Talk:white person

RFD — deleted
Per black person (see WT:RFD), on the basis that (i) black person was deleted, so we have a highly analogous precedent, and (ii) you can equally talk about "a person who is white", which makes this just as redundant as green apple. Equinox ◑ 00:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete white person but keep white people as the plural of white man (which we should have). —Stephen 01:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then shouldn't we also have black man on those grounds? Delete, delete, and delete where white man is still SOP for the right definition of "man (compare: prehistoric man). Unless you think the last is worth keeping as a phrasebook entry. 63.95.64.254 01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * white man is a set term and a common one at that. It does not mean a man who is white (white men are not white, but have a color that falls in a wide range of pinks, browns, tans, hennas, etc.). And yes, we should also have black man (who are rarely if ever black). —Stephen 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But the same applies to black community, black woman, black politics, and basically black anything: they don't have to apply to people or politics that are literally soot-black, but to things that are "black" in any sense of the adjective. So surely you just need to add a sense at black (if we don't already have it) explaining that it can mean brown, tan, henna, etc. &mdash; right?


 * Wait, are you saying that in white man, white does not mean "of Caucasian race" per definition no. 2? DAVilla 09:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, just adjective + noun. Mglovesfun 23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * deleted Conrad.Irwin 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)