Talk:People/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Layout

From my perspective there are a number of places in this article where text runs under pictures etc. While i'm not exactly wikisavvy enough to fix it I figured I might as well bring it to people's attentions. 69.248.195.94 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.19.190 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even neccesary?

Why does there have to be an article on people? Hopefully everyone knows who people are (unless they are not people...?) This article is, in my opinion, unneccesary. Please correct me if i am wrong, but to me, this is just unneccesary.--Vegen8tor 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment.

The page would be improved by adding a photo of a horde of cats, with the caption "These are not people", then it would at least have humour-value. Vranak 04:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Acording to your logic, acticles that everyone knows the subject matter shouldn't exist Jamesman666 (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not necessary. The word "People" belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. I'm new to Wikipedia, but does anyone agree that this page is a candidate for deletion and if so, do they know how to start the deletion process? Petmal 10:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion??? This page obviously exists so that...

...can come to a greater understanding of or be further entertained by people. ClaudeReigns 12:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've attached a {{prod}} tag to the article, as this seems to be the consensus.--Old Moonraker 15:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Panser Born has removed the {{prod}} tag and calls for the article to be expanded. --Old Moonraker 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now nominated the article for deletion discussion. --Old Moonraker 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being difficult. =) I just think that what is surely such an integral topic to any encyclopedia shouldn't be deleted. Vegen8tor mentioned that "everyone knows who people are". While this is indeed true, almost everyone knows what food is, yet we have an article on that too. I'm sure there's some way to expand on this - perhaps something about different ethnicities? Maybe the distribution of people across the world? Let me know what you think. Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For me it's a question of "too obvious to include", but perhaps this only applies to the dismal state of the page at present. Both of the topics you mention are valuable, but already have articles: Ethnicity and Migration. You are not being difficult: this is what the discussion page is for! --Old Moonraker 06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to a lot of hard work on this article I have withdrawn my support for deletion on the AfD page, with great pleasure. Old Moonraker 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You ARE right This is unassisariy Ilovebirtbikes 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)IlovedirtbikesIlovebirtbikes 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article seems redundant since it's already covered in much more detail in the article on humans. If there's anything in the other article that's missing, but here, why not merge it in, and then have this article redirect to humans? 72.197.74.80 (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

One of the reasons why this article exists is that the main page shows eight top-level topics (represented by portals) including "Biography". At the time, the portal was named "People". Even the current Category:Biography has to distinguish that it is about published literary works that are biographies, not about Wikipedia articles that are biographies. This "People" article existed for reasons of symmetry so that there would be a samed-named article/category/portal for each of the eight main subjects. It has broken down a little since then, but you get the idea. BTW: Those eight subjects are not the only top-level view into the categories: You can start in Category:Categories and see that Category:Main topic classifications and Category:Fundamental also attempt to provide top-down starting points. In fact, we use to have a category called "Top_8" for the MainPage starting points. The subject of "People" immediately splays out into a dozen different areas of society, civilization, government, medicine, the human mind, intelligence, emotion and whatnot. You can see the same problem in Category:People. Anyway, if this article were redirected to the "Biography" article, or just imitated what the People category does, it would probably be no great loss.--76.203.126.18 23:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

THIS VIOLATES WIKI STANDARDS! why is this locked??? i am reporting this by the way. who ever locked this article is going to be banned from doing this ever again on wiki. thank you, have a nice day. --70.42.211.4 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the very first paragraph of the article as of 18:54 (UTC), Nov 11, 2010:

Indented line

"The English noun cyall (singular "cyack") refers to a plurality of human cyalls. It has two usages:

as the plural of cyack (in addition to the rarer plural, "persons") or a group of cyalls (grammatically, a suppletive plural and collective noun; e.g. "some people are..."), or otherwise for groups with particular unifying traits, qualities, properties, or characteristics (e.g. the people of Spain, or the people of the Plains). as a singular for an indefinite ethnic group or nation (e.g. "a people is...") Because the word 'cyackk often refers to abstract and general types of groups, the word cyallsss is sometimes used in place of people, especially when it would be ambiguous with its collective sense (e.g. missing persons instead of people). It can collectively refer to all humans or it can be used to identify a certain ethnic or religious group. For example, "people of color" is a phrase used in North America to describe non-whites.[1]"

This is the reason why we should keep this article locked or altoghether erased.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.80.135.140 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, but why is there a "do not" in the sentence "Religion, philosophy, and science do not show or represent modes and aspects of inquiry which attempt to investigate and understand the nature, behavior, and purpose of people." I assume that this is a typo that was overlooked before the page was was semi-locked, and hence I can't correct it. 70.79.19.99 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on the discussions above about this article's relevance: one thing that doesn't seem to be mentioned is the importance of "the people" as a political category, which the article touches on. It's not equivalent to "masses", "the working class", "the proletariat", etc., and has a significant history of use in a wide-range of political and cultural movements. On those grounds alone, there's good reason for it. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This could be made into a disambiguation page but then each entry would merely be a stub. The term people, just like the term person, has many different uses but they may very well be the same.

The English noun people has two distinct fields of application:

as a countable noun, a group of humans, either with unspecified traits, or specific characteristics (e.g. the people of Spain or the people of the Plains).
as a mass noun, people is the suppletive plural of person. However, the word persons is sometimes used in place of people, especially when it would be ambiguous with its collective sense (e.g. missing persons instead of missing people). It can collectively refer to all humans or it can be used to identify a certain ethnic or religious group. For example, "people of color" is a phrase used in North America to describe non-whites.[1]

People is plural of person, so the entire page could probably be deleted and instead redirect to the person article. 96.245.13.233 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) people should act like peps not like animals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.42.2.5 (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

He thinks he's people

Though it seems I am adding it here rather than the article because it's late, and I am quite sick of the crap you get when editing Wikipedia, but I think a few points should be made.

A friend joked that "robots are people too" and I Jokingly agreed, "yes, robot people", but "people" or "person" is often applied to non-humans.

For instance what about Aliens? God? Animals? Non human Cartoon characters? and yes Robots, well kinda.

And what about Corporations? In law corporations are considered to be people and have the rights of a person, or at least so I've heard.

So maybe someone could add something about the extension of people beyond the human. 121.98.130.163 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like speciesism to list "human" as a requirement for being a person. --131.247.140.18 (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Silly me, I forgot I wasn't logged in. I wrote this. --Tathar (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass Noun

People is not a mass noun (= uncountable noun); it's a plural noun when it means "persons".

Plural noun: Two people.

Mass noun: Two pieces of information (not two informations).

1) People is a plural noun:

people

plural noun
1 human beings in general or considered collectively: the earthquake killed 30,000 people | people think I'm mad.

(Oxford Dictionary of English)

2) But information is a mass noun:

information
noun [MASS NOUN]
1 facts provided or learned about something or someone: a vital piece of information.

(Oxford Dictionary of English)

93.2.191.172 (talk)Demian326

Merger to Person

I just proposed that this be merged into Person, but now that I think about it I believe only some parts of it would be appropriate to merge. Basically the first sense mentioned in the lede, and the first subsection ("Philosophy and theory"), are redundant with what's going on over at Person. The rest however, the use of "people" as an indefinite or mass noun, the bits about "A people" and "The People", would not be appropriate over at Person. I'm not quite sure the best way to reorganize this along those lines is though, so I'm looking for comments here before I do anything. A part of me thinks the parts of this that don't merge into Person] need to be split into their own separate articles, such as "Peoples" (i.e. ethnicities) and "The People"), and then People (disambiguation) moved here.

As an aside, one way or another I think this article needs to be wary of the same problem that until recently plagued Person, which is the equation of persons to humans. "People" is not a plurality of "human beings" per se; it is a plurality of persons, which may or may not all be human. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

People (disambiguation) -> People

76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Ireland"

"Outside the United States, criminal trials in the Ireland and the Philippines..."

Can we change this please? Considering this was written in a sentence mentioning "the Philippines" I am guessing it was written by a non-native English speaker from that country. In case said person reads this and wonders why here is an explanation from a native speaker: The name of the nation "Ireland" should be written as such; it should not be prefixed with "the". This is equivalent to writing "the France" or "the Spain" and is incorrect. Please correct this sentence to "Outside the United States, criminal trials in Ireland and the Philippines..."Privateiron (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Done There are very few countries that require a definite article in English, and Ireland is not one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a snappy response! You corrected it before I managed to post the edit template lol. I removed the template, thanks for doing the edit for me :)Privateiron (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

70.196.80.242 (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)people are handsome specially men

Not done: If you want to suggest a sensible change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People by ethnic or national origin

Category:People by ethnic or national origin has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. -- 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People by ethnic or national descent by continent

Category:People by ethnic or national descent by continent has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015

This edit request to People has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "The Right to Bear Arms" section due to lack of citation and possible bias. 2601:7:9E80:370:B816:8567:17C6:8046 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done: [1]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

People are not persons

The article starts that people is a plurality of persons should be said is only the common usage, since there are distinct differences for legal, technological, and political arenas.

Legally, the corporation is a created person so that it may own property, be sued, and otherwise held to the rule of law.
Legally, personhood leads to a wider legal and ethical discussion
Technologically, computer specifications differentiate between people and person when discussing access situations for interfaces such as being accessed by multiple times at once by the same human being, or being accessed by a robotic or 'spider' performing automatic functions
Politically, some people become a nonperson

I will suggest change to "people means a group of human beings, commony a nationality or ethnic group", are there any other suggestions ? Markbassett (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)