Talk:black man

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

see Talk:white man

RFD discussion: July 2020–September 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

black man

RFD-sense for both "A male member of an ethnic group having dark pigmentation of the skin, typically of sub-Saharan African descent." and "Black people collectively; black culture." Both of these are SOP; both could have analogous definitions at white man, but they do not. For the 2014 RFD discussion on this topic, see Talk:white man. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete as covered by black + man entries. Oddly Talk:black_man suggests that this was RFDed before but nobody commented at all (?). Equinox ◑ 18:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We do have analogous definitions at white man. Both entries were kept in the previous RFD here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; I somehow missed that because those definitions are subsenses; I have struck certain parts of my comment above. I'm not sure how to incorporate white man into this RFD, considering that subsenses are usually not RFDed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, black person was deleted as SoP and white person redirects to Thesaurus:white person! Equinox ◑ 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Why we don't have Thesaurus:black person is a mystery to me. As for redirection, it seems like a bad idea when the thesaurus is mostly terms that are at least potentially offensive... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I suspect that any thesaurus entry on an ethnic group would quickly amount to a catalog of slurs. It would be nice to divide those out so that we could have at least one such entry containing only the scientific, technical, and other non-slur variations. bd2412 T 23:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We do have Thesaurus:white person, Thesaurus:Jew, Thesaurus:Asian. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

All of those are problematic, and for differing reasons. It is interesting that Thesaurus:Jew is basically a list of slurs, while Thesaurus:Asian is bereft of even the mild ones. bd2412 T 00:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly. I don't know where else to put that information, though: I created Thesaurus:Jew specifically to move the slurs out of the entry, following a request on Talk:Jew#List_of_slurs? and on the model of Thesaurus:Muslim. AFAICT we either list the slurs in the Thesaurus, list them in mainspace (which seems like a more prominent / worse place to put slurs), or don't list them at all (which I would not expect to go over successfully). (Edited to add: perhaps you are suggesting putting all the other slurs as synonyms of one of the slurs, and then perhaps only that slur could be linked from the main entry, which could otherwise list only non-slur synonyms... that could work...) - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Better yet, we create a single appendix for all the slurs for all peoples, and make that the target for anyone specifically searching for those terms. I was thinking that we could even just point to Category:English ethnic slurs, but that doesn't give any information on how they are used (most would have no idea from looking at the list what ginzo or yarpie are direct towards). bd2412 T 18:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep (but merge those two definitions)…to me (like white man) it's a set term. Often stressed on the first syllable, like a compound word. Probably also qualifies under COALMINE. Ƿidsiþ 04:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's stressed on the first syllable! If you say "a black man" then you are distinguishing from a black mongoose, or a black queen in chess. But if you are making the second syllable a schwa then maybe you are talking about an English actress. Equinox ◑ 04:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't believe me about stress, try saying aloud: "the poor man asked for alms"; "is she a rich woman?". Equinox ◑ 04:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. Normally you would expect a more even stress. Consider the difference in normal speech between "a black bird" and "a blackbird". Ƿidsiþ 04:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional point: are white woman and black woman less worthy of notice than the man and person? What about the child and daughter and son? Even a black cousin, or white aunt? If we start including these SoPisms where do we draw the line? Equinox ◑ 04:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete as covered by the {{&lit}} sense 1, retaining the quotations at the present sense 3. BTW, I think it is best to avoid using male member in definitions.  --Lambiam 07:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Admin nerds may view the old entry for "male rod" [1] which I think is still, ten years later, the creepiest thing I have seen on Wiktionary apart from my stalker. Equinox ◑ 08:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(You have a stalker!? It's not Wonderfool is it?) Ƿidsiþ 06:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• FYI I created blackman, which is actually pretty common, at least in certain times/contexts. Ƿidsiþ 06:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to point out that COALMINE would have us keep this, although I think that's somewhat absurd (and the phrase is clearly SOP), since as Equinox says one can just as well speak of a "black woman", "a black daughter", "a black actress"... - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I've heard black men describing themselves as a "black man" (on the radio, where you can't see what colour they are). DonnanZ (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. There's a nuance that is being missed. See, e.g., Ralph Cheyney and Jack Conroy, eds., Unrest, The Rebel Poets' Anthology (1929), p. 40: "Listen, black man, listen, you have a cot at night; What more do you need, blackbird, than sleep and appetite?"; Clifton E. Marsh, From Black Muslims to Muslims (1996), p. 144: "As I passed the lines of black women they shouted, “Go black man, Go black man, We believe in you, brother”...". It ceases to be a descriptor and becomes almost an honorific. bd2412 T 05:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. White man is kept, let black man also stay. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 17:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD kept — Dentonius 19:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reopened and delete; also delete white man and the redirect at white person. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete the racial senses, currently 2 and 3. Sense 4 may justify keeping the page. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep, as there's blackman. --幽霊四 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep per coalmine. DAVilla 04:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@DAVilla I am far from sure that this is a valid application of COALMINE. COALMINE pertains to alternative forms, so that a less common unspaced compound supports the inclusion of a more common spaced or hyphenated compound. But black man is not a compound, its a noun phrase with an attributive adjective that has undergone stress shift as a set phrase. I quote: "Terms that are not necessarily idiomatic but are the significantly more common forms of attestable single words.". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's a stress shift because it's a set phrase, that would be an even stronger rationale. I meant keep at least per coalmine, if for no other reason. DAVilla 19:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete, SOP. PUC – 23:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete blatant SoP, and, per Equinox, we may as well have "black" + any person type whatsoever. Mihia (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep and also white man. I would have preferred to delete both, but both have senses not SOP as mentioned in quotations, e.g. ...since the arrival of the black man in sports.... I do note that the spelling can also be Black man when referring to a (male) black person. Facts707 (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Talking about "the something", e.g. "the black man in sports", is not a separate sense of the word. If we say "the kangaroo was first discovered in year X" it's just the same: we don't mean one specific kangaroo, but the entire race. The separate sense is silly and should not support keep votes. Equinox ◑ 07:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, debatable as to whether it can mean "black people in general" or "black culture in general", but we still have sense #4 "(now rare) An evil spirit, a demon." Facts707 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep as a loathsome, quaint term that I shun using and cringe upon hearing (or reading) but has its own separate sense that can't be inferred from its SOP. --Kent Dominic (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Dominic: Loathsomeness is relative. The song "This Is America" features numerous repetitions of the phrase by a black artist in a context which suggests familiar use within his own culture. bd2412 T 05:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: "Loathsomeness is relative;" true. Whether "This is America" uses a loathsome term, familiar as it may be, diminishes neither its loathsomeness nor my predilection to shun its use. Yet, given its use notwithstanding its loathsomeness, my vote was (and remains) to keep. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep AG202 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

RFD-no-consensus AG202 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)