Talk:Etiquette in Canada and the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Direction piece is complete rubbish

Having been in many American cities, this is not something I notice at all. Even in movies, you see people walking - not in a straight line (on the right), but in a mix of directions, just trying to get from point A to point B. Maybe it's different in Canada - but not in America. I would remove it completely, but I am just one opinion. --141.152.250.230 (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should This Article Be Split In Two - One For Canada, Another for U.S.?

Just came across this article & it is quite good. Just a thought though: since Canada and the United States are separate countries, shouldn't there be two articles - one for Canadian etiquette, another for American? Granted many of our customs are similar, but there some big differences, especially in Quebec. Just a thought.

  • I think there are enough commonalities the the current "both - just canada - just US" format works for now. --House of Scandal 21:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It should if it's going to make constant exceptions for one and then the other, as in the first few paragraphs of the body.Youdontsmellbad (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few other points

In Canada telephone calls of a business nature should not be made after 9:00 PM on weekdays, 6:00 PM on Saturdays, and never on Sundays. Personal telephone calls should be avoided after 10:00 PM any night unless one is certain that the callee will not mind receiving the call. One should not call earlier than 9:00 AM any day, and never before 11:00 AM on a Sunday.

In contrast to what is written in the article, in Canada it is almost universal to remove one's shoes when entering a private residence. Not doing so is a serious faux pas. Asking if it necessary will not cause offence however.

When one feels the need to pass wind it is polite to do so away from others by walking away or excusing one's self. It should be noted that amongst a group of males, especially ones who are closely acquainted, flatulence is often considered extremely humourous, and passing a very loud "fart" is seen as a symbol of virility, especially in blue collar circles. Around strangers or women, however, it is extremely rude, as is burping.

Canadians are more reserved than Americans and in etiquette matters are much more like the British. Americans will often strike up conversations with strangers in restaurants and in elevators but this is not common in Canada and will be seen as awkward and annoying, and in certain situations somewhat threatening. Telling tall tales and embellishing a story, while very much the norm in the United States, are strictly frowned upon in Canada. Similarly, except in appropriate circumstances, a smile showing the teeth is inappropriate. A closed mouth smile should be used in most circumstances, such as when passing someone on a sidwalk. When making small talk with a stranger, the weather is the most accepted topic of conversation and most Canadians will always have something to say about it. --209.115.235.79 16:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments. I am glad you didn't edit them into the main article, however, as several of your points apply more equally to both countries (and, in some cases, many other countries) than you may realize and are covered in the article Worldwide etiquette. I would, however, dispute your belief that stretching the truth is "very much the norm" in the US or that most Americans are comfortable with strangers starting conversations with them in elevators. Happy Holidays. ◄HouseOfScandal► 17:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree HOS that the "tall tale" comments are off base, but I have to agree with 209 about shoes. The following is anecdotal but useful: I was in the household furniture moving business for ten years, and I did the in-home estimates. My specialty was cross border moving between the US and Canada, which offered a lot of insight into the subtle difference between Canadians and Americans when it comes to home etiquette. I have visited thousands of homes. I would estimate that over 95% of the time Canadians expect a visitor to remove their shoes (perhaps as high as 99%). In fact, when I was trained for the job I was told to buy slip-on shoes so that I didn't have to untie and tie my shoes five to six times a day. So the statement that it is "almost universal" is accurate. I once did an estimate for a woman moving back to Dallas, and when I asked whether I should remove my shoes she said "I'm American, we wear our shoes at home" If someone is taking the trouble to read this article they should be told this. Something like the following should be added: "One should expect to remove their shoes when visiting a home in Canada. If the host answers the door without shoes, then you should assume that it is expected. While asking "should I remove my shoes" is acceptable it will sometimes make the host uncomfortable. When in Canada it is best to remove your shoes if there is any doubt." This is a big deal to many Canadians, especially if the home in carpeted. Moomot 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Great comments. I believe you know what your talking about and have modified the "shoe section" accordingly. ◄HouseOfScandal►00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I like your short and sweet version. Moomot 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It has never been suggested that anyone remove clean and dry shoes in any of the homes I have visited in Canada in the last 40 years (from Vancouver to Moncton). Lupinelawyer 06:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilhelm

Hi 216.195.10.149. I chose "Wilhelm" as the name used in the example re: honorifics precisely because it's the German form of William and Germans, in general, are less likely to use first names (see Etiquette in Europe). I just wanted to explain with all due respect why I switched it back. ◄HouseOfScandal►02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useless?

This article was developed from a previous (out-of-control and messy) article entitled "List of faux pas". In this article, people made many comments about how "reserved" people are in Canada, the USA, and elsewhere. Accordingly, I am not sure the following statement is (as stated by User:Azate) "totally useless":

  • "Whatever the matter, people in Canada and the United States are generally less reserved that those in some countries and more reserved than others."

If nothing else, this phrase can serve to deter a deluge of future edits which will comment on how reserved (or not) people are in Canada and the US. I hope you get my point. Comments? - ◄HouseOfScandal►17:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your reasoning less strange than that of some others and stanger than others'. Azate 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


An article about our customs is not useless at all. In fact it should be encouraged and considered downright interesting. It should also be split into sub-regions to note their little intricacies. Klichka (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queue

I made a small change to this section. This term is rarely used in Canada, in fact, I did not learn about it until after I was thirty and I started to play Scrabble a lot! Sometimes people will use it with a faux British accent, but it is not in common use. Moomot 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Cool. I think I got that info from the article on Queue area. You might want to check its accuracy. ◄HouseOfScandal►02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Québécois profanity

Hi Jean-Sébastien/Circeus...In the article Etiquette in Canada and the United States you added:

"Fuck" is not considered a profanity by Quebec French speakers, who use specific profanities. Trying to use these profanities can lead to inappropriateness and risks greatly offending French speakers.

Although there are plenty of things in the article that lack citations, I think this statement needs it. The article you link to totally lacks references as well, and that concerns me. Think maybe you can find references to back this up? ◄HouseOfScandal► 08:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not easy to specifically source the article, because it's a sociolinguistic element (although one I will happily vouch for.), but here are a selection of English and French links: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I vividly remember a bilingual friend of mine saying that she uses "fuck" too much in French and it impacted on her English so that she came to say "French meaning of seal".
I also just located two French scientific links: [7] and [8]. For the use of "sacres", I think it slips within a general etiquette recommendation of not using foreign language swearwords for risk of doing so inappropriately. Circeus 14:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[edit] Shoes, cont.

I am a Canadian and have been inside hundreds of Canadian houses. While removing shoes is quite common, it is by no means universal, and should not automatically be assumed! In my experience, removing shoes is the norm in 60 to 70% of households I've been invited to. But there are very obviously a large number of households in which this is not expected. As in the US, it is polite to ask the host whether they would like you to remove your shoes.

Expectations of course vary. Removing snowy, muddy, or soaking wet footwear would be expected in virtually any situation. A person who receives a formal dinner or party invitation, who arrives wearing dress shoes, would rarely be expected to remove those shoes. Expectations also vary depending on the location of the house (big city, small town, or country house), the ethnic origin of the host, and the socio-economic standing of the host.

We can argue about what the relative proportion ought to be: is it 65%, or 90%. But this is not going to be resolved here. The point is simply that shoe removal is most definetly not something that can "generally be assumed" one way or another. Better to ask.


[edit] Many biased and improperly phrased items

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

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

[edit] This page needs the contributions of non-American/Canadian editors as well as American/Canadian editors.

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

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

[edit] SEPARATE

I think that we should seperate these articles as Canada is a seperate country from the states. For example Canada is a monarchy, while the states is a republic. The most powerful person in Canada is unelected (The Queen or he represenative) while in the states its the president —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batfinkw (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be separate articles. FYI while the Queen is the ceremonial head of state of Canada and the Commonwealth of (Former British Empire) Nations, she has no official "power" in Canada.

[edit] why the redirect?

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

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

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

[edit] What?

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

My first reaction to it was similar but I eventually came to a somewhat different conclusion after actually reading the whole thing (no easy feat), so I just tagged the intro. The article needs a lot of work—rewriting, copyediting, as well as just a lot of cutting—but I think if it were about a quarter of its present size it could be one of a number of worthwhile supplementary articles to Etiquette (which could stand a little work of its own). I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to draw on fact (or at least reliable source) so that it is no longer based on personal experience, opinion, and anecdote. The information referring solely to the U.S. absolutely needs to go unless the article is changed to Etiquette in North America, which perhaps it should. I'm still a little dubious about etiquette unique to Canada. Rivertorch (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed the page to Etiquette in Canada and the United States as that is what it use to be. I don't think Etiquette in North America is a good title, because North America technically includes Mexico and Central America, whose etiquette is different then the U.S. and Canada Ctjf83talk 17:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parents and children

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

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

[edit] Too much information

I winced repeatedly while first reading this article. There were so many things listed as correct but that are simiply contrary to standard etiquette.

Many important points of traditional American (US and Canada) etiquette are left out. Much of what is included is incorrect or not related to etiquette.

Etiquette is a very extensive subject, and trying to cover everything or even touch on all topics in one article is too much. I really think that the English Wikipedia etiquette article for the US and Canada should be broken up into smaller articles. At the very least, the "Generalizations" section needs to have some subheadings.

Thanks in advance for any procedural advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njsustain (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is odd...

Is this really supposed to be here?

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

It looks like vandalism.

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




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

[edit] Nuclear Bomb Option

This article needs to be demolished and completely rebuilt. It looks like everyone from every culture anywhere has added their very POV two cents. Nothing is sourced. Voice constantly shifts. Occasionally it reads like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article. It's one of the worst I've ever seen. I think a good model for what this article could be like the (imperfect) one on the california dialect. Youdontsmellbad (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)