Talk:Etiquette

message: blahh  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.151.194 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention from an Expert - Tag added

message: Louis XIV did not write a book on etiquette. I rewrote the Louis XIV sentence. Wetman 18:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Louis XIV

message: I have created an Etiquette category and added all pages on wikipedia with Etiquette in their title to it. I am not sure if the link should be displayed at the top of the article. Should all of the articles at the bottom be in the etiquette category?
Ravedave 05:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etiquette category 

message: I submit that the "Common Norms of Ettiquette" section be removed. It doesn't further the interests of this article, and it flies in the face of what the introduction establishes, promoting a particular view of a particular type of ettiquette rather than observing the plurality of ettiquettes. Or perhaps it could be cited to a particular text and author and presented as simply the viewpoint of a particular authority on one culture's ettiquette. As it is now I'd argue that it does more harm to the integrity of this article than help.
             --Techgeist 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Common Norms of Ettiquette" Section 

message: They are the same thing, no?--GorillazFan Adam 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: imo, manner(s) means habits. when one uses prescribed or common social conventions, etiquette, habitually, they become one's manner. when we do not employ 'proper' etiquette, we are asked to 'mind our manners'. phrases such as "Where are your manners?" are simply idiomatic (as in that it was probably the subject's obnoxious mannerisms on display that prompted the phrase). perhaps put "good manners => etiquette" and "bad manners => faux pas" at the top of the 'manners' page, or similar. i might go mention that there.203.213.90.41 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Manners]] And Etiquette 

message: The manners section contains a paragraph about American attitudes towards Etiquette 
Many of the comments about etiquette probably are general attitudes towards etiquette rather than specifically American (certainly disparaging attitudes towards it exist in the UK too). Suggest this is rewritten to discuss various attitudes towards etiquette rather than making it specifically American.
Also to finish with the sentence
More advanced countries such as those of the EU have made such discrimination illegal and refusal of admission based on clothing or demeanour is a criminal offence.
hints that countries in the EU are more advanced than the US. This is a rather loaded comment that surely doesn't belong. Also which countries have this as a law? (Citation). And why does this make them more advanced?
Neilljones (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manners Section 

message: The majority of this article is about etiquette that is used to convey respect, not about respect itself. Other topics here are already covered by Self-esteem and various sociological articles. Ibadibam (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that etiquette sometimes conveys respect, isn't a basis for a merge, they're entirely different concepts. Are you really a native English speaker? It's especially odd that it is being suggested that the larger and broader concept of Respect be merged into the narrow one of Etiquette. The reverse would make some sense as would a merge of synonyms if any like Manners or Politeness, asking for a merge of Respect into Etiquette is just odd, whence my query if you are native speaker of English. I think you are trying to make some kind of radical point, such as that Etiquette and Respect are non-functional elements of human culture that might be better dispensed with. I tend somewhat to agree with this but it's wholly inappropriate to try this here and violates a bunch of rules of the site. Removed tagging on both articles for these reasons. Lycurgus (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The basis for this proposal is given above. This is not a semantic question regarding respect, etiquette, and any equivalence of the two concepts. This is about the quality of the Respect article, which in its current state discusses etiquette far more than it discusses respect. Were the article trimmed of original research, unsourced assertions and content duplicating other articles, it wouldn't be much more than a dictionary definition. If you have any ideas to save this article, please present them. Ibadibam (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let others weigh in. Your opinion may carry due to a general lack of interest, if I'm unable to come back to this after an appropriate amount of time, which is kind of funny. I wouldn't put a lot of work into it though since it would likely be reversed. At this point you have your suggestion and my naysaying of it, it would be imprudent to proceed without someone seconding your opinion. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting I'm not in fact going to work this. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

text: The lead section isn't too bad, and the "Respect for others" is not horrible either, although it is extremely unbalanced, as there is a lot more to the subject than sexual harassment.  The "Signs of Respect" is a good section to keep, but it shouldn't be overly detailed.  Having an entire section on Chinese culture, as opposed to others, also seems unbalanced.  However, there are cultural aspects to "respect" that are central to many Eastern cultures that are not contemplated in Western cultures.  Perhaps this needs to be brought out more, rather than deleting what is there.  Ibadibam is making some very good points, because as written seems to be more about etiquitte to a Western reader.  My take is that it isn't so much about what needs to be removed, as what needs to be added to bring the article into balance.  78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The second paragraph of the lead section is pretty unencyclopedic and subjective, and reads like an essay. The "Respect for others" section doesn't really discuss respect itself: the first paragraph is about etiquette, the second about sexual harassment and workplace sexism. The "Signs of respect" section is entirely about etiquette and can be moved there. What does that leave us with? Ibadibam (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Respect]] 

message: I had loan out a $500 dollar wedding dress to an acquaintance, because she was unable to purchase a wedding dress of her own.She returned the dress back to me with a larger stain in a plastic garbage bag. I thought a hanger and a mention of the stain would have been appropriate upon the return of my dress.. your opinion on this manner please..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:802E:DA30:80F3:10A4:D879:C93 (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  shock!! 

message: It's listed under etiquette but doesn't affable have more to do with affectionate?130.65.109.102 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  affable 

message: How do you come up with good compliments? If I had a girlfriend that ordered me to tell compliments at a party by her saying, "TELL THESE F*CKERS SOME COMPLIMENTS, A*****E, OR ELSE I'LL TELL YOUR [this is when she punches the palm of her opposite hand] F*CKSTICK TO TAKE A HIKE", then what would be some good compliments? "You work your subordinates hard, and they all fear you, you've destroyed the careers of your peers, and they all bitterly hate you, that which are admitted to be your countless, heavily armed enemies who would shoot you without hesitation all respect and admire you and all aspire to be just like you someday, and you've fooled your boss into trusting you and may easily betray and destroy him at your leisure and at any time", anyone? Will the other person consider that to be a good compliment? If so, why, and if not, why not? 110.55.4.175 (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Etiquette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728230238/http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199579488.do to http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199579488.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728230238/http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199579488.do to http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199579488.do
*Added  tag to http://www.uri.edu/iaics/content/2000v9n2/5%20Ho-Ching%20Wei.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140913174240/http://www.iitti.org/about/about.htm to http://www.iitti.org/about/about.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026015711/http://www.modernetiquette.co.nz/ to http://www.modernetiquette.co.nz/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The distance of Versailles from Paris is roughly 20km. This can be verified from Google maps, which gives 19.5 or 19.7km for the walking distance: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Palace+of+Versailles,+Place+d'Armes,+78000+Versailles,+France/Paris,+France/@48.8315076,2.1662495,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x47e67d94d7b14c75:0x538fcc15f59ce8f!2m2!1d2.1203554!2d48.8048649!1m5!1m1!1s0x47e66e1f06e2b70f:0x40b82c3688c9460!2m2!1d2.3522219!2d48.856614!3e2 or 20.7-23.6km for the distance by car: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Palace+of+Versailles,+Place+d'Armes,+78000+Versailles,+France/Paris,+France/@48.8316059,2.1670312,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x47e67d94d7b14c75:0x538fcc15f59ce8f!2m2!1d2.1203554!2d48.8048649!1m5!1m1!1s0x47e66e1f06e2b70f:0x40b82c3688c9460!2m2!1d2.3522219!2d48.856614!3e0 Michael Glass (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance of Versailles from central Paris 

message: Good Manners redirects here, but the header of the article only points back to Manners (disambiguation). How to get to Good Manners (film)? --2001:16B8:1751:D900:7104:56EA:6D06:D101 (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved by User:SnapSnap on 2021-02-22: Special:Diff/1008227098. Thanks! --2001:16B8:171C:3400:E17E:518D:8EF2:C1BF (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect: Good Manners