Talk:Bachelor

message: Someone explain or delete "Chris Bartlett, conflicted bachelor." 71.156.37.155 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicted Bachelor? 

message: Most of us don't care - just accept that you're gay and be happy with yourself.  Seriously. 130.54.130.229 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Edited that one out. 213.84.29.60 07:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I am happy, but how can I accept that I'm gay when I find myself bringing home women to my bachelor pad? Nice try, however I could accuse someone of being a closet homosexual hiding behind their matrimonial status, but that would be hitting too close to the truth. Seriously. Capper01 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many thousands of bachelors who are 100% straight. There are thousands of homosexuals who marry, often to try to pretend to people that they are straight. Whether or not a person is or was married to someone of the opposite sex does not prove their orientation. That some people use the term 'confirmed bachelor' as a euphemism for a homosexual man gives the false impression to some that a man who has never married, especially one who does not want to, must be a homo. Michael Winner is 100% straight, has had lots of women throughout his adult life; he has never married. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, the term "confirmed bachelor" has long carried connotations (accurate or not) of homosexuality, and ignoring the connotation of a word essentially drags Wikipedia down to the level of a dictionary that contains only the literal meanings of a word and not the more subtle and complicated social and cultural implications.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepha (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all bachelors are homosexual 

message: I mean, one doesn't go to an encyclopedia to find out the meaning of the word "bachelor"; one uses a dictionary for that.  So, is there anything else we can say about bachelors or bachelorhood that might properly go in an encyclopedia? --LMS
:Yup. 68.101.130.214 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the Encyclopaedia Britannica entries. — LlywelynII 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]

message: Should not be restricted to historical as knights bachelor still exist.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knight bachelor 

message: I added "but marriageable" since, in modern usage, a monk, Catholic priest, or underage boy cannot be a bachelor.  This of course makes "eligible bachelor" a pleonasm.  The category "bachelor" is also fuzzy at the edges: is a man in a long-term committed relationship a "bachelor"?  One would normally say no.  See http://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/bachelor.htm --Macrakis 06:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but society knows that not all bachelors are worth marrying, hence the qualifier.  A rich man and a homeless guy might be equally available, but that doesn't mean they're both eligible -- or fit -- for marriage, if you're a woman. 69.239.236.37 15:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To restrict the definition by a man's wealth is ludicrous. Whether or not a man fits the description of a bachelor has nothing to do with how much money he has. It does have a major bearing on how many women would want to marry him, and although it is a major factor, it is not the only one. Thousands of poor men marry every year. In any case, different people have different opinions as to where the line is drawn between poor and not poor. In addition, it is not rare for poor people's finances to improve significantly, nor for rich people's to decline considerably. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been argued that 'marriageable' is part of the connotation, rather than denotation of 'bachelor'. Is the Pope a bachelor? Probably, but he's hardly a good example. This approach would be a prototype-style cognitive linguistic approach. Western Philosophy has traditionally had problems with defining this kind of word, exactly because of its fuzzy edges. Perhaps, "but marriageable" could be replaced by, "but of marriageable age" following the OED. But then, this isn't a dictionary. --Peter 12:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrict to marriageable? 

message: Someone has written in the wiki: "In some cultures, the 'punishment' of bachelors is no more than a teasing game. In small towns in Germany, for example, men who were still unmarried on their 30th birthday were made to sweep the stairs of the town hall until kissed by a virgin. This 'punishment' has now died out."
I don't think this is entirely true, because I observed this custom in Münster in May 2006.
:I agree. This custom is still in use. I personally know it from Braunschweig and Göttingen. Therefore it is also not limited to small towns. I would transfer the whole paragraph into present and would delete the last sentence. --68.76.79.86 01:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been removed. I'll add it back but it needs a citation. — LlywelynII 23:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  30th Birthday Custom in Germany 

message: I would find it helpful if Wikipedia would include a phonetic pronunciation of the word. Recently I and some others were discussing this word and were unable to agree as to how to say it. I got out my copy of "the New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language - Canadian Edition(1988)) but could not even find the word Bachelor in it! Is it pronounced [bache]-[lor] 2 syllables(silent 'e'), or [bach]- [e] - [lor] 3 syllables?
Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.252.69 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both versions are in current usage.  You can't really say that one is right and the other is wrong,   since they're both acceptable, like "farther" and "further". 69.239.236.37 15:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, Wikipedia . You're looking for Wiktionary. (We do include pronunciations if they have one correct form but it's odd—e.g., Chalcis—but that doesn't apply here.) — LlywelynII 23:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do you say this word?  

message: What is up with all the "citation needed" refuse cluttering this article?  How can one cite the colloquial usage of a word?  The citation is the entire library of current-era texts.  How's that for a citation? :P --Ayeroxor 15:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "citation needed" 

message: Whilst the official line is that he never married, many people, including some experts, claim that Mary Magdalene was his widow. Evidence for this hypothesis is her close presence to him for so much of the latter part of his life, and her presence near him during and shortly after his death. It is unlikely that one woman, other than his wife, would have spent so much time around him, and for him to still be a hugely and widely respected rabbi in that era, in that part of the world. In addition, it would have been rare in that era and area, for a thirtysomething rabbi to be a bachelor - it would have been 'frowned upon'. The official line that Christian organisations state is that he definitely never married, and he was definitely celibate. They explain it by saying that he was a unique case, and never had any sexual relationships, in order to entirely devote his life to religion. However, he had an ordinary life until he was about 29, only spending the last (roughly) four years of his life doing what made him well-known. That contradicts not only that, but their obviously (scientifically proven) false claim that he was the son of God. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, it's the official line, with many, many . — LlywelynII 23:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for me, I'm surprised that we allow characters of fiction to be allowed on the list. Should we add every made up people we create for tv series and books over the years? This is ridiculous, the list shouldn't exist in the first place. Whatever you do, I'm probably not interested. (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are those who consider him to be non-fictional and also believe that he was the groom at the wedding at Cana, as why else would he have been responsible for the food for guests? And as aforementioned, an observant Jew would have married. WordwizardW (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Christ a bachelor?

message: What is the point of this list? This is ridiculous.  There is a huge, huge list of famous bachelors, but more importantly, this list serves zero purpose.  You can incorporate a few of these people in the discussion and the list section should be removed! I think this kind of list is inherently unencylopedic. Busillis (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The List 

message: Stupid list.  Also, not all unmarried men would be considered "bachelors" - Thomas Aquinas (on the list) - was a monk.  Roman Catholic clergymen are not bachelors.2.103.42.88 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Men Who Never Married 

message: is this a zoology article? why this term? is it an attempt to be PC? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  pair bond 

message: It states that "Bacca" = old irish for "farmer"... That's severely doubtful, why a half-irish half-latin term "bacca laureus" to be used all over the continent as well as britain? And then "bacca laureus = laurel berry" (in other words, where did the Irish farmer go?).  77.99.246.115 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from baccalari(u)s "tenant of a baccalaria", and baccalaria is "a grazing farm (for cattle)", from bacca "cow". So, basically a medieval term for "cowboy". --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not sure about that part. — LlywelynII 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The etymology part seems a bit ill. 

message: The sentence on Gulf countries appears to be supportedd by the source, but I wonder if it's incomplete or misleading. I believeas per our article on Talk:Women's rights in Saudi Arabia that in Saudia Arabia where sexual segregation is widely practices, 'bachelor', is generally used to refer to a section, like in a restaurant, for men by themselves (or with other men). These men may or may not be married with families, the point is the family (or at least female members) are not with them so they can use the bachelors section as there is no concern about inappropriate mixing and the term is obviously not perjorative nor only used for immigrants. I wonder then whether the may be used to refer to men by themselves withouth any family they may or may not have and fhe use higlighted in the sources arises from that. Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulf countries?  

message: Adding the following links as they contain source material that may be useful for the main article - shows punishments for men who preferred to remain unwed: </br>
The danger of celibacy (1707)</br> An attack on bachelors – and their reply. 
And this tangential one on the Western marriage construct:</br> 
The origins of Western wedding rituals/Forget the Ring.
—added by 202.173.170.85 on 05:48, 31 December 2013‎
:Well, yep, those could go in. I added a section on the history of treatment of bachelors per EB. — LlywelynII 22:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Punishments for bachelors as a pressure to wed

message: It is likely that the citations here are for the same book:
sources, see Schmidt,.  reprinted by Lang.. }} Europäische Hochschulschriften is a monograph series; Italienische Sprache und Literatur is likely to be a subseries of it.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uwe F. Schmidt 

message: Under "Etymology" it says "Further information: nubile" which then links to "Lolita (term)". Perhaps the connection might be clarified. Are bachelors considered likewise sexually precocious? Mannanan51 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. "Nubile" literally means "marriageable" (cf. connubial) and isn't at all etymologically related to "bachelor."  It may have sneaked in on the coattails of the "Eligible bachelor" mergefrom, which also doesn't belong under Etymology (I've moved that to the top).  At any rate, there is no article for "nubile" or "nubility" apart from the grossly inappropriate (in my opinion) "lolita" redirect.  Eastcheap (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lolita  

message: I question whether the list is appropriate. Whilst it is not overly common for a man to be a bachelor their entire life, it's not uncommon enough to be notable. There are many famous people in history who were bachelor. As a percentage of the population, there are more bachelors than there are redheads, but the wikipedia page for "red hair" doesn't have a list of every notable redhead in history, because that would obviously be obscene and would be a ridiculous task to carry out. The same, therefore, applies to bachelors. There are too many notable people from history who were bachelors, so the list should not be there. If it was a list of bachelors who were notable for being bachelors, then sure (although there are probably still more of those than it would be reasonable to list still). Farleigheditor (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also the fact that listed among bachelors from the ancient period, there's jesus, whose historical existence is controversial and remains unproven, besides if we started included characters from religions, that list would never end. Whatever you do, I'm probably not interested. (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  list 

message: First off, 'Spinster[ does have negative conotations. But Bachelor- I've had call centre people from India refer to me as 'bachelor' when I'm just Single, %28 of Australian women will never get married- Bachelor is most defiinatly a euphemism for being a gay man with wealth!!! 124.170.115.129 (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bachelor is most defiinatly a euphemism for being a gay man with wealth" Nothing prevents a gay man from marrying. Either to a woman which he does not love, or to a man in a country having legalized same-sex marriage. Dimadick (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  An archaic termalogy for single people 

message: Can we please just delete this and stop talking about how to fix it? This is one of the dumbest things I've seen on the site. Gave me a good laugh but uh... there's no salvaging this idea. 2601:C1:400:DAB0:D834:791B:8756:8CB1 (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men who never married (listed chronologically by date of birth)... 

message: As earlier discussed above even after having a re-look at the article and the policy guidelines specially WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE  I continue to feel that, in a directory of notables, notables are  common (i.e. ordinary) and Wikipedia is not a directory. Hence  a list of Bachelor would be non-notable in this article, other than handful of extra ordinary examples, if any. For example a notable king being married many queens or an ascetic being unmarried are common; an unmarried notable king and an ascetic  having too many sexual escapades or relations may need to be taken note of in respective articles.   I suggest  WP:DYK criteria may be useful to decide on examples to be selected.
In case marriages some marriages can become notable for their impact on political relationships etc. Even instances notable couples getting apart for various reasons may have notable impacts at times on individuals and events. In case of unmarried status of any gender do not seem to make extraordinary notable impacts by virtue of their unmarried status. 
 
But 'in groups', people of 'unmarried status' -voluntary or involuntary- may have or may have had impact on societies hence in social sciences perspective there may be notable cases.           
   
Present article scope in Short description is Unmarried man; plain reading of history section of the article suggests the meanings of the word 'Bachelor' seem  to have changed over the centuries that too is an impediment unless scope of the article is formally discussed. 
 
Policy side this case would have come under (now inactive) project WP:LAUNDRY; see Template:Handling miscellanea WP:ROC,  WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE,  MOS:EMBED Essays: Wikipedia:Avoid data-hoarding, WP:DISCRIMINATE, WP:EXAMPLES, WP:OLIST  Bookku    (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: My opinion (detail)

message: As of now article seem to have covered more of historical linguistic aspects of the term, and that is okay. Only some encyclopedic aspects seem to have been covered that too with more focus on west. Asia has distinct historical traditions and article seem to have scope to expand. 
I am sharing following part of sourced paragraph for inclusion in the article from the article Brahmacharya.
:Suggested article summary for above paragraph to take care WP:Copy Right policy:  
::Copy pasting from Brahmacharya  ; Pl. see history of Brahmacharya for attributions.
  Bookku    (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope for encyclopedic expansion