The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to Keep the article.
--Konst.able 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A proper summary: while the concerns raised about verifiability are understandable, the article has been greatly cleaned up with a lot of unsourced material removed and sources added. And while, as pointed out, the sources are not perfect, I don't see this reason enough to override the strong support to keep the article.--Konst.able 10:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is 62 kilobytes of unsourced (perhaps unverifiable? Original research?), unencyclopedic matter. It reads as a how-to-guide ("you should"... "you should not"... - even "we don't like"...) Also, the list suffers from inherent systemic bias, listing common cultural traits under one specific country. Several editors has expressed concerns over these problems on the talk page, without improvement in sight. This list underwent an AFD debate in 2005, which resulted in keep. Since this time it has been expanded, but interestingly enough not improved as to meet any of the concerns voiced in the AFD debate. It's time for this list to go. Punkmorten 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps sourced items can go to Faux pas? I have reorganized Chinese and Taiwanese faux pas that I consider keeping them somewhere needed.--Jusjih 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I know only one official-like website with different faux pas in different countries. That is from China Post, but the content is in simplified Chinese only. It is possible to start an article Chinese etiquette, but I do not yet have long information. As many Chinese and Taiwanese faux pas are derived from the Mandarin pronunciation, especially homophones, the Pinyin should provide self-reference.--Jusjih 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Wikipedia is not a book in etiquette. You may easily fill 50,000 pages with various indicriminate faux pases, old and new. Some faux pas are interesting and may warrand separate articles, and may be listed in a traditional wikipedia way of lists of articles on topic. Also, the subject is very blurry and the "inverted"/"negated" presentation ("of what's not") is a source of the folloiwng problem. Suppose an etiquette says: "Thou shalt piss only into a toilet bowl". Now what, shall we list here "thou shalt not piss in a dining room", "thou shalt not piss in an elevator", "thou shalt not piss into the pocket of thy neighbor's pants"? Any violation of an etiquette is a fauz pas. `'mikka(t) 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do not keep this articl ehas insufficient WP:V or WP:RS, and has grown out of control.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danntm (talk • contribs) 20:38 (UTC) 03 October 2006
Follow Up After considering the noble efforts to save this article, I am standing by my original delete position. Despite the added references, this article still runs into WP:NOT, because Wikipedia can ill afford to become a travel guide (that's Wikitravel is over there) or a repository of all customs in the world.-- danntmTC 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep remove unsourced. This deserves to be cleaned-up, not deleted. A lot of useful information is found in there, our task is to remove those claims that can not be verified or are flat out wrong.--D'Iberville 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is almost impossible to source such things and even when sourced to otherwise reliable sources, the sources used by the reliable source are often poor. For example, a newspaper writer may write about his experiences in a single town on a one day stay and apply the apparent faux pas to the whole country. He may mistakenly think that something is a faux pas when it is not or he will think that one thing was a faux pas when it was really a different thing, especially if he does not understand the language very well, or at all. Also, the faux pas of one town may not apply to the rest of the country. This type of source will produce even less reliable information than unsourced contributions from residents of the country. In addition, there will be disagreement about what things are faux pas in different countries and no way to settle the issue in many cases, especially without original research ("I do that, or I've seen it done, all the time and nobody minds" kind of thing). Some of the things listed for the United States, where I live, are completely foreign to me and I would dispute that they exist outside of enclaves, if at all. Finally, it is written in a travel guide style and people have worked in personal and national/cultural pet peeves (I hate that term, but it works the best here), and I do not think a national/cultural pet peeve would technically be a faux pas. An example would be the talking like Steve Irwin and "throw a shrimp on the barbie" faux pas for Australia. Other examples would be ignorance of topics that do not have anything to do with behavior. -- Kjkolb 11:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've revised my opinion since there has been a serious attempt to source most of them and the article now approaches encyclopedia standard. Peter1968 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contains nonsense and indiscriminate trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a chaotic unstructured collection of things difficult to verify without proper context. Mukadderat 18:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion stands even respecting the job done to clean up the article. A eries of articles about national etiquettes OK, but this article not OK. Mukadderat 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I can't believe this one is up for deletion actually! This article has a lot of flaws, including its existence as a "list", and would perhaps do better being split up into pieces, but I find it very useful and important. While it might be factually inaccurate (I have some reservations to the faux pas attributed to my country), there should be a place for an article like that in Wikipedia, especially now that we have more content on Pokemons than on Renaissance. Bravada, talk - 01:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article could be source and with some tidying to alleviate OR concerns. I have already started to add a few. Far from being an indiscriminate collection, this article is the type of the things that people love about Wikipedia. The article needs clean up not deletion. Agne 08:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is needed and should be keep in accordance with WP's notability criteria ... maybe it needs more references but they will come later. Lincher 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I can see where someone would like to see more cleanup and verification, this page by itself is extremely useful. I've travelled to many countries and occasionally committed a faux pas because I didn't know the customs. Many of the things I've seen listed are correct and important for others to know. A page like this is an undeniably useful resource to anyone who travels or just wants to learn and better understand other cultures. It's even good information if you just want to be respectful to someone of a different culture since many societies today are multicultural. Lasenna — Possible single purpose account: Lasenna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
Keep This is the sort of article that makes Wikipedia interesting. With all the changes that the article has undergone, most of the OR/V issues are no longer much of a concern in my opinion (assuming that the unverified ones are removed by the people doing the edits). --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Substantial changes have taken place to the article since it was nominated for deletion-including the additions of 87 references and the deletions of many of the crufty and unreferenced items. More can still be done for clean up (like removing the first person tone in some areas) but I think the changes demonstrate that this article has merit in Wikipedia. My hope is to eventually get everything referenced with reliable sources to discourage additions of unreferenced or unreliable sources. I am going to drop a note on the talk pages of the editors who voted delete. I feel that the majority of their concerns have been addressed. Agne 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree with you. But only somewhat :) The discussion is heading for no consensus anyway. Punkmorten 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I understand the arguments of the original nomination, (ie unsourced, improvements were never made since 2005), I believe that to warrant more effort; the concept behind the article I see to be a relevant and interesting one. In terms of its unverifiable material, it would be more advantageous to cut out, then remove the whole article. As Lasenna says, its useful for travelling, and even otherwise its provides an interesting insight into a specific aspect of various world cultures. I do agree that it must stick to its mandate however, and not expand beyond faux pax, and due to its nature as a potential conduit for stereotypes, be completely verifiable. As for the latter of these, it appears that much has been done in recent days anyways. In terms of the first person tonage, I will do my best to chip in because there is obviously more work to be done here. --Gregorof 06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people have mentioned that the list is useful for travelling. If so, then the country with the largest number of tourists from outside, the US, should also have a section for the benefit of those visitors. Please bring that section back! Otherwise more US waiters than necessary will suffer from not getting any tips! RelHistBuff 12:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Punkmorten 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. My comment, if the article survives, should really be on the article's talk page. RelHistBuff 14:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. Since leaving my comment above, the article has been revised and I've been invited to re-read the article. I still have to say "delete". The key problem is that it is still an indiscriminate list of trivia (although a great deal still remains unsourced or unverified). As a list, it is of indeterminate length (and is already far too large). This is not an article; it's a collection of loosely connected facts put together. Purhaps the problem is that it's far too easy to make lists rather than write articles. I would have no problem with "Etiquette of France", "Etiquette of Japan", etc. as articles, with properly formed sentences and paragraphs. In a properly written article format, care could be taken to clarify some of the alleged errors of etiquette (i.e. that a certain social rule is of a certain region or group or demographic of the country; the meaning and origin behind the social convention, etc.). In its present form, this is not encyclopedic and is just to crufy. Agent 86 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point there, but if this is to be done then I strongly suggest at least keeping this page as a table of contents for quick references that link to the MANY etiquette pages that would have to ensue. Besides that, things like local/national customs are very hard to document but that's why something like Wikipedia should exist - because the citizens would know. They're locally understood, like colloquialisms. How many documented references are there to things like what it means in France to rub the tip of your chin? (On a side note in my defense, I created this account to contribute to the "sound" page, not just comment here.) Lasenna
Followup: To me the rewrite had shown a reason why I still think such list is not maitainable on WP and should be deleted. Locating the Czech Republic and Slovakia in Eastern Europe is one of the gravest faux-paux a foreigner could make there. Only placing it into the Balkans could be worse (so the Serbia link looks pretty funny).
The content "Being late for an evening party is acceptable, but never for lunch. It is considered to be rude" is quite new for me but one learns something new every day. The traditional faux-paux documented in the old "how to behave well" books has been mostly swept away by influence of the Americanized TV culture and collecting of the new ones (like the eastern-europeaness-phobia) does not fit very well into current model of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 21:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under Spain, it says "Giving money (for the petrol) to someone who gives you a ride home." Does that mean one should, or should not give money? The section for United States says not leaving a tip is bad, but how much? In some places, less than 10% is considered an insult. (A foreign born waiter in Boston cussed at me in Chinese when I left a $2 bill as a tip for a $15.00 meal ... guess he thought it was fake money.) It's poorly written, it needs more citations, it's unencyclopedic ... and it's not going to go away. So just content yourself by adding {{fact}} tags and correcting bad grammar ... or remember this article and add a citation when you stumble across one Some Place Else. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is better than before, but as I said above, otherwise reliable sources use unreliable sources when it comes to faux pas. An example of what I would consider a reliable source for faux pas is a sociologist who has studied the culture in question extensively. A well done scientific survey of faux pas would also be acceptable. However, it is unlikely that suitable sources could be found for all of the countries listed and most sources would probably only give a couple of faux pas each. -- Kjkolb 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
