Talk:Naming taboo

message: One more thing, I'd be interested if there is any information or theories about the origin of the Chinese naming-taboo, seems odd that the sole function of a name should be reversed so completely.
Number36 05:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can imagine it was started as a form of respect (given the types of people it applied to), i.e. by saying someones given name you are being familiar with/disrepectful to them (compare Japan, where even fairly close friends will often use family names with an appropriate honorific to speak to each other even in private). Just guessing though. Sfnhltb 12:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin?

message: The Chinese naming taboo also influenced Japan.--Jusjih 10:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan?

message: It seems that Habj's concern from two years ago was never addressed: that is, that this article describes only the taboo against naming in Chinese culture. This article should be renamed "Naming taboo in China," or, perhaps less confusingly but more verbosely, "Taboo against personal name use in China." Doudja 21:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this name space should be for naming taboos across all cultures but the Chinese tradition needs its own full treatment. The general article probably needs to be built from scratch, but the Chinese one could be started by moving this to Chinese name taboo or Name taboo. (We'd need to see what http://scholar.google.com and https://books.google.com/ngrams think the most common English name is; we don't want to just use an overlong descriptive title for something that probably has a name. If it's just "naming taboo", then the page would go to Naming taboo (China).) — LlywelynII 00:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I do not see how this article belongs into the category sociobiology. Do you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.134.119.128 (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither, so I'm removing it. Nothing biological here.--Adoniscik (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is sociobiology? 

message: For an example of a native american naming taboo see this article; Ishi, Ishi was the name given to the last member of the Yahi, in turn the last surviving group of the Yana people of California. Ishi means man in the Yahi dialect; his real name was never known because it was taboo in Yahi society to say one's own name. Since he was the last member of his tribe, his real name died with him.Number36 22:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ishi

message: I have read a number of Chinese texts and I have NEVER seen Mao referred to as 人泽东。I've never heard him referred to as 人泽东 in conversation either. However, I have both heard and read many references to 毛泽东 in conversation and in articles published after his death. Is the practice common or restricted to official party or government documents? 
Renmin Ribao, the Chinese language version of People's Daily, the main official government newspaper, refers to him as 毛泽东。A yahoo search for "人民日报 毛泽东“ turned up 0 hits. One would think that if Mao were widely referred to as 人泽东, People's Daily might occaisionally refer to him with this name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.158.99 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'll remove that reference.  --Nlu (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mao Zedong and the Persistance of the Naming Taboo

message: On the supposed Qin changing of the reading of 正 to first tone to avoid conflation with 政, made taboo by 嬴政, Qin Shi Huang's personal name - Qin-era spoken Chinese was so radically different to modern Mandarin that this statement is highly dubious. The first incidence of tones being acknowledged as existing in the Chinese language only dates from the Tang, almost 1000 years after Qin Shi Huang's death, and the entire phonological structure of the language has undergone enormous shifts since the Qin (not to mention the radical regional variations of the time). MPCaton (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: "Naming Taboo~" doesn't call for a Chinese concept, the article should either be merged with Taboo on the dead or it should be renamed as bihui. NinuKinuski (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Reread  and . The naming taboo is separate from taboos regarding the dead generally. If anything, it would be a subsection of filial piety, but it's not: it has and should have its own separate treatment. — LlywelynII 00:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also can't understand this accusation. The article is written in a rather neutral tone. Sure, it could be longer and bring more examples, but it's not POV. And a merge request (please don't!) should be properly filed as a merge request, not with a POV accusation. The only issue I see is that other cultures besides the Asians also have naming taboos, of a rather different kind. Which would require a disambiguation and a new lemma as "Chinese naming taboo", for example to differ from the taboo to name the devil in western culture. --Enyavar (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Taboo on the dead

message: * .
 — LlywelynII 00:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that is a great one, I used the introduction to write the German article and can only recommend it for the english version as well. --Enyavar (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion