Talk:Respect

See also: Talk:Respect/Archive

Treatment of women

Prompted by the New Year incidents in Köln (and domestic discussion), I wonder whether a section about respect for women is needed (here or in more regionally specific articles).

On one hand I understand that touching (as in shaking hands) or looking at women may be a sensitive issue in some parts of the world – I might do a faux pas or be too cautious to the point of insult when visiting e.g. an Arab country. On the other hand, I suppose many people could have difficulties in handling western women – they should be treated as equals, OK, but how and when are you allowed to show an erotic interest?

With little experience of "the other side", I do not know how far you get by common sense and just showing respect. I suppose there are things we should point out.

--LPfi (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes to all. I don't think we should direct this to potential rapists - they aren't going to be deterred by any written instructions we could provide. But people who are sincere but culturally different from the inhabitants of foreign countries where they are traveling should be carefully but clearly instructed on things to be sensitive to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Officer"

The sentence "And remember: The first name of any police officer is 'officer'." was changed to "The given name [...]".

I suppose the sentence is intended to mean one should use the title when addressing a police officer, but the wording is very unclear. Why would I use the first or given name when addressing a stranger in a formal way? And is "officer" the title to use? I suppose I should say "yes, officer", "no, officer", "excuse me, officer" in the USA, but I am not sure a Finnish policeman would understand why he or she is called an officer. Is this title used in all English speaking countries?

--LPfi (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

In Germany one would usually not address police with any name, first or second - or, for that matter, any title. The Vocative use of "Sie" makes the need to know someone's name somewhat redundant in superficial encounters. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

As the "formal you" is used in some specific languages (and not English) it is more appropriate for a phrasebook than an etiquette article. /Yvwv (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow. Why should we keep "the first name of any police officer is officer" which applies to one country and not keep the mention of "formal you" which applies to many, many contexts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The "formal you" should certainly be kept. I think Yvwv meant that there is no "Sie" solution for all languages and that it is unnecessary to include the specific example. In some languages with a formal form, some kind of title may still be needed. (And the "formal you" issue can be quite convoluted, as it was in Sweden until they finally gave up with it in the 60s–70s.) --LPfi (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hitler

"Many visitors to Germany have found it strange that virtually nobody sees any positive or defensible aspects of the regime of Adolf Hitler" - Do they? Who? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like some bullshit by a troll, and it should be deleted right away. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I can only speak from experience as a German abroad and it does happen that people seem to think "good aspects of Hitler" are somehow a discussable subject with their German interlocutors Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to add a more reasonably phrased remark about that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit that as a kid, I thought that Germans would have a positive view of Hitler, while Israelis would have a negative view. So it's certainly possible for an ignorant foreigner to expect that. The dog2 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope few adult Europeans would. But considering how little I know about Korean history (or West African, or ...), I suppose I am not in a position to demand such knowledge from visitors from elsewhere. --LPfi (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As this is advice about "Respect", it should be re-phrased along the lines of what visitors shouldn't discuss, rather than what they find strange. Ground Zero (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the point of this article to be universal? Country- or even continent-specific advice shouldn't even be here. I'd say the same about the Nicaragua passage in the same section.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the example is fine. The point is to illustrate how locals' views may not match visitors' expectations or assumptions. A concrete example helps drive the point home better than just an abstract generalization. The dog2's anecdote demonstrates that this example isn't as far-fetched as those of us from Europe and North America might assume. Maybe "some" would be better than "many". —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The dog2's anecdote is what he believed as a child. Children are innocent, but they're also ignorant of pretty much everything outside of their bubble. Some of my views from childhood are too embarrassing to even repeat. But we should assume our readers are critically-thinking adults, and also maybe kids who want to learn about the world.

It's universal advice to avoid discussing politics and religion when travelling. If we absolutely must have an example (we mustn't), then we can do better than the putrid low-hanging fruit that is Hitler.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For example, avoid expressing any opinion that can be interpreted as anything other than glowing when talking about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey. Or another example, avoid expressing your thoughts on politicians who widely polarise opinion (e.g. Ronald Reagan, General de Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher...) I don't we need these in this article, but they're alternatives to invoking Godwin's Law.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you're behind the times on Turkey, as the enemies of Ataturk are now in power there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of Turkey's political developments. It remains illegal to "insult Turkey", and that includes disrespecting Atatürk, on par with denigrating the flag. Do you know whose portrait President Erdoğan stand before when making speeches? His government may dismantle the Father's legacy and distance themselves from his politics, but they continue to laud the man himself. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Maybe using Hitler as an example is in bad taste. And certainly, there are many other examples you can think of. One we could perhaps use in place of Hitler is the view of Israel by Arab Christians. Westerners may expect Arab Christians to be very pro-Israel, but you'll be surprised. Most Arab Christians in fact have a negative view of Israel, which is especially true of Palestinian Christians, and there's actually quite a bit of bad blood between the Palestinian Christians and American Evangelical Christians. The dog2 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Eh, do we need these examples? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's far too simplifying to say "Arab Christians" have this or that opinion of Israel. After all, there is w:After Saturday comes Sunday that points out that the Christians in the region don't have much to gain with aggressive Muslim nationalism ascendant. Or the numerous Christian groups in the Lebanese Civil War aligned with Israel. Or the fact that people are no hivemind and of course w:Arab citizens of Israel who run the gamut, but whose majority (Christian or Muslim or Atheist) prefer being citizens of Israel... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Titles

"There are also certain modes of address that are use for certain office holders. Here we list some of the more common ones: [...]

• Your Holiness — the Pope"

Should be perhaps instead advice people to research the relevant titles if they are invited to some of these people or to somewhere where one might meet them? I assume that even the Pope would forgive the blunder of calling him just Mr Franciscus or whatever if you pop into him on the metro – and if you go to meet him, there is much more you should know on how to behave ("How do you do, Your Holiness, nice to meet you. How are you?", grabbing his hand to shake it – then you could as well say Mr Franciscus).

–LPfi (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess these are more commonly used in their third person form. Like if you are giving a formal speech and need to refer to the Pope, you will refer to him as "His Holiness, the Pope". The dog2 (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, on the same basis that we don't cover language used only by or to royalty in Malay (beta is "I/me" for sultans; patik is "I/me" for a subject before the sultan), I would completely nuke the list of forms of address for officials. Those who need to know these things shouldn't expect them in a travel guide. We can mention the preferred form of address for the Pope in the Vatican article, although this pope is quite low on pomp, and we can mention the preferred form of address for clergy members where relevant in articles about particular religions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of these aren't as uncommon as you'd think. I have had dinner with Singapore's ambassador to the U.S., and I am just a nobody. And I also had dinner with Singapore's high commissioner to Australia when I was living in Australia. I'm pretty sure an American living in Singapore will have opportunities to meet the U.S. ambassador too. And if you need to go to Court, you have to address the judge as "Your Honour". The dog2 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to mention titles of ambassadors and judges, OK, but not kings, presidents, prime ministers or the Pope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Even with those, the titles depend on the language you are using (and local culture). If you meet your ambassador and aren't from an Anglophone country, you won't use English, and even as English-speaking probably not if you go to court in Senegal. You probably know how to behave in front of your compatriots, so this would need to cover meeting non-compatriots abroad. If I am going to court abroad, I hope I get advice on how to address the judge besides a million other things I might do the wrong way. I think saying Mr Judge is my smallest problem at that point – and I hope I don't get sentenced for saying so. –LPfi (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The "royal protocol" stuff is of low practical utility, as these situations are usually managed by people who will inform the involved individuals what the expectations are. For example, if you are meeting a king, an attendant will tell you what the relevant norms of etiquette are. I support removing the list. Twsabin (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Armed guards

I am not convinced about the advice in Armed guards (formerly Use common sense):

"if [the building with an armed guard] is the one you specifically want to enter (a police station or a town hall, for example), treat that as probably not being the proper entrance (maybe it's on the other side)."

I assume police stations in say Iraq are indeed guarded by heavily armed guards and I don't understand why the heavily armed guard wouldn't be at the main entrance. Could we give some appropriate advice for that situation?