Talk:Surnames by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Azerbaijan

A great deal of Azerbaijani surnames end with -ov or -ova, I don't know why this is not being mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.112.141 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Russian but in any case it's from the old patronymics. Boys get Dadov and girls get Fatherova. — LlywelynII 02:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

request for Indonesian and other Southeast Asian practices

I don't know if information requests are allowed, but if anyone is reading this, I would really appreciate more on Southeast Asian naming patterns, especially Indonesian. Thanks! - anon

wikicities site for surnames ?

Has anyone considered making a wikicities site specifically dealing with surnames? --Rookiee 21:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Malta

A.There was a load of rubbish re: English surnames and white collar workers. Indeed some English surnames were derived from marriages with low ranking sailors hence it is ridiculous to state that people with English surnames were condescending towards other Maltese! Prior to World War II, the upper middle class including professionals such as doctors, notaries etc were in fact pro Italian.

Some surnames were removed - The section about 'noble' surnames included 'Sant' 'Fiott' . These are certainly not noble but common surnames.

A couple of common surnames included were certainly not common at all.

Q.Why was the part about Malta removed? Is there any specific reason? does one think that Malta should not have its own part? Does anyone think it is fictitious?

Some names cited as common by whoever drafted the Maltese article included surnames that belong to a single family, albeit a notable one. An example of this is the surname Maempel; most people recognise this surname because it belongs to a famous surgeon - but that does not make it common, or worthy of mention under an equally redundant list of some surnames in Malta. The explanations given above are more than sufficient; Malta should NOT have the longest article in the last names section!

This is completely right. The Maltese article had too much info, too many very specific examples, and was poorly written. I've done some research and cleaned it up some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.243.234.19 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

European Surname First

I heard that some French also put family name before their given name. Can any French native confirm this?

It's certainly common when addressing letters to French people, eg Monsieur MITTERAND, Francois,... (Berek - a Scot)

When calling the names of students at the beginning of class, a French teacher would put the family name first. (Birnuson - studied in France)

But those aren't normal speech. The introduction thing. It's like "Bond. James Bond". Canadian high school teachers sometimes take attendance that way too. But that's just because the names are listed like that when printed. (Surnames are almost always the basis of the order of names on lists) It doesn't mean the students would be called like that any other time. Is it different in France? --Menchi 01:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I diagree with the above. It's not at all like "I'm Bond. James Bond." I use that very phrase to show my French pupils how English speakers say their names. He doesn't say "I'm Bond James." But in a school it's not only calling the register - in fact many (most?) teachers will call the register by the first name only. It's teachers and other staff talking to each other about the pupils will say names like that, for example "Dupont Jean". I find it very odd (I'm a eacher in a French state school.)PhilomenaO'M (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Definitely like Menchi said. It's only in administrative, military, educational, etc. contexts that the last name will be used first. -- (a French native)

We do the exact same thing in Belgium. An exam form in Dutch would typically ask for the 'name' (naam) and then the first name (voornaam) of the student. When prompted for their name in a formal or bureaucratic context some people also give their full name in last name-first name order—even verbally.

Catholic French Canadians use a birthname (first name) which is the last of three given names. A lot of fun when that gets on a passport and you have to explain what your real first name is (Jean - a catholic French Canadian).

Interesting. In Belgium it used to be common that Dutch speakers would have two or three given names and only ever use the first one. The second and third given name would sometimes be the first given names of the godparents. Every Dutch-speaker who would see an ID card like this would know they should drop the last two given names. When I once tried not have all my given names listed on my Brussels public transport pass, on the other hand, the French speaking salesperson looked at me in the most suspicious manner and refused. :-)

No, in spoken French, first names are always first. In written it depends, if more formal then the surname may be written first, but usually the first name is used. (Lived in France, Dutchman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.133.207 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Spain

I insterted things that changed in a 1999 law (that was SEVEN years ago) and that made this section very innacurate. Maybe it has to be re-written or maybe it would be better to make a new section only dedicated to Spain because as I know in South America have different laws for the surnames. The link I put is in spanish, but those who can understand it will see that the section wasn't saying the truth and that it has to be corrected in some ways yet. --Joanberenguer 02:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

origins

Isint Ireland one of the first places too use surnames,Mainly because of the reasons people were given surnames in the Ireland section of this.I can remeber reading about it an d being told that this was the case,or it is one of the oldest places to use it.I'm not too sure if I'm right but I can recall something about it.--Mikel-Fikell82 21:46, 03 Nov 2007 (UTC)

Very doubtful. The Irish kept the old patronym (Mc~) and clan (O'~) systems going quite a long time. — LlywelynII 02:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Fitz

Folks, I don't think that saying Fitz was usually used to denote illigitimate descent is correct. In my own humble experience it most certainly is not. It was simply used to denote X was son of Y; in many cases it never evolved into a surname at all. So, if you don't mind, I'll remove that line.

Found in Webster's dictionary on Project Gutenberg :

Fitz (n.) A son; -- used in compound names, to indicate paternity,
esp. of the illegitimate sons of kings and princes of the blood;
as, Fitzroy, the son of the king; Fitzclarence, the son of the duke
of Clarence.

I'm not changing anything in the article, just thought I'd mention this tidbit as I came here looking for precisely that information. I've been reading a book where "Fitz" seemed to bear some kind of insult (as in "bastard") and that got me puzzled for a time.

I've spent YEARS examining medieval and early modern eras and the simple fact of the matter is that fitz was used - as Webster's indicates - simply to indicate paternity. It was not used exclusivly for illigitimate children. It just so happened that some people who used fitz were illigitimate. And it didn't become used as part of a surname for quite some time.Fergananim

Probably the implications of illegitimacy come about because the most famous examples are the illegitimate children of royalty. Sometimes a generic term becomes specialised in this manner, but since this article is specifically describing historical usage, that needs to be made clear. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As above. It's just Norman French for what was meant in Irish by Mc~ or Middle English by ~son. — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Russia

• How "new" is suffix -na?
• Those possessives look rather awkward, especially bundled together like here.
• If Ivanova is daughter of Ivanov, then Petrova should be Petrov's daughter.
• "Wife" implies that woman has no name before marriage. Usually, girls are born first, named, later grow up and sometimes marry.
• "Voskresenie," though, of course, is Russian for Sunday, is not a "major Orthodox holy day."
• Frankly, I see no reason to put words in parentheses also in quotes. Why make it difficult?

--Barbatus 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question about why we use parentheses and quotes, it's a matter of typography. The parentheses introduce a parenthetical element to the text, while the quote marks indicate that the quoted words are the English translation of the preceding non-English word. The Rod (☎ Smith) 02:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me ... did I ask any questions? Besides a rhetorical one? --Barbatus 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so snotty. You raised the issue; your phrasing isn't that important. Gene Nygaard 14:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gene! Nothing personal, but I'm just a bit tired of lecturing me on typography. What are my lecturer's credentials? A good sense of measure would be a matter of typography in our little case (if there is, parenthetically speaking, any case). We can, of course, enclose translations in any amount of symbols, but would that make the text easier to read? ... And thank you, Rodasmith, too. ... Oh, speaking about credentials: would over 15 years in publishing be satisfactory? --Barbatus 04:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

With all the truly shoddy publishing being done these days? No! Williamb 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't but agree ... publishing quality is in sharp decline. Availability of various "desktop publishing" applications, influx into the industry of people with very limited experience (or no experience at all), and low demand for quality among reading public make things only worse. It seems some publishers don't even use proofreades any more. But all that is not my fault. --Barbatus 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Voskresenie. It is true that it means sunday, much like Rodjdestvo(рождество) means birth, but in the contex of a last name I think it is reasonable to assume that they are refering to religios themes. But I agree that the heading "major Orthodox holy days" needs to be changed. Of the list only christmas is really a holiday. King Mir 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not correct ... that is, from the Orthodox point of view. What do you mean by "really a holiday"? A day off? There are twelve major holy days (двунадесятые праздники) celebrated by the Orthodox Christians (Chrismas is one of them, of course). Though I agree the language in question probably should be changed to reflect the main Wiki article (Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church) about those holy days. —Barbatus 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Barbatus 04:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

England

Why doesn't Englandt have its own section in "by country"...all it has is some of English speaking country. Also surely there should be a section for Wales which has a very distinctive surname system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.40 (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this sentence intend to mean only in England, excluding Wales and Northern Ireland (I see Scotland has its own laws but cannot determine if they affect the choice of name)? [unsigned]

In England the parents can choose the name of the child, the registra must obey their wishes. In Scotland the registar has the right to refuse to register a name if they feel it is inappropriate, though this right is rarely exercised. I'm not sure the article is correct now, but it's too late for me too check. Zeimusu 14:53, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

The last name is usually the father's family name, although in England the parents are legally free to choose any surname when the child's birth is registered, and unmarried parents often choose the mother's name.

As an aside I am surprised sexual equality hasn't fully reached the UK's birth and marriage registration procedures (see [1] and [2]). -Wikibob | Talk 22:02, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

There is no mention of the occasional use of two surnames by some British people. There are plenty of examples, but for some reason at the moment I can only think of David Lloyd George. Does anyone have any background on the origin/motivation for this and how prevalent it is/was?

Combining two surnames isn't unusual, but it's more common to hyphenate them in order to make it clear that they are two surnames rather than a middle name and surname. Either way, the motivation is the same - it's usually done when a couple getting married what to retain both surnames instead of the wife adopting the surname of her husband. Etymologically, there's no difference between "David Lloyd George" and "David Lloyd-George". Calzonic 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a number of reasons for double-barrelled surnames - off the top of my head the most common historically tended to be when the male line of a family was dying out and a man without a son would leave his property to his son-in-law, grandson, nephew, cousin etc... (or to the female relative but it's only relatively recently that women have been able to own property in their own right in many countries) on the proviso that the heir add the man's surname to his own. This is probably the main reason why a double-barrelled name is traditionally often assumed to indicate a member (or would be member) of the upper classes. In turn this does make a DBS less desirable in some quarters so many marrying couples don't consider them. Timrollpickering 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Freed slaves

>>Many freed slaves either created family names themselves or adopted the name of their former master. Others, such as Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X,

Were muhammad ali and malcolm x freed slaves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.94.44 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sons

I understand how, say, William - son of John - becomes William Johnson. But the same logic dictates that William's offspring become Williamsons, and so on. Does any know when names became 'fixed' (so that, e.g., all William's antecedents became Williamsons)? Adambisset 22:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In England The introduction of the poll tax (1380) was significant people had to register in a locally unique name, also a requirement that people bringing cases to court had to declare their name and "affiliation" either their family name, or their guild or trade led to many of the fixed family names. Add to that the fact that aristocrats already had clan or house names, meant that the newly rich merchent classes wanted to add a bit of class by taking their own family names and the trend spread through society. About 13th-15th century in England. Other countries have different histories. Zeimusu

And in some languages and traditions this change has still not occurred; in many religous ceremonies Jews still are referred to as something more like "rachel daughter of ruth" or "david son of joseph". Akb4 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia

I wasn't sure where to put this, but in many parts of Ethiopia, women use their father's given name as their own surname. If somebody could work that it, it would be great. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your wrong. I don't know where you got your info, but I'm Ethiopian and all children (of people who follow the custom) take their father's first name as their last. I'm changing it again to correct this. 24.218.24.39

Japan

Some countries (for example Japan) do not allow a wife to have a different family name than her husband.

As for Japan, this statement is logically correct but misleading. It is true that the Japanese law forces a married couple to have the same family name, but it can be either the wife's name or the husband's one. Although to use the husband's is common, it is not mandatory.

In Japan, a convention that a man uses his wife's family name if the wife is an only child is sometimes observed.

This is more or less correct.

In the interest of being more correct: the motivation is the same as that mentioned in the next sentence for the Chinese tradition, to pass on family assets under the same name when there is no male heir. It also seems to occur when the particular family name is in danger of dying out. --RJCraig 22:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

In Japan, women surrender their surnames upon marriage, and use the surnames of their husbands.

This is not necessarily true as I said before.

I would appreciate it if someone would rewrite the explanation concerning Japan taking the above-mentioned fact into consideration. [unsigned]

India

The entry for India starts with "Similar patronymic customs"

Similar to what?

"Similar patronymic customs exist in some parts of India ... mostly followed in southern regions ..."

while a lot has been detailed about these 'some' people, what is the practice in the rest/most of India ?

"while those in the rest of the country still have a surname or a family name as their last name."

can we expand this? maybe using information from Indian family name? [unsigned]

Hungary

Why is it with the Asian names?

I suggest item no. 20 on the contents (China, Hungary, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam) be revised to not include Hungary. Not only does Hungary seem completly out of place (literally) with the other Asian countries on the list, the section including Hungary only makes two mentions of the naming process in Hungary, only one of those mentions being specific to only Hungary.

Mentions are: "In Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Hungarian cultures, the family name is placed before the given names. So the terms "first name" and "last name" are potentially confusing and should be avoided, as they do not in this case denote the given and family names respectively." and "Names of Hungarian individuals are stated in Western order when writing in English." Perhaps start a new section for Hungarian names?

Agreed, just noticed this myself and was surprised to see Hungary listed with China, Japan etc. Have split it out into its own (very small) section. I'm sure this could be improved by someone with more time and knowledge...-- Muntfish 07:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree. The Hungarian names should be mentioned somewhere in a general list of places who use LAST First order. — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian names

I'm a little confused about how Hungarians write their names. The article said they write family names first, but do so in "western order". What does that mean? Since Asians indicate family name first, and Hungarians do too, what's the difference between "eastern" and "western" order if both places write the family name first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlujan69 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-22 05:46:49 (UTC)

I've just created a separate section for Hungarian names... so I hope this is a little clearer. My understanding is that when written in the Hungarian language, a Hungarian would write their surname (family name) first then their given name(s). However when written in English (for example) then the order would be "western" i.e. given name then family name. Also, names of "westerners" do not get "flipped" when written in a Hungarian text. So "Tony Blair" is called that in Hungarian, not "Blair Tony" or whatever. I hope this helps, but please feel free to expand/correct the new section on Hungarian names if you can. Thanks -- Muntfish 07:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What should and should not appear in this article

The passages describing how the French Canadians have had several given names do not belong in an article on family names.

Because the term "surname" directs to here, that precludes mention of the totally different use of the word surname in France and in certain old texts in English : an epithet over and above one's true name. The classic example is Zeus the thunderer, in which the epithet was called the surname.

Feudal namery was different, and should be mentioned because it is used in place of the family name. The classic example is Marquis de Lafayette de la Motte (from my memory). He's referred to as Lafayette (or La Fayette), not "La Motte," event though he's an aristocrat getting the rent from both places. --Sobolewski 00:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that surname redirects here shouldn't preclude mention that the word surname is often used with variations in meaning—in fact, its just the opposite; that means we should mention that the word surname is used in other ways. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese names

Just a clarification: the custom in Vietnam is to write or speak the family name first and then the given name (which consists of one's "middle" name and one's "first" name). So, if a Vietnamese's name were written in American style, then it'd be: first name, middle name, last name. In Vietnamese, it'd be in the following order: family name (aka surname or last name), middle name, first name. Now, when speaking to one another informally, then they use first names. When greeting one another, on the other hand, they may be a little more formal. For example, there's a word a Vietnamese would use to indicate in his greeting that the person he was addressing was older than him, another word is used when the person is younger, and still another when the person is the same age. A rough similiarity in America would be if I addressed my older sibling as "big" brother or "big" sister and my younger sibling as "little" brother or sister. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlujan69 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-22 05:43:31 (UTC)

Break it Up?

I am looking over articles like "psuedonym" and "pen name" because I think some sort of refactoring is in order; there are many ways to refer to people by name, many of them are contextual, and right now there's a pile of unrelated articles of varying quality. This article does a good job on family names, but I think the issue of what names get used in what order in which contexts is a seperate issue, and needs its own article.

I think there should be an article that gives an overview of the types of names; there are chinese temple and posthumous names, regnal names for popes and nobles, handles for hackers and cb users, pen names, mobster epithets, aliases, etc etc etc. Three years ago someone proposed something like this in the main Name articles; I'll go out on a limb and start Human names. Better title suggestions welcome...

The "european surname first" section above notes that there's a whole other usage of surname, so I propose surname get its own (probably short) article that explains the two meanings (epithet and family name).

(is there a correct place to hold a refactoring discussion to affect maybe six or eight articles? village pump? just choose one talk page? a sort of meta-talk page, persistant and spanning several articles, is what I'm after, but I'm still too much of a noob to know if that structure exists...) Akb4 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Misleading intro?

The introduction states that a surname identifies what family the bearer belongs to. The article itself, however, indicates many types that would not do so. (Such as a surname indicating personal characteristics.) Is there maybe a better definition in more common usage?

I think the intention of the article is to say that a surname does indeed identify the family. However, in the distant past, the practice was for individuals not to have family names but, rather, to have nicknames that identified them as individuals, but were not passed on to their children: simplistically, John, who lived on a hill, might be called John Hill and his son, Tom, who lived by the lake, might be Tom Lake. At some point in history, it became either fashionable, expedient or necessary to fix these nicknames as family names so that, henceforth, Tom Lake's children would be known as 'Lake', even if they moved away from the lake! At this point the name became a family name or surname. (I am only talking here about English surnames - I don't claim any knowledge of family names in other countries.) Bluewave 08:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article about Scandinavian family names is haphazard

I would rather see a more straightforward one, like for example:

Up to the nineteenth century most Scandinavians had only a first name and a patronymicon, like in Iceland to this day, e.g. Hans Andersen or Andersson, (Hans, son of Anders) or Hildur Andersdatter or Andersdotter (Hildur, daughter of Anders). Among clerics these names were sometimes Latinized, e.g. Olaus Petri (Olof or Olaf, son of Peter). Names ending in -sen (Danish, Norwegian) or -son (Swedish) are still common, but these names are now real family names, being frozen in the nineteenth or early twentieth century.

Real family names took form during the late medieval and Renaissance eras among nobles, clerics and townspeople. They were of several kinds. Among the nobility names could be nicknames, e.g. Brahe (“the good one”), or taken from the coat of arms, e.g. Gyldenstierne (“golden star”). Some of these names were taken up as family names as late as the sixteenth century – for example the Swedish king Gustaf I Vasa was always known as Gustaf Eriksson among his contemporaries.

Among the clergy the fancy for Latin names continued and would often indicate origin, e.g. Linnaeus (from the house with the lime-tree, lind in Swedish). In the eighteenth century when things Latin went out of fashion some of these families cut out the -us, often making the name ending -in, -én, -ell.

Among townspeople trade, e.g. Møller (miller), nicknames or the village of origin were most common name-giver. But particularly in Sweden a fashion for adorning names of origin with imaginary, almost-nobility-sounding suffixes appeared in the eighteenth century, e.g. Strindberg (from Strinne, adding “berg” or mountain). With time, anything could work as a suffix, e.g. Hedtjärn (heath mere), Munkhammar (monk rock), but it is always the first element that’s important, often being taken from the place of origin.

Primarily in Denmark and Norway, farmers also began to use family names in the nineteenth century, usually taking them from the name of their farmstead, e.g. Vestergaard (west farm) or Nyrud (new clearing). A strange variety was the habit in Dalarna in Sweden to put the farm name before the first name and the patronymicon, e.g. Näs Lars Jonsson (“Isthmus farm Lars Jonsson”). Swedish farmers were more likely to take names the same kind of names as townspeople.

German family names are very common in Scandinavia, due to much immigration from Germany for hundreds of years.

Arabic Surnames

Is it possible to add a section on arabic surnames? I would imagin that they use a structure simillar to Hebrew/Jewish. they could be grouped as "semetic" surnames etc..

Redirecting Sur-name

I see that Surname redirects to this artical, but sur-name (as it is spelled in wikipedia articals) doesn't. Does it become redundent to include such forwardings at some point, or should it be added? LeVirus Watts 4:03 pm MNT, 29 Sept 2006

Is sur-name even a real word in English? Bluewave 08:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No. — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Western Comments in Introduction

Many of the comments in the introduction seem to have a fairly negative air toward Westerners, but this comment in particular struck me as odd:

general lack of historical knowledge among most people in Western cultures

Does anyone else think this should be removed, or at least toned down?

Apparently it HAS been removed, since I don't see it there now! Laurie Fox 06:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia

I seem to recall reading in a National Geographic or something that Mongolians were not allowed to take surnames under Communist rule. Once communism fell in Mongolia, everyone took surnames and almost half took the name Khan (after Gengis). Anyone have any sources or information on the subject? Makerowner 05:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's true. It seems that if trace their ancestry, most of the people will be able to find some direct or indirect relation with this or that taiji (even an untitled one without serfs, without any administrative post, and perhaps poor), a gentry of the Borjigin clan and likely a descendant of Genghis Khan. If they want to feel themselves noblemen, they will take Borjigin as surname. If half of the population has the same surname, the very goal of having surnames becomes senseless. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Philippines

There are also the "dashed" surnames in the Philippines; mostly among the Igorots. Among the Igorots too(mostly Ibalois), there are some surnames that are Chinese-sounding like Fongwan, Folayang, Ayochok, etc

Non-worldwide view?

While the article is pretty comprehensive in covering the present situation relating to surnames throughout the world, I think some parts of the opening needs work to represent a more worldwide view. They are:

1. Until the 12th century, most people throughout the world did not use or have a family name, and they were called by the single name they had (which was called a "first" or "given name" only after family names came into use).

This may need a "" tag. The East Asian cultures (China, Korea, Japan etc) had and regularly used surnames long before the 12th century. I question the use of the word "most", unless some evidence can be supplied that a majority of the world's population belonged to cultures that did not use surnames at that time.

1. One of the most accepted theories for the origin of surname use attributes their introduction to the Normans and the Domesday Book of 1086

This should read, "[o]ne of the most accepted theories for the origin of surname use in England/Great Britain [...]" --Sumple (Talk) 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but I would exclude Japan from that list, since commoners did generally not have surnames prior to the Meiji restoration.--Niohe 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

it's true. the beginning of the wiki is flagrantly euro-centric and highly misleading for that reason. Norman/European/Etc surnames. obviously China was home to surnames hundreds/thousands of years before the date given for the historical/theoretical advent of norman surname usage. about the above comment regarding Japan, it doesn't seem relevant that only a minority had surnames. in an encyclopedic discussion of surnames as an phenomenon any ancient surnames are notable128.119.236.212

Dutch-speaking countries

The most common Dutch surnames in Belgium are Peeters, Janssens, Maes, Jacobs, Willems, Mertens, Claes, Wouters, Goossens, and De Smet. Dutch surnames in Belgium tend to resemble first names more often than in the Netherlands, e.g. the following first names relate to above surnames: e.g. Peter, Jan, Jacob, Willem, Maarten, Klaas, and Wouter.

It's not so much that these names, called "patronymics" *resemble* first names, as it is that they are actually *derived* from the father's first name.

The trailing s reportedly once meant "son of", so Willems would be "Willem's son".

The use of the word "reportedly" implies that there is some doubt in the writer's mind as to the veracity of the fact being stated. Any such doubt could be erased by referring to the "Main article," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_name#Patronymics which clearly explains the meaning of the "trailing s." And, not only did it once mean "son of," in fact, it still does mean "son of!"

While the use of family names derived from patronyms may be more common in Belgium than in the Netherlands it is, neverthless, also common there, so perhaps this explanation should be in the first paragraph, rather than in the Belgium paragraph. Laurie Fox 08:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As a dutchman, the only explanation I can give is that the added 's' it doesnt mean "son of", but it simly means "of". As in the person is a decedant of Willem. Willemsen implies "son of", as this surname used to be willemzoon, but over time changed from willemzoon, to willemsen. The trailing 's' meaning "son of" in old dutch doesnt really make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.133.207 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization and alphabetizing of sections

I suggest reorganizing and alphabetizing the sections of this article to make it easier to find the area you're interested in. To avoid having a list of every country and tribe, I also suggest adding different levels, for example:

Africa General practices followed by exceptions

• Central Africa (if an exception) (Avoid listing every individual country if a geographical area can be grouped together. I also think that because country borders were decided with little or no regard to tribal and ethnic boundaries, country listings will often be meaningless, so I prefer geographical areas.)
  • certain tribe that may be an exception
• Northeastern Africa (or Horn of Africa)
  • Eritrea and Ethiopia (if they have the same custom, list alphabetically rather than by perceived importance) Here we get into the problem that not everyone knows their African geography. Maybe the geographical subdivisions won't work.
• etc.

Asia

• India
  • exceptions
• Korea
• etc.

Europe - general practice

• Country 1 that is an exception to the rule
• etc.

For a start, we could just alphabetize the sections until we get some consensus on the "taxonomy" of naming systems. --DBlomgren 05:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

I'm wondering if there's a better name for this article - perhaps "naming customs" since many cultures don't have surnames per se. I see that some cultures that don't have surnames are included with a brief explanation and then a redirect to their own naming system.

It seems to me that a master article named something like "naming customs" could explain different conventions, and then redirect to "surname," "habesha names," "Korean names," etc., without making "family name" the master article. (Well, not exactly "master" because I'm aware there's a name article.) A lot of stuff in this article that doesn't relate to family names per se would be more appropriate in it. Reactions to this idea? --DBlomgren 06:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me.--Barbatus 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of the human naming articles are screwed up; there are massive cultural NPOV issues and lots of overlap and inconsistencies and there should be a cross-article effort to clean things up and reorganize. Naming customs sounds like a fine name. I think in the past I proposed something like "names (human)". I'm not strongly opinionated on the "master" human name article title, I'm more concerned with cleaning up the plethora of related overlapping articles.

Here's my list of related article names as of a few months ago; a lot of these have problems. I think wikipedia should be scoured mostly free of the phrase "real name"; it's not only NPOV, it's vague, too. But there should be an article about the concept (if there isn't already), or it should be mentioned in the "master" article. I'm sure the list below is woefully incomplete. -- Akb4 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Personal name (redirects to Given name)
• Family name
• Surname and Last name redirect to Family name
• Patronymic
• Middle name
• Anthroponym
• Posthumous name
• Regnal name
• Temple name
• Courtesy name
• Unique identifier
• Unisex name (pointed to by androgynous names)
• Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing
• Courtesy titles
• Style (manner_of_address)
• Title
• Gag name
• Joke name
• Alias, AKA
• Legal name
• monikers (could go into a sort of master pseudonym article)
• handles (could go into a sort of master pseudonym article)
• Pen-name, pen name (could go into a sort of master pseudonym article)
• nomme de plume (could go into a sort of master pseudonym article)
• pseudonym (could go into a sort of master pseudonym article)
• screen name (could go into a sort of master pseudonym article)
• nomme de guerre (could go into a sort of master pseudonym article)
• Chinese name
• Muslim name points to list: Arabic names, Iranian names, Turkish names, Pakistani name.
• Generation name (which currently describes the Chinese system, has "see also"s for Korean and Vietnamese, and doesn't mention the Japanese gen names; also, of course, many folks would see this article title and wonder if it means names like "baby boomers", "generation X", the Japanese word for second-generation Japanese Americans, etc. I'm not sure if there is a name for that class of thing, but the generation name article should probably mention it in order to disambiguate )

I'm sure there are more ethnic name articles I haven't listed. I'm not sure if any Native Americans actually do have "Secret Indian Name"s. Secret names or True Names in general are a concept in fantasy literature; I have no idea if any human cultures actually use them, though I suspect so. No idea if there are articles yet.

I agree with the OP (Dblomgren) that there should be a master article on naming customs for persons. However I believe that article should be Personal name (which already has a good start on it).

(Note that at the present time Personal name does not redirect to Given name, contrary to what Akb4 states in the preceding comment.)

Personal name includes a list of the possible components of a personal name (including given name, family name, etc.) and has a pretty good discussion of name order.

But it does need some honing. An early sentence is confusing: "A personal name is usually given at birth or at a young age, and is usually kept throughout life; there might be additional names indicating family relationships, area of residence, and so on." Is the author speaking of "given name"? Or ignoring the prevalent western custom of a wife taking her husband's family name upon marriage? -- Frappyjohn 05:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobility

There should be more mention of how land-owners, nobility in particular, often use their land or realm as a last name, even if they may have a last name themselves (like how Prince Harry uses Wales as a last name despite it technically being Mountbatten-Windsor). VolatileChemical 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

More on non-worldwide view?

I see that there was a short discussion on non-worldwide view issues but it does not appear these issues were addressed in the actual article. There is more of an issue, though, than was pointed out. Family names, even in Europe, did not begin in the Middle Ages. In the classical Roman times family names were the norm, at least among the citizens of Rome. During the Roman Imperial era of Western Europe there would have been people all over Europe that used family names although it would not have applied to everyone (I think the practice even goes back to classical Greek times although I am not 100% certain of that part of it). When the Western Roman Empire fell the practice died out to a large extent in the West although it continued in the rest of the empire (i.e. what was later referred to as the Byzantine Empire). The supposed development of surnames in Western Europe during the late Middle Ages was simply redeveloping what had gone on in Europe and Asia at various times for centuries. --Mcorazao 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Iceland

iceland has two places in the article 217.42.161.233 20:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A 'forking' problem

It seems like someone has to deal with the 'forking problem' for this article. andreasegde 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

suffixes in Czech, Slovakian and Polish names

"If the name has no suffix, it may or may not have a feminine version. Sometimes it has the ending changed (such as the addition of -a). In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, suffixless names are feminized by adding -ová, but this is not done in neighboring Poland."

Actually it DOES happen in the neighboring Poland. Suffixless names are feminized not just by the suffix -owa (-ova) but also byt -ówna (-ovna). If the family name is for example Czub it is Mr. Czub, Mrs Czub and Miss Czub. However, two feminine endings can be added to the name: -owa and -owna. The first indicates that the woman is the wife of Mr Czub and the latter that she is his daughter. So Mrs. Czubowa, and Miss Czubowna. However the usage of these suffixes is becoming obsolete these days. (212.76.37.174 12:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Polish names

"Today, although most Polish speakers do not know about noble associations of -ski endings, such names still sound somehow better to them."

I dont think this statement is appropriate and i think it should be removed. Unless of course the author has some made some research into what "most Polish speakers know" and "what sounds better to them". If so I suggest she/he should add bibliography. (212.76.37.174 12:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Ashkenazic Name

Amazing article.

Anyone know about the Ashkenazic/Germanic name, Bornstein?

Yes, 'stein' is stone. So the question is, from where or what comes 'Born'; and, what does it mean? Variation on Braun, Boren, Burn, Bern, etc... What could it be?

JBYORK14 at aol dot com 24.44.93.71 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bornstein could be a version of Bernstein--amber. Born means fountain or well, so Wellstone might be related.

The article is amazing indeed. It's almost 100% fact-free. We can do better than this unsourced, self-contradictory mishmosh (comments in italics):

Until a few hundred years ago, Ashkenazim (Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe)

Italian Jews are Ashkenazic too.

Many are Sephardic (refugees from the Expulsion of 1492) or immigrants directly from Israel in Roman times, rather than migrating to Spain->France->Germany->Eastern Europe. Pedantrician (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

followed no tradition of surnames, but used patronymics within the synagogue, and matronymics in other venues.

The part about patronymics is more-or-less correct. (Members of the priestly clans--Kohen and Levite--used those names in the synagogue along with patronyms.) Matronyms were much less common, and the synagogue/trade dichotomy is news to me: any evidence or reference for this? On the other hand, rabbis and their families did indeed use surnames that lasted from generation to generation.

For example, a boy named Joseph of a father named Isaac would be called to the Torah as Joseph ben Isaac. That same boy of a mother named Rachel would be known in business as Joseph ben Rachel.

Is this an actual example? Where did this happen?

(1) If Joseph ben Isaac became deathly ill, he would be referred to as Joseph ben Rachel (to arouse G-d's mercy for a mother's son). (2) If Joseph's father was not Jewish, he could also be called by his mother's name - see Rav Mari ben Rachel (Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 92b). Pedantrician (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A male used the Hebrew word ben ("son") and a female used bas ("daughter").

But even then she would be <her name> bas <her father's name> (unless she was sick, see above). Pedantrician (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

When Northern European countries legislated that Jews required "proper" surnames, Jews were left with a number of options. Many Jews (particularly in Austria, Prussia, and Russia) were forced to adopt Germanic names.

Prussia most certainly did not require Germanic or German-language names. Cohen (Hebrew), Cantor (Latin), Kaczinsky (Polish), Alexander (Greek), etc. all appear many times on the original surname-adoption lists.

In 1781, Emperor Joseph II of Austria announced an Edict of Toleration for the Jews, which established the requirement for hereditary family names. The Jews of Galicia did not adopt surnames until 1785. He issued a law in 1787 which assumed that all Jews were to adopt German names. The city mayors were to choose the name for every Jewish family. A fee was charged for names related to precious metals and flowers, while free surnames were usually connected to animals and common metals.

The "Ekelnamen" myth--that bribes or payments were required in order to avoid assignment of a common or even derogatory surname--is almost completely devoid of supporting evidence, most notably the alleged names themselves and records of the fees. Modern sources such as Alexander Beider's works on Jewish surnames dismiss the whole story.

Many took Yiddish names derived from occupation (e.g. Goldschmidt "Gold-smith"), from their father (e.g. Jacobson), or from location (e.g. Berliner, Warszawski or Pinsker). This makes Ashkenazi surnames similar to Scandinavian and especially Swedish ones.

What does? The -son ending, I suppose. Not too many Swedes named Warszawski.

Many Jews also took names of their Jewish lineage. A person of Priestly (Cohanite) descent could take the last name related to his lineage (e.g. Cohen - Hebrew/Yiddish or Colons - Spanish). If a Jew was a descendant of the Levites, then he could take a surname like Levin, Levi or Levenson.

Which contradicts the assertion about having to take a Germanic surname.

In Prussia, special military commissions were created to choose the names.

These commissions--military only because the government was military in nature--existed only in South Prussia and New East Prussia, which belonged to Prussia only between the 3rd Partition (1795) and the Treaty of Tilsit (1807).

It became common that the poorer Jews were forced to adopt simply bizarre names or even derogatory, offensive ones. Among those created by Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmann were:

• Ochsenschwanz ("oxtail")
• Temperaturwechsel ("temperature change")
• Kanalgeruch ("sewer stink")
• Singmirwas ("sing me something")

If it was so common, where are the records of these names? Why can't we read about them? And why does the only reference to ETA Hoffmann having done such a thing seem to be a novel?

The Jews of Poland adopted names much earlier.

But South Prussia was the heartland of Poland. So why did the Prussians have to have commissions, if the Jews already had surnames???

Those who were adopted by a szlachta family usually changed the name to that of the family.

How often did this happen?

Christened Jews usually adopted either a common Polish name or a name created after the month of their baptism. Thus, many Frankists adopted the name Majewski after the month of May in 1759.

Not sure what this even has to do with Ashkenazi surnames.

Both the given names and surnames of Ashkenazim today may be completely European in origin, though many will also possess a traditional Hebrew name for use only in the synagogue.

Or a traditional non-Hebrew one, as many women do. Alexander, Kalonymus, Mordechai etc. aren't Hebrew either (first 2 Greek, last one Persian). RogerLustig 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia contains an article that covers the topic of Ashkenazi surnames, I've removed the section and put in a pointer to that article.RogerLustig 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

French-speaking Countries

Is there any reason for the inclusion here of the discussion of French-Canadian triple given names? If not, I recommend deletion of that bit.RogerLustig 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

I proposed a wikiproject for all name articles, check it out here [3] if you are interested. Remember 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufixes in south slavic surnames

I changed previously stated "vic" and "vich" to "ic" and "ich" a minute ago. V in these comes from the possesive sufix "ov" or "ev"; "ic" is the suffix describing the heritage, the "son". In that manner, the surname does not have to have "ov" or "ev", like mine, i.e. it can be formulated without or with some other possesive ending, like Anicic, coming from Anica-> Anicin (belonging to Anica)-> Anicic (the son of Anica).Perhaps someone can reformulate it a bit clearer. Best regards to all Natasa Katic

Italian

Antiquity

"Few family names are still in the original Latin, and usually they indicate from or with pretensions to antiquity, e.g. de Judicibus or de Laurentis"

Does this mean that many Italian surnames have been consistently used since Roman times?

I know the Chinese surnames can go back 2500 years but there aren't many others which I know do the same... anybody with info about this? Domsta333 11:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Number

The information that italian family names are around 350000 is unsubstantiated. Worse, the only reference there is to a newspaper ("Il Corriere della Sera") which quotes back to wikipedia. Circular quotations should not be allowed. [unsigned, 2006]

Italian surnames

"Italian women don't switch their surname to that of their husband upon marriage." That's not strictly correct. They usually add it as a second surname, if not officially.

"In a new proposal of law, the son can be given the surname of the mother rather than the usual father's." AFAIK this law is already been "active" for a few years, but I'm not sure. --Lo'oris 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Africa

African names

What about Kenya, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, etc -- African countries don't seem to be covered at all apart from Ethiopia/Eritrea... --128.230.235.107 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I found this article in my search to the question "Should Baaba Maal (a Senegalese singer) be referred to as Baaba or Maal?" This article doesn't answer it. :( --DBlomgren 05:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

African Surnames

I browsed through this article and could not find any section dealing with African surnames. The only reference I found was made in regards to African-American families. Unless I somehow missed this information within this article, it seems that names of an entire continent are being left out. I would add such information myself, but currently am not knowledgeable enough in that area and have no time to research the subject. Could someone who knows more about African surnames, or knows where to locate such information, add an appropriate section to the article? Of course, in a perfect world, it would be great to have information on names associated with specific areas, countries, and tribes within Africa, but for the moment a general section on African surnames would do. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'll try to come back at a later point in time and assist with this myself, once I have the time to do some research. Thanx in advance, ~ Homologeo 00:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

German (and Italian) names

Contradiction

The German section states "There are about 1,000,000 different family names in German." The Italian section states "Italy has more different surnames than any other country in the world, around 350,000." Please fix this. Fig 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to point out the same thing until I saw this message. It seems to have gone unnoticed for 20 days now, so I changed it. ~Inkington 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

how many names?

in the article: There are about 1,000,000[citation needed] different family names in German.

The dtv-Atlas Namenkunde says:

Gesamtzahl genuin dt. Famililiennamen (...) Schätzungen (...) 150,000 und 300,000. (Numbers changed to English style [1.000 => 1,000])

which means that there are about 150,000 to 300,000 ‘genuine’ German family names (estimated). The book compares this to about 130,000 ‘genuine’ Italian family names and then says, in the USA about 1,500,000 names from many origins can be listed.
Konrad Kunze / dtv-Atlas Namenkunde*) / Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag (=dtv) 1998 / p.67: Die häufigsten Familiennamen (The most common ...)
*)surprisingly not Namenskunde equals Onomastics (in English) Schwab7000 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Long Article

This is a pretty long article, even by wiki standards. Maybe we could break it into different pages per region or custom. That way, the main article is concise, while the specifics per region are explained more thoroughly in another page.Grifter tm (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Armenian/Persian suffix

The following appears in the article: Armenian last names can also contain ian, but does not mean that they have to be Persian however they still hold the Persian suffix, "ian". This is not a sentence. I'd rewrite it, but I don't know what it's trying to say and I am not knowledgeable about this subject. (Armenian last names that contain ian "hold the Persian suffix 'ian'"? That's redundant. Armenian last names that contain ian do not "have to be Persian"? What does that even mean?) Here are some suggestions (I don't know which, if any, are true statements, so I won't put them in the article myself):

• Not all names that end with ian are Persian, however: some Armenian names have this suffix.
• Some Armenian names also use the Persian suffix ian.

Cjoev (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Iranian / Persian Surnames

I just have a question about Iranian / Persian surnames that has been bugging me for some time, and is not answered on this page at this time. I noticed that most have two "official" surnames, however, many seem to go by only one name (the first one). Are the two surnames the surnames of the mother and father? If so, which one typically comes first (i.e. is there any ordering convention), and do most people choose one or the other? Can someone please shed some light on this. Heymanamen (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Split

This article is clearly too long; this coming weekend I'll split the national/regional/ethnic sections into separate articles for each one (using existing articles as possible), and leave this article as an overview. Please discuss if you've any concerns or would like to assist me in this. Nbarth (email) (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right; a split would be beneficial. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian data

Does anyone know where I could find reliable statistics on Aussie surnames? Something with the name and how many bear it, if possible with the states but I'm not picky. By reliable I mean not hosted on Geocities :), hopefully government but commercial (but free) is fine too. And I realise the talk page is for discussion of the article, but if we keep quiet we won't get eaten! It'll be our little secret.... that sounds so wrong.. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Overlinked?

Any comment before I repair some overlinking such as:

In some places, civil rights lawsuits or constitutional amendments changed the law so that men could also easily change their married names (e.g., in British Columbia and California)

and

In Southern Gospel and folk music, families often perform together as groups. When female artists in these genres marry, they usually adopt double-barrelled surnames if...

Petershank (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the wikilinks for well-known topics, such as those you mention, is a good idea and would definitely make the article more readable. I'd prefer that you not remove any external links (not that you necessarily intend to), because many of them were added to end edit wars. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any edit wars, and had no intentions to remove external links. Thanks for speaking up. Petershank (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Surname

Hello. Surname is currently a worse than useless article on surnames. It leaves me more confused than before I saw it and it is not in the least bit obvious that there's an article on surnames here. Apparently that's because for some people "surname" has a different meaning to "family name". I don't know how true that is and no-one seems to want to elaborate on the distinctions between surnames, family names and last names (other than that of course surnames/family names aren't necessarily last names).

In general Wikipedia solves the problem of minor distinctions like between family name and surname by having one single article on the two topics and if there's any distinctions having a paragraph or so explain that. That is what I think should happen here, or at least it's the easiest option and will make Wikipedia better faster.

However, this article observes that it's too long. And if there is some distinction between surnames and family names and some better way of organising articles on surnames and family names and patronyms and clan names and job-description-type-names that historically developed into surnames and whatever else we can think of, then maybe someone who actually knows what they're talking about should:

1. Write an article on Surnames. If I understand the distinction (when made) correctly, "surname" is the most generic term.
2. Remove anything from this article that is not actually discussing proper family names, which I assume means a single name inherited from one parent. (For instance the section on Mongolia.)

I would do this except that a distinction between "surnames" and "family names" is not one that I've ever made; I have long been under the impression (for instance) that Bjork doesn't have a surname, she has a patronym instead.

The current problem though is that it's not obvious that there is a good and detailed article about surnames if you go to the wikipedia page on surname. This makes the page currently worse than useless. —Felix the Cassowary 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot some discussion at Talk:Surname exists already. I'm posting this here because there's evidently more people here.

I'm against the move. A family name is a type of surname. That does not make a surname a family name. Undeath (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. "Family name" and "surname" are completely synonymous (see OED cites at merge discussion below.)

Please do go down and explain what you think "family name" means, though. — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

laws regarding giving father's surname to a baby

In Costa Rica and some other Latin American countries, a man has to accept paternity of a child before his last name (specifically his primer apellido) can be given to the child. Is it similar in other countries? DBlomgren (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistake - when did surnames enter use in Scotland?

Article currently states: <By 1400, most English and Scottish people had acquired surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later.> When did the Scots acquire surnames? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is generally stated (I could probably find a reference) that lowland (i.e. English-speaking) Scotland adopted hereditary surnames about 100 years after England as the requirements of the feudal system spread to the lower levels of tenantry - therefore around the early 16th C. In the Highlands (ie. Gaelic speaking Scotland) the patronymic system lasted into modern times. Does the article need an edit here? Nowadays I believe the patronymic system is still in use together with a system of nicknames within Gaelic speaking communities (e.g.the Hebrides and western coast of the mainland). People do have hereditary surnames but only use them when interacting with outsiders or authorites. Spathaky (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Names

Sinhalese

Traditional Sinhalese naming convention typically has two names. The first name ends with the suffix -ge ('ge', prnounced 'gay' is Sinhalese for House or Tribe) while the second name is the individual's name. The -ge name usually indicates a special charaterisitc of the family's origins such as a place name, title, occupation etc. So "Muhandiramlage Simon" can be understood as Simon, from the house of Muhandiram (a title for a local leader).

Sinhalese women usually adopt the second name of the spouse after marriage, while retaining the -ge name.

Tamil

Tamil naming convention has two names. The first name is that of the father, while the second is that of the individual. So 'Ponnambalam Ramanathan' can be understood as Ramanathan, son of Ponnambalam. Women adopt the husband's name.

That explanation is not entirely comprehensible to a Westerner. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Moor and Malay

The naming conventions for Moors (Sri Lankans of arab origin) vary. Typically, the fathers full name may be used as a prefix for the individual's name (which may include multiple names). So Muhammad Ismail Muhammad Saleem could be understood as Muhammad Saleem, son of Muhammad Ismail.

Burgher

Burghers are Sri Lankans of European origin and typically have names that follow English, Dutch or Portugese conventions.

Post colonial

Many Sri Lankans of all ethnicities today follow the western tradition of having a last name that acts as the family name. Sinhalese typically have last names that are a made up of any two (or sometimes three) of a number of fragments such as Abey-, Jaya-, Wije-, Guna-, -wardene, -suriya, -tilleke, -singhe, etc. Families today are typically multi ethnic and many people have extremely long names composed of multiple names. This has been known to cause problems for Italian computers handling visa applications. Names: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lkawgw/index2.html

Aotearoa New Zealand Names

pre-1800s

People belonged to tribes and there were no surnames as such. At birth a person would be named after an event of circumstance, but later in life that person may adopt a different name, again due to an event of circumstance. Ancestry would be established by the tribe's name. The word ngati prefixes a tribes name and means 'descendants of'. So (the tribe) Ngati Tuwharetoa are the descendants of Tuwharetoa.

1800s to early 1900s

Pakeha (European New Zealanders) retained their naming traditions which was mostly English, Irish and Scottish.

Pakeha also influenced the local traditions and local Maori people adopted a second name, which was usually the father's name. So 'Maunga Ariki' could be understood as Maunga, son of Ariki. However names could still change due to events or circumstance. As well Pakeha missionaries were baptising much of the Maori. So Nene and Patuone could be two brothers born in the 1700s (and thus without surnames). They could later in life be baptised separately and become Tamati Waka (Thomas Walker) Nene and Hone (John) Maihi Patuone respectively. Therefore despite having the same parents, they have different surnames.

Maori also might have had alternate names. For example a Maori name, an English name, and a Maro version of an English name. Hone Te Awa could thus also be known as John Te Awa, Hone River, John River, Hone Waipapa Te Awa or John Waipapa Te Awa.

Women did not change their name when getting married.

post 1900s

New Zealand names of both Pakeha and Maori typically follow the English tradition of a common surname through all descendants. Maori may have an English surnname such as Wilson as well as a transliteration such as Wirihana.

There are other immigrants to New Zealand that follow their naming traditions (India, China, Samoa, Tonga etc..) or may adopt the English system for convenience.

Proposed Merger With Surname

Why not? It's pretty much the same thing, and it's may be rather confusing to have two separate articles. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was supprised there even were two articles, please merge. Knillis (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. In Iceland, and formerly in many Scandinavian countries, a surname is created from the parent's name, not from a longstanding family name. See Icelandic names:

The Icelandic system does not use family names. A person's surname indicates the first name of the person's father (patronymic) or in some cases mother (matronymic). The words patronymic and matronymic derive from Greek patr (father) and matr (mother), + onyma (name).

It seems to me that we have plenty of articles from Scandinavian countries in which these names are used, so it would be especially useful for us to have a separate "Surname" article; but even if we didn't, the distinction should be kept clear. Any overlap can be fixed by editing -- there's no need to repeat a lot between articles when a see also tag and a summary can be put in the article. [unsigned]

I've added a section on patronymics to the "Surname" article. It includes this paragraph: Patronymic name conventions are similar in some other nations, including Malaysia (see Malaysian name), among most people of the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, and in the Scottish Gaelic personal naming system.-- Reconsideration (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But your example just shows that you confuse "surname" (="family name") with "last name" which includes things like patronymics, etc. Any Scandinavian article dealing with the later should just direct to patronymic, although certainly any article under any name (family name/surname/last name) should gloss the history underlying the names of Scandinavia (and so would include a link to the patronym article). — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the opposite. Family names are a kind of surname, but surnames are not necessarily family names. I, for example, have a surname but not a family name. JDM1991 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you think that works, exactly? — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Family names are a kind of surname, and not the reverse, but then patronymic and surnames related to profession all have to be widely discussed in this article. I suggest expanding this article by abbreviating all forms here and place 'see also' links to the original article. Rajakhr (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No to merge. Surname intro also helps describe a (cited) difference. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No consensus reached after more than 2 years. Removed "merge" banner from article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hizotrung

High Zone = Hizo ... Trung = Share / Our ... Hizotrung = Our heaven or share heaven... Hizotrung (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tr is pronounce as J [unsigned]

Sharing a Surname With Someone Outside of an Immediate Family

I have found out that two people can have the same last name and be considered unrelated. I think maybe they are related, only indirectly. 66.168.54.243 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They are related in the '6 degrees of separation' sense, but otherwise, they are unrelated. Back in the day a 'Smith' from a small town in North England is totally unrelated to a 'Smith' from South England. Especially since the Smith from South England's father was a 'Fletcher'. Get what I mean? 67.241.72.20 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Folding "Married and maiden names" in with this article?

Hi all, user Fleetflame recently put a redirect to this page on the page "Married and maiden names." There is discussion on this page of the subject, but it's missing some info as far as I can see - specifically, on men changing their last names and options for naming children, especially when the parents don't share a last name. So, we could add info to this page, but I see that some people have already suggested breaking up this page. Unless someone argues otherwise, I think I'll reverse the redirect. Ricardiana (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You should feel free to undo the redirect; Fleetflame cited WP:BOLD as a rationale for the redirect. It'd be well within standard protocol for you to undo this pending further discussion (see WP:BRD). Considering the size of Married and maiden names, I think it's unwise to do a redirect without merging the content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK; thanks, Mendaliv, that makes sense. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is really the only excuse I can come up with right now for the change. I've taken a huge wikibreak over the past few months and I can't really become involved for a few more weeks (until the school year ends). The two articles, at first glance, seemed similar enough to be at least merged. I'm not going to defend my change, though, but I'd love to take closer looks at both of them in the future. I may try to find time in between things to overview both - we'll see. Fleetflame 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to merge, but please please keep in mind that merging is quite different from BOLDly redirecting an article. Even if both articles contain the same content, when dealing with established articles there's still redirects, section redirects and references from other articles that should be considered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Again, I'm not trying to defend my change or redo it. It was a long shot anyway.  :-) Fleetflame 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging: OK!

Merging the family name and surname pages is perfectly fine by me! I think that it would be much more informative. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryEAAS (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the merge, since family name often includes things aside from surnames and this article is so crowded. The surname article is much better. II | (t - c) 18:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would like to merge, but a lot of this information needs to be forked into a subarticle. How about family names around the world? Then only the most relevant information should be used as a summary. II | (t - c) 18:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep the article Surname in the literal meaning of ‘sur’ as “ueber” or “super”.

The first sentence on Family Page define ‘family name as type of surname’ but a lot of the content on the Family Name page actually relates to other types of surnames like patronymic (See Iceland, Greece).

Using Family Name and Surname as a synonym doesn’t seem to work for all cultures and the terms are used inconsistently throughout all the name pages.

How about a structure like this:

• Personal Name
  • Surname
    • Family Name
    • Patronymic
    • Matronymic
    • Clan Name
    • Other Surnames ….
  • Other Personal Names (another problem)

The Surname page would give an overview of the history of surnames by taking part of the History Section of the Family Name page:

“Surnames have arisen in cultures with large, concentrated populations where single names for individuals became insufficient to identify them clearly. In many cultures, the practice of using additional descriptive terms in identifying individuals has arisen. These identifying terms or descriptors may indicate personal attributes, location of origin, occupation, parentage, patronage, adoption, or clan affiliation”

Then list the types of Surnames with a short description and link to the articles.

Family Name

Family Branch Name (noms-dits)

Patronymic

Matronymic

Clan Name (Doesn’t exist yet but should summarize the [Xhosa_clan_names] , [Manchu_family_name], the roman clan names [gens] and many other articles mentioning ‘clan name’)

Other Surnames

I am sure there are some other types of surnames.

The Family Name, Patronymic, Matronymic, Clan Name pages should have a similar structure. Linking back to the more general “Surname Page”

All these pages have a “By Culture/Language/Country section” which could find a (temporary) home on the ‘Surname’ page. Most of these are actually concerned with the general naming conventions including given names, feudal name, etc. So the final home of these might actually be the “Personal Name” page or a 'Names around the world' page as suggested above.

Ideally the “Name in Culture’ Articles and paragraphs should have a similar structure as well. If they have a section concerned with Surnames / Family Names / Patronymic we could link to this seciont English_Name#Family_Name.

Does this make sense?

First post on Wikipedia (case i have not followed all wikipedia etiquette rules - please let me know)

Carsten, Carsten12345 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Carsten12345 is on to something. Maybe WP needs a Naming Conventions portal? I'm trying to do a minor edit of the Indian subcontinent section of Patronymics, but when I tried to simply clean up the first paragraph, I ran into problems of terminology. I'm a novice here, although before I became disabled I was a tech writer. I decided to conserve my energy and edit it lightly, but I hope to contribute later to standardizing term use across related entries. Geekdiva (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of 'Family Names' not 1375

Surely the meaning of the claim that 'family names' originated in 1375 is highly misleading, if not flatly incorrect. 'Family names' were in use in the equestrian and senatorial families of ancient Rome, for goodness sake. The current practice / habits of usage may be more recent, but Romans had, as we do, three names. The 'family name' was often the middle name - as the Artorii (example Lucius Artorius Castus - a suggested 'Arthur'). References are so many and so common that citing any is not needed. 4.227.206.106 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)jrc

Where to place a new section, Matrilineal surnames

Place it in Family name? or in Surname? or in Matrilineality?

This new section is dependent upon a DNA presentation. DNA is already presented in Matrilineality, but would need to be added in Family name or in Surname. So I placed the new section in the Matrilineality article.

Also, I think adding Matrilineal surnames within Family name would muddy the latter's clear-flowing waters. Keeping Family name a purely patrilineal article would be less confusing for readers. For7thGen (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My uncommon family name redirects to page for city in Turkey

My family name is of Polish origin and is uncommon in the USA, but it matches (except for a diacritical mark) the name of a city in Turkey. When my surname is entered into the search box, the browser is redirected to the page for the Turkish city. I'd like to create a surname page for my name, but the name is uncommon and the surname page would be a boring and self-serving page (and would probably get deleted quickly). Any suggestions for how to show that a name exists as a surname in the US and not just as a city in Turkey? --GaryGo (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's truly uncommon, the proper thing to do would be to go to Boringname and add a {{header}} to the top saying This article is about the city in Turkey. For other uses, see [[Boringname (disambiguation]]. Save the edit and click through to the Boringname (disambiguation) page. The lead should be "Boringname usually describes a city in Turkey.

It may also refer to:
* Boringname, a Polish surname

You could probably use the US Census database to find some stats on your name, though, so you could create at least a stub of an article at Boringname (surname). Don't forget to have a lot of kids, so the article can expand in the future. — LlywelynII 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Married names in North America

Where in North America is a married woman commonly known as Mrs. [husbands first and last name] in today's society. I know she was in the past but my understanding that if for example Mary Potter married George Cooper she would most likely be know as Mrs. Cooper or Mrs. Mary Cooper not Mrs. George Cooper. the statement that say the in North America is a married woman commonly known as Mrs. [husbands first and last name]should be reworded or removed Tydoni (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the whole country, but that used to be pretty common decades ago. I remember 30+ years ago, elderly women signing their checks "Mrs. John Smith". It used to be common to address a married couple as "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith". It's not considered a "wrong" usage, but it's no longer common, although it might be more common in some places than in others.--RLent (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of family names

Should family names be pronunced according their origin or according passport? This is a relevant question and a topic for discussion.--Deguef (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)--Deguef (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How does one pronounce a name according to "passport"? A family name is pronounced however the family itself pronounces it. Strebe (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

According to passport is just a way to say citizenship. We have now in Italy foreign immigrants which are achieving Italian citizenship: how their family names are to be pronunced? The same problem occurs in many western European countries as well as in North America, in South America, in Australia and elsewhere. I think that is necessary to adopt a general international rule on the matter. --Deguef (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

An "international rule" would not convince anyone to say his own name differently. In any case, citizenship does not describe language, dialect, or ethnicity. Given that many nations have multiple "official" languages, distinguishing by (current) nationality does not work. In any case, this is an opinion piece not relevant to the article. Good luck.Strebe (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• In France there is an unwritten rule. All family names are to be pronunced according to French pronunciation starting from the Hungarian name of the President of the French Republic.--Deguef (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mac and Mc

Should disambiugation pages such as McNeil and MacNeil be kept separate or merged into one? Both spellings are technically correct and may be used interchangably. Does WP have an official policy on this? Drutt (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that both Mc and Mac have the same meaning and origin, but suggest that as the names spelling is now locked in by current national name registration practices and that it (the name) be treated as seperate. Under current practice a child of an Mc is unlikely to become an Mac for instance.

A further reason is, if you take Neil for example, there are numerous spellings (Neal, Neale, Neil, Neill, etc). Each has the same base origin, Nial, but each is now unique.

I think cross referencing would be the best option.

There is an interesting web-site with an article by Ewen Innes that sets out the origin of Mc and Mac at http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/misc/macvsmc.html. NealeFamily (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Decendets of Lazarus Chavis

On the list of decendents of Lazarus Chavis, the name Hoover is missing. Please refer to The Beaver Creek Indian websit. www.beavercreekindians.com Thank You, Patricia Hoover Stevens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.192.120 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have copied this complaint to Talk:Beaver Creek Indians where it appears to belong. —Tamfang (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Alterations during immigration

This whole section appears to be based on anecdote; each of the references is a book or essay that happens to use a phrase such as "altered at Ellis Island" tangentially.

I've read elsewhere that name changes were in fact rather rare at Ellis because the clerks there included speakers of many languages (not hard to find in New York City!). Snopes may have something relevant. —Tamfang (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one of those references is not to an anecdote. It's to a novel. As I mentioned on the Talk page for the article this section links to, surnames were never changed at Ellis Island or other ports of immigration, simply because there was no mechanism for such a change. Immigration officials didn't write names down; they checked them off.

I've removed this section. Anyone care to nominate the Ellis Island Special article for deletion?

RogerLustig (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At least Ellis Island Special says fairly clearly that there's no such thing! There ought to be a mention in Family name of such adaptations (even if they never happened at Ellis) though it may not be worth a standalone article. —Tamfang (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that now, and it's much better. I agree that it may be non-noteworthy, and it may have problems with WP:NOR, but it does state the facts pretty well. RogerLustig (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed Something

I took Kiani out of lastnames, because it is not a prodimiently persian lastname. I'm of Irish and African decent and my lastname is Kiani, I got it from my great great grandfather who came from Ireland. The lastname Kiani is seen in 62 percent White Americans, 17.81 percent Asian, and another 17 percent in Mixed Racial background.

Here is the LINK: http://www.americanlastnames.us/K/KIANI.html

More so, the lastname Kiani is not specific to race according to the 1990 U.S. Census as its seen in nearly all races, nationalities, denominations, backgrounds, and religions.

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Kiani

There is proof that Irish, and some Scottish immigrants were of the surname Kiani.

http://www.ancestry.com/facts/Kiani-family-history.ashx

The name also has alot of history in Ireland were it was used as a firstname for boys and girls.

There is also a consistent amount of different Euroupean families named Kiani, some of them who are from Italy.

There is a region in Puerto Rico were a famous lake called "Laguna Kiani" in Spanish it means Lake Kiani, its famous for its uniqueness and preserved nature. There are Puerto Rican families with the surname Kiani. http://kianitours.com/vieques.htm

Kiani is also seen in Turks and Greeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoricuaDeCora5 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Listing Kiani among surnames used in Iran says nothing about whether or not similar names are used elsewhere. I don't think your deletion is justified unless you know that Kiani is not (also) used as a surname in Iran. —Tamfang (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes but than list it in every other section of last-names where it exist than because its not ONLY a Persian surname. The majority of the people with the surname of Kiani don't even have Persian heritage, thats what I was proving in my statements up above. I'm a Kiani myself and I have no Persian Heritage whats so ever, and Ive never met a Kiani that had Persian heritage, not saying there aren't. But I'm saying if you were to list it under Persian lastnames than your misinforming everyone who reads this article that Kiani is a lastname thats derived from Iran, which is unfair and wouldn't relate to the 90 percent of Kiani's who don't have any Persian heritage. And it should if it were to be placed under persian surnames it should be placed under every other nationality, language, or heritage the surname Kiani exists under.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BoricuaDeCora5 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, the article didn't say "Kiani is (only) a Persian name," it said "some Iranians are named Kiani." I don't think you're reasonable to complain about that. On another hand, I don't suppose removing Kiani damages the list significantly.

I've now looked at your links (I didn't before), and they don't say what you say they say. I don't see the words Irish or Scottish mentioned at any of them.

• americanlastnames.us: "By the 2000 US Census 62.74% of those with this family name identified themselves as being white, ... 17.81% as Asian and Pacific Islander, ... 17.53% as two or more races" — If Kiani were a purely Persian name, this is what I would expect! (Iranians look pretty much like Mediterraneans, so Americans would generally treat them as White, though some probably identify as Asian.)
• thinkbabynames.com is about given names, which are irrelevant here. It mentions the existence of the surname but says nothing about its origins.
• ancestry.com says two people named Kiani (brothers perhaps?) landed in New York from Italy in 1885. Such a small sample is not conclusive. (K is very unusual in Italian; perhaps they were illiterate. I see that one Chiani came from Naples in 1890.)
• kianitours.com does not mention Puerto Rican families or surnames.

You mention Turks and Greeks. I would bet that many Persian names exist in Turkey. —Tamfang (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A Persian Iranian wouldn't be considered white, it would be considered Asian because White is Cacuasian. And not even all the Asians are persian, there are different Nationalities and Heritages that have Kiani as there surname, because from what I have read Indonesians also have this surname. The whites that have the lastname Kiani are Irish, Scottish, English, and most likely other nationalities, and I have read Australians who have the SURNAME Kiani. http://www.surnameweb.org/Kiani/surnames.htm

I understand what your saying yes there are Persians who have the surname Kiani. And this topic is important for me because my surname is Kiani, but I'm not Persian, and like I said all the other Kiani's that I know are not Persian either. But I'm not saying that there aren't Persian people with the surname Kiani because more than likely there are. I'm just saying that its unfair to me and to any other people with the lastname Kiani to only put the surname Kiani in this article down only in the Persian category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoricuaDeCora5 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Iranians (like Arabs) are classified as Caucasian. Have you ever met one? The first time I did, I thought he was Spanish.

This article is not about fairness to you, or to any bearer of any other surname mentioned. Will you object similarly on behalf of all the African-descended bearers of English names?

I won't restore the item, because it was unreferenced and, as I said, the article is not significantly poorer without it. But if someone does show evidence that Kiani exists as a surname in Iran, that will be more than you've done. The links you presented don't say what you claimed they say. (The surnameweb page is not a list of places where Kiani exists, it's a list of search links that may or may not lead to paydirt. Let me know if you find some substance, I'm not going to click all of them.) How do I know you're for real? —Tamfang (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would I not be for real? Your trying to make me sound bad, Ive should you alot of proof you just twisting everything to make me look bad for some stupid reason I don't even know. People can click on these links and they can see for themselves they did not need me or you too judge. And your calling me a fake? making fun of the fact that I said I'm African? did you purposely leave out the fact that I said I was Irish and African decent and that I got my lastname Kiani from my Irish grand father? Look this isn't even life or death matter for me why are you making it such a big deal, your not even Kiani yourself... Ive met a couple Kiani's in my lifetime that were outside my family and non of them were Persian but I'm 100 percent sure there are, because Kiani seems as though its an international surname.

Yes, people can click your links and see for themselves; I did, and found that they do not back you up, so why should I trust you on anything? The only clear and relevant statements in any of them are that two men named Kiani came to New York from Italy, and (if I remember right) that someone named Kiani came on a boat whose last stop was in England. This is mighty thin proof.

I'm not saying you're a phony; I believe that you are entirely sincere, but that's beside the point. It is against Wikipedia's rules to rely on unsupported claims of personal knowledge. You can be mistaken; I can be fooled.

I do not mock your African side. (If I ever noticed that you mentioned it, I forgot.) Obviously one inherits a surname from only one lineage, in your case Irish (though the spelling seems almost as strange for Irish as for Italian). The point was this: Plenty of Americans have the surname Washington, for example, who did not inherit it from any English ancestor. Should we therefore exclude Washington from a list of English surnames, to be "fair" to those non-English persons who assumed it? Should a list of British or American given names exclude Bruce, to be "fair" to Bruce Lee?

But this implied analogy is somewhat unfair; the Black Washingtons and Chinese Bruces did take their names from the British naming tradition, just as English has adopted words from hundreds of languages; but I'm not suggesting that the Irish Kiani took the name from Persian! So here is a better analogy: I know Chinese-Americans named Low and Lowe, variant anglicized spellings of a Chinese name also spelled Lo; but Low(e) is also an English name, and maybe Dutch too (I don't remember for sure). Another Chinese name is Lam and I'll bet there are Chinese-Americans who spell it Lamb, another English name. Would it be "unfair" to list Low(e) and Lamb as English names if they're not also listed as Chinese?

Do I have to be an Iranian named Kiani to have an opinion on your wish to exclude information solely because it doesn't fit your experience? —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the points that Tamfang has made in his comments above. I checked the links BoricuaDeCora5 gave and Googled myself, and I can't find evidence that the surname Kiani is of Irish origin (baby-name websites of dubious authority state that the feminine given name is an American creation of modern origin). Put some of the most common Iranian surnames into the americanlastnames link and it'll show that within the US census the majority of people classified themselves as 'white': MOHAMMADI 74%, HOSSEINI 78%. Some are low proportions though, like: Abbasi 32%. Here's a surname derived from the Iranian capital and it's TEHRANI 81%. Wikipedians can't just assume that people of Iranian descent enter themselves as 'Asian' or whatever in American censuses. Wikipedians are supposed to look for sources that state things like that. It's original research if we start drawing conclusions from raw census data like BoricuaDeCora5 is doing.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish Kil– vs Gil–

“ Patronal from patronage (Hickman meaning Hick's man, where Hick is a pet form of the name Richard) or strong ties of religion Kilpatrick (follower of Patrick) or Kilbride (follower of Bridget). (Kil may come from the Gaelic word 'Cill' which means Church. This would certainly support the claim that the surname is tied to the religion.) ”

As I remember it, Kil means church and Gil means servant. Who's more confused here? —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The etymology of Hickman has nothing to do with the church. Yep, you're right the Gaelic cill / cille means "church". But I think in some cases Kil- surnames can be Anglicised forms of names that began in Gaelic with the element gilla/giolla, meaning "servant". The articles states that "Most surnames of British origin fall into seven types", one of which is "Patronal". We need a source for this to even have this section though.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested that Hickman has anything to do with any church. —Tamfang (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)