Talk:Gentlemen's agreement

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gentlemen's agreement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 June 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled section

There is another page called "Gentlemen's *A*greement" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%27s_Agreement Why the two pages?

because that page is a specific agreement, this page is for the general sense. Mathmo ^Talk 08:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Was Chamberlain's Munich Agreement with Hitler ever really described as a Gentleman's Agreement? I am not aware that it was and even the appeasers did not tend to regard Hitler as a gentleman. Also, does the glass ceiling really belong here? Is it not the product of either deliberate or unconscious prejudice - not any sort of agreement in the sense of a Gentleman's Agreement? Chelseaboy 20:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Difference between this and verbal contract?

I know that the article states that a Gentleman's Agreement is different from a contract because of enforceability. However, I am sometimes confused by the difference between a Gentleman's Agreement and a verbal contract. Would the article benefit by drawing this distinction more clearly?216.201.119.71 21:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the differences is that a gentlemen's agreement can have a negative connotation; that is, it can imply that the verbal agreement is on a topic sufficiently controversial that the parties would want to be able to deny that any agreement or contract exists. Rickterp (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen's Agreement Is, by Definition, an Oral Agreement

The introduction to the article states that a gentlemen's agreement can be oral or written. The concept of a written gentlemen's agreement seems contradictory. If an agreement is written (and presumably signed and dated in some fashion), it ceases to be a gentlemen's agreement and becomes a binding contract. PlaysInPeoria 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such definition. And yes, you can have written Gentlemen's Agreements. There are some rights that you cannot give up, e.g. copyright, which in Germany ("Urheberrecht") cannot be sold or transferred to another person by anything other than death of the creator of the works, but you can make a Gentleman's Agreement not to pursue those rights. Since you cannot give them up, such an agreement cannot be enforced in court, all partners to the agreement simply have to trust each other.134.247.251.246 (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines

Isn't there a difference. A gentlemen's agreement on German car speed limits or Japanese motorbike power is an agreement not to do something that is dangerous even if there is a temporary advatage to one maker in doing it. The Boeing/airline deal is simply a (possibly illegal) monopoly - like MIcrosoft's forcing manufactureres to sell no other OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Boeing Commercial Airplanes signed exclusivity contracts with American Airlines, Continental Airlines, and Delta Air Lines in separate but nearly identical arrangements, regarding the supply of airliners. The European Union forced the contracts to be voided when Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas, but American Airlines, Delta and Continental are continuing to adhere to the terms under gentlemen's agreements. Is that true? American Airlines has a couple of Airbuses in their fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.240.244 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about when going to the toilet, there are this things (I don't know their name in english) one after the other in a row, where men pee. It is normally "overunderstood" that you should skip one so as to not pick any that is immediately next to somebody else, or else you could be interpreted as homosexual trying to snitch a peek, or any other reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.163.69 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're called urinals, and that's just a social convention. It's not about homophobia. Why get into a stranger's personal space at the adjacent urinal when there's a free one two feet away? It's like walking into an empty movie theater and sitting right next to the only other person in there. It's a very awkward, invasive thing for someone to do for no good reason (autism, creepy sexual advances and "as a prank" are the only reasons I can think of). If the middle urinal is the only one free, then it's not a problem. 2605:6000:EA51:3700:E1E6:DF8C:4123:6606 (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation needed

"German carmakers put a 250 km/h (155 mph) speed limit on their automobiles except sports cars." This needs a description of how it is a gentleman's agreement.71.65.124.162 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It´s a gentleman´s agreement between the carmakers and the insurence companys. Becauste they think it is to dangerous for normal, maybe unexperienced drivers, to drive faster than 250km/h. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.61.40 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholic Beverages

The uncited line about alcoholic beverages not being advertised in the UK until late 90s is complete piffle. Some of the most famous adverts in the UK are for them (follow the bear, a pint of Websters, bet he drinks Carling Black Label) and therefore I've removed it. VonBlade (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good call - I thought that sounded off.MattLohkamp 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.lohkamp (talk • contribs)

Picture

It's retarded, lose it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.63.143 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is very poor quality and not really very relevant to the topic. I'm going to remove it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutral alternative

I arrived at this page having performed a Google search for "gender neutral alternatives to gentlemen's agreement". I recently made such an agreement with somebody and wanted to reference it with him, without using gendered language that would undermine my own participation in it. My hope for this article would be that it describe the meaning of Gentlemen's Agreement, detail the true history etc, but also include a section that lists synonyms or modern alternatives. In my search I found a few suggestions that seem to fall short, for example a Microsoft programme that would auto-correct "Gentlemen's Agreement" to "Unspoken Agreement". I have decided that I will use "Good Faith Agreement" as my modern alternative. I am not a Wikipedia editor and apologise if I've broken any etiquette, but this section has a genuinely useful purpose. It is not "working to change people's choices of words", it is offering alternatives to those who need them. 2001:14BB:410:1740:9C03:B76B:D957:3AB3 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Emily[reply]

Hi - I write educational content for Wikipedia and love to link any word that student's might not know. I came to this page looking for a gender-neutral alternative to gentlemen's agreement on an article I was writing on Robert's rules of order. It is currently in my sandbox at v:User:Guy_vandegrift/C, but will be moved to Wikiversity:Robert's Rules of Order. I apologize for the self-reference to "informal agreement", but it seemed appropriate here. Regardless of whether or not you are a fan of gender neutrality, it might be here to stay. And Wikipedia has a role to play in this.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh I hope not. It's one thing to use Wikipedia to give people access to knowledge. But working to change people's choices of words a violation of Wikipedia policy. We describe how things are, not what we think they ought to be. If you have third party sources who have asserted that everyone should change the terminology, the by all means cite what they said and attribute it to them.

Keep in mind that "gentlemen's agreement" is a both a gendered and classed concept. It is based on the idea of a code of honor adhered to by gentleman, male members of a specific class of a specific society, or people who were aspiring to follow the code of that class. There's nothing informal about that; there were all sorts of forms and norms and expectations, based on the demands of honor. It's kind of like an oral contract, but oral contracts can be legally binding. The idea with an agreement among gentlemen was that you'd insult their honor if you involved legal remedies -- their reputation was far more important than any legal redress.

An informal agreement is something else; lacking in form, lacking in social norms, it raises the question of what could enforce it. Maybe nothing, maybe some other behavior rules.

I can see why we would want to evolve past the outdated idea of gentleman's honor, and create something more universal, but how we go about doing that is not as easy as changing one word. Describing (but not prescribing) the way that third parties go about doing that would be a wonderful subject to add to this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point about WP not taking sides in the movement towards gender neutrality. It's just that I needed a gender-neutral word and stumbled upon this article. I love writing teaching materials on Wikiversity because the links to Wikipedia help students with their vocabulary. Go ahead and revert my edit if you want. I will include the link to Gentleman's agreement, but so as to not offend anybody at my end, the gender-neutral phrase will appear in the text to that link. I take it we have a gentleman's agreement you won't edit my page on Robert's Rules and substitute the phrase "Gentleman's agreement" into the Wikiversity article? (BTW, the only online version of Robert's Rules of Order is the 1914 version ... talk about sexist language. And they have an entirely different meaning for the word "minority".)--Guy vandegrift (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled by the "self-reference". Why would anyone do that? The other reference makes me ask who Shawn Fawcett is. It appears to be some guy's website. See WP:RS. I like the idea, but if you haven't got good sources when it doesn't go anywhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this addition: "gentleman's agreement, gender-neutral language gentle agreement,[1] ": it's awkward to read, for one thing. If "gentle agreement" was in common usage, it wouldn't be necessary to preface the phrase with "gender-neutral language". Your citation does contain the words "gentle agreement", but it doesn't seem to be about those words being in common usage. It's also not in English. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocating social causes or shaping people's perceptions through language. Content is supposed to be neutral, and to reflect current reality. This does violate a few guidelines and I am reverting it. If a gender-neutral phrase that is closely linked to people's concept of the historical "gentleman's agreement" does enter common usage, and you have a reputable link that specifically discusses that fact, then you should certainly append it then. 2605:6000:EA51:3700:E1E6:DF8C:4123:6606 (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone aware of any further developments in the use of a gender-neutral version of the term "gentlemen's agreement"? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gentlemen's agreement (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]