Talk:once you go black, we don't want you back

RFV discussion: January 2022
Verification (citations) passed. Discussion moved to RFD - see it there. Facts707 (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–October 2022
This discussion moved from RFV:

(Added by an IP today, also to here.) Gets very few results even on Google and nothing on Books that I've spotted so far; closest I've spotted is this extended version: - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2012, Tucker Max, Sloppy Seconds: The Tucker Max Leftovers, page 201:
 * You know the saying, 'Once you go black, you never go back.'” Tucker “No, you have it wrong. The saying is 'If you're fat, you HAVE to go black . . . and because of that, we don't WANT you back.'”
 * This derogatory phrase looks like it can be cited based on Usenet results. I don't think you'll find many print sources, however. 70.172.194.25 20:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cited. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have once you go black and then delete this as SoP. I'm sure there's other variations on the second part of the phrase, and while the first part is somewhat not SoP, the second part clearly is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If "go black" can be attested outside of such phrases, that in itself might merit an entry, making "once you go black" SOP. Although... if "go white", etc. can also be attested, then perhaps a sense should be added to go (it's not 10, 13, or 14 because "going black" is not the same as "becoming black"; maybe it's 33, though). 70.172.194.25 21:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I hadn't considered that, but yes, I can see how it's arguably SOP. ("Once you go black you (don't|never) go back" is at least a very set phrase, so might be more keepable than variations on it, like this.) I added a citation of "go Asian" to Citations:go, but it's hard to find uses outside of the construction "once you go X, you Y", because there's so much interference from cases where "go" means "become", even in the context of sex and dating, like [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Sandbox&oldid=65356389 this] where "go white" is in reference to using skin-lightening creams. It's easier to find variations in the object of "once you go...", like [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Sandbox&oldid=65356509 these] (Asian, white, gay, ...); I can also find variations like [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Sandbox&oldid=65356545 "if you go..." and "when you go..."]. - -sche (discuss) 14:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There are many variations sharing the first clause and ending on a rhyming “back”: “once you go black, they won't let you back”, “once you go black there’s no turning back”, “once you go black there’s no going back”, “once you go black you can’t go back”, “once you go black you won’t go back”. --Lambiam 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks to me like an issue for RFD, not RFV, as it clearly exists as a set phrase. Kiwima (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as per BD2412 below. Now SOP - "we" and "back" are unclear and subject to interpretation that I don't think we can define any better than a reader coming across any pronoun/state that hasn't  first been introduced: "They don't like ones that aren't from here." "Who's 'they' and 'ones'?" "They're the local motorcycle club and they only like European bikes ‐ not American or Japanese ones." As this discussion has progressed I have again changed my vote and struck part of my past comments. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Keep – After reading below and having a break, I think I let my distaste for this entry cloud my objectivity earlier and so I have struck my original vote and comments. I agree now that this and "once you go black, you never go back" [is] not SOP. I also agree with creating the clipping "once you go black" to mean the latter. Facts707 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)  Delete as SOP and also "once you go black, you never go back", but create "go black", see "go both ways". There are lots of set phrases like "screw the system", "white people suck", "fuck the Jews", etc. that are not put in dictionaries. Moving to RFD... Facts707 (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Facts707 I'm ambivalent about the main phrase in question, but for once you go black, you never go back, it's completely different from "screw the system" or "white people suck" as those are not nearly as fixed phrases and their meanings are way clearer (pretty much at face value). Also, with proverbs like that in general, I don't think that they'd fall under SOP by principle as there's a hidden meaning behind it. Even if you were to create go black, the implied meaning of "going back to one's own ethnicity group" is not covered in go back, so even then, it wouldn't fall under SOP. Strong keep for that one if it's ever officially submitted to RFD. AG202 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Er, I don't see how those are "set phrases"... Equinox ◑ 19:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "go black" specifically is justified, there are plenty of uses with other races. See Citations:go. 70.172.194.25 20:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Facts707 See bd2412's comment at the bottom. AG202 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that this entry is needed, and have no objection to its deletion. DonnanZ (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not SoP as it stands, keep as such. We don't have a sense of go + obj. that means "have sexual relations with people that are" + obj. and we don't have a sense for we that means "me and all members of your/my racial group". Even back could be said to be idiomatic in this phrase. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The entry stinks of white American male prejudice against black men (with their alleged sexual prowess). It's inflammatory, and dubious material for us. DonnanZ (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant, please refer to WT:CFI. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 14:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that even related? By that logic we must delete much of --Rishabhbhat (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s great. It means the entry is accurate and thus a boon to our dictionary; after all, the proverb in question is used by white American males prejudiced against black men. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Fytcha, that's only a shortcoming in the entry, since the sense was cited before the RFD began. I've added a sense, although I think the wording could use improvement (and there might even be two senses). (At least some uses of "go [race]" do overlap with the second usex of sense 13, as This,that says.) Off-topic, this means me wonder where (if at all) we cover this food-related sense ("go Chinese tonight"). - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see and I agree, in that case the go part of the argument isn't valid. I still posit that this phrase and have very similar levels of idiomaticity. In the mentioned phrase, what is not obvious is what is not gone back to; in this one it is who "we" are. What's more, I think back is not used exactly as our sense 2 defines: It is not necessary that a person has previously dated non-black people for this phrase to be applicable. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons already given. DonnanZ (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The second usex under sense 13 at matches the sense in this phrase, although the definition needs work (and perhaps should be split off from the "go into debt" sense). Some other contexts in which it is used: I've heard someone express regret of their choice of phone provider by saying "why didn't I go X?" where X is another phone provider, and the TV show Go 8 Bit has a catch phrase along the lines of "Let's go 8 bit!". This, that and the other (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it could be seen as similar to go with. 70.172.194.25 20:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly comparable: Tea_room/2021/April. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Who is we? Where is back? This phrase is more opaque than the majority of our English proverbs. I can’t see an average person interpreting it accurately unless they already know what it means or context is overwhelming. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "We" is the group the speaker claims (by using "we") to be speaking for, like any other use of "we", no? "We will fight them on the beaches", "we don't normally use for this", etc. (I'm ambivalent about whether or not this is enough of a stock phrase to be keepable, but I think the use of "we" is no different from usual.) - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but I’ll add that we will fight them on the beaches is also used idiomatically. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ungoliant. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I suspect that once you go black likely exists as a clipping of the longer phrase; see:
 * 2009, Carleen Brice, Children of the Waters: A Novel, p. 78: “Is it true what they say about once you go black . . . .”
 * 2014, Sam Leonard, Messenger from God: A Story of Fate and Faith, p. 183: “What did I say about once you go black?” “Lila, if it was just sex I could understand...”
 * 2020, Angel Ayers, The Throwaways, p. 15: He thought of the way she giggled when he told her, “You know what happens once you go black, don't you?”
 * Although it is difficult to find instances in isolation due to the number of hits containing variations of the whole phrase, "once you go black, you never/can't/don't/won't go back", it is likely that more exist along the lines of the ones I cite here. If so, the question is whether "we don't want you back" is SOP as an additional construction. If kept, the definition should probably be adjusted to reflect that the subjects of the phrase are no longer "desired by racists within the white population", as I don't think that it even projects non-racists within the white population. bd2412 T 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I’m not very convinced by either of our senses 33 or 34 which basically claim that go can mean date, as the standard phrase which means date is go out with, though there is always the phrase go steady to consider. I would say that some of the sexual and culinary instances mentioned here can be explained by saying that go can sometimes be short for go for or go with, which can in turn have the meaning pick or choose. ‘Let’s go Chinese’ can be parsed as ‘Let’s choose Chinese (food for our dinner)’ and ‘Once you go black’ can be parsed as ‘Once you pick black (people as sexual partners)’. All we need to do is to create the right definition of go and then we can delete this entry as SOP (as others have said, there is no reason why go black is any more idiomatic than go white, or any number of alternative possibilities.). Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I could see adding a definition along the lines of "ellipsis of go with; choose or accept", and making sense 34 and some other (existing or to-be-added) senses, like the Chinese food example, subsenses of it. (I notice go with has "have sexual relations with" as a def; a usex would be nice.) I don't know about combining all the various examples (Chinese food, once you go black, etc) into just one sense (I still have a nagging feeling that not even all of the citations under sense 34 have the same semantics as each other). - -sche (discuss) 12:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. This isn't a saying just because it's been said 3 times. DAVilla 19:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the preceding.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. What does "go black" mean? It could mean once someone darkens their skin or once someone gets into black culture. It is not obvious. 2600:1700:E660:9D60:6101:3D68:B7AA:37BC 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon thinking about this more, I'm leaning towards supporting its deletion. AG202 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have now created a separate entry on once you go black as an attested clipping, which renders the "we don't want you back" part of this phrase SOP to that clipping. I think this is a fair resolution. bd2412 T 18:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - TheDaveRoss  13:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: By my count, this discussion now stands at nine !votes to delete, and 4 !votes to keep. I read this as consensus to delete (with citations likely to be moved to Citations:once you go black). bd2412 T 07:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be a set phrase, and the fact that it specifically refers to white people despite never explicitly saying so means it's not SOP. Binarystep (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can it be a set phrase if it has only ever been used a few hundred(?) times? This isn't a proverb passed down the generations, it is a racist quip. There are millions of similar quips out there, some of which have been repeated, but they are not distinct terms which merit inclusion in a dictionary. - TheDaveRoss  12:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the context is very specific and undeterminable from its mere parts. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Once you do tallying, these are actual votes, not !votes. I see 6 keeps and 9 deletes including the nominating anon, although I would discard the anon vote as being anon. Either way, I do not see 2/3-supermajority for deletion, and no other threshold is better supported by evidence as per Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion/Header. OTOH 9 deletes reach 60%, a threshold that while not so well supported by voters, could be better supported by the deletionists who did not show up in the threshold vote. I would close it as no consensus for deletion, but this may turn controversial. More posts could resolve the issue in some direction. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, one of the keep votes is from the anon who's now been blocked for a year for creating these types of entries, having disruptive edits, and attacking other editors (also created the entry in question). AG202 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean this: 2600:1700:E660:9D60:6101:3D68:B7AA:37BC, I guess; I have overlooked that. The IP has only one edit so it is dubious that it should count, although in the RFD vote opposers of discounting IPs argued that it is their arguments that should matter. Discounting anons, we get 5 keeps and 8 deletes, which is 61.5%. And the question remains: what does the silent gray eminence not partaking on the RFD threshold vote think about the 60% threshold? Is the 60% threshold much better supported than what the RFD vote suggests? Does anyone want to take this opportunity here and show us how they are going to play the strength-of-argument game using the above discussion as basis? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fairly clearly a nonce coined multiple times. Vininn126 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - TheDaveRoss  13:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * : Can you please explain how you closed this? You do not have the numerical 2/3-supermajority hinted at WT:VP, so there must have been an override. What is the rationale behind the override? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I counted it as 11-5 (discounting 2600, not a legal vote [ban evasion]). - TheDaveRoss  18:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)