Talk:Etiquette in North America/Archive 1

Major Restructuring and Editing: More Etiquette/Less Sociology
I have reorganized this article to have a more sensible introduction, and major topics: Basics, General Cultural Etiquette, Private Life, Public Life, topics specific to Canada, and topics specific to the US.

I edited many sections. Besides general editing for conciseness, I also removed general discussions on culture and sociology to keep the focus on etiquette: i.e. what is considered the correct and the proper thing to do. Reasons are good, but there shouldn't be endless discussions about what people commonly do despite proper etiquette, or what people like to do, or what they do wrong and why. Let's keep it to what is the correct thing to do according to etiquette... that is what this article is supposed to be about after all.

There could be many other articles created that are non etiquette related: GO FOR IT: There could be article extensively discussing the term "Yankees", about tipping, about Native cultures. Those would be great, but are not about etiquette and don't belong in this particular article.

There should be a section on funerals, and the native people section of the Canada topic should be whittled down significantly. Njsustain (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Direction piece is complete rubbish
Having been in many American cities, this is not something I notice at all. Even in movies, you see people walking - not in a straight line (on the right), but in a mix of directions, just trying to get from point A to point B. Maybe it's different in Canada - but not in America. I would remove it completely, but I am just one opinion. --141.152.250.230 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Having lived in many American cities most people do walk on the right, with the slower walkers walking farthest to the right. There ares some exceptions, but as a generality it holds true. (D.c.camero (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Should This Article Be Split In Two - One For Canada, Another for U.S.?
Just came across this article & it is quite good. Just a thought though: since Canada and the United States are separate countries, shouldn't there be two articles - one for Canadian etiquette, another for American? Granted many of our customs are similar, but there some big differences, especially in Quebec. Just a thought.
 * I think there are enough commonalities the the current "both - just canada - just US" format works for now. --House of Scandal 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It should if it's going to make constant exceptions for one and then the other, as in the first few paragraphs of the body.Youdontsmellbad (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Queue
I made a small change to this section. This term is rarely used in Canada, in fact, I did not learn about it until after I was thirty and I started to play Scrabble a lot! Sometimes people will use it with a faux British accent, but it is not in common use. Moomot 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. I think I got that info from the article on Queue area.  You might want to check its accuracy.  ◄  HouseOfScandal  ► 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Québécois profanity
Hi Jean-Sébastien/Circeus...In the article Etiquette in Canada and the United States you added: "Fuck" is not considered a profanity by Quebec French speakers, who use specific profanities. Trying to use these profanities can lead to inappropriateness and risks greatly offending French speakers. Although there are plenty of things in the article that lack citations, I think this statement needs it. The article you link to totally lacks references as well, and that concerns me. Think maybe you can find references to back this up?  ◄ HouseOfScandal  ►   08:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not easy to specifically source the article, because it's a sociolinguistic element (although one I will happily vouch for.), but here are a selection of English and French links:, , , , , . I vividly remember a bilingual friend of mine saying that she uses "fuck" too much in French and it impacted on her English so that she came to say "French meaning of seal".


 * I also just located two French scientific links: and . For the use of "sacres", I think it slips within a general etiquette recommendation of not using foreign language swearwords for risk of doing so inappropriately. Circeus 14:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I've moved our discussion to this page as it might be useful for other editors to see what we're talking about. It got me thinking about editing in general and these Etiquette Worldwide articles specifically, and I got pretty long-winded about it! So here goes...

First off, I'm not doubting the veracity of what you say. Your cultural background and educational focus give you a great perspective on these matters. Also, in considering your edit more carefully, all you're saying is that "fuck" lacks the impact in Quebec French that it does in Canadian English. Without being specifically qualified to comment on that, my knowledge of comparable language situations gives me the intuitive belief that you are absolutely right.

My worries about this series of articles are totally a matter of fretting about an open barn door while the horse is already trotting down the road. The blame is mine for creating bad precedent in these articles. These etiquette articles are among the first I did for Wikipedia. I created them out of a morass of material that was heaped upon itself at "List of faux pas", an article that was as out of control as any I have seen on here. Although lots of material wasn't referenced, my goal was to make something useful that would also please all the people who had contributed to the faux pas list. My tools in doing this were common sense and judicious use of careful language such as "may be seen as", "is often impolite", and so on. I removed whatever was repetitive or blatantly dubious and incorporated the rest.

In retrospect, I know that what I created would probably make a nice magazine article but its un-Wikipedic. The term "verifiable" is tossed around here a lot, but I don't think it gets at the heart of this matter. Our understanding of things is always socially constructed. An article that is well-referenced isn't necessarily more true that one which isn't. It's just that the unreferenced stuff lacks context...we don't know who said it and that makes it hard to evaluate in accordance with everything else we know about the world.

My point is that we should encourage the inclusion of stuff only when we can see where it comes from. We should avoid anecdotal evidence --its not only a bad idea because of the reasons I am rambling on about, but it violates the Wikipedia’s “no original research” rule.

So while your observation about fuck is almost certainly true, my now-stricter editing sensibilities wish for a specific reference source, especially as what is profane speech depends so much on the subtle matter of linguistic register. Like many, I've had an inappropriate word slip my lips when I've gotten in the habit of speaking in a casual register and then find myself in a more formal situation.

Since discussion pages are the place for anecdotes, the following may illustrate something else about the subtleties of dirty words and their use. My Boston-born mum was horrified by what she heard as the constant and repetitive use of the word “fuck” among young people in Ireland. She didn’t discern that they weren’t quite saying “fuck” every sentence; they were saying “feck”, a minced oath akin to “frig”.

For another example of the pitfalls of going by our own experiences, look above comments about shoes inside Canadian homes. There is one person who says guests in Canadian homes almost always remove their shoes. Another person indicates the opposite. They both seem sincere, articulate, in a position to speak authoritatively on the matter, and by all means credible. I'm nonplused by it.

So in summary, distill a pithy kernel from the references you found and add it to the article if you think it’s a good addition. If you're in the mood to expound upon swear words in Québécois French vis-à-vis their use in Canadian English, share it with us here; I, for one, would be very interested in what someone with your qualifications has to say on the subject.

I hope this epistle has some value besides giving me an opportunity to procrastinate and not finish the article I am working on about a ---yawn!--- 18th century merchant in St. John's, Newfoundland. (John)  ◄ HouseOfScandal  ►  15:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The French (continental) word "Le Fac" is a colloquial term for an insitute of higher learning ("University"), pronounced "le fuk." Is this another reason "f--k" is not commonly used in Quebecois French? Njsustain (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Many biased and improperly phrased items
I cleaned up the worst but this whole article has uncited, improperly phrased opinions and advice. Any instance of "you should" or "you must" must be removed. Any opinions must be offered as the cited opinion of someone rather than a fact. I found socio-political opinions stated as fact, etc. Policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V are not open to dispute, these are mandatory practices for wikipedia. Useful article but not as currently designed and not packed full of opinions and agendas. Please clean this up ASAP. Fourdee 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather difficult topic to get data on. The article needs more traffic so we can get the right people into it. Is there any way to promote traffic on certain articles? Klichka (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, this is an article on etiquette, which has certain codified rules, so I think "you must" and "you should" are entirely appropriate terms for the article, as long as they are referring to correct etiquette rules. Njsustain (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This page needs the contributions of non-American/Canadian editors as well as American/Canadian editors.
I wish there was a way to raise a flag to obtain more Non-American/Canadian and American/Canadian editors. This page could use the insight of people with differing traditions who have had experiences with America and possibly Americans piping up to explain them or add their own lesser known items.

I'd also like to propose that we find a way to make a Q&A session in this discussion area or another sub-area. Having questions and answers can only expand this article. Klichka (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

why the redirect?
now there's no article etiquette in the united states.

Oh, Canada, just because you might think the United States is bullying Wikipedia don't go taking it to extremes.

--165.21.155.89 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What?
This article is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, it can only draw on opinions rather than fact and half the article has nothing to do with Canada but to do with the United States so I don't see the point of it being made. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My first reaction to it was similar but I eventually came to a somewhat different conclusion after actually reading the whole thing (no easy feat), so I just tagged the intro. The article needs a lot of work—rewriting, copyediting, as well as just a lot of cutting—but I think if it were about a quarter of its present size it could be one of a number of worthwhile supplementary articles to Etiquette (which could stand a little work of its own). I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to draw on fact (or at least reliable source) so that it is no longer based on personal experience, opinion, and anecdote. The information referring solely to the U.S. absolutely needs to go unless the article is changed to Etiquette in North America, which perhaps it should. I'm still a little dubious about etiquette unique to Canada. Rivertorch (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the page to Etiquette in Canada and the United States as that is what it use to be. I don't think Etiquette in North America is a good title, because North America technically includes Mexico and Central America, whose etiquette is different then the U.S. and Canada  C t j f 8 3 talk 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Parents and children
It seems unlikely to me that a parent will not recognize his child's voice, albeit amongst a group of many other children. I have never witnessed the trick of using the parent's name to avoid such confusion. The child will rather approach the parent and maybe establish physical contact to catch his attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.184.140.223 (talk • contribs)


 * This is original research and does not belong in the article. Jons63 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether you're saying the article or GP is presenting original research—neither are cited. I believe the article is accurate as is. Papna (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is whether it is accepted by ettiquette to address one's parents in public by first name, not whether it is common. In such a situation "Mom" may be addressed as "Helga" or as "Ms. Lastname" but the latter sounds unusually formal, while the former is at least familiar, as addressing one's closest relatives should be. Njsustain (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much information
I agree. This article is way too long imo. I got bored about halfway through it. Also, does it seem to anyone else that the article is written in a very condescending voice? I don't mean to bash on other peoples' work, but I honestly felt slightly insulted while reading it. Hydrokinetic (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is odd...
Is this really supposed to be here?

If the appearance of the wedding photos is more important than the interpersonal relationships you have with those in your party, you should hire models to be in the wedding photos. The "chorus line" syndrome is not required...

It looks like vandalism.

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This was suggested by Judith Martin ("Miss Manners") in response to the many people who want certain people selected for their wedding party based on how the photos will look. So, I swear, this is not vandalism. I don't remember whether it was Miss Manners' column, or in one of her books, but if you insist on a reference, I will be glad to rewrite this section and include only what I can explicitly reference. Njsustain (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody ought to mention that Americans often do not appreciate foreigners telling them how their country should be run. This is by far the most common faux pas committed by Europeans in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Asian Americans
Someone added a very long section on Asian Americans, which I undid. I would encourage the addition, but a long cultural discussion is taking the article in the wrong direction. It must be focused strictly on etiquette, not cultural or societal norms or extensive history. The other discussions on ethnic minorities, both in the US and Canada sections, could also use some paring down to focus on etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njsustain (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EIIR-Chretien.jpg
The image Image:EIIR-Chretien.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette in the Southern United States
I have a few points of etiquette that I would like to add to the article, but I don't know if they pertain to just the southern United States or if they are more widespread. Should I add them to the appropriate section but give a preface to that it is more common in the southern US, or should I put then as a subsection under US related etiquette. Some of my proposed additions:
 * 1. Traditionally gentlemen were to able to write correspondence in other colors, but were to sign their names in blue ink.
 * 2. When holding a door open, the protocol on how it is done depends on how the door opens. If the door opens toward you, you are supposed to reach out and pull the door open to allow others to pass through, if the door opens away from you, you are supposed to step through the door first and then hold the door from the opposite side so as not to partially obstruct the doorway while still being able to hold the door open for others.
 * 3. When a man is walking on a sidewalk with a woman, it is preferred to walk side by side with the male is to walk on the street side, while allowing the female to walk on the side, thus partially shielding her from the street. If it is not possible to walk side by side, the woman is to lead, so that she sets the pace.

There are some others, but like I said I am not sure if I should add them to the main section, or if it should go as a subsection under the US specific guidelines. I suspect many of the ones I would like to add, if not currently, were at one time more widespread. (D.c.camero (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC))


 * As the article mentions historical etiquette only parenthetically, if related to something already mentioned, I think point one is isn't in keeping with this article as it is archaic and not related to anything else already described. Point two is appropriate and would be fine to add under "doors." Part three I think is also archaic, and not in keeping with modern etiquette standards as it is inherently sexist.
 * I don't think a separate section just for Southern US etiquette would be appropriate--that should probably be a new article, and could appropriately include the historical points you wish to discuss also. I think the current article should not start discussing the history of North American etiquette for its own sake, since it is already quite long. Njsustain (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Meta-discussion and Cleaning up the talk page
The talk page itself has become long, and in my opinion a lot of the talk pertains to old versions of the article (from, say, a year ago) which was poorly structured and written, and had a lot of non-etiquette information in it. I also believe that a lot of the talk is due to misconceptions about what "etiquette" means, i.e. the idea that it is simply about how people often behave in a culture, rather than the codified standards of what is considered correct behavior in polite society. Most of what is written in the article is neither obscure, nor is it (or at least it should not be) arbitrary. Most of what is here is, in fact, common knowledge in the world of etiquette. The fact that many if not most people in Canada and the US today were not brought up learning the basics of traditional etiquette is perhaps the reason that some seem to be insulted or surprised at some of the statements, and by the very fact that etiquette says one "should" or "must" do such and such if they want to be considered to be following traditional social rules.

I don't think it's necessary to find offense at the rules of etiquette... they are not law (perhaps this should be mentioned in the article... that etiquette standards used to be followed as stringently as laws), they are social guidelines... and therefore I think it is inappropriate for people to use Wikipedia rules as a backdoor to taking offense at the existence of the article and its statements. The point of the Wikipedia rules that you can't say you "should" or "must" do something is not to obscure actual information about a topic whose very nature is indeed to state that you should or must do something a certain way. That would be like demanding that a civil engineering article remove any statements such as: a structure in Florida "should" be able to withstand a category 5 hurricane. So, can we please be reasonable before bringing up Wikipedia rules without considering the reasons they are there?

Anyway, how would people feel about cutting back some of the talk which seems to apply mainly to the old versions of the article? The old talk will still be available in the history of the talk page. Njsustain (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)