Talk:Etiquette in North America/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cash Gifts

The section on giving gifts as cash is completely... well wrong. It mentions that it isn't appropriate at bar mitzvahs, when that is the *expected* gift at bar mitzvahs. In fact, theres specific etiquette over how much cash to give at a bar mitzvah. (Multiples of $18 are the norm). Also, at high school graduation parties, the expectation is definitely cash. And depending on the background of the bride/groom, the expected gift at weddings might be cash as well. (Definitely Italians and Russians normally get $ rather than most gifts at their weddings.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.126.69 (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, this article is about ETIQUETTE, not what is "customary." In the west, etiquette does not permit cash gifts for social occasions. This may not be customary in certain circles, but that doesn't make it... "well wrong." You can't make these claims as they are indeed contrary to traditional western etiquette. Please cite verifiable sources (etiquette based... not customs based) if you want to alter the article. Otherwise, I suggest writing articles on common gift-giving customs, which would be totally appropriate for wikipedia... but not for the article on etiquette. Njsustain (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The notion that Jewish customs are irrelevant to the etiquette of bar mitzvahs is completely insane.216.183.171.30 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Another polite contribution in the etiquette talk page. If you have an etiquette-based reference on what is considered appropriate, not simply "customary" in Jewish tradtion, please enlighten us with it. If you continue to make rude (and anonymous) statements, it is simply emphasizing that you do not understand the basics of western etiquette.Njsustain (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative Judgements without Citation Requests

Someone claimed that the article is nearly all original research. Perhaps this person does not understand that etiquette is codified; it is not just a matter of a single person's opinion. I think it would be more appropriate to request citations for particular statements of etiquette rules rather than to simply claim the entire article is original research.

It is difficult to look up references for all the individual etiquette rules, which is why I added some general references from Judith Martin. Perhaps people with books by Peggy Post, etc. could add some also. I realize that books require page numbers by Wikipedia rules (because books are so unreliable compared to website links [/sarcasm]) but it takes a lot of time to look them up. If people could request individual citations we could look them up as they come up. That is reasonable. However, I think blanketly stating the entire article is original research without checking the general references, and because the writers have not yet referenced specific page numbers for every single accepted etiquette rule is unreasonable. Njsustain (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Asian American addition

The section added on "Asian Americans" is verbose, poorly written, has not citations and most of all is completely redundant and rambling. There is nothing in it that is specific to Asians. It is just a repetition of many poor etiquette practices, and saying, basically "you should do this to Asian Americans."

If you were the writer, please re-examine it. Think about what specifically it is about Asian Americans that should be kept. Please remove general poor etiquette practices that apply to all people regardless of race. And please have someone with more familiarity with English proofread it. Njsustain (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

attendance at personal events

in this section on choosing gifts:

"When attending a personal or religious event, such as a birthday, wedding, shower, bar mitzvah, etc...If one does not really know the individual personally, your attendance at the personal event should be reexamined. "

Is this true? It seems to me that, provided one is invited to such an event, one is not obliged to decline the invitation even if you do not know the individual well enough to choose a good personal gift. I think the thing to do in that case is just to pick some gift (although I agree with the article that money is still improper).

I think this is dangerously misleading, as there are cases in which a well-meaning reader might be led to decline an invitation to a personal event in a situation where the decline would be perceived as a snub.

There may be some cases in which you were invited to the event only as a courtesy, and it would be courteous to decline, but there are also some cases in which declining would be rude. In the former case, however, it would not be rude to accept the invitation, it would only be covertly "extra thoughtful". I think if you are not knowledgeable about North American etiquette, it is safer to accept.

Bayle Shanks (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

More often, people who the bride, groom does not know well are invited not as a "courtesy" (whatever that means), but to try to "shake out" gifts or cash from as many people as possible. In any case, this practice takes weddings further from the very personal events they should be, and more towards being public fundraisers. If there is a question whether you should be attending a wedding, you probably should not.

Further, declining an invitation is never an insult, unless one is a *close* relative, such as a sister. As for what to do if one is "not knowledgeable about North American etiquette." Well, that is why we are here... to teach or to learn proper etiquette... not to tell people what to do if they DON'T know etiquette. Attending a personal event of someone you or your companion do not know personally... THAT is rude. And *not* allowing strangers to shake you down for gifts is *not* rude. Njsustain (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dress at weddings and funerals

"Guests cannot be expected to dress appropriately unless the host has told them what type of dress is expected. (See section on Weddings for details on standard North American attire)."

I think it is more accurate to say that weddings and funerals are an exception to this rule. Bayle Shanks (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would weddings be an exception? Weddings are for some people the only time they care about etiquette, so it is certainly not an exception. If one wants to know about etiquette of dress at weddings and other hosted events, the article is valid.

As for funerals, those are not host/guest events, but of course one should dress appropriately. The article could use a section on western funeral etiquette. Njsustain (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

flakiness

"One can never cancel once one has offered or accepted hospitality. Traditionally, the only reasons considered acceptable were 1) illness, 2) death in the immediate family, and 3) an intervening social invitation from the President (in the U.S.). As etiquette no longer applies only to those in high society, an extremely important work obligation which intervenes is also an acceptable reason. In any case of cancellation, notification to the host or guest must be immediate, with profuse apologies."

Frequently true, but there are subcultures in which this is doesn't apply, or is less strong. For instance, excuses regarding work are permissible in many places in America. This is common enough that it might deserve a note. (people and subcultures that break this rule are said to be "flakey", a derogatory term). Bayle Shanks (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ummmmmm..... It clearly states in the section that you quoted that an important work obligation IS an acceptable reason for cancelling. Did you even read the entire paragraph that you quoted? Njsustain (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obligation to respond to invitation "as soon as possible"?

"When receiving an invitation, you are obliged to respond in kind as soon as possible. This means if you receive the invitation by phone, reply by phone, etc. One must accept or decline even if "RSVP" is not specified."

I think that in some circumstances (especially when there is reason to believe that it won't affect the host's plans whether or not you attend, as in an informal medium-size party where the host is not providing anything per-guest such as food) it is permissible to simply not reply until shortly before the event. This can be inferred by the existence of the custom of "RSVP". Bayle Shanks (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This, as many of your other comments, are contrary to standard western etiquette. Do you have any etiquette references to support this? (This is rhetorical since, as I said, what you are saying is contrary to western etiquette.) In fact, the RSVP "custom" is a mild insult, as it insinuates that your guest would not respond unless you reminded him/her to do so. Alas, people ignore this request in any case these days, which is indeed insulting to the host's offer of hospitality.

Once again, what is "customary" does not make something correct. "Etiquette" is not equal to "what people usually do."Njsustain (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Etiquette" is entirely based on "customs." You keep making this distinction, but the words don't mean what you think they mean. Also, etiquette in the U.S. is not "codified." There is no governmental agency that issues binding rules of etiquette. You may have read purported "rules" of etiquette in a book authored by a private individual, but that is simply that individual's opinion. Your refusal to countenance widespread norms and conventions is puzzling to say the least. ----------Inappropriate personal attack removed. Please do not restore or this user will be reported. --------- 216.183.171.30 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting and hilarious that someone who makes outrageously rude remarks to another writer is not only in Wikipedia, but is in a forum about etiquette! The commentor obviously has not studied etiquette, nor has much understanding of how Wikipedia works. All information which is not purely objective science is based on other opinions, etc. Again, this is not an article about western customs. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but you are certainly free to write an article about common western customs and find appropriate references. There are many references and books about western etiquette, which you might find enlightening. Your evaluation of me personally is inappropriate as well as completely incorrect. Have a polite day. Njsustain (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

wedding registries prohibited?

"Etiquette does not allow any suggestion that gifts are, or even could have been, expected at a hosted event. Thus the prohibition of gift registry information, suggestions, or "No gifts, please" statements on or accompanying invitations. If a guest inquires himself, such things may only then be brought up by the host."

It seems to me that weddings are an exception to this rule.

Another exception is children's birthday parties, in which time is often scheduled for the opening of gifts.

Perhaps the gifts section could be usefully augmented with a list of situations in which gifts are expected (note that situations exist in which gifts are expected but this is forbidden to be explicitly stated by the host). My list might be:

• weddings -- definitely
• birthdays -- maybe (definitely if a child)
• any preplanned occasion in which you are going to someone's home and the host is exerting substantial effort (substantial effort: if they cook dinner: yes; if you are going over after work for a few beers while watching a sports game: no) -- maybe

Bayle Shanks (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no, there are no exceptions which allow one to be tacky. Again, if you have any references to the contrary, please share them. Njsustain (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; references to the contrary should be given. However, references to the idea that gifts should not be expected should also be given, and that will answer questions such as these for all Wikipedia users, not just those who use the talk page. I have added references on this topic under weddings. Ricardiana (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wedding Traditions (as opposed to wedding etiquette)

Hey, I thought that American Weddings are traditionally paid for by the Bride's family. Now everyone just go Dutch, but traditionally the Bride's family pays for the wedding. I can't find anything that talks about this fact in the article, so I'm wondering is it because it's in another article or because it's not a well known fact? I know that many Americans don't know about this, but some elderly will tell you it's how it is as well as foreigners who studied American traditions. Liu Tao (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "well known fact." There is no such etiquette rule that says the bride's family must pay for the wedding's costs, and there never was. The costs are ultimately up to the bride and groom, or whoever (voluntarily) agrees to host the event.Njsustain (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Emily Post says otherwise, as does Peggy Post. This is the kind of dispute that may usefully be mentioned within the article, e.g. "In the past, the bride's family paid [CITATION] but now...[citation]." The talk page is not a forum for arbiting which method is correct. Ricardiana (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not a well known fact, which is why I'm bringing it up, but Traditional American Weddings are paid for by the bride's family. It's not widely known in the general public, especially in the newer generations, but ask older folks and they'll tell you what I said. Also, look up on Yahoo Answers too, there have been many questions concerning about this, and all are answered in agreance with me. Liu Tao (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By writing "This is not a 'well known fact,'" I meant that this was not a fact (of etiquette) at all. Regardless of whether or not it is common ("traditional" in some people's perceptions), it is NOT an etiquette rule, and therefore should not be mentioned in the etiquette article. There is an article on weddings at which you might want to discuss the issue. Njsustain (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Several people have commented that, in their opinion, the article cannot go into minutiae of every possible etiquette issue as it would grow to "ridiculous" proportions. Since many people are concerened with etiquette especially (or in some cases only) during weddings, the focus on that topic is understandable, but having a large section specifically on wedding invitations, in my opinion, is not the purpose of the article, and is not, again, in my opinion, the purpose of the study of etiquette. Perhaps a separate article on etiquette of weddings in the US and Canada would be appropriate if one wishes to delve extensively into that particular topic? Again, just an opinion, not an attack on the rules of etiquette, any person or his/her opinion, or the rules of Wikipedia. Njsustain (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag etiquette?

Although there is a code for the US Flag, it is not law, nor have I find anything about etiquette about it. Pins, which so many people make ridiculous political issues about, are actually contrary to the flag code. Since there is nothing I can find about flags and actual etiquette, I think these sections can be removed. People can always look up flag codes if they want (and will probably ignore them anyway, continuing to use pins and ties and bumper stickers and such with bastardized versions of the US flag motif). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njsustain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"How to" tag appropriate?

I disagree that the article is about advice or "how to." Etiquette is a given body of rules on how things should be done in a society. It differs from law in that it is not enforcable, but it is codified nevertheless. This is information that should be available on Wikipedia. I think it is appropriate to ask for specific references for specific points of etiquette, but to state that the article is an advice article shows a misunderstanding of what is meant by the term "etiquette." Njsustain (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While you're right about Etiquette in general, I don't think the tag is misplaced. I'm the one who set it, so let me explain. Describing Etiquette in itself is not a how-to. Neither is giving examples. The problem is that this article doesn't even try to describe the etiquette in North America - it's just a random collection of (unverified) "rules" of what you should or should not do. Statements like "When you receive a gift the correct answer is ... and the wrong answer is ..." are how-tos and provide no context to the articles topic. For a contrast take Law_of_the_United_States - it tells you a lot of things about the law, how it came to be and how it works and so on - and at no point it needs to say things like "running people over with a car is illegal". Also see the deletion discussion for the respective "Europe" article for my point. Averell (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I undeerstand what you're saying, but perhaps if you could give an example of how the article could be improved, it could move to the direction you are suggesting. I completely disagree that the article "doesn't even try to describe the etiquette in North America," nor do I think the given rules are "random," as they are codified etiquette rules. People can look up references if citations are requested. Doing the whole article at once isn't really possible unless someone makes it their full time job, but certainly people can request citation for anything that is in question. Perhaps if you look at what the article looked like a year or two ago you will agree it is moving in the right direction. Njsustain (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, I'll retract a bit and say that the introduction is mostly o.k. ;-) What I meant was not that the rules themselves are "random", but this list is, in the sense that the rules are randomly selected. I think the article should not be, or contain, a list of etiquette "rules". There can not be fixed rules for inclusion in such a list - so it will either be "random" or grow to ridiculous proportions.

To salvage this article, I'd prefer the approach that was taken on the Europe Etiquette one: Delete the whole unsourced "list" stuff (like, everything in bullet points, 90% of the article ;-) and do a fresh start.

I'll give an example: There are dozends of "rule" entries concerned with race (like, which terms to use). They could all be deleted, and instead the article could simply say: "Because of (insert background here), North Americans put great emphasize on showing respect for other races and cultures." Then the article can give one example to illustrate this, without listing each separate "rule". You could also add something about different subcultures that have other etiquette, ...

This is was the law article that I linked does. It explains the law by saying where it comes from and how it works - not by making a list of all the rules encoded in the laws.

I hope that made clearer what I mean. Averell (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a sensible compromise or middle ground here. I don't think, on the whole, the article contains randomly selected rules of etiquette. As someone who has studied etiquette, I can tell you that it is fairly comprehensive, covering most of the major topics of etiquette (though it needs enhancement in mourning/funerals, which so far no one has stepped up to the plate to add). However, there are some trivial tid-bits here and there that certainly make it seem random and that an endless parade of additional trivial additions could be made. I think those (such as on hygiene and race relations among others) can be removed or whittled down without making the article any less comprehensive regarding etiquette. In fact, I think that would make the article more focused on etiquette and less about culture, which it should not be about. I was hesitant as I don't like deleting other people's work, but as yours is the only sensible comments I've seen on the talk page, I will go ahead and start making some of those changes and see how it flies. Njsustain (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've worked to cut a lot of "random" or, let's say, arbitrary or trivial points of etiquette, and of course non-etiquette points from the article. Approximately 1/3 of the article has been cut and while still more can be cut, I want to make sure others have a chance to comment. I think the article now focuses much more on general and important points of etiquette, in contrast to the Etiquette in Europe article, which I think simply is a random selection of trivial points that do nothing to really show what etiquette is about in Europe. So I think the North American article is on track to being much more relevant and encyclopedic. Please everyone, help to improve the article by editing, not by random or total deletions. Add references, consolidate, and weed out trivial issues. Njsustain (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the how to tag, as I believe the concerns have been addressed. Please review the article history and discussion before making judgements about it and/or making dictatorial statements about what should or should not be done (I smell some hypocricalness here). Also, I take umbridge with those who have dismissed others writings or have added headers of one sort or another but have not made any effort to actually contribute to the article. Njsustain (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You can take umbrage all you want, but no one is under an obligation to do X amount of work. They also serve who only add headers. Ricardiana (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Race Relations

I think many of the racial/native peoples relations in the sections specific to Canada and to the U.S. should be consolidated as they are relevant to both and somewhat redundant. Njsustain (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

To whomever made the changes to race relations to make it "more uniform" by adding several silly terms for caucasions: hardee har har. But your point is correct... this is not the place for a discussion of ethnic terms. This was originally a huge section, which has been cut down more and more, and was never appropriate for an etiquette article, so those particulars are now gone entirely as they are customary terms, not etiquette issues. What remains in the race relations section is correct information about etiquette standards however. Njsustain (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette vs. Custom

Njsustain,

It seems that most of the disputes between you and other editors regarding this article stem from the difference you perceive between "etiquette" and "custom." Could you please explain the distinction that you have in mind? The dictionary definition of "etiquette" is: "The practices and forms prescribed by social convention or by authority." (American Heritage, 2000) Since there is no legal authority (akin to a medieval monarch) capable of prescribing the rules of etiquette, these rules seem by necessity to derive from social convention, i.e. custom.

Many of the etiquette rules listed in the article are relatively new. For example, it was only in recent decades that etiquette came to demand that black people be referred to as "African-Americans" rather than "Negroes." What do you believe was responsible for that shift in etiquette? The change wasn't handed down from on high by any sort of official code; it resulted simply from a change in customary behavior. The same applies to the fact that etiquette no longer dictates that hats be worn in public -- that stems from a change in custom. It seems obvious, therefore, that custom shapes and molds etiquette.

Also, I apologize for my previous comment, which was intended facetiously but could easily be construed as a personal attack. Rather than going back and forth, I think it would be more productive if you would explain the issues you have with basing etiquette on custom, so that your concerns can be addressed.216.183.171.30 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that the general article on etiquette begins: "Etiquette is a code that influences the expectations and behaviour of social behavior, according to contemporary conventional norms within a society, social class, or group." It's very clear that etiquette is culturally relative and depends on conventional social norms. The etiquette in the U.S. article, therefore, should simply describe the "contemporary conventional norms" within American society.216.183.171.30 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Contributor 216.183.171.30,

This is a Wikipedia article, and it can't be based simply on the American Heritage Dictionary definition, nor on the article on "Etiquette". This article is about North American Etiquette, and must be about the verifiable information on said topic. This topic has a long, long history, with hundreds of books written about it, as well as many other sources in the media and online. You seem to be taking a couple of basic philosophical points, and then, based on your opinion on what the article "ought to be about," making changes and using Wikipedia technicalities to justify your actions, rather than making changes based on actual information about verifiable North American etiquette.

For example, every authority on North American etiquette unshakingly says that the expectation of gifts of any kind (cash or otherwise), is absolutely the height of rudeness, yet you decide to say just the opposite, not based on verifiable etiquette information, but based on your perception in your own experience. That isn't what etiquette nor what Wikipedia is about. Have you ever read an etiquette book or article, or are you basing these changes solely on your own personal experiences?

If that is a permitted change to the article (expecting cash gifts), then every bridezilla, adolescent birthday boy or girl, person wanting specific gifts for showers, or anyone wanting to furnish their homes or line their bank accounts by charging their "guests" for attending a party by giving them a shopping list along with an invitation can change the contents of the article based on what people around them do. This is all, verifiably, contrary to North American etiquette, and in fact flies in its face. If people decide that the article should be about what is "customary" instead of what is verifiably considered "North American Etiquette," then there is simply no point to this article at all. An article about weddings can mention the custom of "dollar dances" or "cash bars" and the article on subways can mention the custom of people talking loudly on cell phones in a crowded car, and the article on Bar Mitzvahs can mention the custom of giving cash to the guest of honor, but none of these things, though they are common and exist, become what is considered correct etiquette simply because many people do them.

So, I'm sorry if the basic tenets of North American etiquette are contrary to what you consider to be basic acceptable customs in your community, and labels them "incorrect," but that does not mean that you have to follow those etiquette "rules," does not mean that you can simply change the information to justify your own feelings, and does not mean you are a bad person. It simply means that those customs are not part of North American etiquette standards. Taking the contents of an accurate Wikipedia article personally is not going to change the accuracy of the information... the "rules" are what they are and if you don't think they are good rules you have no obligation to follow them, but you also have no right to claim they are false.

I want to be clear that I am not saying these things or reverting unverifiable changes because I am being dictatorial or that my opinion matters more than others. It's simply that people come here and don't like that an authority (i.e. the actual rules of etiquette) do not agree with them, and rather than research or study the actual rules, they decide to change things based on their personal opinion. I have read many etiquette books and do read current articles on the subject on a very regular basis, but most of the "contributors" here are just basing their changes on their point of view to conform with their own personal opinion and cultural experiences, even though they may have zero knowledge on the actual subject. One couldn't go into an article on nuclear physics and say "I don't believe in quarks, so I'm going to change neutrons and protons to elementary particles," unless you had a verifiable source on the subject.

If you look at the overall history of the article the last year or so, you'll see that many different people have made sensible changes and offered good advice. Unfortunately many changes have not been appropriate, and it is up to diligent people who actually have verifiable knowledge on the subject to continue to edit the article to make sure it is still about actual North American etiquette. And one doesn't have to be a W.A.S.P. or insecure foreigner to do so, nor blame said people for the etiquette rules which do exist. So let's keep this about the facts, not about personal viewpoints. Njsustain (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that I agree with you that "meta comments" within the article about etiquette are not appropriate (i.e. the merit of etiquette rules and whether they should or should not be followed, etc.), and I agree with those particular changes you have made. Njsustain (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Njsustain,

I understand your general point that an article on etiquette cannot simply be a description of things that people commonly do, as people commonly do things that are unambiguously rude and contrary to any conceivable standard of etiquette. However, I'm not sure how you distinguish between situation (A) in which etiquette rule X remains valid despite being widely flouted and situation (B) in which society has changed to the point where X is no longer considered a valid rule. I think the difference lies in the fact that in situation (A) violations of X will still be met with widespread disapproval, i.e. there's a general consensus that people violating X are acting rudely, whereas in situation (B) the vast majority of people will find the behavior perfectly acceptable and not in any way rude. For instance, you provide the example of people talking loudly on cell phones in crowded subway cars: while I agree that this a common occurrence, there is still widespread consensus that it constitutes rude behavior; thus, I think it exemplifies situation (A). On the other hand, consider the example of people going out in public without hats: not only is this behavior ubiquitous, it meets no social disapproval whatsoever and is no longer consider rude behavior. It therefore exemplifies situation (B), and it's safe to say that the prohibition on going without hats is no longer a valid rule of etiquette. There is no way around the need to consider contemporary attitudes and customs in deciding what rules of etiquette remain valid.

With respect specifically to bar mitzvahs, I didn't take issue with the notion that expecting to receive gifts is contrary to etiquette. I took issue with the notion that etiquette dictates that one not give cash gifts. I don't believe that anyone in that situation would consider the giving of cash rude. Thus, I don't think "don't give cash at bar mitzvahs" constitutes a valid etiquette rule. This does not mean that I think etiquette permits cash gifts as a general principle, just that I think cash gifts in that specific context are not contrary to etiquette. (Under legal canons of construction a more specific rule should control over a more general one.)

I don't have any strong personal feelings as to the validity of any particular etiquette rule, and you are quite correct that any personal feeling I did have would be irrelevant to the article. My concerns are (1) avoiding POV statements, (2) avoiding how-to advise, (3) making sure that the article describes North American etiquette as it presently exists. I defer to your expertise as to specific content, but the article needs to avoid meta commentary (we agree there) and the perhaps dubious pushing of Victorian era rules that may or may not apply to contemporary North American society.

I think one of the problems with this article is that it's unclear what it's trying to describe. There's certainly room for an article on traditional principles of formal etiquette as passed down through generations, which is what you seem to want it to be about. But there's also stuff things like race relations that solely expresses modern social attitudes about political correctness and the like. I think there's a tension between the two concepts.216.183.171.30 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

An etiquette rule is not irrelevent simply since it has been around since Victorian times, though many rules have evolved since then, even recently. While old ruled may be mentioned in passing occassionally, that does not mean that the article or current rules are from that era. In any case, verifiable information is appropriate for the article whether the rule is old in origin or not, as long as it is still considered a current rule. Again, the rule about giving cash gifts (that it is considered impersonal and not appropriate for personal functions) is considered a current rule, and I don't see any reason it would or should change. Regarding your first paragraph, i.e. what is the difference between a rule that is widely flouted and one that is no longer considered in effect... those are two different issues. Whether a rule is flouted or not does not make it no longer an etiquette rule. And some are simply archaic... for example, that sable is the appropriate fur to wear during first mourning. So, in summary, what I think about a rule is not relevant to the article... what matters is whether the rule is verifiable as a current rule. Njsustain (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Correctness

This article needs to be careful regarding statements about what is or isn't correct, so as to avoid becoming POV. Etiquette is inherently normative: it prescribes rules about which behaviors are correct and incorrect. A wikipedia article, on the other hand, should avoid making normative claims in order to maintain a NPOV. It is perfectly fine for the article to make statements such as, "The conventionally accepted rules of etiquette maintain that it is incorrect to X." That is a neutral statement that simply describes the rules of etiquette, i.e. it is a factual claim. However, statements along the lines of "it is correct for people to follow etiquette rule X" or "people should adhere to etiquette rule X" have no business in a wikipedia article. These go beyond merely providing a factual description of etiquette rules; they're claims about how people should live their lives and express a POV. The article should simply describe the rules of etiquette without passing judgment on their underlying merit.216.183.171.30 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I should also clarify that statements about the correctness of the rules themselves are necessarily POV.216.183.171.30 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this since several related comments were just made, but my opinion is that A) the article should describe verifiable etiquette standards, not customs, as customs are infinitely varied and tumultuous, and there would be no way to create an encyclopedic article on just general north american customs, verifiable or otherwise, and B) since verifiable etiquette describes things as "correct" or "incorrect" there is no reason an article on the topic cannot make these statements without it being taken literally that Wikipedia or its writers are saying that one may or may not do certain things, or a person is a good or bad person for doing them. As long as the statements are made within the context of the discussion of etiquette, they are fine. Perhaps this could be made clearer in the introduction. In any case, any new information should be verifiable, and any existing information in the article which is not acceptable to someone should receive a request for citation before removal.

Also, while I realize it is generally inappropriate to remove talk page text, it is also inappropriate to make personal comments about other contributors. If you (whoever "you" are since you are not logged in as a registered user) are sincere about your apology, please delete those comments. I consider personal attacks to be vandalism and they should be removed. Thank you.Njsustain (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed you have deleted some information even though it was referenced. This is inappropriate. I'm sorry if standard, verifiable etiquette rules do not jive with what is considered standard in your community, but this is an article about North American etiquette, not an article about Bar Mitzvah customs. Now you are altering the article based on your POV, not on enclopedic information about etiquette. Please do not make any more such changes without etiquette based references. Njsustain (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes, Feb 09

I don't think it is necessary to state that one should not comment on the facial hair of someone due to a Jewish mourning ritual. Any comments about another person's personal features are extremely rude. If the hair were not due to mourning, the comment would be equally inappropriate. A link to Jewish mourning rituals is appropriate, but this addition is unnecessary from an etiquette standpoint.

I think the point was not just pointing out a bread as in "Oh, you've got a beard!" which is rude, but that even common and appropriate compliments such as "That beard looks good on you." from someone close are inappropriate for a mourning beard. I think a blanket etiquette such as not commenting about another person's personal features should not exclude specific etiquette like the beard thing, since appropriateness is relative. For example, between close friends pointing out personal features is not awfully inappropriate, and yet during mourning even close friends should avoid commenting on a beard. I say bring back the mourning beard etiquette. I think completeness is preferable to brevity in this case. 93.173.220.171 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This would be an appropriate addition to the article on Jewish mourning rituals, but this article can't get bogged down in every possible situation... not to say it is obscure or minutiae, just that the article could grow to enormous proportions and that is where it went wrong in the first place. But in addressing this particular situation... anyone who is close enough to a person to feel free to make a personal comment on a bodily feature would certainly be aware of the fact that he is in mourning, and would be aware either of the purpose of not shaving, or would (hopefully) be sensitive enough to not make a vanity-based comment during this period of time.

Really think about this from an etiquette standpoint: Suppose a person who is close enough to another person to make an otherwise polite comment on his beard does so, and doesn't realize the person was doing so because he was in mourning. Do you really think it was rude for the person to do so? Do you really think the bereaved would take offense? If the relationship was close enough to make this comment, the bereaved could certainly say either "Thanks" or "Actually, I'm not shaving as a custom due to my recent loss." Either way, I really don't see this as an etiquette issue as nothing offensive is happening which would not otherwise be offensive. As a custom, it should be listed in an appropriate article, but it is not an etiquette issue. Njsustain (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You're right. I concede on this one . 93.173.220.171 (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not incorrect to ask someone if you may smoke in their home. "Do you mind if I smoke?" is a completely acceptable and polite question, and there is no reason for the host to be uncomfortable if asked. "Please go ahead," or "We don't smoke in this house," are polite replies.

I think the tag regarding advice and how-to has been addressed adequately over the last couple of months and should be removed. I defer to others to make the changes based on these suggestions at this point. Njsustain (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am adding a NPOV header for the following reasons:

• The wording of the article is filled with inappropriate language: "of course," "one should," "one should never," etc. These types of statements violate | Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
• The article speaks continually of "etiquette" as a monolithic entity and elides the fact that different etiquette books offer differing opinions on a number of issues. Specifically, modern Emily Post books written by Peggy Post differ on a number of points with Judith Martin's etiquette books. An encyclopedia article should not ignore these differences and article writers are not arbiters.

Before this header can be removed, the entire article will need to be re-written to present a more accurate representation of current and historical etiquette differences, with citations - currently amazingly sparse -- and the tone will have be changed from statements such as "one should" to statements such as "Some authorities claim that." In addition, all phrases such as "of course" need to go immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardiana (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add, also, that most of the citations that do exist are to Judith Martin. While I understand that Martin's etiquette advice is more readily available on-line than that of some other etiquette writers, this one-sided trend in citation contributes to the article's lack of neutrality. As a side-note, I notice that some posters on this talk thread have expressed difficulty in finding page numbers; I just want to add that many etiquette books, some of Letitia Baldridge's, for example, are now available in whole or in part via Google Books.Ricardiana (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have made many peremptory statements rather than giving an opinion. Are you a Wikipedia authority figure of some sort? It is easy to say X, Y, and Z are wrong and the "entire article needs to be rewritten", but what have you done to contribute to the article? Where are your referenced additions from the Mesdames Post, etc.? I happen to have many books by Judith Martin and will continue to reference those books. That doesn't mean that the article is not a neutral point of view or is "ignoring" other authorities, just that no one else has chosen to contribute with referenced material. I would love to see references here from others, so that many encyclopedic facts about etiquette can be seen, but none have come. So, with all due respect, I can agree with your opinions in theory, but in practice they are useless without actual contributions to the articles.

I also disagree strongly that an article about a subject which says specifically that one should or should not do something is improper. Is it improper to state that a catalytic converter "should" have a certain tensile strength? Nonsense. Njsustain (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read the Wikipedia NPOV policy and guidelines. In them you will find the answers to your questions. Please also remember that the talk page is not supposed to be a forum for personal attacks. And finally, they also serve on Wikipedia who only critique. Ricardiana (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a section in the introduction that states that American etiquette has become free of class, race, and sex bias. This statement implies that etiquette was at one time biased - while true of custom I know of no etiquette book or authority that codified such behaviour. If anyone can find such a reference, then the claim can go back in. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're responding to old comments, I don't agree with this one. Although etiquette never codified such behavior, it was based on classism, sexism, and race biases. The changes in these attitudes have resulted in changes in etiquette. I think those statements should be replaced. Njsustain (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Etiquette" does not equal "Wedding Planning"

Some major changes to the intro and "Wedding" sections of this article have recently been made. Many excellent references were added, and some good general changes were made to the section's text. However, these changes were not carried through the rest of the article, are not in keeping with the structure of the article overall, and are not in keeping with the overall spirit of the "etiquette" topic.

As is often said, some people care about etiquette only when they are planning or taking part in a wedding, and ignore it entirely before and afterwards. While I am not implying that is the case here, these changes are certainly over-emphasizing weddings over any other part of life, which is certainly not the point of etiquette. A section just for "money dances" and a huge section on wedding invitations (as if that is the only time that formal invitations can be of concern) are ridiculous. While I don't disagree with adding dozens of references and having a NPOV, I disagree with using those Wikipedia standards manipulatively to support one’s own “point of view,” rather than upholding the reasons for those rules--essentially using the NPOV rules to create what is clearly not a NPOV. A single person in one day totally changing one section, and leaving the rest of the article in as "bad" a shape as was there previously is not creating a NPOV and is not in keeping with the spirit of those rules.

While I won't say that the altered sections must once again be "totally rewritten," the structure needs to be reworked to be in line with the rest of the article. One possibility is to create a separate article, "Wedding Etiquette in the U.S. and Canada" which would make sense and be convenient for those who are concerned about etiquette primarily or solely for the purpose of wedding planning, leaving the rest of etiquette... you know, how 99.99% of interpersonal life is conducted, for the current article. As a long time contributor to this article, which was in a sorry, sorry state a couple of years ago, obviously I wish it to be as excellent as possible, but I don't pretend it can or should be done in one day, or by one person. The level of one's writing skills and ability to churn out dozens of references per hour does not give one the right to decide what is actually neutral from the perspective of etiquette. The idea of using primarily one well-known American etiquette authority as a reference being the cause of major etiquette myopia is humorous: I get quite a laugh picturing Judith Martin and Peggy Post at a dinner party and ending up literally at each other's throats on the drawing room floor over their differences in etiquette rules, screaming an etiquette equivalent to "Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre Filioque procedit." I am hardly one to sneer at referencing (believe me, nothing could be further from the truth), but I think they can come as requested, and in due time. Not having enough for one’s taste should not be a reason to hastily "slash and burn" other’s work.

So, in my opinion, the choices here which would improve the article further are 1) using this new information to improve the wedding section, but restore the preceding basic structure of the article, 2) create a separate wedding etiquette article, or 3) make similar changes to the rest of the article. While choice three in theory would be equitable to the topic, the article would grow ridiculously large, requiring it be split into many etiquette articles and requiring huge amounts of time, so barring that choice, which of the first two would be best, gentle readers? Njsustain (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Choice 3. The rest of the article need not be brought up to standard instantly in order for the recent edits to remain. Ricardiana (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"[1]these changes were not carried through the rest of the article, [2]are not in keeping with the structure of the article overall, and [3]are not in keeping with the overall spirit of the "etiquette" topic." My above comment addresses both [1] and [2]; regarding [3], please remember the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia guidelines re: NPOV and citations may not be in keeping with the spirit of etiquette. Perhaps this is to the detriment of Wikipedia's guidelines. Perhaps you would like to change Wikipedia policy re: NPOV and the need for citations; by all means, voice your opinion on these topics in the relevant forums. Only in this way can the article as you wrote and arranged it be preserved, which seems to be your priority. Unless and until the guidelines are changed, however, the article will have to be changed.

You do raise a worthwhile point regarding the length of the article. Perhaps it will need to be shortened, and some material moved to other sections. I might add, however, that the topics of invitations and money dances were in your version of this page; I am not clear on why they now need to be moved simply because they are now cited. However, at this point it is too early to judge if the article is too long, as, as you point out, most of the article still need to be reworked in order to conform to Wikipedia policy. Ricardiana (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, I might add that on the talk page you have made flagrantly incorrect statements, such as stating that it was never traditional for the bride's family to pay for the wedding. You have made incorrect statements, uncited, and your idea of a NPOV is wrong. Your statement that I am "manipulating" Wikipedia's guidelines is ludicrous in that I have provided citations for every claim. When I cite Peggy Post's opinion on a topic, and Judith Martin's diametrically opposed opinion, I am not pushing "my" POV through sneaky "manipulation" of Wikipedia's rules. My great crime here is not "manipulation," but not agreeing with your POV. Sorry, but this article is not your baby, or your property.

"I disagree with using those Wikipedia standards manipulatively to support one’s own “point of view,” rather than upholding the reasons for those rules--essentially using the NPOV rules to create what is clearly not a NPOV." If your article has little or no citation, includes only one POV, and in general includes only your personal take on etiquette, then your above sentence is an apt description of what you yourself have been doing. Ricardiana (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Further, I might add that on the talk page you have made flagrantly incorrect statements, such as stating that it was never traditional for the bride's family to pay for the wedding"

As you might see from a recent citation, this was not a "flagrantly incorrect" statement, though, as we can both see, there are different points of view from different etiquette authorities on this point. My information from etiquette authorities contradicted another person's comment, which was based on no verifiable information, so there was nothing inappropriate in my statement, even though it was not in agreement with all authorities. You did the same thing--use your information to assume that mine was "flagrantly incorrect." Others might even construe your statement to be a "personal attack."

I am very glad that other points of view from other etiquette authorities are being brought into this article. I do however want to point out that the purpose of Wikipedia is to present accurate information, and while my information may not have the same citation density as the most recent additions, it is accurate, at least from some etiquette authorities' points of view, and while I never claimed the article to be perfect, or 100% in compliance with the technical rules, it is fulfilling the mission of the site, i.e. to present accurate information. Lecturing people on etiquette rules is not going to make them follow it; neither does constantly pointing out rules of this site. I don't disagree with or dispute the rules, but I also have been around the block enough times to know the purpose of their existence... i.e., not to claim that any page not in 100% compliance is not in keeping with the site's mission, but to create a touchstone gold standard and for when disputes arise. Voting with one's feet, (i.e., "actions speak louder than words"... in this case the actions being adding accurate verifiable, and preferably verified information to the article) is the best and most positive contribution to articles. While I don't claim to have the most references or the most points of view, I do claim that my information is accurate and always encourage citation requests, other points of view, and more inforamation. Regrettably there have been few contributions that are legitimately etiquette-based, and even fewer with verified information. For this reason the recent changes are most welcome by this contributor. I hope that other contributors' additions are accepted as well in the spirit of etiquette and Wikipedia. Njsustain (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cultural Distinctions" additions not etiquette

The recent addition is not etiquette... there are no codified etiquette rules related to this. This is taking the article in the wrong direction. There used to be mounds of stuff in the article about several different ethnicities and they are simply not discussing etiquette rules. These statements are cultural perceptions and sensitivities and should be discussed in articles about those cultures. The rules of etiquette require all people to be treated with respect and are not codified for specific races. There is also incorrect information disparaging to the United States. Njsustain (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Topics of etiquette concerning social groups of people

I decided we need to make a new article about etiquette concerning social groups of people in North America.

Good idea! Ricardiana (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is there any current issue with neutrality? If so, could there be something specific stated about how the spirit of neutrality is being violated? Njsustain (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Rules is rules" for a reason

I would like to humbly add this official statement from the rules of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) for anyone who might be interested: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." See also: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. One neat quote among many:

Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated.

This is not meant to offend anyone, only to assist in future improvement of this article without undue distraction. If one's opinion is not enough to affect, if not change, the opinion of other knowledgable people and/or long time contributors working in earnest, lecturing them about the letter of the law will not help to support one's perspective. Thank you for your time. -Njsustain (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ms." is not a form of address by itself.

"Excuse me, sir." "Pardon me, ma'am." "What may I do for you, miss?"

"How are you, Ms.?"

Which of these things doesn't belong? Sorry, anonymous poster, but "Ms." is not a way to address someone. You clearly did not understand the entire sentence you were editing.

Please find me one source, or even one example, where someone is addressed solely by "Ms." without a surname.

Also, it's not that etiquette did not allow people to address each other with first names... it's that it does not, until a closer relationship is formed. The commonplace practice is not correct standard etiquette, so the actual rule should not be referred to in the past tense. Your edits were both incorrect and unneccesary.

Thank you for your interest, but please do not continue to undo changes on topics with which you do not have expertise without first discussing them on the talk page.Njsustain (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

X-Factor, you continue to undo correct edits and chastise others for undoing your incorrect statements. What you are doing is essentially vandalism, though your intentions may be sincere... but the result is the same: incorrect information being posted on wikipedia. You continue to ignore facts and refuse to discuss the changes, only continuing to make edits which are incorrect. I hope my recent reference of very long standing, plain simple etiquette rules which you have refused to believe up till now puts this matter to rest. If you continue an edit war I will be happy to take it to the next level. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Njsustain (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

X-Factor, you have continued your edit war without doing any research on the subject, only using your personal opinion to continue to change the article. I hope the most recent re-write satisfies whatever issue you have with the text. Your most recent edit has not considered anything discussed, and your comments have only obsessed over the irrational concept that the "undo" function should never, ever, ever be used. If you wish to make any further changes on the recent matter, about which there obviously has been disagreement, PLEASE discuss it here first. If you make the same change again (i.e. put the same incorrect statements in the article again), there seems to be no alternative but to request arbitration. Discussion and research should avoid this. Njsustain (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Speak English!"

Speaking English is not a requirement of western etiquette ("western" referring to the residents of North America.) Etiquette applies to all people universally, including "French" Canadians, and those in economically disadvantaged American neighborhoods where English is not spoken by many people. It is important for people (westerners or visitors to the west) to be aware that they should not always expect people to speak a certain language. Those who travel exclusively in high class circles may never encounter the need for such understanding of etiquette, but it applies nevertheless.

"B_lls_it" is rude in any language and should not be used in polite company.Njsustain (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To speak English was a deep seated expectation in Anglo-American culture, although Canada is definitely for a bilingual way of life and the western US where Spanish is increasingly spoken more than ever. In the past, immigrants are frequently told to learn the language, adapt it to daily use and never pass on the mother tongue to their "all-American" (US-born) children. But today the concept smacks of racism, intolerance and conformity, even compared to denying the right of religion to someone. The Mother Language usage among French Canadians, Hispanics, Asian Americans and indigenous peoples is thought to be very protected and self-preserved in the name of multiculturalism and respect to civil rights, esp. since the 1960s/70s. + Mike D 26 (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Payment in Canada

I'm not an expert at Canadian-specific etiquette, but I really don't think this is an etiquette issue. It may be true that people may get "offended" if offered a type of payment that they don't like, but I don't see how that is an etiquette faux pas. Anytime someone is offended by something, that is not necessarily an etiquette issue. Since this was an anonymous post I will only wait for a valid reference (which I highly doubt exist) shortly before removing that section.Njsustain (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Americans long thought and assumed Canadians are "very polite" or taken the Anglo-British connection of Victorian age/mid-century (1950s) social mores more seriously than the current-day USA. I don't believe it's completely true, but Canadians consider their own etiquette to be observed, defended and taken seriously as a part of "Canadian cultural identity". No nation in the world wants to be viewed as rude toward each other or to visitors from around the world, then it's important never to stereotype Canadians as "too polite", Americans "are rude" and for Anglo-Americans as a whole to be "stuck up" obsessed with manners/propriety. + Mike D 26 (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One citation needed

I don't remember/can't find where I read the rule about traditionally having one year to *send* a wedding gift. As gifts are not acually "required," this isn't a big deal anyway. ANYWAY, this article has 81 references, only one citation request, and no current discussions, so I'm removing the tag. Njsustain (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name change to "North America"?

Although geographically, North America includes Mexico and what is considered "Central America", culturally it is usually considered to be basically Canada and the US. I think the current title is and always has been odd and clumsy. I definitely don't want to open the hornets nest of calling it "Etiquette in the US and Canada" (which sounds equally clumsy). Should it be "Etiquette in North America"? I think it's a better title, and perfectly accurate.

Please offer some feedback, people. I know you're out there. Njsustain (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have any comment on changing the article's name? I propose doing the change by the end of the month if there is no discussion to be had on the matter. A brief note in the intro about the article being specifically for the US and Canada will be added. There's no article specifically for Mexico, but a link to Etiquette in Latin America will be added to the top, and of course there will be a redirect from "Etiquette in Canada and the US."--Njsustain (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, upon looking at the "Latin America" etiquette page... it's rather poor, and it should probably not be "endorsed" with a prominent link at the beginning. The links in "see also" are there. Njsustain (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. A new era begins. Njsustain (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Article reverted

Many of my changes to the article have been reverted; while many of the reversions I can understand, there is one in particular that I would like to defend: the use of haggling. The reversion comments indicate that the 'haggling' is considered a cultural matter, rather than one of etiquette, yet the use of haggling is mentioned quite prominently in another article on etiquette (specifically, Etiquette in the Middle East). I respectfully submit my opinion that such mention sets precedent for addition to this article. 66.183.85.86 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that etiquette while dealing with vendors is necessary knowledge, especially for people who are visiting from other cultures. It would be useful to list which situations prices are considered firm and non-negotiable and under which circumstances (such as buying a car) it is considered proper to negotiate a price. An etiquette based reference or other reference on the subject would of course add to the legitimacy of such statements. Njsustain (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Section tags

I don't think it was appropriate to add section citation tags simply because there are no references in that section. Simply because a section does have one reference in it, that does not mean it is perfect, and conversely just because another small section does not have references, that does not mean it is appropriate to tag it. This article has many references, and while that doesn't mean that there can't or shouldn't be more, that doesn't mean that tagging sections with no references should be tagged for the sake of tagging. (Got that?)

Anyway, I'm basically trying to say that if there is a legitimate concern about the validity of some information, by all means put up a citation request, but don't put up a tag just for the sake of putting up a tag. It's frankly annoying when someone questions something simply because it is not referenced, and/or because they don't like something. I'm not saying that a person doesn't have a right to request verification, just that it should be done because there is a legitimate reason for doing so, not because someone is simply upset and offended that they found out that it's not considered proper to say "excuse me" after farting (for example). Njsustain (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The classic "I don't like it but I'm too lazy to fix it" post

Overall, the concept is very good, but the execution is troubling. Many of the rules seem out of touch with middle class culture, at very least in urban/sub-urban areas. It's unfortunate that most of the citable sources end up being prudish Manor House Etiquette writers for newspapers and magazines, but there's no easy way to fix this. Riffraffselbow (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The point of the article isn't what may or may not be accepted or common in "middle class culture", or upper or lower class culture, for that matter. The point of the article is proper etiquette. For that, I'm afraid the only proper resources are those "prudish writers". Patricia Meadows (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't an opinion piece on etiquette, it's an encyclopedic article thereof. The article could indeed include "alternate" etiquette standards if verifiable sources are shown. (I don't really know what an alternative to good manners is: north american etiquette applies to everyone of all backgrounds. I didn't realize only the upper class was supposed to have good manners: I've found just the opposite to be the case many times... like the editor a couple of years back who claims she is an "expert" because she wrote a snooty "etiquette" website about how to be a Newport snob.) Everyone can benefit from standard etiquette and it has nothing to do with socio-economic background. The article can also contain criticism of standard etiquette, again, if verifiable sources thereof are given. The title of this new talk section, in my opinion, itself emphasizes a clear lack of understanding of the subject, and makes this criticism pointless.Njsustain (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. My point was that many of these pieces of etiquette are seen as cold and unfriendly in certain situations, and that many things described as faux pas are treated neutrally, depending on the situation. As the title of this section indicates, it's not really my place to complain, but whatever. Riffraffselbow (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

North America is not just the US and Canada

The title of this article is inaccurate? The North American continent stretches down to Panama. Maybe rename it "Etiquette in the United States and Canada" or have separate articles on the US and Canada.--Nyctc7 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion already. Check the archives. The term "North America" in the English speaking world, culturally, usually does not include Mexico. Mexico, culturally, is usually considered part of "Central America" and the etiquette is very different there, so including Mexico in this article would be impossible. The "United States and Canada" title was clumsy and unnecessary. Etiquette is not about geography, and neither is the content of this article. Njsustain (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, I did not see the archive links at the top of the page--Nyctc7 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Generalisations

I think some points here are generalised. In particular, while I understand the stated rules about gifts are generally accepted in the United States, that is not the case in Canada, or at least not everywhere. I live in Winnipeg, and pretty much everyone as far as I know puts gift registry information on wedding invitations. Also, we definitely invite people to showers who are not invited to the wedding. Showers will often include friends of the parents or grandparents who don't even know the bride or groom, and so would not generally be invited to the wedding. I just checked the citation, and these rules are taken from Miss Manners, an American columnist. Not exactly an authority on Canadian etiquette. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Two things to note spock: A) Etiquette rules aren't based on what you see commonly happening. That just indicates what is common, not what is considered correct etiquette. B) If you have any verifiable authoritative information about Canadian etiquette, please feel free to post it. I'm afraid your personal observations are not authoritative.

With all due respect, this isn't about America/Canada. The rules you mentioned are very basic ones, and do not differ from Canada to the US. Only very minor trivial things would be different, not basic rules. Many Americans also get upset when they find out that what they see as common practice is not considered proper etiquette. Njsustain (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because people find it insulting and offensive to be told it is improper etiquette when they follow the cultural norms they were raised with, practice, and see in practice by others all the time. Isn't the whole definition of etiquette to be "a code of behavior that delineates expectations for social behavior according to contemporary conventional norms within a society, social class, or group. " (to quote the wikipedia entry for it). Honestly, while this article is not the optimum forum for it, there is substantial disconnect between acceptable cultural norms and everyday practices that most people would think of as proper etiquette and the arbitrary and antiquated codes of behavior trotted out in published etiquette books. Wingsandsword (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If proper etiquette isn't based on what is commonly accepted, then what exactly is it based on, out of curiosity? Is there some supreme knower of the etiquette from whom we get these rules? It's true, I don't have sources on Canadian etiquette, but I don't think anyone here does. As I said, magazine columnists don't exactly strike me as infallible sources.

With all due respect, I don't see how the response "The rules you mentioned are very basic ones, and do not differ from Canada to the US" is any more authoritative than me saying the rules do differ between Canada and the US. The two countries have very different cultures. It makes sense that they have different rules of etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock of Vulcan (talk • contribs) 23:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Idiotic

This page is so general, it's stupid. It's from the 1950s McCarthy era. It's riff-worthy.

"It is polite to hold a door open (or give it an extra push open) rather than let it slam in the face of someone behind you." Or to elaborate further: "... especially if they're an old person. Old people falling down can be quite humorous, and you must teach your children not to laugh at them. Old people are valued members of society, and despite what the liberals say, should not all be euthanised."

Seriously though, this page should be deleted as it is long, rambling and completely obvious, but also snobbery, suggesting people don't know not to make fart jokes after they break wind. I think this page was obviously written by 1950s conservative Protestants afraid their tea parties may be broken up by a pot smoking hippie. What next? How to not use racial terms? How to fight Communism? How to say hi to your neighbour Hank? padddy5 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OYou appear to be uninformed and I am afraid you come across as rather ill-mannered as a result. I suggest you re-read this page and try to properly ingest the useful advice it offers rather than simply mocking it because you don't understand it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.108.14 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Idiotic

Yes, this page seems really general and like it is generalizing things that should not be generalized. While some aspects of this page seem okay, they are overshadowed by the glaring idiocracy that paddy5 mentions. I don't think for simplicity's sake or out of laziness that "North America" should be combined. US and Canada have very different etiquettes and for that matter, each state has its own etiquettes. Not to mention that it seems racist to say that Mexico is omitted because "North America" refers to the English-Speaking portions of North America when, in fact, as someone else mentioned, other languages are spoken in America and Canada. And for that matter, a lot of English is spoken in Mexico too. And adults do say "excuse me" when they "break wind". This article makes me question the validity of all the etiquette articles. It is embarrassing. Melissa1001 (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not an article on sociology, i.e., what people do, but on what people should do according to etiquette rules. People do lots of things they shouldn't... that doesn't mean that it is embarrassing to do the proper thing. That response was idiotic. Njsustain (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We should change the name from NorthAmerica to NorthernAmerica, which refers to NorthAmerica above Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.103.255 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean that the American race and the Canadian race are racist against the Mexican race? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.95.98 (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern North American Etiquette

Should there be different articles for etiquette in different time periods? I think we should keep in mind that etiquette can also be bound by time period in addition to region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.212.186 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The one rule of advice for people not to talk about politics and religion, has lessened over the past 50 years. Americans value their freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution, but it's important to know if the other person cares to hear or want to share their opinions or viewpoints about a moral, ethical and legal issue. I came to think the puritanical taboo about sex and death (as well bodily functions) is not as strong like before. But the principle remains not to bring forth these subjects in the public, and it's also common for standup comedians in the public eye make jokes contain some level of sexual innuendo to generate laughter. 71.102.1.101 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad link

the passing gas link #15 does not discuss the relevent matter. i dont know how to edit this properly, so i wrote it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.47.181 (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Etiquette in North America → Etiquette in the United States — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC) While both the us and Canada share some common etiquette, the article seems to take for granted that us and and canadian etiquette is the same even when there are big cultural differences between bot countries most notably Canadas french speaking comunity wich gives them their own paticular etiquette, this is the main reason why each country must be treated separately. Secondly north america is not the us and canada, this way of dividing the american continent into north america (wich the US sees as the "white" part) and latin america ("the rest") has noting to do with reality and all with a uscentric perspective of the world.

So i propose rename it to etiquette in the us since all the article is about us etiquette(as you can see in the sources) and create a separate article for etiquette in canada.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move to Etiquette in the United States per nom or Etiquette in the United States and Canada id someone wants to quickly add some Can Con before this discussion is over. I also implore the nominator to fix his/her shift key. — AjaxSmack 03:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Straight forward. And yes, the lack of capitals is irritating and makes it hard to read! Perhaps the nominator would like to go over their piece and edit it! Skinsmoke (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this quite strongly. Other articles on this topic are by cultural region (Middle East, Latin America, etc), not arbitrary sovereign state. The difference between the two are taken for granted by the OP, but there probably aren't any significant unifying differences between the two countries. Renaming would just cause content to be duplicated quite pointlessly. Is etiquette in Seattle really more similar to Alabama than Vancouver? No. For the most part, English north America splits between on such matters South/rest, not USA/Canada. Let's face it, it's just a random line on a map, and we should not take patriotism too far. If there are regionally specific etiquettes, like among Amerindians, or in Quebec, Texas, the Appalachians say, there is room for some of specific sections or even sub-articles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename to: 20th Century Etiquette in North America

Hand-written notes? I don't think so. Also there is nothing rude about RSVPing "maybe" nowadays. It's done on Facebook all the time. We might add somewhere that most people alive today are from the 20th Century, so if you want to impress older relatives, investors or professors, some of these practices could be of practical modern use. Zaurus (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are incorrect. It is considered totally inappropriate to respond "maybe" to an invitation. Etiquette is not a matter of what *you* think is okay. There are rules which can be found in authoritative sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to espouse your opinion on what is or isn't acceptable behavior. Njsustain (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Formality is not dead. I can think of one occasion to hand-write a letter: a thank you letter after a job interview. You might get away with not writing one if you're applying somewhere like McDonald's, but it's expected in the business world.

RSVPing "maybe" means "if I have nothing better to do," and that's terribly rude. If an invitation specifically says RSVP, you must RSVP one way or the other because the social function most likely requires a certain number of guests. If you fail to RSVP at all, the host will have to assume that you won't be attending and may find someone else to replace you. If you show up unexpectedly, it'll be awkward for everybody, and you'll probably never be invited again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.95.98 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If the RSVP form has a "maybe" field, then it's implied that it's an acceptable response. However, if it was elsewhere written "seats are limited, so RSVP Yes/NO only please" would then override the acceptability of the possible maybe response. I think another important reason for the renaming of it, would give the historical significance for young people, when trying to understand 20th century movies, books etc, much like reading an article on 18th Century English etiquette might help someone understand the writings of Jane Austen etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaurus (talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If you wish to write an article on the etiquette of the 20th century, you are free to do so, but that doesn't mean that there is anything in this article that doesn't apply to current etiquette rules, your passive-aggressive comment about Jane Austen not withstanding. You should try to learn the actual, current rules of etiquette before disparaging the article as not being relevent to the 21st century. Etiquette rules are codified and up-to-date, even if your knowledge of them is not. 74.102.174.35 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a low-quality page

• The huge, seemingly unorganized list of sections and bullet points is mostly unsourced personal opinion.
• "Obscene gestures are not appropriate." - *by definition* obscene gestures are not appropriate. That is why they're called "obscene." Someone reading this article would not necessarily know, however, that is considered an obscene gesture, and wikipedia needn't be too prudish to explain or link to the middle finger.
• Similarly, "One does not comment on one's race, religion, or sexual orientation" - one's *own* race or one another's race?
• My favorite, the preserved underscores in "For Mexico, see Etiquette_in_Latin_America"
• Many of the aforementioned unsourced bullet points are arguably very narrow.
• "Hats are generally not worn in houses or restaurants, nor in places of worship and important civil buildings." (1) women wear hats in places of worship, (2) it's not frowned on to wear a balcap in McDonalds or even a casual dining restaurant.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.111.45 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to the article. – Wdchk (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we seperate Canada's and USA's etiquette?

I believe that they have different etiquettes that could merit different pages for each, and so do other websites such as Trip Advisor think. Canadians and Americans tend to be quite different (although it is very subtle) in the way to act and I don't think that generalizing is the right way to go. For example, you never speak to someone who you have just met by mentionning their first name, unless invited to. Also, honorific titles have a much bigger important to French Canadians than Americans in general. forbore 05:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Big sweep of November 2012

I've just removed a massive amount of this article; per WP:PROVEIT, it should not be re-added without bringing Wikipedia:Reliable sources along with each re-added claim. Personal observation, personal social experience, and other original research are not reliable sources. Allowing unsourced and poorly-sourced examples to obviously build up over a long time without a Wikipedia maintenance tag is just as bad as if it had maintenance tags for all that time. It would be inappropriate to assume that specific items of etiquette are too obvious to need a source: First, that is Wikipedia:Systemic bias; encyclopedia articles are focused on "preaching to the choir" — they are to provide knowledge to people who don't have it. Also, if a claim is too obvious for sources, then there is no need to have it in the article except for context related to a nearby claim. If it's important enough to insert as a free-standing claim into an article, then it is important enough that it needs a reliable source. I've also individually tagged the remaining unsourced claims, to determine which ones remain unresolved for a long period in the future, and exposed the URLs of references that had no other name thanks to link rot. The unsourced claims are not the only problem with this article, however. Wikipedia articles should be an encyclopedic treatment of the topic: Articles should not be just a collection of examples, and Wikipedia is not (merely) a guide. --Closeapple (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)