Talk:Person/RfC archive

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  people or persons 

message: This is a dispute about the use of the words "persons" and "personhood" in the Person article.  Emeraude 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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<BR>"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)
replies: text:  "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". —Angr 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.<BR>
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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: persons v. people