Talk:Handshake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Popular Culture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The British do handshake, quite a lot.[edit]

It's normal in Britain to handshake. I can only assume a non-Brit wrote that... Maybe handshaking isn't that common down south, but in the midlands, the north and Scotland you're expected to handshake quite often. Especially in formal situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.144.70 (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Muslims refusing to shake hands[edit]

In the Netherlands, there was considerable debate after a (male) Muslim imam refused to shake hands with a female politician. There was also a school that tried to keep out a female Muslim because she refused to shake hands with men. Basis for those refusals was, I believe, that their interpretation of the Islamic faith considers it improper to physically touch people of the opposite sex. Does this deserve a mention here? --Raboof 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, in islam they don't shake hands with the other sex because it loses them their Wuduu'(a cleaning they have to do before prayer) but there was also something by their prophet that said "it'd be better for me to touch glowing iron than the skin of a woman".

Perhaps, but so do other customs or religions- correct me if I'm wrong but the Jewish doctrine of Shomon Negiah keeps some orthodox Jews from shaking hands with members of the opposite sex. It is partly a matter of interpretation and sometimes Muslims such as myself shake hands with members of the opposite sex knowing it may not be halal, but feeling the offense too minor for all intensive purposes. I'm not quite satisified with the mention made to shaking hands with members ofthe opposite sex- but I'm more concerned with the origins of handshaking. Angrynight 04:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the jewish doctrine. I rememeber seeing in CNN an interview with a jewish rapper who refused to shake hands with the lady who interviewed him because supposedly its not allowed. Regarding the history of handshaking, we were taught in our schools in yemen, that the yemeni's invented that. However, I have no sources to prove that. But someone else (not me) knew about this and posted it in the main article. Another user then deleted it and moved it here in the discussion page.

Jidan 05:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming this all has to do with something in a sexual nature. What about homosexuals? If they have taken up one of these religins, would they refuse to shake hands of the same sex?

-G

This is ridiculous - a mention like this has no place in the handshake article.

-A.H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.123.212 (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

--- There is in fact a Hadith that proscribes handshaking between Muslims, though it escapes me at the moment. It seems the practice was eventually abandoned. Also, the whole refusal to shake hands due to Wuddu is not proscribed by tradition, it is a personal decision in order to avoid having to wuddu prior to every prayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.208.10 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Western European or Ancient Persian tradition?[edit]

Isn't the handshake gesture of Ancient Persian origen?


Persians were the only eastern civilization that used Handshaking as a form of greeting.

Yes

NO, it was generally a semitic tradition, but mostly yemenian. The persian greetings were similiar to the north indians and didnt involve handshaking. Jidan 10:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, you are a arabic nationalist! --84.191.193.56 11:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
"History

The handshake is originally a Yemeni pre-islamic tradition, which spread with the expansion of the Islamic empire. The New Testament, in the Book of Galatians reflects the narration of St. Paul, that, upon his visit to Jerusalem he met with James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who each gave him, upon his leaving, the "right hand of friendship." See Galatians 2:9. Galatians has been dated by scholars as between 48 C.E. and 58 C.E. This suggests a usage well known in the Graeco-Roman world several centuries before the Islamic handshake.

It was brought into practice in its present form in Western society by English Quakers in 17th century as a more egalitarian and simpler alternative to the complex greeting etiquette of the contemporary higher social classes. Thomas Jefferson is often accredited with popularizing the technique during his tenure in the White House, displacing the bow as a more democratic greeting. Today the handshake is known and practiced throughout the world, though in many cultures alternative customs for greeting, such as bowing or cheek kissing are still preferred in some situations."

I can't wait any longer, remvoed from article. Please provide a source if you insist that this is true. --Kash 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Source for cattle section?[edit]

Can we get a source for the section on buyers slapping each others' faces? This seems very peculiar. --Impaciente 23:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote: In Croatia, inserting a finger into another person's anus is considered equivalent to a handshake by a District Court's ruling of December 2005.

This paragraph is true. In one doubtfully court process the judgment is interpreted exactly like this. But if you come in Croatia do no dare to make greeting like this.

Update: Wrong! Although the court process (sexual offense) in question was a disgrace (as is the judge that made that ruling), the judgement stated that inserting finger in an anus of another person can not be considered as sexual contact no more than handshaking as there were no genitals involved in contact.

It is obvious that mentioned court process was very doubtfull, and created a lot of negative reactions in Croatia. It was very unconfortable to accept that such decision could be made in the court of law, and that such judge can even work in court. Anyway, it is crazy to believe that such a gesture could be a custome in Croatia. This information published in wikipedia is humiliating for all Croatians, and letting this information to stay undeleted was very irresponsible from the editors.

There's no such thing as "anal-handshaking" custom in Croatia. This is just the result of poor justice system in Croatia, where the judge can deliberately pardon rich tycoon and sexual offender from accusations of rape. There's even a joke among Croatians that says: "If you go to Gospić (place where it all happened), just don't handshake." - regarding ridiculous ruling of the judge.

Concerning "Croatian" handshake[edit]

It is obvious that mentioned court process was very doubtful, and created a lot of negative reactions in Croatia. It was very uncomfortable to accept that such decision could be made in the court of law, and that such judge can even work in court. Anyway, it is crazy to believe that such a gesture could be a custom in Croatia. This information published in wikipedia is humiliating for all Croatians, and letting this information to stay undeleted was very irresponsible from the editors.

If Croatians are concerned about their image - then the very problem shall be their judge and their court and not whether it is a custom or not. Here, nobody says it is a custom - rather it is an immoral comparison of a sexual assault to the handshake.--Purger 17:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The ruling is not doubtful - it is final decision, there were no plans of a appeal to it. It was published in Croatian newspapers, and I believe it should bi placed under Trivia, not customs. I also found one site in English confirming it, and added it as a source. [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545248/posts]

Actually, the decision is not final. The ruling has recently been abolished by the decision of the Supreme Court of Croatia. And that's all there is about Croatian handshaking.


As difference to anglo saxon customs, in country mentioned, decision of court is not a president for future rulings, nor it has a legal value as such. And also, the decision in this legal case is not final, case is not closed because appeals have been made to the ruling and upper level court haven't rouled yet. So for time being it shouldn' have stayed not even under trivia for the time being.

I think that that should be removed from the handshake article or at least explained why someone used an sarcastic remark to the word hand shake! the editors should leave a link to explaining what that "handshake" is really and not lead people on to a lie. because officially it is a lie. and we all know here that is was a sexual assault which happened not a hand shake. Minnie

The freerepublic cite listed above is hardly reliable. Cite a more reliable source. Repeated entries regarding this Croatian handshake should be considered vandalism.--Sgstarling 20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious who's idea was it to write down such a stupidity,but there should be someone with more brain than the author in Wikipedia to stop this edit option.....and delete this part from the article,because it's really offending for the nation .From now on, all the facts found in Wikipedia

have lost credibility for me.If any sick and ignorant person can change every article, what's the point of Wikipedia???? Proud to be Croat

Handshaking as a defense method?[edit]

If I recall correctly, handshaking was commonly used in the middle ages to see if the person entering the court (at feasts and celebrations) had a concealed weapon such as a dagger, in his palm. Maybe this'd be worth noting in the article? Stealth 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I believe this evolved from a Roman custom of grasping the other person's forearm, up near the elbow; both people could then determine if the other had a dagger strapped to their arm (the only feasible place to carry an accessable dagger when wearing a flowing toga). 04:18 p.m., 22 February 2006

Edit, rv, edit, rv...[edit]

The edits on this article may be the most bizarre thing I have seen on Wikipedia. Weregerbil 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is all about just one sentence
In Croatia, inserting a finger into another person's anus is considered equivalent to a handshake by a District Court's ruling of December 2005.
I see that some people do not like it to see under the article Customs or Trivia paragraphs - even though the statement is quite correct. Those who think that it is shameful to have this statement visible in this article - they shall direct their disgust toward that judge and the court which made this immoral comparison and made the criminal to be acquitted that way. Playing role of a censor here and this way, apparently, will not make this statement invisible - it is still here on the discussion page and in many previous revisions of the article.--Purger 13:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Actually it is not quite correct. The sentence is saying that practicaly everyone in Croatia considers inserting a finger into someone's anus as equivalent to handshake. Whoever's formulation of the sentence, it is misleading, and incorrect. Especially, because it is under Customs. After all, I live in Croatia, and I don't know ANYONE who will say it's a custom 'ere in these parts. :)

I mean, this is clearly intentional insult, because it's written as a court's expression of widespread opinion. Hey, c'mon, it doesnt say why, and what is the case in question. Why was this subject od media attention? Why is this subject of great controversy in Croatia? Who is the judge whose this is PERSONAL OPINION? Clearly, this is not a passage which is to be in this place at all. If anything, it should be under trivia, but definetly not in current form.

Mr Purger :) if you are from Croatia, or anywhere near, then you know that this sentence is intentionally insulting, especially because it doesnt say the name of the judge (Branko Milanović), or the criminal (Joso Mraović) whose finger was, in fact, in question (or, rather, somewhere else) Sasa T. Mataic

funny but inaccurate[edit]

How does this sentence: “Inserting finger in an anus of another person can not be considered as sexual contact no more than handshaking as there were no genitals involved in contact” Become this: “Inserting a finger into another person's anus is considered equivalent to a handshake”.

It is obviously a case of false logic, intentional hyperbole and fanciful extrapolation. Specifying a handshake, in a negative comparison, to illustrate the lack of sexual contact in some other activity, was obviously unfortunate choice but hardly institutes those acts as “equivalent” in any sense of the word. There is nothing true or correct in the statement “inserting a finger into another person's anus is considered equivalent to a handshake”. It is funny but not true.

I would bet that this defense of the judge's good nature, naivety and innocence belongs to some of the Balkan brotherhood of politically correct people--Purger 01:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
you must be on some really good stuff to have found any defence of the judge or any opinion about the case or about the ruling in the previous paragraph. The paragraph simply tries to expose the false logic that leads the extrapolation from the original statement of the ruling to the fanciful statement about Croatian customs. I have no agenda in this case, how about you? Or are those leprechauns meddling with your good stuff?
Here is http://www.novilist.hr/default.asp?WCI=Pretrazivac&WCU=285A286328592863285A28582858285D2863286328632859285F28592861285C286128632863286328582863D
a full story under the title "Sudac na silovanje gleda kao na rukovanje" i.e. "Judge sees rape equal to handshake" (free translation) as published in the Novi List newspaper.

It is also true that inserting a finger into someone anus is not a sexual act in itself. It could be made sexual by circumstances, but on its own it is no more sexual then sticking a finger into someone’s ear. If uninvited or without a consent it is an assault but not necessarily sexual. It is also true that any bodily contact can be made sexual through circumstances, even a handshake.

The cirumstances are well-known and quite clear. Even the USA ambassador in Croatia was prompted to warn Croatian officials not to play primitive judicial tricks in this case.--Purger 01:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
where do you get stuff you are on? I want some, it must be a blast!

If Wikipedia wants to become notorious as “humour central” for funny but essentially inaccurate statements then the statement should stay. Otherwise if accuracy is important to Wikipeadia, maybe it would be more appropriate to move the statement to trivia, with the explanation and the reference to the source of information.

it is a shame that the statement was completely removed in the later versions of the article. The original wording of the ruling is bizarre enough to warrant a mention in the trivia section. It does not need any silly embellishment. It stands tall (or deep as the case may be) in the glory of its own stupidity.

For toilet humor like this, drop it onto uncynclopedia.org or something, or better yet, just drop it. I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to keep trivia (and especially corrupt judicial system cases) like this. Stealth 09:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This "Croatian handshake" deserves mentioning. It is something that really happened in court system of Croatia. That ruling is still in power. Until being revoked by Croatian court it deserves to be mentioned.

What I think, and what all of you forget to mention in here is well known in Croatia and EU and that is corruption and corrupted judges. Judges ruling in this case was clearly, an corrupted judge.


I have to disagree with the aformentioned statement that the judgement still is in power, that it has its legal power for the time being, whilst first instance court's judgements in Croatia do NOT have legal power whatsoever until the superior court confirms it (in this case the Supreme Court of Croatia), or if the appeal had not been made until the time prescribed by Croatian Criminal Procedure Act passes, or in the third case if the defendant himself and prosecuting attorney expressly waive their right to appeal. Therefore I must say that the statment in the article saying: "Inserting a finger into another person's anus is considered equivalent to a handshake" does not have any influnce or meaning from the legal point of view.

Secondly, merely by plucking out this disgracefoul sentence out of one single judgement and interpreting it in the way that this is Croatian custom is rather offensive to me personaly and to Croatian nation as a whole. Unfortunately, every judical system has its eccentric individuals as this judge for instance, but it does not give the right to any person to make the statment saying it is customary in Croatia. Pmatic 83.131.6.97 12:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Contractual Handshake[edit]

I think it would be worth including the Contractual Handshake.

I am no expert, and so I do not even know if this practice (contract as opposed to agreement) is maintained outside the UK, but I understand that a handshake is a legitimate and binding acknowledgment and acceptance of the terms of a (particlarly verbal) contract.

A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's not written on.

Who Initiates a Handshake?[edit]

In reference to the sentence about it being impolite to refuse to shake hands, this comes to mind: Handshake is always offered by someone senior, in higher position, or a woman. Too many US movies show this incorrectly, and it seems it is lost on many... One does not offer to shake hands with the Queen, only she can. Wikiak 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 02:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are corner cases. The person who extends their hand first (if one person is first) is the initiator, otherwise it is mutually initiated, the more common case. A more real/relevant issue is what about refusal/alternatives to hand shaking. I've seen people and I think with good cause refuse the custom, and perhaps some mention of the fact that both hands need to be bare or gloved and in general a gloved handshake is considered a compromised one, you're supposed to take them off so it's skin-skin. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

in anglophone countries?[edit]

what? in Western countries! --AnY FOUR! 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Aj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftee18 (talkcontribs) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I came on here to comment on that, since I can't think of any Westrern country where the handshake is not the standard greeting. So I think it should be changed. Drogo (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)