of brain structures is - in terms of survival - just as good as preserving the original structure. Advocates also tend to believe that such a copy would have conscious experience rather than merely acting as a convincing automaton (though consistent eliminative reductivist advocates argue that *we already are* automaton-like entities).
When I think of this sort of reductivism I think of Parfit. Perhaps you're thinking of Dennett (who I've really not read at all) but I don't think this sort of view must see consciousness as an "illusion". Also, I don't see why this sort of view is any more open to this "automaton" charge than any other view. Even mind-body dualists can't say how the mere addition of something non-physical gets you out of Hume's dilemma that every thought was either determined or random... Evercat 11:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Transhumanist Slant 

message: The article has been cleaned up as per your request - contact me if you have any inquiries. Izehar 18:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Cleanup|Cleaned up]] 

message: Either People should be merged to Person or Person should be moved to Personhood. Currently there are two different articles with the same name, barring an accident of the language, and it's confusing. Melchoir 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People should not be merged to person. I'll check out personhood. Zanaq 11:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And no, person should also not be moved to personhood, there is a nice #redirect in place. I will remove the {merge}tags. Please explain what you find confusing, I may try to clear those elements up in the articles. Zanaq 11:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect is helpful, yes, but it doesn't really make the point strongly enough. Currently, as far as I can tell, the article Person is about personhood, the concept of being a person, but not about persons. The article People is about persons. What I find confusing is that these articles have the same name, modulo a plural, yet they cover different topics. I wouldn't expect to find such a content split on any other topic; to pick a random example, Fruit discusses both fruithood and actual fruits. Fruits is, as it should be, a redirect to Fruit. Melchoir 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article "Person" is about the philosophical topic. Personhood is a far more controversial and widely discussed matter than "fruithood", and it shouldn't be merged with people. I would support a move to Personhood, however. That title more strongly suggests the nature of the article. --The Famous Movie Director 02:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Movie Director's comments exactly. Bhuston 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: no merge! "people" = "group of persons" or "the people" of a nation while "person" is an entity - if a merge should occur it should be with Natural_person Iancarter 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I second your suggestion. It's helpful to recall that for Locke, person is entirely a forensic term, and human is a biological one. By the way, for Locke, children are selves, but they are not persons. As selves, they have certain rights (to life, among others), but as not-yet-persons, they are not yet accountable for their actions. Fascinating reading, Locke's Essay. (I'm writing about it now.) Cheers, Anthony Krupp 04:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[People]] to [[Person]] 

message: I suggest moving this page to Personhood, then making Person redirect to Person (disambiguation), with the disambig page improved to include links to all the relevant concepts: People, People (disambiguation), Human, Natural person for the legal term, and Personhood for the philosophical debate about who is a person (this page). This talk page doesn't have a lot of activity, so I'll give it a week or two to see if there are any objections. I haven't done a move that significant before, so someone needs to tell me if there would be dire consequences. --Grace 10:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second your suggestion. It's helpful to recall that for Locke, person is entirely a forensic term, and human is a biological one. By the way, for Locke, children are selves, but they are not persons. As selves, they have certain rights (to life, among others), but as not-yet-persons, they are not yet accountable for their actions. Fascinating reading, Locke's Essay. (I'm writing about it now.) Cheers, Anthony Krupp 04:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name dispute

message: In the first  sub paragraph somebody werote: " that elevates it above mere objects".  In my oppinion this should be rewarded.  Animanls are often not considered to be "mere objects". I think a better statement would be: "above nonsentient beings".  Your thoughts? --BorisFromStockdale 02:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about the need for rewording. If you read the paragraph, the point being made is about non-human persons and specieism, as well as a direct link to the animal rights debate. --Bhuston 09:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording

message: "A human being is a member of the genetic species Homo sapiens" -- Two different senses of "is" are possible here: (1) "Is" of time (what situation currently exists) ("My dog is eating") or (2) "Logical is", independent of time ("A dog is a mammal."). In sense (1), a human being is [currently] a member of the genetic species Homo sapiens; however in sense (2), should all members of genus Homo be included as human beings or not? "Neanderthals were human beings", "Homo erectus were human beings." -- 201.50.123.251 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no answer, but find this to be an interesting question!--Anthony Krupp 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human being" = Homo sapiens or all genus Homo? 

message: Moved to Talk:Person/RfC archive.  Parties agree that the discussion has become inflammatory.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  people or persons 

message: Previous discussion at Talk:Person/RfC archive.  Parties agree that the discussion has become inflammatory.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of the first option in each; the current version seems to have the second option in each.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: persons v. people 

message: Well, this is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever seen.  I can't believe the enormous content dispute over something purely factual that has got to be one of the easiest things to look up.
However, I'll settle this right now with the OED.  There are many definitions for a person, but I only found one notation in terms of which plural made the difference.  And yes, both "persons" and "people" are plurals of "person".
II. A human being, and related senses.
    2. a. An individual human being; a man, woman, or child.
  In ordinary usage, the unmarked plural is expressed by the word people; persons emphasizes the plurality and individuality of the referent (see PEOPLE n. 2a).
  In earliest use: the individual acting in a particular capacity or concerned in some respect (cf. sense 1).
I'm going to repeat that.  "In ordinary usage, the unmarked plural is expressed by the word people;"
"persons empahsizes the plurality and individuality of the referent"
What does that mean? That means that you're all wrong!  Persons and people are both used at specific times.  Persons can be wrong.  So can people.  So, here is the entire OED definition of people.  Where is says sing., that means that for that usage of the word, you would use "persons".  Where is says pl. you use "people".  This definition is entirely based on plurality, so the sing. and pl. refers to the plurality or individuality of the referent.  I will provide a link to the definition, but I don't think you can get the OED online without paying, so that's why I'm showing the definition as well.
From the OED online, the defintion for people/persons:
  I. In general, indefinite use.
<Br>
:1. In sing. Used unemphatically, as a general or indefinite designation: persons unspecified as regards number, class, or identity.
:In this use the word is almost equivalent to a pronoun (cf. a man s.v. MAN n. 17a), comparable in subjective use to French on (see ONE pron.), German man (see MAN pron.), but having a corresponding objective and possessive; e.g. ‘people say that he is extravagant’, ‘drivers waiting to bring people back’, ‘to give people what they want’, ‘one who can read people's thoughts’.<Br>
<Br>
::a. With the. Obs.<Br>
::b. Without the. With pl. concord.
::In this sense people has in colloquial use taken the place of men in ‘men say’, etc. (see MAN n.1 1b).
:2. In sing. With pl. concord.    a. Men or women; men, women, and children; folk.<Br>
:Freq. with singular modifiers in Middle English.
:In ordinary usage, this is treated as the unmarked plural of person, whereas persons emphasizes the plurality and individuality of the referent (see PERSON n. 2a).
:good people: see GOOD a. 2c.
::b. In emphatic use: human beings, as opposed to animals, spirits, etc.
::c. In extended use: animals, living creatures (applied (chiefly poet. or humorous) to animals personified).
::d. U.S. colloq. In predicative use. An individual, somebody; a person of standing. Usu. without article.
<Br>
    II. Specific uses.
<Br>
:3. In sing. Chiefly with the.    a. Those without special rank or position in society; the mass of the community as distinguished from the nobility or the ruling classes; the populace. With pl. concord.
:See also man of the people s.v. MAN n.1 31; the common people s.v. COMMON a. 12a.
::b. Christian Church. The lay people, as distinguished from the clergy; the laity as a class or group.
::  In many cases the sense could be interpreted as ‘the congregation’, i.e. those making the responses in a church service (cf. sense 5), or as ‘the parishioners’, i.e. viewed in relation to a priest, clergyman, etc. (cf. sense 4b).
::c. Pol. The whole body of citizens of a country, regarded as the source of political power or as the basis of society; esp. those qualified to vote in a democratic state, the electorate.
::Freq. in the terminology of Communism and Socialism, often in the possessive: see sense 12.
::Not always clearly distinguishable from sense 3a.
::d. Law. Usu. in form the People. In certain parts of the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland: the prosecution as designated in a criminal case.
::The equivalent of the Crown in a British law case.<Br>
:4. In sing. Persons in relation to an individual, or individuals, to whom or with whom they belong. (Chiefly with possessive.) In modern English with pl. concord.    a. A body of people attending, employed by, or working for a person in a position of power or authority; esp.    (a) the retinue or household of a master or mistress;    (b) troops, military forces, an army, a ship's crew, etc., considered in relation to their commanding officer (cf. MAN n.1 6);    (c) the team of employees of a manager or other leader.
::In early use freq. with possessive implied rather than stated.
<Br>
::b. The subjects of a king or any other ruler, temporal or spiritual, spec. God, Christ, or (quot. ?c1450) a saint regarded as a sovereign power. Also: the parishioners of a priest or parson, the congregation of a pastor, etc. Also in extended use.
<Br>
::c. Those with whom a person belongs; the members of one's family, tribe, community, etc., collectively; one's kin. Also: (orig. and chiefly Public School and University slang) one's parents, siblings, or other relatives at home. Occas. (U.S. regional (south.)) in pl.
::people-in-law now rare, the relatives of one's wife or husband.
<Br>
:5. a. In sing. With pl. concord. The individuals belonging to or living in a particular place, or constituting a particular assembly, class, or category; the inhabitants of a city, region, country, etc.
::b. As count noun: a body of persons; a multitude, a crowd (of persons). Also: a class, a group. Obs.<Br>
:6. The body of men, women, and children comprising a particular nation, community, ethnic group, etc. Cf. FOLK n. 1.
::Sometimes viewed as a single unit, sometimes simply as a collective of individuals.
::a. In sing.    (a) A nation, regarded as a unit.
::In Biblical quots. (see quot. a1382) applied to ants considered as a ‘race’ or ‘nation’ (after the Vulgate and Hebrew; cf. FOLK n. 1b).
<Br>
:::(b) With pl. concord. A nation, regarded as a collection of individuals.
:::(c) With pl. concord. Nations. Obs.
:::In the plural sense ‘nations’ the singular form was freq. used from the 15th to the 18th centuries: constantly so for the Greek and Hebrew plural in Tyndale and Coverdale and other 16th-cent. Bible versions founded on them (but not in the Rhemish version); nearly always so in Geneva, and in 1611 (where the Revisers of 1881-5 uniformly substituted peoples). Also in many 18th-cent. writers. Cf. sense 7b<Br>
<Br>
::b. In pl. Nations, races.
::This plural use was avoided in 16th cent. Bible versions, and by many 17th and 18th cent. writers (see sense 7a(c)). It was thought to require defence or explanation even in the 19th cent. (cf. quots. 1842 and 1845).<Br>
    III. With defining word.
:7. With qualifying word prefixed (often as a plural form applicable to both genders, where the singular has the distinctive man or woman), as country-people, lay people, townspeople, tradespeople, etc. (See also the qualifying element.) Cf. PERSON n. 2e, FOLK n. 3a.
::Since the late 20th cent. people has often been preferred to men or women as being less gender-specific.
<Br>
    IV. Phrases.
<Br>
:8. With complementary of-phrase.    a. Used in phrases denoting a group or community of people identified as belonging together by reason of certain shared origins, attributes, attitudes, or beliefs, as people of condition, of colour, of fashion, of quality, of rank, etc.
::b. People of the Book, a body or community whose religion entails adherence to a book of divine revelation; spec. [after Arabic Ahl al-Kit{amac}b < ahl people + al- the + kit{amac}b book (see KITAB n.)] (mainly) Jews and Christians as regarded in Muslim thought.
::Quot. 1697 is app. based on a misunderstanding of the phrase.<Br>
::c. Peoples of the Sea, any of various sea-borne migrant peoples described in Egyptian records of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, who invaded and settled parts of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. Cf. Sea Peoples s.v. SEA n. 23.
:9. of all people: expressing disbelieving or indignant surprise that a particular person should be involved. Cf. OF prep. 30e.
    V. Compounds.
:10. General attrib., as people-pleaser, worship; people-blinding, -born, -centred, -devouring, -friendly, -oriented adjs. people business orig. U.S., (a) a business in which contact with customers, or customer satisfaction, is (portrayed as) the most important element; a business in a service industry; (b) a business whose most important asset or element is the (skill or talent of) the people it employs. people carrier, a vehicle or system designed to transport a relatively large number of passengers; spec. a large family car, similar in shape to a minibus, capable of seating six or more people, usually in three rows. people-king now rare [after classical Latin populus r{emac}x, French peuple-roi (1735 in Voltaire)], a sovereign people. people mover, any of various (esp. automated) systems or vehicles for transporting large numbers of people, usually over short distances. people-organ Obs. rare, a body of people seen figuratively as constituting a church organ. people person, a person who enjoys or is particularly good at interacting with others. people-pestered a. Obs. rare, crowded with people. people power, (a) power of or belonging to the populace; esp. political or other pressure exercised through the public demonstration of popular opinion; (b) physical effort exerted by people, as opposed to machines (rare). people skills, the ability to interact with or relate well to others, esp. in a work environment. people smuggler, a person who organizes or is involved in the illegal transportation of immigrants from one country to another. people smuggling, the transportation of illegal immigrants from one country to another; cf. people smuggler. people sniffer, a device that chemically analyses the air around the human body, or one for detecting the presence of hidden persons by chemical (or physical) means. people-state, a democracy.
:11. Compounds with people's (freq. with capital initial). Of, belonging to, or for the people; spec. (in the terminology of Communism and Socialism) designating institutions, concepts, etc., regarded as belonging to and controlled by the people, rather than a select ruling group.    a. people's artist, bureau, college, government, party, police, state, etc.
::b. people's army, (a) an army organized on egalitarian or communist principles; (b) an army composed of the common people; a territorial army or Home Guard. people's car [after German Volkswagen (1937 in the company name, perhaps earlier)], an inexpensive car designed for mass sale. people's choice, a person or thing chosen by the majority of people, a popular favourite. people's court [in sense b after German Volksgericht], (a) (with capital initial) a court of the former Soviet Union or of other countries having a similar legal system; (b) (with capital initial) a court set up by the Nazi regime in Germany to deal with political offences (now hist.); (c) an unofficial court set up by a vigilante group, or to dispense mob justice. people's democracy, a political system in which power is regarded as being invested in the people, spec. a communist state, esp. in eastern Europe (now hist.). people's friend, (chiefly with the) a person, organization, etc., (esp. a politician or ruler) considered as having the interests of the public at heart (in earlier use, not always a fixed compound). People's front (now hist.) = POPULAR FRONT n. people's palace, (a) the chief government building, esp. of a democratic country; (b) a centre equipped with a wide range of recreational and educational facilities; spec. a former institution comprising a library, theatre, educational classes, etc., which opened in the East End of London in 1887 (now part of Queen Mary College, University of London); also fig. people's park, a park intended for the use of all members of a community. People's Power = people power (b), sense 10; spec. any of several political parties of various countries, claiming to represent the interests of the people. people's republic, any of various left-wing or Communist states (as People's Republic of China); also in extended use. people's theatre, a theatre for community use, esp. one run on socialist principles. people's war, (a) a war in which the common people are regarded as fighting against the ruling classes or foreign aggressors; (b) a war in which all members of the community are involved, a total war.
This can be used when editing this article so that users know when "persons" is correct and when "people" is correct.  This can also be used to settle any disputes over which term is correct in a particular instance.  This isn't and never should have been an opinion debate, the different plural forms are used in different instances, so it's just a matter of helping people understand when one form is correct and when another is correct and editing the article and being a grammar stickler.
There really is no need for additional comments.  As I've said before, this isn't an opinion, really it's just something that needs to be properly looked up, which I've done, so I hope that we can move onto the bigger issues.  TStein 09:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When person (pl) is persons and when is it people 

message: I just completed a major cleanup.  Many instances of people have been changed to persons, some have stayed and some have been made singular because the plural was incorrect.  I'm not sure I got all of the instances down perfectly, so if you see an instance you think is incorrect, fix it and say why you think it's the other one (citing the Oxford).  It would be helpful if you also dropped a quick line on the talk page to explain it.  Besides the fact that for some reason "persons" v "people" proper usage is a contentious topic, some of the cases are difficult to figure out.
"Being a person"???
Are you kidding me?  I don't care what kind of argument y'all are having or how important it is, you don't change the NAMES OF REFERENCES or QUOTES!!!  So and so may have said this, but we aren't using the phrase "personhood" in the article so let's just say that he said this.
I don't know what the "being a person" arguement is about and frankly, I don't care.  First off, it's ridiculously silly because the article sounds like crap because of it.  The sentences make no sense half the time and aren't grammatically correct because whoever did these edits literally replaced "personhood" with "being a person" which doesn't work lots of places.  Second, most of these article sections that are litered with "being a person" are referring to sources which use the term "personhood" and are talking about other peoples' work, their work on "personhood", a term that these people are using, not the term "being a person".  Person is litered with instances similar to this: "____ argues that being a person ______", only no one the article cites uses this phrase.
Please, fill me in on this dispute and give me a solid reason for not changing all of these instances back so that the article properly refers to the people and theories that it discusses.
Haste makes waste
I get that this is a hotbed of more arguments than I can count, but editing this article was just sad.  "comatosed" was not the only mistake that was a recent change, coming out of one of the many edit wars where Wikipedians rushed to change phrases and words and tenses without reading what they were writing.
"comatosed" people and persons aside, I think this article can really be good, and I'd like to see it happen. TStein 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Cleanup Edit/ What Did you People Do? 

message: This article does not use the term "persons" or "people".  Do NOT edit the article and change "persons" to "people" or "people" to "persons".
The debate HAS been settled.  This article will use the proper pluralization of the word "person".  Which means that the article currently uses both pluralizations.  The ENTIRE pluralization of "person" definition (from the OED) has been copied onto the talk page.  If you are not sure what to use where (and it gets complicated, for example, "persons" for biblical nations, "people" for nations in general), look at the OED definition or ask someone.
If someone changes everything to "persons" or to "people" revert back to the most recent edition that uses both terms properly.  If other edits have been made since, add them in.
"Being a person" v. "personhood"
The articles that this article refers to use the term "personhood".  The theories that this article refers to use the term "personhood."  This article quotes these theories and refers to these theories and discusses them.  We cannot use the term "being a person" when the context is "so-and-so also discusses this context of being a person".  THEY don't.  They discuss personhood.  It's the term they use and therefore the term they must.
If someone really is against this term, they can go through the article and can substitute the term "being a person" for "personhood" at any point where the article isn't refering to someone else's theories or work and where it makes sense in the context of the sentence and works grammatically.  I don't see the point, but you're welcome to do that.  In the meantime, anyone who edits the article and changes it back to "being a person" is misrepresenting someone's work and theories.
The reverts done today reverted the article to where it misquoted work and where article's were misreferenced.  That's not ok.  TStein 09:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People v. persons, being a person v. personhood and reverting. 

message: Um, I'm not so sure about that edit Arthur Rubin.
In re the first one:
"While historically most humans did not enjoy full legal protection as "persons" (women, children, non-landowners, minorities, slaves, etc.), from the late 18th through the late 20th century being born as a member of the human species gradually became secular grounds for an appeal for basic rights of liberty, freedom from persecution, and humanitarian care."
I think you may be right although it's hard to tell whether or not the article is refering to the collective human race or the individuals within the human race.
But for the last section, "Individual rights and responsibility", I'm a little confused.  The whole paragraph is refering to the human race.  Humans are the only race expected to be ethically responsible etc.  But in that first line is it refering to the individual rights of members of the human race or individual rights of persons who are not in any sort of collective?  I think it has to be the former.  The rights belong to the individuals, and we are speaking about individuals plural here, but we are speaking about a group of individuals who belong to a group (in this case the human race)...I think we could also just refer to definition 2b for this.
I've been round and round and back again though, so I'd like someone to double check the last para and make sure that it in fact referring to the human race when using the plural form of the word person.  TStein 15:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  last para??? 

message: I think this article might be better titled "Personhood" rather than "Person". Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 15:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Benefits=(consistent with associated article (e.g., 'corporate personhood'); consistent with the usage in the article) Problems=(not so sure "personhood" will help people find this article via search; it may over-emphasize the 'analytic' and 'conceptual' "tests" at the expense of the "literary" or "religious" meanings of 'person'). Questions=(would that then justify the creation of another article "person"? If so, how would that other article differ? Would person just be a redirect to "personhood"?). My vote would be to hold off on such a renaming for now at least, until the structure of this article stabilizes a bit more, and until more citations are added. The text of the citations can help establish common usage and terms. dr.ef.tymac 20:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sensible approach - no rush. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: We seem to have two main ways person/hood is defined:
:* One use of the term is on the basis of identity, self awareness, etc - ie something about inherent inner qualities and capabilities an entity has regardless of others. 
:* The other use of the term is centred round agency and recognition - ie something about rights and responsibilities in their relationships with others.
Is this an acknowledged split in philosophy or dictionaries or somewhere? Does these "whatever they are" (meanings? viewpoints? definitional approachs?) have a formal name or title or class or something? Can we characterize the distinction better than just noting it is used in either sense? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) phenomenological, epistemic, ontological, existential, (etc. etc.) loosely categorized under the header "conceptual definitions of self or personhood"; 2) deontological, ethical, moral, relitavistic, utilitarian (etc. etc.) loosely categorized under the header "normative definitions of personal and inter-personal responsibility"? Very deep stuff, hard to think of a single definitive basis that everyone could agree with. dr.ef.tymac 03:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a name for this?

message: Can someone brifely summarise the difference between "people" and "persons" and include this within the article please? --Rebroad 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the difference.  But this is Wikipedia not Wiktionary, so I fail to see why we'd write an article on it.  At any rate, it wouldn't fit in here, it would be a separate article altogether.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People persons!