Talk:Respect

This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Ethics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This should either be a disambiguation page or a Dictionary page. Pure definitions are dictionary fodder. If this is transformed to a Disambiguation page (of which I don't know how to do personally) with links to specific articles such as Tony Blair's policies and the Otis Reading Song, so be it.it means you respect some one or thing

Otherwise send this article to Dictionary.....chaz171 14:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree Rklawton 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having enjoyed contributing to this page, I basically agree too. Zargulon 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously would consider turning this page into a proper article. There is a lot which one could write about on the subject of respect (from a meta-ethical viewpoint), and it's a pity that this article is so poor. Respect is a psychological and ethical phenomenon; why not have an article on it ? M4rx (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph was a comment and then was deleted. I figure it should at least be kept on the talk page because it could possibly be improved/worked on and used.

Respect is the objective, unbiased consideration and regard for the rights, values, beliefs and property of all people. Kant's categorical imperative as well as what is commonly understood of being a gentleman incorporate the concept of respect.--> to be able to love eachother and treat others the way u want to be treatedJtneill - Talk 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC

One thing respect lacks is itself, as shown by the length of description on most websites and books,

This was description was particularly well written. It gave many different angles on the definition of respect giving a broader view of how to define what respect is. Because of its length, to best keep the strengths of this description, it will help to simplify it into points. With an improved organization it will make it more clear and more agreeable to the eye.

OK. First off: I do not code in HTML _at all_ so I apologize for any editing errors or things I forget to add in. Just wanted to mention that I fixed some grammar and deleted a duplicate section, along with something that was completely extraneous, talking about how everyone should give more respect to their parents!!! No one ever does!!! they were the one that gave us life peoples!!! (with AWSOME grammar!!!) Next, I wanted to add my agreement to the people down in section six, adding that I live in a place with only my dad, who is currently spending his time doing one of four things: Telling me how I messed up; making snide comments on how he could do better(but never doing it); complaining about how he has no money; and complaining about his life. You tell me, does that sound like someone to respect, or how about someone who just got a 3.74 GPA last semester? (OK, so I have some ego issues) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.189.68 (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the line that talked about the song Respect by Aretha Franklin, since its covered in the disambiguation page.Justbobdanish (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the content below to the article to stimulate the development of a more complete and less academic treatment of respect a term which we all take for granted in common usage but one that is loaded with hidden meanings and contradictions.

• Respect is also a term used colloqually to denote deference induced from fear or terror as in "I am going to teach you some respect". Street bullies (female and male) are often accorded 'respect' due to successful efforts to terrorize rivals or other less powerful people. Manhood in warrior cultures often is connected to unconditional obedience ('respect' for) to warrior codes. This usage of respect would seem to be a distortion or even a paradoxical contradiction of the traditional or more civilized useages of the word. 71.102.254.114 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This distortion is the rule rather than the exception, in my experience. 71.109.234.35 (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"An elderly person will get respect from the people around just because they old. This is an inherent nature in that our species has." Can someone cite some evidence that respect for the elderly is inherent in our species (as opposed to, say, a social construct perpetuated by religions or ageist institutions of power)? Also, the grammar is awful. Tyreseus 23:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed the poor grammar. The first paragraph of the article needs cleanup in this regard. Also, that paragraph bothers me because it uses the second person ("you", "your", etc.) instead of the third person which I would expect from a Wikipedia article. 71.109.234.35 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more to say? The grammar is terrible, the theory unfounded and the structure questionable. I recommend this for a complete rewrite. Schizmatic 21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem a particularly useful lead:

• "Respect: It is hard to define" - not what I expect from an encyclopedia...
• Starts of with an assertion that it's one of the most important attributes for society. Surely a matter of opinion - and shouldn't be the first sentence anyway, as this does not define the word.
• Gives the broadest definition, but no other definitions.

I know the word is hard to define, but the usual way to deal with this is to get a bunch of definitions from references, and include the various definitions in the lead. Mdwh (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is awful in every way. The street gangs section is laughable. It clearly needs to be entirely rewritten. 152.7.57.14 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion (fourth, actually). A complete rewrite of this inept high school book report is needed. I'm not usually brutal with my comments, but this is simply the worst I've ever seen. A Wikipedia page written by a ten year old is a really bad idea. Someone please completely delete this, and point it at a intelligently written dictionary page. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fifth the motion, and I have submitted this article to the WikiProject Philosophy for reassessment. @grog_beta (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sixth the motion. This article needs significant work, noting that the primary authors of the information are lacking heavily in this quality. It makes sense that this Wikipedia article would be in shambles based on the way that the Millenial generation has been instructed and grown in this matter. Self-sufficiency and the internet have made the notion of respect significantly limited in nature, respect for the common man for his or her strengths and achievements is simply not what it once was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.148.138 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It now reads: "Human languages typically portray grammatical distinctions to the listener between honorific and colloquial language. These distinctions may be grammatically encoded by a regular system of poop and noun affixes." Should the word poop be in there? Do you talk a certain way, and then shit all over the person? Dream Focus (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was vandalism. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE: Do you talk a certain way, and then shit all over the person?

The fact is that in most feudal languages, this issue of making a lower person a sort of social 's**t' is there. See this link:

Witty yes, but alas it needs to go. The following text was pulled:

Respect is the label larval hominids use to indicate that they approve of a given course of behaviour, often verbal. This expression is often used thereby to indicate displeasure at a given course of verbal conduct, as, for example, when a larval hominid is told he is a larval hominid, he will often replicate not as against the fact stated but that the stating of that fact is not indicative of sufficient "respect." As such, respect is the lever by which larval hominids control their superiors, who are typically aware that what the larvals call respectful behaviour is merely behaviour that satisfies their own mundane, temporal expectations. Further, the attentive reader will see how "respect" is used as a subterfuge that distracts from important issues, to wit the appaulingly bad customary behaviours of larval hominids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.12.166 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we repost this under "Larval Homonids" ?Cwfmd (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is written as almost a stub, without any suggestion that respect is a term than varies in definition by different cultures of the world. There is so much more here, from the psychological view point of seeking respect as a factor of age, gender, and socioeconomic influences, to traditions and expectations of different cultures throughout the world. For a hypothetical example, It is considered a sign of respect to do X during Y in Z culture/country. And the differences between respect earned, respect given, and how the term is abused in modern society. -- cipher_nemo (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC) also reading the bible is respect because u r followind in gos foot steps. amen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.139.92 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This content used to be on the page, but I removed it last night. I'm putting it here so it doesn't get lost. The picture seems too similar to the one of Reagan, so I thought I would substitute something from another culture. A picture of a Japanese person bowing would be even better, if someone can dig one up. The content on gang violence strikes me as giving undue weight to the topic, but I can't really justify this very well. -SpaceMoose (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime[edit]

Some organized crime syndicates, both real and fictional, are based on respect. Underlings are obligated to show "respect" for the bosses. There are many cases in which perceived disrespect has led to murder and other violence. ^[1][2]

A term that is myth-understood, myth-used, and myth-applied. They are values, moral and ethnical issues, related to standards of interaction. To understand what respect is you must be clear on what is disrespect. Respect only has meaning through it´s opposite, it´s converse, disrespect, and is highly emotive.

Respect has no significant meaning when applied to oneself. It´s converse, disrespect, is the correct term. Disrespect is noted, respect usually not.

An example: Broadcasting certain US American shows through the air, in regions with differing ethnical values, is a clear disregard of those ethnical values, and shows disrespect. The emision of those same shows via satelite or cable can also be taken as complete disregard, disrespect, for the ethnical and moral issues of those regions where it is broadcast. Some go as far as to consider some programs a surrepticous attack on the basic moral fiber, the expected family values, of those regions.

(190.38.99.16 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In the UK I think "respect" is seen more as a negative thing, because it is often used in the situation where someone has power over you and you may "respect" them but you do not like them or admire them. It is also thought to imply a more authoritarian setting. 78.146.215.222 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have got it wrong. Respect in English is neutral, and more or less connected to appreciation of scholarship, refinement, honourable qualities etc. Respect being connected to power is in feudal languages. Google Search for: Feudal languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.27.21 (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology seems to be original research or opinion. Cite or revise? Nickenge (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We added a little more in the intro explaining what Respect is and what it means. We also added a section on Self Respect and Respect To Others In Society because we thought that there are different types of Respect that needed to be talked about. We also added the physical gestures section and discussed the different forms of Respect in several countries. We added the picture of Kowtowing too. Misscarrieshea (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC) and Finley25[reply]

Aside from the grammatical errors, this paragraph made claims about resepect that are arguably biased, namely "if a person has no respect when one stands and looks in the mirror, one's life has little else of import." Why? Who says this? What about "Many Americans attempt to buy respect, but self-respect is exclusive in that is earned purely from within." Citations? Why does "respect come from within?" This article seems not to be cataloging the various psychological opinions about respect, but attempting to make unjustified metaphysical assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgoller1 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

w

we have to respect

(See off-topic marker in the article) This section has almost nothing to do with the article topic. It should be moved to Sexual harassment or discarded. --92.75.149.143 (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The added section of respect in indigenous American communities is added to try and explain how respect is treated differently in other cultures. Respect is treated the same as how the overall respect page is conveyed thought it has added meaning in indigenous cultures. The references tied to this contribution really convey how it play more of a lifestyle and how respect is practiced in this culture. My overall goal is to bring diversity to this page because respect is not the same in other cultures in meaning and practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceherrer (talk • contribs) 10:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is overall extremely low on citations. As a result, much of it reads as personal opinions. There isn't a single citation in the overview, the "For others in society" section, or the first three paragraphs of the "Signs" section. It also only discusses indicators of respect in three specific cultures (Japanese, "some areas of India", and China) and two lumped groups that have massive generalizations (African/West Indian and Indigenous American culture as a whole), which leaves it rather lacking on a global scale when the number of cultures in the world--or among the two lumped cultures--is taken into account.

Further, the article is extremely lightweight. It says, "Depending on an individual's cultural reference frame, respect can be something that is earned," in the overview, but then it doesn't go into that at all in the article. The concept of respect is not addressed in detail, nor are differences in how respect is given, received, earned, etc., among different cultures. The vast majority of the article is about how the above-mentioned cultures sometimes demonstrate respect, which seems an odd topic for the majority of an article about a concept that's fairly important in many human interactions. Contrast that to, for instance, the article Love. It's a similarly important topic to human interaction, is far longer, and has vastly more citations.

It seems like the article might need a thorough overhaul, really.

--Subluxate (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Respect. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fodors.com/world/asia/japan/tokyo/feature_30007.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.umemy.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903023621/http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/PAPERS/religion%20and%20respect.pdf to http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/PAPERS/religion%20and%20respect.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anybody reads down to the last topic, but this final paragraph looks like somebody googled the two words in the title(respect for authority) and somehow links a logical fallacy, in logic, to the preference "Authorities sometimes prefer a respectful public..." which has nothing to do with the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy. Then jumps to slavery? There doesn't seem to be any connection between these five things except the two words in the title. Is this a post-modern "narrative"? Perhaps the author was not conversant in the English Language? Cwfmd (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for authority[edit source] Authorities sometimes prefer a respectful public rather than a questioning one, but the appeal to authority can rate as a logical fallacy.[13] Axel Honneth sees one form of disrespect as associated with slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwfmd (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolute that females learn respect and realize logic isn't reliable these days. This leads to them learning to understand their surroundings so they can respect others. They learn to understand people, and animals. For example doves mean an area is blessed. With this it changes the world into a better place. It's also why females become friends faster. Meanwhile my fellow males control the world turning it into chaos and never figuring this out. What is not understood is that one should teach respect to others in full and teach one should get to understand others, not around the bush but in the bush, straight up say it. Logawinner (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Logawinner: This has me seriously considering blocking you on the ground of WP:Competence is required. It has been explained to you repeatedly that we don't use original research, we just summarize professionally-published mainstream sources. Article talk pages are not a pulpit for you to preach from, they are for article improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5 month ask for something with respect no one lesson. They do more about what you need less thing privacy of me and family.

We Muslims. No Fitna but what happened no human can handle. However fook respect 178.80.30.96 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respect 42.105.202.233 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al 80.210.204.170 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respect is often conflated (accidentally or intentionally) with fear. It would be helpful to have something in the article that explains this phenomenon. Two examples that come to my mind are a person who demands "respect" from others (which would be nothing but fear, perhaps with a veneer of feigned approval), and a person who claims to "respect" the power of a bear to injure or kill (which again is nothing but fear - it doesn't involve an admiring approval of how the bear acts). I know that I know this, but I don't have reference material to cite. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]