Talk:Etiquette in North America

Inviting only the people you want
Inviting only the people you want to be there is seen as snooty (selfish / rude / unkind). While it is good etiquette for a person who is invited to not bring someone that would make a bad guest, or bring too many people to someone's house. The person giving out the invitation should expect that the recipient of their invitation has sense to know who they can bring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.3.152 (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

hats
Nothing about this topic yet... --Espoo (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Who the heck does this stuff?
Okay, so, I really hope that there are no foreigners reading this page, looking up the general consensus of what constitutes good etiquette in North America. They would get an incredibly skewed and highly inappropriate impression.

I mean, really:

"...some authors lamented that the lower classes, meaning those "whose experience in life has been a hardening process," in fact treated the rules of etiquette with "contempt and ... a sneer."" One can't come much closer than this to admitting that the article is damn classist. (To come closer, after all, would be a breach of etiquette.)

"...concealing the mouth with the back of the hand." You cited Miss Manners as the supreme authority on etiquette for all of North America, and this is what you come up with? Nobody gives a damn what part of the hand you cover a yawn with. Front, back, fist, whatever. "Also, sneezing into a hanky, tissue, or side of your sleeve is expected, rather than turning or sneezing into the open air." No, sneezing into a hand or clenched fist is not universally considered bad etiquette throughout all of North America. Simply wash or sanitize your hands; we are practical people, not given to the magical thinking that the back of the hand will defile those who see it if you show it to them while using the front of the hand to cover a yawn.

"Generally, etiquette writers consider it incorrect to include any suggestion that gifts are, or even could have been, expected at a hosted event..." Except at weddings, at which it is not at all considered bad form to admit to a guest that gift registries and the like exist; in fact, naming a store at which you made the registry can be a better way to "anticipate and provide for the needs of the invited guests" than maintaining an air of silence and forcing the guest to either guess or field a call to the host. Likewise, for a wedding, requesting that guests not bring gifts is universally seen as a sign of humility. On the other hand, it is not at all a courtesy to include explicit dress instructions. That is nothing but vain, and most North Americans do not give a damn whether Emily Post says otherwise.

"If wishing to invite additional family members, the host should not add "... and Family,"" unless the host is normal. Then they may go ahead and add it. (Yes, I used singular they. Like Shakespeare. What a terrifying prole that makes me.) The guests don't mind if you choose to trust their judgment, it's okay. As long as you do trust their judgment. Because really, if any of these miscomported pseudointellectuals believed etiquette to be worth anything at all, they would try to formulate some rule for people to follow when they receive an invitation that says you're allowed to bring family. Simple rule of thumb would be that anyone who lives in the same house as the invitee is covered under the term "and Family," including children, significant others, and individuals the invitee is taking care of, such as an elderly parent.

And what, no rule of thumb for tipping under "Public interactions"? Or on how one should treat a waiter or waitress in a restaurant? Or a cashier in a store? No word on whether it is acceptable to ask someone to save your place in a line? No mentioning of any rules for how one ought to treat misbehaving children in public? No wisdom regarding the treatment of beggars? No insight to keep us safe when interacting with the police? Nothing about how we ought to treat judges and other public figures of authority? And no nuances for the smoothing of business relationships?

What the hell is this page supposed to do anyway, if it can't even cover the most basic rudiments of interacting with real people in the real North America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.209 (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I seriously have to agree with this sentiment- half of the "principles" seem to only apply to 1930s style balls or weddings- and I'm tempted to overhaul this page entirely.  Coriander  → 03:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Etiquette in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090414102755/http://lifestyle.msn.com:80/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8319029 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8319029
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210111655/http://lifestyle.msn.com:80/relationships/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=16692391 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=16692391
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090413154225/http://lifestyle.msn.com:80/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8318982 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8318982

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Etiquette in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212172016/http://lifestyle.msn.com:80/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8318983 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8318983
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614041736/http://lifestyle.msn.com:80/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20100561 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=20100561
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223110007/http://www.buffalonews.com:80/opinion/columns/missmanners/story/580181.html? to http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/columns/missmanners/story/580181.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090612030146/http://www.buffalonews.com:80/opinion/columns/missmanners/story/688078.html to http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/columns/missmanners/story/688078.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212004715/http://lifestyle.msn.com:80/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8319028 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8319028
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212004159/http://lifestyle.msn.com:80/Relationships/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=8319079 to http://lifestyle.msn.com/Relationships/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=8319079

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)