Talk:List of faux pas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 3 October 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

.... this article is too long and should become a category with articles for each sub heading.

For a December 2005 deletion debate of this article see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of faux pas

I've remove some items from the U.S. section. Things like "using sexually explicit language in formal social settings" and "using derogatory terms for a demographic group" is so blatantly obvious and universal that it can hardly be called a faux pas.

in many other countries racist language toward minorities is acceptable. the latter is worth keeping.

Contents

[edit] Line needs clarification

"Curtsying to royalty, if one is a citizen of the United States. " Is this indicating that curtsying to royalty is the faux pas, or that NOT curtsying to royalty is the vioalation? Just a little confusing. --06:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)James J. L. Marshall

I presume that it indicates that curtsying to royalty is the faux pas. Nevertheless, I don't think this item really belongs here altogether. Faux pas are social rule violations, and I don't think there's a realy social rules against the U.S. citizens curtsying to royalties. There's an ideological conflict, yes, but not social rules; as in: people won't be offended automatically if they find an American curtsying to royalty. In addition, there are plenty of U.S. citizens who also hold citizenship in monarchic countries, such as the U.K. It's certainly no faux pas for them to curtsy to royalty. It's really a personal choice. Uly 13:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Not leaving your knife and fork in any fashion other than parallel, with the head of the cutlery at the top of plate." Is the "not" there an error? This sentence seems to suggest that leaving your knife and fork parallel with the head (knifes have a head!?) at the top is a faux pas and any other disposition isn't, which seems...unlikely. And as a 34 year old Brit I've never heard any such thing. In a very formal Silver Service setting a diner can use the disposition of their cutlery to signal to the waiting staff that they have finished eating or are just paused for a moment, but I don't know of a any faux pas in this area. Sounds like some made-up bourgeois nonsense to me. As do a few other items.

What's the purpose of the "Dick's Sporting Goods" reference (apparently it's a store in the USA) in the UK section? As far as I know, the vulgar use of "dick" is common to both the US and the UK, so it seems rather pointless unless there's some other meaning implied. --Wintersweet 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Last line on the Japanese List about slanty eyes is flat out wrong and somewhat racist. Does not seem possible to edit out the comment however.

[edit] Purpose of this list

Is this list really necessary? It's not (nor could it ever be) complete, nor is it really divided up as well as it could be. In the United States at least (and presumably elsewhere), faux pas vary greatly across generations, social classes, social groups, occupations, religions, and races. At the very least I think it should be expanded to include subcategories under each country, or everything that isn't a near-universal faux pas within a country should be eliminated.

But couldn't a few examples in the Faux pas article suffice? Since this is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide, it seems pointless to have a list of faux pas.

I consider that this list is not just for travelers. Mailing a gift parcel with a clock to China, Taiwan, or possibly other Chinese-speaking areas, is a faux pas even if the sender is not traveling. I speak Chinese so I still observe this. This list should stay.--Jusjih 04:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The list suffers very serious difficulties.

1. Its unevenness is a big problem, because it effects the juxtaposition of very serious faux pas with minor ones. It is therefore very difficult from this article to discern which are serious and which are not. Many of the faux pas in the United States (I am American), for example, I was either not aware of or had perceived to be more pet peeves than faux pas. Contrariwise, I am sure that there faux pas in other countries that are quite serious, and nonetheless not mentioned here.

I think that the reason, on why anything is a faux pas should be stated, this would make it more clear on what is rude and what is an anoyance. -- Victor Bogado

2. Some of the faux pas are not faux pas, or are otherwise very obvious.

3. The mentioning of a faux pas under one country suggests it is not a faux pas in others, which is very misleading. If it cannot be determined whether there are actually any places where something in question is not inappropriate, then it should absolutely not be in the list. If it is not obvious in which country it is acceptable, then that information should be somehow provided.

I agree, there are many point is the list that seem to me too general that are probably bad in any country. -- Victor Bogado

4. There are probably not more faux pas in the UK than in Germany; why are there then so many more UK faux pas in this article. This per se is not a serioius problem, except that it looks a bit silly. It however causes other problems such as 1.

5. I just forgot a big one. In short, this is one rough article. I would recommend starting revising by cutting out large swaths of the North America and UK sections.

6. Also, things that are generally true in some variant, where the specifics are determined by the situation would be much better in a general list at the top. For example, for asking Australians about koalas, and baby-eating dingos, aside from probably not being a huge faux pas, it could be expressed in general, that asking trite questions relating to something for which the country is disproportionally famous is always going to be a bit tiresome.

It might be easier to put these pieces of information in relevant country sections and dispense with the list, as suggested earlier. The benefit of retaining it is mostly that such a list would be rather interesting, were it any good. Whoever revises the list has a real task.

I think the list helps to clarify the differences between the day to day cultures, sure it may not be complete, but it is interesting and informative to people who are traveling. -- Victor Bogado

--Padde 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should not be deleted

I think this is rather good. Should not be deleted.

When a list grows large enough, it could however be migrated to its own page.

--70.49.158.29 06:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spain List

Under Spain it says simply, "Giving money (for the petrol) to someone who gives you a ride home." - does this mean that it would be improper to offer money or that it is expected? Please clarify this line.

Tips: You DO leave tips just as in other european countries. It is not nice to leave too little change. It can vary from the small change if it's just a coffee, but you should be generous if you had an expensive dinner. Especially tourists are expected to leave better tips than locals. Local languages: You can't do anything if you don't know the local language, so people won't care, especially if you're foreign.

--82.158.232.129 08:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC) "Most spaniards have very low spoken-English skills and some of them even refuse to try to speak it and ask foreigners to speak spanish. You should avoid in any case argueing whether Spanish or English is a better language, and put all of your efforts in trying to express yourself with gestures if it's needed."

A correction, this is not exactily true, it depends on the age of your interlocutor, old people usually (at this moment) don't speak english, specially outside big cities, so check first your location and the age of the speaker before trying directly a question in english. Most young-medium age people studied english at school, and even like the language. A wonderfull list apart this point. A spaniard :)

[edit] Germany List

"Germany is a smoking society, and non-smokers are expected to accept this. It is considered gauche to make a fuss or object to someone smoking. Simply remove yourself quietly."

This seems questionable to me. In most public places there are designated smoking areas, and when this is not the case, starting to smoke without asking "Stört es Sie/dich wenn ich rauche?" (Is it OK if I smoke?) is considered impolite.

That paragraph was BS. It now reflects the habits in Germany better. 84.187.135.84 13:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GHANA LIST

Number one in Ghana is totally wrong. Having sex infornt of the husband's parents will lead to you being ostracized.

[edit] UK List

The writer seems a bit angry occasinally. And of course it is interesting why folks in the UK drive on the left! There doesn't need to be a reason for something to be interesting; it's called curiosity and the human's need for seeking understanding of the unknown. If we aren't to ask, that should be said, and that is all, though it is nice that the answer is provided here. Padde 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Chewing gum/eating with the mouth open? Is this considered faux pas just here in the UK or elsewhere? Max naylor 11:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be worth adding that in Britain, it is rude for people of foreign nationality to speak their language in the presence of english speaking people. This is because it is intepreted as dismissive and unsociable. --88.109.105.245 13:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No it isn't, it's acceptable to speak in a foreign language so long as the speakers include the non-speaker in some form, eg adding little phrases in English, or only speaking briefly in their language, in a way which clarifies that they are not talking about the non-speaker. The British list is pretty rubbish anyway. Reads like it's been written by some American tourist eager to share their experiences of the "Brits" after a holiday here.... Rusty2005 19:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds a little like it's been written by an american or certainly someone not from the UK but I definitley maintain my original point. In a social situation, it's considered rude to talk in a foreign language in front of guests or english speaking friends. I'm not talking about everyday life because of course, this would be expecting a lot for all non-UK residents and travellers to speak english all the time. Equally though, english people don't like it when someone employed in an english speaking company cannot speak english, for example, ordering a take-away or shopping. In the last two or three years, I've lost count how many times I've encountered people who work in the UK that can barely speak english. I think this is a common view in the UK. Bobbyfletch85 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, I'm British and I feel it is impolite if someone of ethnic origin speaks to someone else in their native language in front of you. It always gives me the impression they're hiding something from you, otherwise they could speak in English. Hanshi 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Someone of ethnic origin" is at best meaningless and is probably indicative of Hanshi's feelings towards non-English-speaking and non-white folk. I would anticipate that speaking in a language not easily understood by all persons present is considered to be poor form in most societies and illustrates how a potentially useful article about uniquely local customs has expanded into a list of universally derided behaviour. Did you know that in the UK it is considered a faux pas to punch somebody in the face? Or that in Uganda it is considered rude to set fire to your host's furniture? Terwilliger 13:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointing isn't rude in the UK. Why is this in the list? 84.70.53.120 22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wiping your cock in someone's hair after sex is a genuine Faux Pas. Why was it reverted?

The UK section seems to be written with a bit of an air of superiority concerning US customs. Amusingly, the sections with this air of superiority actually seem to be customs shared by both citizens of the US and the UK. For example, the section on saying "please" is written with this tone. Generally, "please" is more appropriate in the US as well. The same is true of bringing a bottle of wine or gift to dinner. This is also the custom in the US, though the author seems to think in the US it's more appropriate to vocally thank the host. It is? This is news to me, and almost everyone I consulted. Strangely, under US customs, the same custom of bringing wine or a gift is mentioned.

Some of the items on the list seem to be more the reserve of formal events, rather than generic things. Shaking hands when you meet is primarily a business gesture, I do it at work regularly but I have never shaken the hand of someone in, say, a pub on meeting.
The rounds-system part is a little dubious too. My understanding of the system (and the way me and my friends operate the system) is this:
  • Individuals in the round buy all others in the round the drink of their choice. It is rude to limit their choice, but it is also rude to drink extravegant drinks unless it is the 'theme' of that round (e.g. a round of cocktails round)
  • On entering the round you should not leave the round system until either A) a complete rotation or B) you leave. If B you should endeavour to ensure you do not leave immediately prior to when your round is due.
  • Asking round-members to buy non-round members drinks (thus creating a mini-round of 2 people) complicates matters and is best avoided.
  • Actively trying to 'save' your round for the cheaper establishments can be seen as rude, particularly if it is a regular occurance!
Anyhoo my idea of rounds aside, I wondered whether there might be space for a few other English faux paxs:

1) Please and thank-you are required for virtually all social-transactions, not thanking people is seen as ignorant/rude (though I guess this is common in all cultures?) 2) Not thanking people who 'let you out' (e.g. a junction/from your parking space) when driving is considered impolite. If it is dark a courtesy flashing of the lights is a good subsitute.

To be fair though these lists could go on for ever. We should try to whittle them down to only those that are very common and maybe even split business-etiquette and social-etiquette apart?

[edit] American list

The article seems to imply that toasts are offered all the time in America when people hve guests over for dinner. I've lived here all my life and only seen toasts offered at weddings and when business colleagues have a farewell dinner for a colleague who is leaving. This is much more common in movies than in real life. A toast at a normal dinner among friends and acquaintances would cause embarrassment.

The American list is very long, and I have doubts as to whether several of the items are unique enough to America to merit inclusion. For example:

  • Asking the wearer if an item of jewelry is real or fake.
    • I would think that this would be rude in any culture! Same for engaging in sexual behavior in front of others who have not expressed a desire to watch!
  • Sitting or standing too close to a stranger or acquaintance. A distance of an arm's length is preferable, although most U.S. residents will understand that in crowded situations may have to sit or stand closer than that.
    • This is an example of the kind of thing that should be on this list, because it is specific to America. Many countries have a closer usual distance that Americans would find intrusive, while people from Europe might think that Americans are being cold and distant.
    • In many countries, (I believe Brazil is included in this), personal space when talking is very different from the US. Having a conversation with them can be extremely awkward for an American if they are not used to this. This is a basic interpersonal communication issue and is covered by theory in that field. I will see if I can find a source for this. Chapium 19:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Could we not have a section for USA, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand, rather than having sepatate sections for each? I have lived in all countries and there are very few differences - the only ones I have noted are those which are obviously exclusive to those countries, such as referring to an Australian as a New Zealander. The fact that the American list is so much larger than the others implies that those behaviours are not faux pas in other English-speaking Westernised countries

The American list is getting disorganized. It should be better rewritten to explain how these things are considered faux pas with their background notes. I have rewritten the Chinese faux pas to add some background notes.--Jusjih 15:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm struggling with the bit of the wording in tip about 'friendly' interactions, specifically, "Many foreigners who travel to America thus *unjustly* find Americans superficial. Although Americans treat one another in a very friendly way, they nevertheless understand and maintain the limits of their relationships and the distinction between acquaintances and friends." It seems to me like it's got some NPOV issues; specifically, I'm not sure the word "unjustly" belongs there, and, although I can't lay a finger on it, something about the second sentence doesn't sit well with me. I've been inactive here for a while, so I'm curious if others agree with me or not. Fogster 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia and Singapore anyone?

can we have a section related to these two countries - they also differ from Indonesia on some counts. That'd be interesting. –JR

[edit] Bringing wine to dinner in France

FWIW, I am french, yet I don't think bringing wine to dinner is impolite; I guess it mostly depends on two factors:

  • whether there will be many people; you cannot always expect your hosts to have 5 or 6 appropriate bottles ready

for the dinner you are invited to.

  • who is your host. It is quite customarily to bring a bottle of wine to friends over dinner, though it is more often offered as a gift rather than drunk immediately; the more formal the setting, the more you might want to make it clear that the bottle is a gift and not part of the dinner indeed; but in a formal setting you would not bring any food or drink in the first place, as it would imply you do not trust your host's cook. However, among friends, it is not uncommon to bring a bottle to be enjoyed during the evening.

I think I'll just delete that item if there is no objection in a couple of days. Sam 15:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I know people who get annoyed by this. Between friends, anyway, most of the étiquette is dropped. Anonymous Coward, 2006-01-13, 17:05 (America/Mexico City)

[edit] A number of questions

Under the heading France:

  • "Asking for cheese after taking dessert."
    • I always thought it was rude in a social setting to request any food or drink not offered by the host. Also, why cheese, why specifically after dessert, and why specifically in France? Is this practice commonplace somewhere, and I am simply unaware of it? Or is specifically requesting cheese after dessert particularly bad? I think this needs some clairification.
      • Cheese should always be taken before dessert. --193.118.203.3 12:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know if this is customary in France to take cheese before dessert, but from a health standpoint, it's better to have cheese last because it neutralizes the sugars (?) in your mouth, preventing damage to your teeth through caries. Eating sweets last is maybe popular, but I would not use the word "should" here as the person before me suggests. Tempel 13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
            • The usual order of courses in France is to take the cheese before the dessert course. 86.130.172.83 00:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the heading Germany and Austria:

  • "As is the case in many languages with such grammatical rules, addressing someone with the familiar second person pronoun (du) when they should be addressed with the formal form (Sie)."
    • This rule is not specific to those regions. I assume that would be rude when speaking in German, regardless of geographical location. Also, that is true for every language that has both formal and informal versions of the second person pronoun. (ie. French) I would not include this under the heading France however, becasue that is rude in other places where French is spoken (ie. French Canada) This rule is restated under the heading the Netherlands as well. Perhaps a general section should be made with faux pas that apply in many situations around the world in many different languages.

Under the heading Japan:

This is not so much a problem with the article as it is a genuine question asked out of curiosity. The following two rules are stated in refrence to New Year's Cards:

  • "Not sending a New Year's postcard to someone who sent you one. "

and

  • "Sending a New Year's postcard to someone who suffered a death in the family during the past year. "
    • In the instance that someone who suffered a death in the family sends you a New Years card, which rule takes precedence? Or is it that someone who has had a death in the family will not send New Years cards? Also, how close a family member does the second rule refer to? Immediate family (ie. parent, sibling, spouse or child) or would one also not send one to someone who's uncle, aunt, or cousin had died?

Under Scandinavia:

  • "Placing a phonecall to somebody after 10PM/22:00."
    • This is also rude in North America. I am told that this is also a faux pas in France, and a friend of mine from Poland was familiar with the rule as well, which would make me think that this rule is universal. Also I thought the rule was actually not to place a call after 9PM/21:00, unless of course previous arangements were made.
  • "Calling Sweden and Norway 'Scandinavia'."
    • The heading for this section breaks this rule! Should it be changed? Further, doesn't the term Scandinavia also apply to Finland, Denmark and Iceland? Is this why it is faux pas?
      • Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. If you want to include Iceland and Finland the term is "the Nordic countries".

Under the heading United States:

Many if not all of these faux pas are also considered inappropriate in Canada as well. Perhaps the heading should be changed to the more general 'North America'.

  • "Kissing on the cheeks as a greeting between men and women in a business settings. This is normal practice in many countries. Although not considered rude in the US, it is normally considered inappropriate. "
    • Kissing on the cheeks as a greeting between two men under any circumstances is considered inappropriate. Also I believe that in a business setting this is considered inappropriate between any two people.
  • "Addressing Christian religious holiday greetings to observant Jews. (E.g., "Merry Christmas" or "Christ has risen.") Some exceptions could include: 1) responding in kind when a Jewish person greets you with "Merry Christmas," or 2) greeting a Jewish person who is attending a Christian religious ceremony or holiday party as a guest."
    • This rule could be made far more general. Firstly it would also be rude for a Christian to address someone of any other religious persuaion with a Christian holiday greeting (the exception is of course an athiest or agnostic. It is generally safe to wish an athiest a 'Merry Christmas' as many still do celebrate Christmas). Also 'Christ is risen' seems somewhat antiquated and personally, I have never heard this outside of church, however I could be wrong. Also I suppose it would be a faux pas for a Jewish person to say 'Happy Hanukkah' to a Christian. Finally, wouldn't this be rude anywhere that has people of different religions?
  • "Failing to make a telephone call at time - or within a timeframe - that you have specified."
    • Is breaking a promise or commitment not faux pas everywhere?

Also, perhaps a section should be added about Quebec. A number of interesting social rules have arisen here because both French and English are commonly spoken. (In more rural areas of the province English is rare, however in large cities such as Montreal a large percentage of the population does speak English as a first language.)

This is not something that needs to be fixed, just a strange observation. Its interesting how when one does not understand the reason behind a particular rule, the rule seems exceedingly arbitrary. However, the rule probably seems like common sense to someone who does understand the reasons behind it.

Finally perhaps a list of internet faux pas would be interesting to see (ie. faux pas in message boards, chat rooms, IM conversations or even Wikipedia). It would be interesting to see how faux pas on the internet compare to faux pas in face to face situations. Great Green Arkelseizure 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faux pas in Mexico

In Mexico is considered quite rude (though a common habit) to blow your car's horn five continuous times (usually, the last one more larger than the others) since it is a direct offense to the other driver's mother. Manuel Cuevas 21:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This two are generally untrue:

Untrue because children often get to toast with soda or juice. Not toasting is worse than toasting without alcohol but it isn't much of an issue either:

  1. Toasting with water is considered bad luck and, in a lesser degree, toasting with any non-alcoholic drink.

I am mexican and know many places around here and never found this behavior

  1. Eating all of a food on your plate indicates that you want a second portion of that item. To indicate you are finished, leave just a few bites.

[edit] Holland

"Addressing the country as Holland is considered incorrect in most parts of the Netherlands, since Holland only covers 2 of the provinces of the country." I know a dutch girl on MSN, and I asked her about Holland or Netherlands, she seemed happy for me to call her country either name. So maybe calling it a faux pas is overstating it? -OOPSIE- 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Know specific polls have been done. And if they had she may well be in the minority.--Greasysteve13 06:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


I am German and I live in the Netherlands and although it is of course true that Holland directly refers to the Northern provinces only the usage of Holland as a synonym for the Netherlands is quite common. Not the least with soccer fans ("Hup Holland"). I think it is more a know-it-all obsesssion than a faux-pas. It is of course good to be aware of that, but for the rest 213.51.119.151 12:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreigners imitating the Australian accent à la Steve Irwin greatly annoy Australians.

I'm Australian. And I'd find this pretty funny. It may depend on who is doing this though.--Greasysteve13 06:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the circumstances since your post, it would definitely be a faux pas now (and in very poor taste).

[edit] Australia being refered to "Down Under".

I didn't even know this was a faux pas. Isn't it based on a song?--Greasysteve13 06:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faux Pas Penalties In Australia

If you commit too many faux pas' in Australia, here's what happens.

First, Mad Max hunts you down in his V8 Interceptor. Once you're caught, it's no more Shrimp On The Barbie for you, Mate. You'll be thrown in Cell Block H. They may make you do maintenance on the Sydney Harbor Bridge with the rest of the Men At Work. And if you're a Thickhead, they'll put you on a bus named Priscilla all the way to Alice Springs to do a casino kareoke show in drag. They might even cut off your Air Supply or subject you to the Oblivious Neutron-Bomb.

Too right!

69.39.172.124 09:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


hmm.

Referring to Australia as down under is perfectly ok. As is asking about icons like Koalas. (it may be tedious, but its not in the least insulting)

-G

You can commit a faux pas by annoying people as well as insulting them. Asking about leprechauns in Ireland would be similar. Incidentally, all the Irish ones are correct, in my experience. --Sir Ophiuchus 22:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globalize

I added the {{globalize}} tag, since coverage of faux pas in Africa, South America and Central Asia is completely absent. RexNL 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This line is pretty funny: "One should not refer to Canadians as "Americans". (Referring to them as North Americans is acceptable.) "America Junior" is right out."

[edit] Verification?

Most of the things in all of the lists seem hastily written based on someone's personal experience. That doesn't necessarily stop it from being a valid article, but it does stop it from being encyclopedic. I think the whole thing needs to be dramatically cut down and some sources sound, there's lots of things in there that seem pretty vague or useless.

"In Britain it is considered tiresome to ask why things differ from continental Europe and the United States" - is this really a faux pas specific to Britain? It's not good conversation, but this article isn't called "How to make British friends", I don't think many people in Britain would be especially insulted by someone asking them why they drive on the left of the road. "I don't know" would generally be the only response! Matt 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need references. However, we have to remember that there's such thing as "unwritten rule" and this article talks exactly about that. You might find some things in manuals of good manners, but I'm sure you'll not find other items even though they are true and probably important for people who visit that country. So, I propose to challange only facts that are doubtful, even in the rest of Wikipedia we don't ask for references for every single thing (although I agree that we need more references in general, sometime is just silly). -- AdrianTM 13:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-title

Why not title this page "List of faux pas/A guide for South Americans abroad"?

[edit] Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Serbia, Poland

"Giving somebody an even number of flowers. This suggests that you wish to have sex with them." -- In Russia an even number of flowers is used in a funeral ceremonies. Nothing to do with sex.

"Not using a knife when eating fish. This is considered rustic and boorish. Fish should not be broken up with a fork." -- This is simply not true for Russia.

Probably not true for Romania either (or maybe I'm not very well educated) -- AdrianTM 21:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Just removed. It's better to put those in specific categories rather then general. -- AdrianTM 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Walking into church with your hat on" - extremly impolite. In Romania men must take their hats off, but married women must have their head covered.

One might add: "In Russia it is frequently considered impolite to leave an empty wine (vodka, wiskey etc.) bottle on the table during a dinner. Empty bottles should be removed from the table by the host or, in informal situations, may be put under the table by the person closest to the bottle."

Well, I would say, that putting Romania and Hungary to Central Europe group, whereas Poland is the Eastern Europe is pretty faux pas ;-). Poland should be together with Hungary in Central Europe (I am not sure about Romania).

Placing Romania in Balkan group is probably a faux pas *grins*, East Europe maybe, but Romania is not even part of Balkan Peninsula (except for a small part of Romania). -- AdrianTM 21:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Moved Poland to Central Europe. -- AdrianTM 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italy

I've added many cultural faux pas in the list relative to Italy, as it was obviously lacking.

Showing envy or paying compliments to children or the elderly, without spitting afterwards. Alternatively, if spitting is impractical, one should add a negative comment instead such as "Ahh, such an intelligent boy... but so ugly!"
Until you've made this mistake with a new-born child you've no idea how people react to this in southern Italy and, I hear, Sicily. Yes it's based on some ridiculous concept (evil eye, or malocchio as they call it), but then so is saying "Bless you" after someone sneezes (evil spirits enter as you sneeze out your soul) and we all know how people can get shitty over not hearing that when they sneeze. Sure, not everyone cares, but "Bless you" is on this list... why not include the spitting/taking back a compliment? ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 23:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North America

I just changed the North America title to North America (United States & Canada). Most of the items do not apply to Mexico. For example, arriving on time for a party might be considered a faux pas in Mexico. The custom is to arrive 1-2 hours after the specified time. If you arrive early things will not be ready and the hosts will feel pressured. -Nathan Phillips

[edit] What about korea?

There must surely be many faux pas unique to other asian countries besides Japan and China/Taiwan, such as asian cold war conflict zones (eg: korea, vietnam, laos, cambodia etc). These countries all have very distinct cultures, histories, zeitgeists and political situations, so it would be unwise leave out all the other asian countires and just treat them like they were under the umbrella of China/Taiwan and Japan. In fact even with those two/three countries, the faux pas lists could be far more developed. The cultures of the countries are very complex, and often complete, long, books are written on how westerners can avoid offending the locals at one particular asian country. -Joel Wilson

[edit] Also, What about Africa, israel??

Why is it that small countries such as New Zealand (yes admittedly a fully developed country, but still of little population and global significance) have sections devoted to them, but yet not one country of the entire MASSIVE CONTINENT of Africa has faux pas. I would think that the many cultures of Africa would have countless faux pas traps (eg: in one (or maybe more) african culture(s) it is customary to spit in a person's face when greeting them!). If you only want globally visible/developed countries, then at the very least there should be a section devoted to South Africa - at least something on some part of the African continent! Also, I was thinking that there would probably be many faux pas with Jewish people. Why not put in a section for Israel, rather than just one or casual comments regarding offensive faux pas to Jews as part of the United States section. -Joel Wilson

Why would there "probably be many faux pas with Jewish people?" Since Jews have lived in so many cultures around the globe, if anything you might think that they're more forgiving of social slights than other ethnic groups. Although I could see how you might offend lots of Jews if you're the kind of person who goes around making generalizations about them.

[edit] Talking about WW2 in Germany

I am German and really do not agree that talking about WW2 or Nazi past is offensive. It is a sensible matter and as a foreigner you should probably abstain from making jokes about it as this might be conceived as irritating. But there is nothing offensive in addressing such issues in a serious talk. One should ust keep in mind it is still a very sensible matter in Germany. 213.51.119.151 12:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Talking about Germany's Nazi-past is ok, unless the Germany of today is not reduced to that time.

Since I'm the third person with the same oppinion, I'm going to change the paragraph a little. I'm happy for any comments on this!! --Ralze 11:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sniffle vs. snuffle

There's the sentence "It is considered impolite to sniffle in public". I looked up "sniffle" at http://dict.leo.org which showed no translation for it. Instead, the verb "snuffle" exists and fits the intended message. Unless there are people here who insist that "sniffle" is the correct verb, I suggest changing the word "sniffle" into "snuffle". Tempel 13:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the US, it is definitely "sniffle". Gaohoyt 16:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm an American and I've never heard of "snuffle." Sniffling is what you do when you have a drippy nose and no hankerchief.
The OED has 'sniffle' and 'snuffle' as having slightly different meanings - sniffling is when one sniffs repeatedly, whereas snuffling is when one's breathing is noisy because of a cold. For English-language Wikipedia I'd be more concerned about what English-language rather than German-to-English dictionaries say. Matthew 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Would a US reader understand "snuffle" as well? I just don't like the fact that snuffle is in a popular German online dictionary and sniffle is not. Tempel 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, be careful with the online dictionaries. I looked it up here and it contained both words.

And the language to be used on english wikipedia is... (british vs. american)? I have trouble finding that info (I'd like to know as I edit articles rather often). Tempel 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this is because the "popular German online dictionary" is lacking, rather than that the writer was incorrect. Since a quick web search reveals that "sniffle" is indeed common to both the US and the UK (and presumably Canada as well), it would be the correct choice. --Wintersweet 22:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian list confirmed

Hi, I as a Hungarian hereby confirm the Hungarian list. In most situations the listed items are really the case. Exceptions possible, but I think this whole list is about "things in general".

[edit] Accepting gifts

From hearsay I've heard different rules for accepting gifts in several countries, perhaps someone who can confirm them would like to add them to the main page?

  • Greece: the offered person is supposed to refuse a few times while the offering person repeats his offer. Only after a few of those the offered is allowed to expect it. Meaning: Do not accept right away.
  • Germany (and USA as well, I think): Contrary to Greece, one can accept an offer right away nowadays, and refusing first might even mean the offering person takes you seriously and does not attempt to offer it again.
  • In Asian countries (e.g. Thailand, and I believe in Japan as well) the offering person should use both hands to offer an item if possible, or it appears rude.

Tempel 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This can be true with the Asian countries. I studied intercultural communication and all professional books emphasise, that in Japan e.g. you also have to hand over the name card with both hands. This can be true for the gifts as well.
To the other question, I live here in Germany for a few months now, and so have the possibility, to observe their culture as a kind of "outsider". In the south, I really have this feeling, what you mentioned. People are giving each other presents more freely, than it stays in the books. Though I still do not think, that for a negotiation where both parties are German, they would want to impress each other with gifts. For comers from new cultures this case is different. As host, they -the Germans - also want to be polite, and of course, they study the foreigners cultural backgorunds before negotiating with them. So did you mean this?
I do not understand what you ask. I talked in my first two points about how to accept a gift (i.e. whether to refuse first or accept right away), while you seem to speak about offering gifts. This is not about when to gift, as there's no faux pas there to mention about Germany, I think (although: red roses usually mean love in Germany as well, so one should not gift them without that intimate meaning, but other than that I cannot think of faux pas in regards to gifting, nothing serious, at least) Tempel 10:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (from Germany)

[edit] Hands under table

Some european countries such as France and Germany, have table manners where it's expected to keep both hands above the table, i.e. keep them visible. In the USA, OTOH, it is expected to use only one hand for eating (that's why one first cuts the things on one's plate into small pieces with fork and knife, then puts the knife away and eats only with fork) and leaves the other hand (left usually) under the table on one's lap.

I hesitate to add this to the main page as one could start adding this to almost every country's list (especially because there is not default from with then some countries vary, but each country may see their own the default, meaning that a reader from that country should see the contrary pointed out with any other country that applies). This may get out of hand...

Oh well... Tempel 06:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any sources for this but as far as I know table manners in The Netherlands and France do not always expect you to keep both hands on the table. If you are eating a soup, which requirs only one hand, it is perfectly ok to keep one hand on one's lap. As most courses are eaten with two hands (fork-knive, fork-spoon) this means automaticaly you keep both hands above the table. However, what is really important is that you never put your elbows on the table.

Disagree... this may be regional in the US but at least in the Northeast you more commonly see the method where the fork stays in the left hand and knife in the right. Preslicing your food would probably be regarded somewhat childish -- the only time it's commonly seen is when a parent precuts a difficult item (e.g. steak) for a small child. Tom K. 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number Four in China

I believe the number Four is considered a bad number in China (as 7 and 13 may be in western cultures), and it appears to be so in a stronger sense, as I've seen houses where the elevators do not list a 4th floor, but skip to the 5th instead (I've never seen a western avoid the numbers 7 or 13 that badly). I wonder if one can easily cause a faux pas to offering gifts that use the number or causing the number to appear in other ways to someone? Tempel 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Couple of ways of looking at it: In Feng Shui, it's said the sound of 4 in Cantonese sounds like the word 'die' so there's a negative connection, or implied hex, with the number 4. Some Feng Shui practitioners (such as the 'Black Hat' school) use the number four differently so aren't bothered by it. I have heard of there being no 13th floor in some high rise buildings in America but that could be urban myth Rossi12.21pm, 2 Oct 2006 EST

FWIW, in the USA 7 is actually considered lucky whereas 13 is unlucky, although there isn't much of a faux pas associated with either. Origin29 17:31 CST, 10 Nov 2006

[edit] Confusing Austria

I don't know why it should be insult to refer to a German as an Austrian, since Germany is much bigger. He would be just amused or confused, probably just like a US-citizen would be if he would be called a Canadian. I changed that.

Furthermore I removed "Jokes along the lines of confusing Austria and Australia are considered at least as dull.", because in German, the 2 words don't sound similiar (Österreich und Australien), and the people's humor differs. --Abe Lincoln 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia, New Zealand, etc...

From personal experience and the mere fact that I am an Australian, I can honestly assure people that most Australians won't get offended if they're mistaken for New Zealanders; it's a non-issue for most of us. It's not very common for us to be mistaken for a New Zealander to begin with. New Zealanders, on the other hand, do get annoyed as they're far likelier to get confused with us than vice versa. Why? There's more Australians than New Zealanders in this world, Australia arguably has a more prominent place in the world's notice than NZ, etc. Not to mention, to the uninitiated, our accents are easily thought of as identical. Peter1968 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I find it somewhat ironic that the section header is titled "Australia, New Zealand" and the first "faux pas" listed has to do with lumping the two nations together. Agent 86 08:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What's so ironic about that? The two nations often get confused with one another - especially famous citizens of one country being mistaken for that of the other, Russell Crowe is often thought of as an Australian when he's not. Australia and New Zealand get "lumped" together as they are the only predominantly Anglo-Celtic countries in that part of the world and they have a close relationship and a fairly common ancestry. So, it's quite frequent that someone not from either country, such as an American or a Briton, mistake something for one from the other. Peter1968 08:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American political correctness and body language

I find most of the stuff listed under United Statian faux pas to be pretty obvious, and a little bit out of date. In my experience, the big blunders to be made by europeans going to the united states, would be related to use of language.

United Statians have this tendency to avoid all talking about body parts and body functions, to a degree that is unthinkable in most European cultures. (i.e. restroom, powder once nose etc). While most europeans would find swearing words reffering to the devil, hell or God most offending, it seems that words related to body functions are deemed worse in the US.

Most of the entries for the U.S. don't really rise to the level of faux pas, they're just a matter of manners. A good travel book will probably cover most of them. Gaohoyt 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (in the U.S.)

Which raises a question for me - when American movies come out over here (Asia-Pacific region) there's so much foul language in the scripts and smut, body parts and functions jokes, that I get the wrong impression of the greater United Statsian public. US-ers I meet here are much more polite, refined, friendly and reasonable than these impressions go. And they are just the tourists! Rossi 12.27pm 3 October 2006 EST.

[edit] Sources

There are almost no citations for [[WP:|verification]] in this article. Is there anything good that shouldn't be removed if third party sources aren't added? - brenneman {L} 12:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States faux pas

In business, it seems to be acceptable to address a man as "sir", but do women take offense when they're called "ma'mm" (unless they're in government or the military) because it makes them feel old?

This can be a tricky one - Ma'am implies more respect and typically reserved for older females, and women in authority (judges, officers, military, someone's grandmother, etc.). Miss is generally the more acceptable in most situations. Also the very confusing Mrs. vs. Ms. should be addressed.
This also has a lot to do with the region of the US and the formality of the situation. In the south, it's quite common to use "sir" and "ma'am" to show respect to elders, strangers, and especially those in authority (ie, a police officer). It's also quite common in more formal businesses or in a new business relationship. "Miss" is sometimes considered antiquated or slightly condescending. Origin29

[edit] Unverified and unsourced

This list is based more on stereotypes or guesswork than anything else. I won't speak for other countries, but pretty much everything on the "Canada" list is either wrong, guesswork, or has to do more with etiquette than anything else. In fact, a lot of these things vary from region to region. I'm inclined to delete pretty much everything on the list, except that which is pretty much a given, such as not referring to Canadians as "Americans" or not to assume that stores accept US currency. Agent 86 08:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faits Faux de Faux Pas

This is one of the most broken Wikipedia entries I’ve read in a long time. Things one can or should (rather than shouldn't) do don't belong on this list. Taboos common throughout (or throughout and beyond) the English-speaking world don't belong on this list, nor do obscure superstitions no longer important to most people in an area, nor do things which are legally prohibited. Linguistic matters such as the T-V distinction are out of place here. It’s unnecessary and pointless to assert things like it’s a faux pas to refer to Austrians as Germans (is there anybody in the world who likes to be misidentified?) Wikipedia articles like this in which we endeavor to catalog things in a conceptual category (rather than list things which can be more concretely defined) almost inevitably degenerate into the morass I see here. I would have voted for deletion had I been involved with the debate earlier. I don't think the article is worth weeding through for edits, I'll simple say "reader beware." --- House of Scandal 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be better if you did weed the article, seeing as it's here to stay. Please? Punkmorten 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

At least at this moment, I can't convince myself the article is worth the effort. Even in the few hours since you and I left our comments, someone has added "In Armenia, leaving your shoes flipped over is bad luck ." That's not a faux pas -- it's a superstition (and its probably taken most seriously by rural great-grandmothers, but that's beside the point). People just aren't getting it. To make this article accurate I would have to delete the contributions of a dozen or more people who would probably want to reintroduce their text or at least debate me about it. -- House of Scandal 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But something that worries me more is the complete lack of edit summaries. By the way I have tried to contact the person (User:Agne) who promised to give the article a thorough cleaning. Let's set a deadline for cleanup of this article - one month from now, every bit of unreferenced information will be removed. Punkmorten 07:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with removing all unreferenced information is that often one is just aware of beliefs that one has grown up with culturally (or been advised of while in other countries), whether through observation or actually being told something as a child. This doesn't mean that it's all available for reference on the internet, which, contrary to the belief of some (and no, I don't mean you), is not the Source of All Knowledge. It's true that having a consensus on accuracy from a handful of people from any given country (and I mean from that country) would probably be a good thing. 67.121.146.188 18:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost a month ago I referred to this article as "one of the most broken Wikipedia entries I’ve read in a long time" and noted that people "just aren't getting it". Things have gotten no better since then. A few days ago I added the "CAVEAT' to the top of the article. Now I wince a little less every time I see a NON-faux pas added to the list. While some might be concerned that this caveat somehow legitimizes the many NON-faux pas on the list, I take the view that since about half the list is inappropriate anyway, worrying about the caveat is like worrying about opening the barndoor after the horse is already miles away. I invite discussion on this matter. -- House of Scandal 12:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

Are there any faux pas which have to do with the Atomium? --84.61.9.109 13:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's the point of talking about Flanders, Wallooons and the like. That belong to the Belgium page. Saying that "It is considered extremely offensive to speak French to a Flemish local or Dutch to a Walloon local." is in my opinion overly exagerated.

Same thing for "This cordon sanitaire is a very sensitive political issue. Questioning it will often have you frowned upon." : I don't think it's interesting to put it here and it's exagerated.

Also not disclosing which party you voted for especially if it's a far right right party is pretty much universal and not a particularity of belgium.

As a Belgian citizen, I have to disagree here. Belgium is a very complex country with three national languages and not one souvereign government but many which often go into conflict. Foreigners are often confused to find out that Belgium is not simply "one country with one language".

Disclosing which party you have voted for is almost never done, regarding of what party you voted for. People leaving the voting stations are often interviewed by the media and rarely if ever admit who they voted for.

Maybe pointing out faux pas is also a faux pas in Belgium?

As for the Atomium, the only "faux pas" is taking pictures of it, this is illegal without paying royalties as explained in the Wikipedia article. 134.58.253.131 11:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

"Referring to the Republic of Ireland as Éire: although this is the official title of the state in the Irish language, it is considered an irksome and patronizing term used only by the English."

This is a sweeping generalisation, and the use of the word 'Éire' is certainly not a faux pas. If you look at the article on Éire you would see that:

"The name Éire features on all Irish coinage (and Irish euro coins), postage stamps, passports and other official state documents issued since 1937 — for instance the Official Seal of the President of Ireland." (emphasis my own)

so the word is extremely common in everyday life in Ireland. As for it being "irksome", again the Éire article is much clearer:

"Since 1949, the term Republic of Ireland has generally been used in preference to Éire, when speaking English. It is sometimes felt that use of "Éire" is associated with a condescending attitude to Ireland in some right-wing quarters of the British media. Technically, as the Republic of Ireland Act enacted in 1948 makes clear, the "Republic of Ireland" is actually a description rather than the name of the state, even if generally used as such." (emphasis my own)

The use of the word Éire is both proper and acceptable. It is astonishing to read that the official name of a country is considered a faux pas within that country, which is certainly not the case. This should be removed or reworded immediately. If anything, it is more relevant to the section on Northern Ireland, where reffering to the northern counties as 'Éire' would indeed be a faux pas.

  • Astonishing maybe, but accurate. Yes, Éire is the official name of the country and appears on money, etc. However, unless one is speaking Irish, the Republic of Ireland is almost never referred to in speach as Éire -- the main exception being by BBC newscasters and other media from the UK. Hence, in conversation, the word Éire rings hard on the ears. House of Scandal 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Padraigk 09:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've cleaned up the Irish section, removing the many speculative assertions that were not referenced or blown way out of proportion.

There seems to be a lot of common confusion around the term "British Isles". This is purely a geographical term, and has no political connotations. While many Irish people seem to take offence this is most likely under the assumption that "British Isles" is a political term. The "British Isles" as a term, is like referring to Spain and Portugal as Iberia. One often finds for example the "trick" quiz question "What is the longest river in the British Isles?", the correct answer to which is the river shannon, Ireland's longest river.

You are missing the point completely. You are arguing that the term "British Isles" is a valid term to use, but the point behind the faux pas is that it has political overtones (see British_Isles#Terminology) so therefore you do not use it because it will cause offence to a large proportion of people in that country, hence a faux pas. This page is not here to argue the logical reasoning behind these faux pas. Padraigk 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


"It is considered rude to distribute mail (usually called 'Post') in brown-coloured envelopes as this implies that you are offering a bribe to the recieving party."

Who the hell wrote that line? It is certainly NOT considered rude to distribute post in a brown envelope. I'm removing the line. Ironcorona 01:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"It is considered rude to distribute mail (usually called 'Post') in brown-coloured envelopes as this implies that you are offering a bribe to the recieving party."


"Referring to Britain and Ireland as the British Isles, or to Britain as the "Mainland". Most Irish people will consider this offensive."

Misleading nonsense - the entire line, but particularly the first part, should be removed.

The British Isles is widely recognized in Ireland as the correct geographical term and is commonly used in the context of weather forecasts, distribution, nature, demographics and so on; stating the the island of Ireland is part of the British Isles is no more controversial than stating that Canada is in North America. Only the Irish equivalent of the most extreme redneck would even blink at the use of this term. Frankly, this sort of tip-toeing around is exasperating, especially as it is usually practised by Americans who don't have a clue about modern Ireland but have a vague awareness, from a film they once saw, that Ireland is full of villagers fuming with resentment and itching for the chance to burn down the English Landlord's house. As it happens, we don't actually work ourselves into a mindless froth whenever we hear the term "British". Suggesting that the use of this term is a faux pas in Ireland is, in itself, an insult, based on a Lucky Charms sterotype of the Irish.

Neither is referring to Great Britain (Great Britain is the geographical term for the larger of the two islands) as "the Mainland" a big deal although I suppose it could be consider a faux pas, insofar as it is, unlike the former term, incorrect. I don't think, however, that I've actually heard anyone use it in over a decade and, as such, I question its inclusion here.

Irishdonny 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Irishdonny, I don't disagree that people in Ireland understand that British Isles is a geographical term and most aren't too thin-skinned about it. This is a testament to the high level of education of the modern Irish population. However, I can attest that there are Irish people in the R.O.I. and abroad who, when asked, say that "Ireland and the UK" is preferred, especially when discussing subjects other than earth sciences. Would you agree that for phrases like (for example), “crime in the British Isles” or “immigration to the British Isles” or “the economy of the British Isles” the words “Ireland and the UK” seem more appropriate? No, one wouldn’t get angry about it, nor would one assume the speaker isn’t aware of the status of R.O.I. as a separate political entity, but doesn’t it ring more correctly? -- House of Scandal 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US under Latin America?

Why is the US listed under Latin America? This is very odd; I have never seen such notation before. Also, it seems the list has basically been gutted. Surely there are more than 2 faux pas for all of the US. --Melissa Della 13:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation about OK-Sign in Germany

The reference #66 is wrong. No one in Germany interprets the "Ok-Sign" with a "certain body part" :-) I would like to delete this confusing part Mkalmes 17:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mkalmes as a german. --82.83.84.244 17:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm german. #1: everyone understands the ok-sign although it might not be common #2: I never heard of it referring to the anus?! Please delete! --Thedudemeister 22:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universal list?

Perhaps this article should begin with a universal list of faux pas followed by individual countries. This would remove some redundancy. -- StAkAr Karnak 17:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. A list of faux pas organised by category, e.g. eating, drinking, greeting, etc. with indications as to which country was concerned in each case would remove a lot of redundancy. However, it will mean that it will be more difficult to find those relevant to one particular country. Padraigk 21:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Example: It's considered very bad manner to pee downstream.(from Kipling) *grins* -- AdrianTM 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. For instance, the Czech part cautions about male and female forms of the surname; but many other languages also have this distinction. In any language with a T-V distinction, using the T form (or the V form) will be a faux pas. Addressing anyone anywhere by the wrong part of their name or title is likely to be a faux pas (so it's more a question of what's the correct form, rather than a country-specific faux pas). --Sabik 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a table with a list of countries/regions on one axis and a list of faux pas on the other? Whichever item applies to a location could be checked off in the appropriate box. -- StAkAr Karnak 16:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up and the need for references

In less then a month, after a major clean up and overhaul, this article has jumped from 64kb to 107kb. To keep this article in some sort of check, we need to be vigilant with references from reliable sources. I have added fact tag to the unreferenced item and will give a week or so time before I attempt another clean up. Anything without a reference will be deleted. Per WP:V it is the responsibility of the editor wishing for the info to be included to provide a reference. Otherwise it is just original research and needs to go. Agne 05:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that references are needed, but is there any point to having [citation needed] after every single sentence? It looks more like someone's trying to make a point than trying to be helpful. I suggest replacing these with one notice at the top of the article about many facts not being sourced. Readers can then see for themselves which are unsourced without having to scroll through dozens of repetitions of the {{fact}} template. Angela. 08:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The "point" is WP:OR and WP:V and the top of the page notice would be out of place with the 80+ references that the article has. It is individual lines that need a citation and they were tagged as such. I've already made my own personal point when I invested 8+ hours of time in clean up, researching and adding those 80+ reference less then a month ago to help save this article from deletion. The point then was that this article can be manageable and has some encyclopedic merit. I'm taking it on good faith that the majority of the unreferenced additions since then were done by newbies who may not be aware that citations are needed or think that only "major" things need cites. Agne 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Dare I say it, but this article should've been deleted. It's inheritently flawed: what's a faux pas to you in country x may not be a faux pas to John Doe in country x. You are going to get dissension over every alleged faux pas listed in this article. The whole article is a glib generalisation that has no place in an encyclopedia that aims for professional acceptance like Wikipedia does. Peter1968 08:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have the same instinct, I mean, someone can very well say: "In [include here a country] it is not customary to shit on the street like they do in [include here other country]." -- AdrianTM 13:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
We need references. However, we have to remember that there's such thing as "unwritten rule" and this article talks exactly about that. You might find some things in manuals of good manners, but I'm sure you'll not find other items even though they are true and probably important for people who visit that country. So, I propose to challange only facts that are doubtful, even in the rest of Wikipedia we don't ask for references for every single thing (although I agree that we need more references in general, sometime is just silly). -- AdrianTM 13:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's an "unwritten rule" it can't be verified or distinguished from being original research. Then it simply just needs to go. With this being a list format, every line presents a new claim and as such every line needs a cites. Agne 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, Canada

I think the entire Canadian section suffers from Euro-centrism, but specifically:

Spitting on the ground or blowing one's nose into anything but a tissue or handkerchief is considered gross and rude. This is at odds with other regions of the world where this is acceptable. [citation needed]

which is considered pretty run of the mill in parts of the country (e.g. Vancouver's Chinatown). It may well offend white Canadians, but doesn't seem to bother the Chinese Canadians in this example.

Nor does it adequately account for regional variations such as:

It is polite to remove your shoes when entering someone's house, or to at least ask the host if they would like you to. This practice is not as common in the United States. During winter time, removing your boots is deemed mandatory.

This is a regional thing, I would argue. Vancouverites don't automatically remove shoes. At a house party, for example, in my experience it's more unusual for shoes to be removed than left on. In Ontario, on the other hand, I would agree that leaving your shoes on is a faux pas. I can remember hosting a Vancouver friend while I lived in Ottawa and was appalled when she walk in the door in her slushy muddy salty winter boots and proceeded to wander around my apartment for five minutes until I shook myself from my stupor and asked her to take the damn boots off.

I acknowledge in advance that my comments are as anecdotal as the rest, but perhaps there should be a preface to the section that points out the wide variance due to regional and ethnic variation.


[edit] Oh, Canada (2)

I just also note that you're not likely to get a favourable reaction by calling the Inuit 'eskimos', and the bit about better land policies in Canada than the US... well, 'citation needed' is a mild version of the actual response to that statement. :)

[edit] What's the real story about cigarettes and candles?

The Iceland and the Germany section each mention that one shouldn't light a cigarette using a candle, but each lists a different origin for this prohibition. It seems unlikely that both origin stories are correct. In the very least, the article should appear cognizant of the disparity.Jkalm 11:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about farting?

According to the current article, the only place it is impolite to fart is Germany. See Flatulence.

[edit] Concerning list for Estonia.

As an estonian, I can assure, that using a knife for cutting bread is considered absolutely normal. Ripping bread with fingers is such an archaic tradition, that it is really not in use anymore. The only effect this tradition still has, is that you can rip bread with fingers, without insulting anyone, but on formal occasions i'd really think twice before doing it.

[edit] More UK items

I've just removed several items (particularly, the sections about giving up your seat on public transport, and the differences between British and American English) from the UK section of the list, because they were not faux pas. Despite what the introduction to the page states (and contains a Wikipedia:Avoid self-references self-ref to boot!), this page is not a Wikipedia Miss Manners guide to etiquette. If the intention is that it should be, then the page should be renamed. Extract it all to a page called "Etiquette in the UK" if that's what's necessary. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 10:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to know when something is "common sense", "politeness" or "avoiding a faux pas"?

There's been a lot of talk about whether this article should exist, if it shouldn't list "common sense" or "polite" acts and if references and facts shouls be included. I'm thinking if a consensus would be decided on what it should and shouldn't include.

The topic is controversial as it is, but we can state the following without being contradicted:

1.-"Common sense" is not common to all countries, nor is "basic education" or "politeness". If it was this list wouldn't exist. What may appear to me as common sense will not be so by a german, a japanese or a north-african. So we can stop deleting or editing things just because "it's common sense".

2.-Should the list include what *should* be done besides what *shouldn't*? When something is expected in a culture, failing to do so would be considered a faux-pas. In Mexico failing to shake hands is considered a faux-pas, whereas in Japan the faux-pas would be precisely doing it. This leads to...

3.-What should be considered a faux-pas? I believe the list should include only things that will, for sure, cause an embarrassing or uncomfortable situation if not followed as expected. Whether it's obvious or not for some what matters is if it would be obvious for a foreigner. There's no need to state "Spanking an executive hard in the butt in Germany is frowned upon" because as it's unlikely this would be a common faux pas for a foreigner but making it clear that in Japan it's considered bad form to open a gift immediately is.

To me, common sense should be applied to the likelihood of a specific faux pas being committed, regardless of how "common sense" it's perceived by the readership. I'd also add a lot of possible faux pas to be commited in english-speaking countries, which the article lacks. This is one of those articles that will surely attract non-native english speakers (to prepare themselves).

This article has obviously a lighter tone than the rest of the Wikipedia and, thus, it's harder to maintain and to keep in line. But it's nonetheless relevant and interesting. The only alternative I can see to it is if country-specific pages had a section for faux-pas, coupled with a section on basic customs for the country and these can later be browsed independently.

Lastly: There is no way to document these items. The only possible reference would be to another article which would also be somebody's personal experience. A link is not a reference (even if it's usually mistaken for one). I think self-regulation would be the best way to keep this article. If I see an incorrect item regarding Spain, Venezuela, Mexico or Latin America I'll be sure to change it, as I've lived for many, many years in these places. I'd expect the same from the rest.

I do think, though, that the article could use some specific rules on what should and shouldn't be included, and these rules should not require a reference, as there may be none (I can't, for example, find a reputed reference to the incredibly insulted reaction you could get from an older rural-town Mexican woman if you addressed her as "Mrs." and she isn't married, as you'd be implying she's not virgin and, thus, almost a whore).

[edit] Comments and a suggestion/solution.

First of all, the incessant use of the {{Fact}} tag is darned annoying; a faux pas is by definition an unwritten rule as it says in that article's very first sentence! It's going to be difficult to impossible to get citations on most true faux pas.

Secondly, how much of this list is made up of true faux pas rather than actually being complaints about self-centered tourists? The following from the Canadian section is a perfect example:

The common American custom of responding to a thank-you with "uh-huh" is very disconcerting for Canadians. In Canada, "uh-huh" is a colloquial way to respond to a yes or no question; in any other context it is a sarcastic response. For example, to use it in response to a thank-you implies disbelief, or that the person saying thanks is not sincere. For English-speaking Canadians, the only correct response to "thank you" is "you're welcome". Although uttering "Uh-huh" is a regionally acceptable American substitute for "you're welcome" this is considered very rude to Canadians.

I admit that I haven't visited all fifty states, but I've never heard it as being anything other than rude to reply to thank you with a grunt. It seems as if the writer had a bad encounter with a rude tourist who explained his or her behavior with the lame excuse of, "That's the way do we do it where I'm from."

As others have pointed out, this article is cumbersomely long and is hardly encyclopedic. Proper citations, maintaining NPOV, and avoiding regionalism are all very difficult, given the subject matter. Since it in many ways already reads like a travel guide, may I suggest that this article might do better at the Wikitravel site? I think it would be very appropriate over there especially if it is split up for each country/region. --Elipongo 18:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W i k i t r a v e l

  • Moving this article to Wikitravel is an excellent suggestion (thank you for it, Elipongo). Such a move should also involve a re-naming to something along the lines of "International Etiquette for Travelers." -- House of Scandal 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Good luck getting a move done. This article has survived two deletion requests, so it's probably a permanent fixture on Wikipedia, if such a thing is possible. I'll give you the etiquette bit though, since that's what this article has devolved into. A "what to do" article as opposed to a "what not to do" article. Peter1968 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I prefer the term "migration" to the term "deletion", and I think this article needs to be migrated with extreme prejudice! (That's a joke...) Anyways... My opinion is this: The article needs to be divided up along national/regional lines- it's just too unwieldy and difficult to maintain as is. Also, since a faux pas is by definition a violation of an unwritten rule, it's unlikely that one will find many citations for most of them. That makes it original research and unsuitable for here. I still say the best solution is to migrate it over to Wikitravel which actually encourages people to expound on their own opinions. I understand that there are some issues with moving articles between the two projects due to differing licensing schemes, but I should think that would be able to be overcome. --Elipongo 17:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Unwritten Rules" equals Original Research

...and have no place in an encyclopedia per WP:V. So please provide sources for your "Faux Pas". Agne 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that finding citations are not that difficult, as evidence by the considerable number of citations this article has. Prior to about a month ago this article was about 85-90% referenced and sourced. It is obviously much more difficult to find sources after the information been added versus including a source when you first insert the information. However, it is possible to have a sourced, verifable article on cultural "faux pas" that is largely free of original research. It just takes dedication from the editors to do so. Agne 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view, removing uncited information, as you seem to regard necessary, without following a somewhat comprehensable scheme is not helping to improve the quality of this article. In my opinion your edits are primarily undermining the majority decision that the article should be kept and not be deleted. People made it very clear, that the lack of citation this article is suffering from is unfavorable but not to be solved by means of strictly deleting information. Citation should be indispensable when a faux-pas is challenged. Other than that - with regard to the community decision that is somewhat contradicting Wikipedia's rules - missing citation should not be regarded sufficient reason to delete entries from the list. 84.187.159.60 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"Any edit lacking a source may be removed...." It may not always be popular and I'm not suggesting that it's always constructive but removal of uncited material is perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy. --ElKevbo 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am fully aware of that, hence I already stated: "with regard to the community decision that is somewhat contradicting Wikipedia's rules". Either be strict about enforcing the rules or respect that people decided against them. Agne27 does neither the one nor the other. Going through the article and removing uncited information at random while keeping other parts that lack citation is bad style. While I personally dislike the changes being made by user 72.232.225.202 at 15:46, 20 November 2006, I have to say that in my opinion they were way more consistent and fair than the selective deletions by Agne27 - and they too were by the rules. Deleting subsets of information based on individual preference adds a strong personal bias to the article and does not help to encourage people to provide proper citation when making a contribution. If you support going through the article and removing parts that lack sources, then you should make sure that all information is treated equally: delete all information without citation found at a given time or, if you want to be nice, consider to continuously delete any information that is lacking citation for xy days. For the latter to be comprehensible it would be necessary to frequently add estimated removal-dates to any material that lacks citation. 84.187.159.60 19:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Your points are valid but I would caution you to assume good faith. It's possible that Agne27 is doing as much work as he or she can right now and is doing his or best to prioritize both his or her time and that of other Wikipedia editors. I know I've had to make less-than-optimal contributions or edits to some articles when I simply didn't have the time to give it all of my attention. I think that in some cases it's better to do what you can do and leave the rest for others rather than doing nothing. --ElKevbo 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up

In Favor. I've added the split tag to the article. It seems to me that even though everyone has a different opinion on whether we should delete it or transwiki it or whatever, they all seem to agree that it's way too long. In my opinion, this article could be much better managed if it were several small articles based on country and region. Furthermore, I should point out that other than the faux pas article itself, no other article links here. If you click on "What links here", all you'll see are user pages and AfD discussions! I think that if we split it up, editors will actually feel comfortable linking to it from the individual country/region articles. What do the rest of you think? --Elipongo 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I think it would make sense to have a separate page for faux pas of each country instead of one massive list. A link could be added to each country/region page; for example, on the Germany page, a link to "German fax pas" could be listed in the "See Also" section. Chapium 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ready, Steady, Go

Ok my friends. I have undertaken a major rehaul of the page along the lines of the suggestions that have been given. I am also going to split the page up within the next day or so. My User Page identifies several pages for which I am primarily responsible for the content. I hope that any interested parties who look at those pages will deem me a competent enough Wikipedian to get the job done. Yes, I will make a few typos or other errors. But thankfully, if you are reading this you are probably a competent Wikipedian in your own right and we can work together to quickly hammer the page into perfect form.

I’ll give any and all objections and suggestions serious consideration so that everyone involved with this page can be happy with what it evolves into. Going through the entire article with a relatively fine-toothed comb, I am happy to discover that doesn’t have as much inappropriate material as I have been grousing about. However I am only about up to the end of the Asia section.

I hope some there isn’t a huge and out of control section about Lombardy or whatever that is going to make me want to put a gun to my head. I have glanced ahead and it seems that a lot of the material on Europe can be greatly condensed.

[edit] After the split

This is what I plan:

  • List of Faux pas (the current article)

As you can see, I’ve expanded the “Common Faux Pas” section so as to encompass and replace many questionable and redundant points that are expressed elsewhere in the current article. This will be the main section left on the current page when the sections are divided up. The "caveat” will be removed. The rest of the page will contain a short paragraph about faux pas in each of the following regions and a link to the appropriate new page.

The new pages will be as follows:

  • Faux pas of Africa
  • Faux pas of Asia
  • Faux pas of Australia and New Zealand
  • Faux pas of Canada and the United States
  • Faux pas of Europe - Northern, Southern, Western, Eastern will each have a section of the Europe page. The Europe article shows these four regions of Europe (as delineated by the United Nations) and I think this is simpler and less open to debate to the system the "List of faux pas" article uses now (consisting of 5 categories with several nations left over!)
  • Faux pas of Middle East and Muslim Society - Muslim countries such as Indonesia will still have an appropriate entry on the relevant regional page but will contain a note linking to this page regarding Muslim customs in general.

Finally, please note that the excellent work someone did regarding “Faux pas derived from Mandarin pronunciation” will be greatly condensed on the new Asia page. However, I have already given this masterpiece of someone else’s creation its own page called Faux pas derived from Chinese pronunciation. Naturally, the new Asia page will link here.

So what does everyone think?

– House of Scandal 08:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Common Faux Pas"-part is a good idea, however in some parts it is now merely a list of areas of social life where a faux pas can occur and not a list of actual faux pas. In its current state the common section (partly) may rather belong to the article "Faux_pas" than to this one. A "list of faux pas" should be nongeneric. It should not just say "table manners vary in different regions of the world and a faux pas is likely to happen" but be more specific, e.g. "in most western civilizations it is common practice not to slurp". 84.187.159.60 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You've got a good point, 84.187.159.60. I know you're putting a lot of work into this, HouseOfScandal, but he's right. You're basically recreating the Faux pas page. I think this should be set up as a simple disambiguation page with links to the various countries. I think the page should be renamed something like, "List of Faux Pas and Etiquette by Country". There really shouldn't be any narrative here, just a list of links to smaller, more manageable articles. I do think what you've written is excellent and might very well make a good addition to the original Faux pas article itself! :-) --Elipongo 03:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Might it be better to name the new pages:

  • Etiquette in Africa
  • Etiquette in Asia
  • Etiquette in Australia and New Zealand
  • Etiquette in Canada and the United States
  • Etiquette in Europe
  • Etiquette in the Middle East and Muslim Society

? This would give people more freedom to expound on what should be done rather than what must be avoided. People have gravitated towards this practice anyways. It would, however, require extensive rewording throughtout the article.

◄HouseOfScandal► 08:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Seems like the right idea to me, especially since there are already some pages like that- see Category:Etiquette. Doing it the way you're talking about increases the odds of cross-linking so they won't be lonely little orphans. By the way, thanks so much for undertaking the task, I was wondering who was going to bell the cat! --Elipongo 15:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


I agree that creating the new articles along the lines of “Etiquette in Asia”, “Etiquette in Canada” and the United States” is by far the best idea. The link chain can therefore link from terms such as error and gaffe to faux pas and finally to the new articles as well as the visibility the articles will have via being featured in the Category:Etiquette. Am very glad to see that none of the pages currently in that category are redundant with the articles we are creating.

One minor obstacle, however, is that already changed some of the wording in the Asian, Africa, Middle East and Australia/New Zealand sections so that they read along the lines of ""Blah blah blah...failing to recognize this can result in a faux pas."

If I was to post them on the new pages (without creating links to those pages yet) would you be interested in going through them to alter the language so that it pertains to etiquette in general rather than faux pas in particular? In asking for help, I offer the following “selling points”:

  • It will be much easier to undo these recordings than it was to originally do them. In many cases, you can simply delete one sentence in a given bullet point. At any rate, I think you can do much of it with your mouse and the delete key.
  • The article has definitely been “reforged” (at least in the sections I mentioned; I am still working on Europe, etc.). Many bullet points have been combined or otherwise abridged. For better or worse, the article is emerging with a single narrative style or “voice” (not completely my own, but rather a syntheses of my editing tendencies and the many Wikipedians who have contributed to the article and deserve the appropriate consideration). My point is, its most be the same ungainly article that been bugging us for some now, but rather a new incarnation with most of the same information.
  • The main reason I don’t want to do it myself isn’t due to laziness, boredom with the material, or restraints on my time. Its just that I know its very hard to proofread and edit one’s own work and I know that another Wikipedian will be able to find typos and other errors that I have doubtlessly made. It would be great if these articles could “hit the stands” fully-cooked. (<—If anyone wants a mixed metaphor there’s one right here you can have for free!)

◄HouseOfScandal► 16:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out in any way that I can. I'm working the next four nights straight, and I'm working the EMS Bike team covering the Manchester Road Race on Thanksgiving morning between two night shifts. I might be a little bit before I catch things up... :-) --Elipongo 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)