No, #8 is not misleading, but perhaps some additional clarification will help. The grammatical plural of person is persons. Similarly, the plural of people, where it needs one, is peoples. It's a technical point, but there can be no serious question about it from the viewpoint of linguistics.
However, this does not mean that persons should be used as the plural of person! In practice, today, people is used overwhelmingly as the plural of person: one person, two people. But grammatically and etymologically they are distinct. People evolved out of Latin populus, whereas person comes from Latin persona. Each forms its plural in the same way: by adding s.
Pointing out that each of these two words has its own grammatical plural may give pause to some because we so commonly use people as if it were the true, original plural form of person. We're just accustomed to thinking uncritically of the one as the plural form of the other.
Actually, until sometime in the twentieth century, it was considered better style to use persons as the plural for small groups, say a dozen or fewer, reserving people for multitudes. That usage preference has today clearly fallen by the wayside, and the plural form of person (persons) is perceived as stuffy or stultified for most purposes. People has displaced persons for all but a few cases.
