Talk:Gentleman

Perhaps the meaning of the phrase "of good family" could be explained here, since non-British readers may naively construe it literally. Michael Hardy 23:14, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Could use a description of the military view of "gentleman," especially in the West, and the distinction between enlisted men and officers.

Sources

SOURCE QUERY: Who is "Sir Charles Mainegra", and what book is being referenced here? vancouveriensis 7 Feb 2009

Structure...

Shouldn't this article be more structured?

Surname

I added the surname details to this. Gentleman is, in fact, my own surname. My own research and family anecdotes suggest that the name is an occupational surname similar to Baker or Smith. Another anecdote suggest it was a British title given to Scot land owners who were of Noble class but not of British noble birth. Example:

1. Bob, the Gentleman of Scotland
2. Bob, Gentleman of Scotland
3. Bob Gentleman of Scotland

etc. I hope someone else can add more to this.

That's very interesting (no sarcasm intended). You should probably have signed it though. Never mind, I'm going to tell everyone I know this Spongefrog (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman - artist

Well,

You miss that this cannot be a direct page anymore, there is a worldfamous reggae artist Gentleman, too :-)

www.journeytojah.com

A nice example of Gentleman in lyrics and deeds

Gentleman - artist

Well,

You miss that this cannot be a direct page anymore, there is a worldfamous reggae artist Gentleman, too :-)

www.journeytojah.com

A nice example of Gentleman in lyrics and deeds --Rastavox 23:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

there is also a gentlemens club

Links to sites promoting gentlemanly behaviour

This entry would benefit from having a carefully-selected list of recommended website for further reading.

• Trying to put up a link to Debonairegentleman again? Wikipedia doesn't link to blogs. CRCulver 23:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Swords?

This article says that court dress includes the wearing of a sword, but the court dress article does not mention this. I'm -really- hoping that this article is correct, because that would be an -awesome- fact. (We need more swords worn in public!) But anyway. Could someone clarify? Perhaps someone 'cross the pond? --GenkiNeko 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation

'And in the Romance of the Rose (circa 1400) we find: "he is gentil bycause he doth as longeth to a gentilman".' A translation into modern English would be useful... --SolidNatrix 10:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC) "He is gentle because he does as belongs to a gentleman" - rather obvious, really.. 79.138.243.78 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

bad translation

In the article it says, "the Spanish gentilhombre" referring to the translation of the world "gentleman" to spanish, which is incorrect, because "gentilhombre", is a literal translation, but that word does not exist in spanish, the word would be "caballero", I took the liberty to edit the article to correct that.

Khora 05:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Khora

The word exists in Spanish, although it's not frequent nowadays, and "caballero" is now used to translate both "gentleman" an "knight". Here is the definition (in Spanish) from the Spanish Language Dictionary.[1]

gentilhombre. (Calco del fr. gentilhomme).

1. m. Hombre de origen noble y, por ext., el que se comporta de forma caballerosa.

2. m. Hombre que se enviaba al rey con un despacho, para darle noticia de algún buen suceso.

3. m. Hombre de condición distinguida que servía en las casas de los grandes.

I restored the translation.

190.30.24.15 (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupation

"The comparative good order of England was not favourable to the continuance of a class developed during the foreign and civil wars of the 14th and 15th centuries, for whom fighting was the sole honourable occupation." It's not as though England ever stopped fighting is it?

194.46.236.42 15:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Further Declilne of Standards in This Article.

The last paragraph of the Further Decline in Standards section seems like a blatant plug for somebody's book, and appears to be of little relevance to the article. --Silverscaledsalmon (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture is not of a gentleman but of a schoolboy

The picture is inappropriate and the caption is wrong as it shows a schoolboy, not a gentleman. 89.240.209.79 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Prince

Selden, however, in referring to similar stories "that no Charter can make a Gentleman, which is cited as out of the mouth of some great Princes that have said it,"

Including Prince himself! http://lyrics.wikia.com/Prince:Partyman Jidanni (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"The word gentry derives from the old term Adel"

No it doesn't. The words are plainly unrelated. This looks like someone edited a sentence very sloppily and didn't bother to make the whole thing consistent.

Come on, this is in the lede. Way to make a bad first impression. 74.220.76.54 (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Arya

Indian texts talk of gentlemen to be Aryan. Noble conducts and customs were referred to that of Aryan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.142.21 (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A load of tosh

The whole article is just a complete load of rubbish!

William Weston – ambiguous link

Probably William Weston I, but evidence needed. Narky Blert (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of Robert E. Lee's definition

The article asserts that Robert E. Lee's description of a gentleman "speaks only to conduct." It is true that Lee only asserts descriptions of a gentleman that relate to conduct, but each of those asserted conducts implies that the man in question has power, authority, or advantage. In other words, Lee is starting with what would have been the assumed description of a gentleman at his time, one which would certainly include requirements of background, means, advantage, etc., and he is then adding a new component to that definition, in other words narrowing the definition, with a requirement on conduct.

Lee states, "The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, ... will show the gentleman in a plain light." Clearly, a gentlemen will be one of the powerful, an employer, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt1159 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of the article currently reads: "In modern parlance, the term gentleman (from Latin gentis, belonging to a race or gens, and man, the Italian gentil uomo or gentiluomo, the French gentilhomme, the Spanish gentilhombre, the Portuguese homem gentil, and the Esperanto gentilmano) refers to..."

Is this really meant to suggest that the word is derived from Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese AND Esperanto? That's how I interpret it in it's current form, but I assume it's meant to be saying that the word is derived from Latin, as are the others which mean the same thing. (More generally the style of the article seems to be erratic and in places quite old fashioned. I assume writers were slipping into the style of their sources but the end result looks odd and can be tricky to follow in places thanks to the archaic grammar.) 108.171.128.169 (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Historickal quotation doth obscure plaine meaning

This is one of those Wiki articles written by history scholars that indulges in quoting old texts as if their meaning is plain to any reader. They are not. The material should be summarized in plain English. Tysto (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Balance/ sources

Particularly in the landed gentry section, the text is taken word-for-word from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article with barely any alteration; far too much emphasis is placed on Sitwell's point-of-view, resulting in a very jaundiced and critical account of the origin and nature of (landed) gentlemen. Some more recent scholarship- even though no doubt a good deal of Sitwell's work would be supported thereby- ought to be incorporated to the extent of greatly minimising the weight placed on Sitwell's own account. At present the effect of the section is merely to undermine the concept, which may well be justifiable should scholarly consensus make it so, but solely on the basis of Sitwell's account this seems unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.199.203 (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)