Talk:Noblesse oblige

Reorganization

Two entries in “History and examples” seem to offer too little real information (there are no quotes or links to quotes or anything at all that might further elucidate the term) and should be removed:

• In the Iliad book XII, Sarpedon delivers a famous noblesse oblige speech before attacking the Argive ramparts.

• William Faulkner uses the term many times in his novels and short stories, including the famous The Sound and the Fury and "A Rose for Emily".

There are several others that don’t use the term noblesse oblige, but do give an example that some might find useful in understanding American usage. My tendency is to remove these, too, but that may be too harsh. In any case, since they are not examples of usage, I think we should rename the current section to “Examples of usage,” and move such entries as those below into a separate section, maybe called “Before the concept had a name,” “Examples of the concept” or some such.

• In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus endorses the concept, saying, "From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded." (Luke 12:48)

• In the 2009 anime Eden of the East, "noblesse oblige" seems to be both the motto of the Seleção (Chosen), as well as a recurring sign of things to come. Twelve under cover agents are each given ten billion yen to spend "for the good of the country". Their motto reminds them to spend their money wisely.

BAlfson (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Appeal

éNoblesse oblige...that is what the future of our country is about. Not only rich people because the rich are a phantom in someones mind. Donald Trump is rich to me. Some one in New Orleans may consider anyone with a car that runs with a tank of gas and fifty bucks in their pocket to be rich. A poor father with children and a wife might think anyone with a gallon of milk was rich; given the circumstances the definiton changes. Who have you crossed paths with lately that, with very nearly no effort whatever on your part, you could have made a difference in someones life for the better. Got a job? You're rich in someones eyes. Got a safe place to sleep tonight? You are fabousley wealthy in the eyes of that distraught mother of a couple of boys who just keeps murmuring "where am I going to go". Got a destination, a place in mind, with the ability to get there? That is all it takes to be rich in someone elses eye, someone who has just given up. In the last few days I have seen things reported on television, that made a believer. Noblesse oblige. If you have anything, you have to share with those who have nothing. When will it start, as a human endevor? Can you know what is happening to the poor unprepared fellow Americans, and just do nothing? We all can do something. These are our brothers and sisters. Everybody think on that and do any little thing that comes to your mind to alleviate anyone elses pain and turmoil. It just might make a difference.

>>A completely pointless, yet stirring speech. I suppose I should delete it, since it is incredibly off-topic...But I simply can't bring myself to do so. Anyways, does anybody else think this page is thin enough to melt in water? We need to buff it up somehow. Right now, all I can think of is a list of references to the term (i.e. Kingdom of Loathing, .hack//SIGN), but that seems rather pointless and corny. Any suggestions?

Yes, every good wikipedia article has an extensive list of references to the topic in video games and anime, so you should add this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.97.26 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "refererence" to the Wall Street Journal article is less an aid to illustrating a concept than thinly disguised partisanship and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.253.44 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the Bible

I changed the reference from Luke 12:35-48 to Luke 12:48 because the quoted line is only one verse. Anyone know why it was referenced as more than that? -Rbean 04:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

What is the basis for stating that the origin of the phrase is Luke 12:48? I love this job! it makes me do noblesse obige all the time!Does the original text of that passage include the term "noblesse oblige"? Certainly, the idea that those who have the most have a unique obligation was voiced prior to Luke 12:48. E.g., it appears, that the idea also has roots in the Old Testament.[1] I'm sure that a modicum of research would show that the general idea expressed in Luke is very common and hoary.

Moreover, does "F. A. Kemble first used the term in 1837" mean that "The first use of the term was in 1837 by F. A. Kemble" or does it mean that "The first time F. A. Kemble used the term was in 1837"? If the former (which I presume), is the authority for that only that none of the wikipedia editors know of an earlier usage? Also, is there any reason to believe that Mr. chicken was referring to Luke 12:48? Finally, what letter is this referring to? Is there any authority for this passage? What language does noblesse oblige come from? I thought it was both French and English.

Cka3n 16:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation?

Isn't a better translation "noble obligation"?

It depends on what you mean by "better." Noblesse oblige, though used as a noun-phrase, does literally translate to "nobility obliges." Here, "obliges" means "the nobility performs a service," as opposed to "the nobility is obliging someone else [to do something]"Nomenphile 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literal translation of the two words aside, my understanding of the phrase has always been that it is used as a noun to refer to a concept or ideal - "The obligation of nobility"; that is, referring to the obligation (some might say onus) of the privileged to serve [those who are not] - rather than to refer to an action ('nobility obliges/serves'). Perhaps I'm not right, but the phrase noble obligation would seem to follow that particular interpretation. There are lots of cases where the literal translation of a word or phrase into English doesn't necessarily convey the complete meaning intended by the use of the phrase. Cultural nuance is often lost. - Tenmiles 17:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the translation to reflect the above discussion. The previous translation suggested that "noblesse oblige" creates an obligation for others rather than for the members of the nobility themselves. Dactylion (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the changes made to the literal translation. Following the literal translation is an English translation of the French definition as found in the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française and following that is the definition as found in the Oxford English Dictionary. The Meaning and variants section is where contributions should be added which depend on opinion or understanding.BAlfson (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An addition

Shouldn't we also talk about this re: .hack//SIGN? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also then talk about every other film or television show where this phrase was uttered once in the script? - Tenmiles 03:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be put under a section titled "Noblesse Oblige In Fiction," but I imagine that list would get really long really fast. Probably not a good idea.

Ashita no Nadja

Is the link to Ashita no Nadja in the "See Also" section appropriate? I looked at the Ashita article and could see no readily apparent connection to the concept of noblesse oblige.Nomenphile 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise; while I don't know it well enough to say if the phrase nobless oblige appears in the dialog somewhere (as was observed with .hack//sign), ~~but~~ it sure doesn't have any apparent relevance to this article. I'm removing it until a persuasive reason can be offered for putting it back. - Tenmiles 03:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: French meaning

Prior to reading this Wikipedia article, I had never heard noblesse oblige used, in either French or English, to mean that "with wealth, power and prestige come social responsibilities." I believe that such a usage is incorrect, and that the article was written from the viewpoint of someone who wants it to mean that.

I don't recall how I first came to this article, but I was uncomfortable that English speakers seemed to have changed the meaning from the French. Here's what fr.wiktionary.org has to say about it (from the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française):

noblesse oblige féminin

1. Quiconque prétend être noble doit se conduire noblement.

2. (Figuré) On doit agir en conformité avec la situation qu’on occupe, avec la réputation qu’on s’est acquise.

In English:

1. Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly.

2. (Figuratively) One must act in a fashion that conformes with one's position, and with the reputation that one has earned.

Balzac did not create this word combination. The first time Balzac uses it in "Le Lys dans la vallée," he characterizes it as an old word:

"Tout ce que je viens de vous dire peut se résumer par un vieux mot: noblesse oblige !"

"Everything I have just told you can be summarized by an old word: noblesse oblige!"

His advice had included comments like "others will respect you for detesting people who have done detestable things." That hardly fits with the article as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BAlfson (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also followed the reference links provided. A search for noblesse oblige on the National Honor Society site produced no hits. In consulting the OED, I found that the term "suggests noble ancestry constrains to honourable behavior; privilege entails to responsibility." Being a noble meant that you had responsibilities to lead, manage, etc. You were not to simply spend your time in idle pursuits.

Noblesse oblige thus means that a person is responsible for fulfilling the duties of the position one occupies. It is not unreasonable to extend this to charitable giving, but "giving ones wealth away" is hardly a definition of noblesse oblige. BAlfson (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the history of this article, it wasn't until 17 May 2005 that someone at 213.6.9.156 added the word "social" to it. The article remained in agreement with my understanding for a year prior to that. BAlfson (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an email I just received from the Associate Director of NHS, he has offered to look at their historical records for the reason this was chosen as their motto. He also said, "We commonly reference that the position of being recognized as an outstanding student with many talents in the four criteria obligates them to be good leaders and good servants to their school and their community " BAlfson (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you're seeing as a problem in the article. By putting an NPOV template here (and on the target of the Wiktionary link), and by the tone of your comments, it seems you see a large problem. I don't agree.

A concept like "noblesse oblige" simply cannot have a precise definition. In some cases of confusion over word meanings (like the distinction in "I am surprised, you are astonished"), it could be argued that people are using English incorrectly. However, I don't see how "noblesse oblige" could ever be precisely defined. Sure, it would be completely wrong to say that "noblesse oblige means if you're wealthy, you have to give away half your income". But the article doesn't come anywhere near such an over-statement IMHO.

Therefore, I think the way to resolve this would be to remove the NPOV and to simply add a paragraph to the article pointing out that when some people talk about "noblesse oblige" they are not implying any requirement to make donations. Your above para on the OED sounds good to me.

I believe phrases like "noblesse oblige" arise when people have a vague concept that occurs sufficiently often that a name is desirable. The article correctly recognises this by describing related examples. It is only after the sentence "Historically, the concept finds its roots in nearly all of the major religions of the world" that there is a suggestion of giving away a portion of wealth. So, the article does not define noblesse oblige as "giving ones wealth away".

A few minutes with Google have reinforced my opinion that the current article does not have an unusual point of view.

Noblesse Oblige

the moral obligation of those of high birth, powerful social position, etc., to act with honor, kindliness, generosity, etc.
Benevolent, honorable behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high birth or rank.
the obligation of those of high rank to be honorable and generous (often used ironically)
The belief that the wealthy and privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate.

noblesse oblige My nobility makes me. Why did you give your sandwich to that poor person? Noblesse oblige.

A common kin to altruism is philanthropy. Many well-off parents with philanthropic tendencies feel the "noblesse oblige," the responsibility of the wealthy to create good. They want to see these obligations carried on into the next generations. They seek to accomplish this goal by involving their children early and consistently in philanthropic activities such as family foundations, donor advised funds, charitable trusts and the like.

--Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johnuniq. I am new to editing in this medium, and so was hesitant to tinker with the content of an established page. Indeed, Merriam-Webster dictionaries from the 70s and 80s also include the reference to generosity which is lacking in French and British dictionaries. The term nobless oblige does indeed have a precise meaning outside the USA; my concern is that the intended message of authors like Balzac will not be correctly understood by American-language students. I'll take your suggestion on rewriting the article. BAlfson (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

Can anyone make sense of this paragraph from the article?:

On the other hand, the imperial family expects it for a hereditary system by oneself, and it was not it to the imperial family, but nevertheless the imperial family does it when it is against modern fundamental human rights and principle of equality that is had carry noblesse oblige, and to free the imperial family from noblesse oblige; a monarchy abolitionism can be insisted on.

I recognize all the words as english, but can not make heads or tails of what exactly they are trying to get at. This was added a little over a month ago by 203.211.195.66, and reads like something run through babelfish in various languages before translating it into english. My inclination was to just delete it, but perhaps someone more clever than myself can noodle out what was intended here? 75.154.177.10 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Special:Contributions/203.211.195.66 shows that this IP edited this page and one other on the same day (no other edits). The other edits (strange external links) have been removed. Since I can't understand the para either, I have removed the edit from this page. --Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my memory, the first time I heard the concept was in a college Western European History class. To me, the person who wrote the original article is perfectly logical and I agree with his/her opinion wholeheartedly. I only wish I had said it first.

[[User:PeteBB] 06:18AM 30 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.B.Blackwell (talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me and My Girl?

The motto of "Noblesse Oblige" plays a role in (and is explicitly mentioned in) the musical Me and My Girl. Would somebody be willing to add a mention of this to the "History and examples" section? --V2Blast (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giri?

Would it be correct to link this to the japanese concept of giri? On the surface at least, it seems similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.132.202 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Giri_(Japanese) article is correct, then I think the concepts are quite different. Giri seems to be obligation to superiors, but noblesse oblige is obligation by those who are superior to the non-noble. BAlfson (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Trimming some examples

Some of these examples are textbook cases of original research. If a particular person or case has a viewpoint you believe resembles Noblesse oblige, it is not proper to include it, unless there are verifiable resources that make the connection.

Further, some of these examples are not notable at all, and per WP:TRIVIA need to be deleted. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I fully support the trimming. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Notes section adds anything to this article other than an opportunity to improve search engine rankings on web sites that have "Noblesse Oblige" somewhere in the body. I recommend the removal of this section. Justinlwilson (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2013, there is no "Notes" section, but I think the History and Examples section should be split - leave past and historical examples of use there, but create a "In Popular Culture" section (like many, many other pages have done) and relevant entries can be added and sourced there. I know of at least two other uses of the phrase not listed in the section, and I do not believe an "In Popular Culture" section for this article violates WP:TRIVA, especially because many of them add context and provide clarification for modern day usage. 76.123.93.232 (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]