Talk:white man

white man
SOP. The first sense is sense 2 white + sense 1 or sense 3 of man (depending on whether or not one includes non-males); the second sense is sense 2 white + sense 2 or 4 of man. Consider that we don't have Asian man, African man, etc. We do have red man, but that's because of redman and WT:COALMINE. - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, about as straightforward as it gets. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple delete and keep votes for RFD#white man are at (later Talk:black man). These currently include keeps by Widsith, BD2412, Atitarev, Purplebackpack89,  Smurrayinchester, and Angr. So to close RFD#white man, please follow the discussion there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. To be clear, keep as below. bd2412 T 16:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

black man
RFD of sense 1, which I think is SOP — sense 3 of black + sense 1 or 3 of man (depending on whether or not one includes non-males). - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Terms whiteman and blackman may be attestable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Definition of "black man" at MW: Black man - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Also, (dialectal, dated) an evil spirit. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep both. Crucial collocations. I think citation evidence for these is instructive, when it was first used etc. Both are also in the OED, FWIW. Ƿidsiþ 05:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * black person was deleted (I cannot find the discussion) and so should these be. Equinox ◑ 12:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep both. Also, what about red man? bd2412 T 16:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say (and did say above) that redman and WT:COALMINE ensure its inclusion, but now that I think about it, we have disregarded that policy for other _ man terms, e.g. when we deleted Chinese man despite Chineseman, so who knows — maybe red man should be RFDed. (Are blackman and whiteman attested with relevant senses?) - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think red man would be kept even if WT:COALMINE didn't apply, since we don't call communists that. bd2412 T 20:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't we? --WikiTiki89 20:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not according to our definition. bd2412 T 20:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I forgot our definitions are always complete and accurate. --WikiTiki89 21:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The underlining point is that colors are ambiguous enough for these definitions to pass muster, COALMINE or no. Pur ple back pack 89  21:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @WikiTiki, it's not a question of whether our definitions are accurate, but of whether there is any evidence that the word is actually used in any other way. There are many meanings of black, white, red, and yellow, but white man, red man, black man and yellow man appear to be set phrases for which it would be wrong (or at least weird and disconcerting) to apply the phrase to one of the other meanings. You don't see communists or red-state conservatives referred to as "red man", cowards or sensationalist journalists referred to as "yellow man", or elderly people referred to as "white man". bd2412 T 16:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely unconvinced that English-speakers don't call male communists "red men". A cursory search turned up several citations, one of which even uses the collective sense. Nawal Saadawi's autobiography uses "red woman" to denote "communist woman", and for that matter also uses "red nights" to denote the kind of nights communists have (which are apparently different in some way from the night-times which capitalists experience), "red Pasha" to denote a Pasha who is communist, etc, etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep white, red, black and yellow: per Widsith, and because "white" is ambiguous. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The fundamental difference between these phrases and standard collocations of the word "man" is that it takes the definite article in an unusual way, and it isn't pluralised in cases that you think it would be - for example, in the sentence "Ever since the black man was accepted in professional sports, the game quality has constantly risen to new heights." Taken literally, this implies that one specific man, who was black, improved the quality of sports when of course, "the black man" is really a synonym for "black people". This doesn't work for other social groups - you can't say *"Ever since the woman..." to mean "Ever since women" or *"Ever since the gay man..." to mean "Ever since gay men". In fact, "Ever since the gay man" doesn't appear even once in Google Books, while "Ever since the white man" appears 11,900 times - almost always in this synecdochic sense. (For sense 1 at white man, I'd happy with an if people really insisted, but I don't personally think it does any harm when there are additional senses on the page) Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another interesting symptom of the way these terms have become lexicalised is the pronunciation: ˈblack man; compare ˌblack ˈcar, ˌblack baˈlloon etc. Ƿidsiþ 09:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's just how you refer to men sharing an attribute as a class. It's not hard to find the left-handed man, the unhappy man, the Lithuanian man, etc. What about phrases such as "that's what the well-dressed man is wearing these days"? They're certainly not referring to individuals, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, each of those just seem to be mean some along the lines of "the average X man" or "some hypothetical X man" - in each case, you could add the word average or typical without affecting the meaning of the sentence at all ("It seems to me that the [average] Lithuanian man is [...] becoming more depressed", "the world of the [average] happy man is a different one from that of the [average] unhappy man", "what the [average] well-dressed man is wearing"). You couldn't do the same with, for example "The white man brought many diseases to the New World" - here, "white man" is a clear synecdoche. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say keep. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, about as straightforward as it gets. I'd imagine this is another one where WT:CFI will be defeated by a vote though. Perhaps we should have a policy that WT:CFI goes ahead of voting. But we don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We should never have that policy, Mgloves. That would give deletionists an unacceptable supervote.  It'd essentially make SOP a criteria for speedy deletion.  That's ridiculous considering that a great many print dictionaries have hundreds, maybe even thousands, of entries that fail CFI.  We lose face by having a restrictive CFI that doesn't allow us those entries. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   14:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't lose face. We simply have different criteria than other dictionaries. Choor monster (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Having entries that other dictionaries have is not an aim in itself. Being nonidentical to other dictionaries is not something to be ashamed of. Other dictionaries aren't trying to become Wiktionary, so why should we try and become other dictionaries? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep both per Smurrayinchester, at least in the generic/collective senses (currently missing at black man, I see, but doubtless attestable). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Created. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

yellow man
Adding "yellow man" to the above debate, just to give the lie to PBP's smarmy edit summary when creating it. Equinox ◑ 20:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They will be kept. I guarantee it. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Was using the word "smarmy" really necessary? Also, yellow man is pretty darn attestable, maybe as much as red man which we kept.  (Note I already voted keep on yellow above) <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   20:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, as above. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 01:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, about as straightforward as it gets. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. --WikiTiki89 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep assuming cites for the generic/collective sense can be found. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this passage has several uses of black man, white man, and yellow man in the generic/collective sense that IMO makes these terms keepable (more than SOP). The content of what it says strikes me as utter bullshit, but he uses the terms in the way we're looking for, which is what matters. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't the collective sense of white man, black man, yellow man etc just the racial sense of white, black etc + the collective sense of man? (That's either sense 2 or 4 depending on whether or not the specific uses include non-males; I expect both male-only and all-gender uses can be found.) Compare, . ("Of" introduces a lot of chaff to the results like "a type of Caucasian man", but if you weed that chaff out you find the many, many collective uses like "All our observations of African man show him as living in a state of savagery and barbarism, and he remains in this state to the present day.") - -sche (discuss) 21:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That use of "man" doesn't take the definite article, though: "All our observations of (*the) African man show...". This expression does, and as Smurrayinchester showed above, you can't replace the colors "black/white/yellow/red" with other adjectives: you can't say "the gay man" to mean "gay men in general" or "the German man" to mean "German men in general" or "German people in general". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, has anybody considered the possibility that these could be translation targets? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  21:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several other places translations already exist and can continue to exist if these terms are deleted (Caucasian, white, black, Asian, etc). - -sche (discuss) 21:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comments on white man and black man. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep.Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all that are not protected by COALMINE. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Angr; erring on the side of. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of participation
The above set of votes is a bit confusing because there are three sections at issue, and not everyone who voted clearly indicated whether their preference was intended to apply to all three. I am presuming that an otherwise unqualified vote to delete anywhere in the discussion is a vote to delete all three (unless this contradicts a separate vote by the same participant in another section), and likewise that an otherwise unqualified vote to keep anywhere in the discussion is a vote to keep all three. By that analysis, the vote stands as follows.


 * For deleting each (5 editors): Renard Migrant, - -sche, WikiTiki, Equinox, Ungoliant*
 * For keeping each (8 editors): BD2412, Ƿidsiþ, Purplebackpack, Smurrayinchester, Aɴɢʀ, Anatoli T., Matthias Buchmeier, Dan Polansky


 * *Ungoliant's vote applies to "all that are not protected by COALMINE".

Does any editor disagree with my reading of their intent in this discussion? <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You got mine right. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Kept, as to all. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 17:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November–December 2023
Rfd-sense "white people collectively; white culture"

taxpayer
Rfd-sense "All of the people, collectively, in a population who pay tax",

This is a general, non-lexical feature of English: "the criminal", "the law-abiding citizen", "the hunter-gatherer" ("The hunter-gatherer uses his culture, not so much to manipulate the ecology of the area where he lives, but to develop patterns of behavior in congruence with the ecology of the resources he will extract"), etc. can all be used in the singular with a collective meaning. PUC – 22:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed: "The lion is a noble beast" doesn't mean we need a separate sense at lion... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete such senses for the nominator’s reason. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the sense at taxpayer as non-lexical.
 * For white man the case is less clear. Does “the collectivity of individuals who are white men” include women? For the bare noun we do list “All humans collectively” as a separate sense. Also, if verifiable, the sense “white culture” should make the term at least somewhat lexical. The term “taxpayer” certainly cannot be used in the sense of “taxpayer culture”.  --Lambiam 15:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Whatever happens (I am not in favour of deletion of either), keep the quotations for both. One I entered (earlier this year) does point to taxpayer being used collectively. DonnanZ (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the "taxpayer" one per the above. I agree with Lambiam on "the white man" being less clear but I'm not certain if this is really a specific sense or more to do with the semantics of "man", so abstain on that one for now. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If deleted, we should also delete the equivalent sense at ("keeping the black man down", etc.), as the identical arguments apply. Equinox ◑ 14:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also yellow man. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Lambiam. Theknightwho (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Both? Or just ? PUC – 16:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PUC Missed the second nom, sorry - just (and the coordinate terms mentioned above like  etc). Theknightwho (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to delete taxpayer and yellow man; white man and black man have somewhat more history as syntagmas so I'm on the fence about them but wouldn't object to deleting them, too. You can do this with lots of things, e.g. "the lion" as pointed out above, or even things that don't require (but may optionally have) "the", like "Instead, Early Woman was herself an energetic and competent provider" and "When Neolithic man arrived". I am sceptical that "white man" can mean "white culture"; I might RFV the game of tag sense listed at black man, too, while we're at it. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Definition 2, "white people collectively; white culture", which was (is?) a typical sense as far as I know. For example, Looney Tunes: Wagon Heels (1945) starts off "1849, when the west was young and the white man's march of progress was threatened by that mighty redskin Injun Joe, the Super-Chief!" I'm sure one could find plenty of historical examples to meet the usual standards of attestation. AP295 (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Deleted the sense at, but left it at. PUC – 14:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)