Executive Summary - storage.googleapis.com€¦ · Executive Summary . Have you ever been introduced to someone and you instantly thought that their name sounded like something that

The statements, views, opinions, expressed or implied are solely those of the author and not indicative of an accompanying firm that is currently or was in the past associated or employed by the author.

Which names were popular in the 1880s that are not popular now?

Executive Summary

Have you ever been introduced to someone and you instantly thought that their name sounded like something that your grandparent or even great-grandparent would be named?

Have you ever wondered why? This second installment of Urban Legend Debunking seeks to answer that very question by comparing data from 1880 to 2016 to see if there are names that are no longer used, common names that are now uncommon, and names that essentially died out that only elderly people commonly have.

Maud, Nannie and Willie (as a woman’s name) were once commonly used names as Americans used these names as their full first names when they registered for social security. Men’s names such as Adelbert, Arch, and Pink were also used to apply for benefits in 1880, but unsurprisingly, did not register in 2016. (United States of America Government, 2018)

William and James were very common names in 1880 as they were the only names to be in the top ten names by occurrence in 1880 and 2016. John, the most common name of any gender was a respectable 40th overall. However, it was behind Liam, Ethan, Lucas, Aiden, Sebastian, Carter and Jayden which did not register in 1880.

“John was the most popular boy's name every year from (at least) 1880 until 1924… Mary, which ran away with the top spot for girls all the way until 1947, when it was finally overtaken by Linda for a brief stint before enjoying another decade atop the charts starting in 1953.” (Keyser, 2015)

The reasons for changes in popularity of a given name range from the formalization of names for government documents, changes in the “accepted” spellings, the effects of celebrity, and gender specific name changes. To determine which names have had the greatest decrease in popularity, percentile and overall ranking methods are used. For names that did not register in 2016, a list of no longer used names are compiled, as Nannie, Maud and Willie, all female names top the list. For names that registered in 2016, but did not register in 1880, a list of “New Names,” is compiled, as Liam, Mia, and Ethan top the list.

Finally, a list of the top ten most declining names with the overall name in most decline is developed, as this name can used with assertion that only your great-grandmother was named this and why did your parents give you such an old sounding name. Names 10-6 are below with the full list at the end of the report.


Computed Difference Rank Name Sex 6 Madge F 7 Orpha F 8 Dee M 9 Lucretia F

10 Young M

Examining the Top Names in 1880

Well, first we need to take a quick look at some of the most popular names in 1880. Rutherford B. Hayes was President. Ironically, Rutherford is probably not a name that is used much today, more on that later. So, without further ado, let’s look at the top 10 names (regardless or sex) in 1880. (United States of America Government, 2018)

Chart 1.1: Top Overall Names in 1880

Name Number of Occurences_1880 Sex Overall Rank 1880 John 9655 M 1

William 9532 M 2 Mary 7065 F 3 James 5927 M 4

Charles 5348 M 5 George 5126 M 6 Frank 3242 M 7

Joseph 2632 M 8 Anna 2604 F 9

Thomas 2534 M 10

At first look, we can see that:

8 out of 10 names are Men’s names. John and William have almost twice as many occurrences as Charles (sixth on the list) John and William also have almost four times as many occurrences as Anna and Thomas (ninth

and tenth on the list respectively)

A deeper inspection of these names reveals that over 25% or one-quarter of the population was named of these names, as shown in Chart 1.2. Furthermore, a comparative analysis visual is displayed in Chart 1.3.

Chart 1.2: Cumulative Percentage of Names featuring the Top Ten Names in 1880


Chart 1.3: Comparative Analysis of Names in 1880

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

Percentage of Overall

John William Mary James Charles

George Frank Joseph Anna Thomas


The number of occurrences is the number of times that an individual applied for a social security card with the names listed in Chart 1.1. This is very interesting as by only looking at names that individuals used to apply for a social security card, as we are excluding those that did not file for a social security card. The reasons for not applying, possible social-economic reasons, and other items will not be examined as they are out of the scope of this report. Chart 2.1 shows us the top ten men’s names in 1880, as we see that Henry and Robert are added to the 8 previous men’s names. (United States of America Government, 2018)

This makes the viewer somewhat curious as to the naming pattern, especially variance of men’s names used in 1880. Taking the total number of name occurrences for men’s and women’s names with the total number of occurrences gives us a 55% Male to 45% Female split shown in Chart 1.4 (United States of America Government, 2018). However, the 1880 census gives us a 51% Male to 49% Female split as shown in Chart 1.5 (Censusrecords.com, 2018). Again, the reasons for the disparity of the overall population versus those applying for social security is beyond the scope of this report. It is also of note that names with less than 5 occurrences were not recorded. It is possible that more Female names occurred less than 5 times. If this is indeed true, then we could make the assertion that parents at this time were more likely to use more variation or be more creative with the naming of their daughters than they were with their sons.

Chart 1.4: Comparative Analysis of Male vs. Female Names in 1880


Chart 1.5: Comparative Analysis of Men vs. Women in the 1880 Census

Moving on to Chart 2.1 and Chart 2.2, we take a closer inspection at the top men’s and women’s names of 1880. We compute the average number of occurrences for both men and women in the top ten as we see that the is a disparity in the number of occurrences in men vs. women’s names.

Chart 2.1: Top 10 Men’s Names in 1880

Male, 25,573,522 , 51%

Female, 24,784,396 , 49%

1880 Census

Male Female


Male Name Rank 1880 Name Number of Occurences_1880 Sex Overall Rank 1880 1 John 9655 M 1 2 William 9532 M 2 3 James 5927 M 4 4 Charles 5348 M 5 5 George 5126 M 6 6 Frank 3242 M 7 7 Joseph 2632 M 8 8 Thomas 2534 M 10 9 Henry 2444 M 11

10 Robert 2415 M 12

Chart 2.2: Top 10 Women’s Names in 1880

Female Rank 1880 Name Number of Occurences_1880 Sex Overall Rank 1880 1 Mary 7065 F 3 2 Anna 2604 F 9 3 Emma 2003 F 15 4 Elizabeth 1939 F 16 5 Minnie 1746 F 18 6 Margaret 1578 F 20 7 Ida 1472 F 23 8 Alice 1414 F 24 9 Bertha 1320 F 25

10 Sarah 1288 F 26

Chart 2.3: Average Number of Occurrences: Men vs. Women (Top Ten) 1880

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Average Number ofOccurences-Men

Average Number ofOccurences-Women

4886

2243

Average Number of OccurencesMen vs. Women (Top Ten)


We now move onto the top overall names in 2016 as shown below in Chart 3.1. We see that in 134 years, we now have two women’s names are now top the most frequently occurring list. These names, like 1880, are only recorded if they have 5 or more occurrences and are the names used to apply for social security. In addition, we see that there is an even split amongst the top ten overall names between men and women. Overall, compared to 1880, the cumulative frequency of names is much lower with the top ten reaching only 5% (as shown in Chart 3.2 and Chart 3.3) compared with over 25% in 1880. This

Chart 3.1: Top 10 Overall Names in 2016

Overall Rank_2016 Name Sex Number of Occurences_2016 1 Emma F 19414 2 Olivia F 19246 3 Noah M 19015 4 Liam M 18138 5 Ava F 16237 6 Sophia F 16070 7 William M 15668 8 Mason M 15192 9 James M 14776

10 Isabella F 14722

In addition to having the top two spots, women’s names are now 4 out of the top 6 William and James are the only two names that were in the top ten in 1880 that are still in the

top ten names in 2016. John the top name in 1880 is no longer in the top ten, although now ranked 40th overall, is still

popular

Chart 3.2: Cumulative Percentage of Overall Top Names in 2016


In a side-by-side comparison, we see that the top ten names only account for a total of five percent of the overall, down from over 25% in 1880.

Chart 3.3: Cumulative Percentage of Overall Top Names in 1880 vs.2016

Visually, we see that in 2016, the top ten names are approximately equal as shown in Chart 3.3. In Chart 3.4, we see that this has changed since 1880 were there was a greater disparity as John and William occurred twice as much as names 3-6 (Mary, James, Charles, and George) and 4 times as much as names 7-10 (Frank, Joseph, Anna and Thomas).

Chart 3.3: Comparative Analysis of Overall Top Names in 2016

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

Percentage of Overall

Cumulative Percentage of Overall Top Names 2016

Emma Olivia Noah Liam Ava Sophia William Mason James Isabella


Chart 3.4: Comparative Analysis of Overall Top Names in 1880 vs.2016

The decadal, or every ten-year span, the United States government has a regulatory obligation to conduct a census, as the census data that we are using for comparison to 2016, is six years old. With this limitation considered, we still see that the population is equally split, however women are now in the majority 50.8% to 49.2% men as shown in Chart 3.5. (United States of America Government, 2018)


Chart 3.5: Comparative Analysis of Men vs. Women in the 2010 Census

Below in Chart 3.6, we see that Men’s names occurrences make up 52% compared to a 49%/51% population split to suggest that the possibility of there being more variation in Women’s names compared to Men’s names.

Chart 3.6: Comparative Analysis of Men vs. Women in Number (#) of Occurrences in 2016

Before we examine names that had the greatest change, we also need to examine names that were no longer used in 2016 that were used in 1880. The definition of a name that is no longer used is

Men's Names Occurences 2016,

1,880,674, 52%

Women's Names Occurences 2016,

1,756,647, 48%

Men's vs. Women's Names# of Occurences 2016

Men's Names Occurences 2016 Women's Names Occurences 2016


one that was not used at least five times in the process of applying for social security. While, there may be people with these names, for this report, we are considering that the names are no longer used. As we see below in Chart 4.1, the top four are Women’s names with Maud, with 345 occurrences with an overall rank of 118, was a common name that did not register in 2012. Garfield, which will be discussed later, was the top men’s name at #5, with 122 occurrences and an overall rank of 244 in 1880.

Chart 4.1: No Longer Used Names Overall

No Longer Used Rank Name Number of Occurences_1880 Sex Overall Rank 1880 1 Maud 345 F 118 2 Nannie 248 F 153 3 Willie 192 F 184 4 Mayme 124 F 239 5 Garfield 122 M 244 6 Claud 90 M 303 7 Bertie 77 F 339 8 Dollie 69 F 363 9 Pearl 62 M 392

10 Arch 61 M 396

Looking at the top ten women’s names we see that six of the top ten have the “ie,” as additional research shows that these “ie” endings were generally feminine stylings of men’s names or their truncated form, as Bertie, Willie, Gussie were feminine versions of Robert (Bert), William, and August (Gus) respectively. (Think Baby Names, 2018)

Nannie, Dollie and Mittie were generally considered to be nicknames or “pet,” names of Nan, Dorothy or Delores, and Matilda or Martha respectively. In fact, one such famous Mittie was, “Martha ‘Mittie’ Bulloch (1835-1884), the mother of President Theodore Roosevelt and grandmother of First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.” (Martha Stewart Bulloch, 2018)

Chart 4.2: Top Ten No Longer Used Women’s Names

No Longer Used Overall Rank

No Longer Used Female Name Rank Name

Number of Occurences_1880

1 1 Maud 345 2 2 Nannie 248 3 3 Willie 192 4 4 Mayme 124 7 5 Bertie 77 8 6 Dollie 69

11 7 Hulda 60 12 8 Gussie 54 13 9 Mittie 53 15 10 Hester 49


Looking at the top no longer used men’s names in Chart 4.3, we see that unlike the women’s names, there is not a discernable similarity with the no longer used women’s names as with the men’s names. Edd, Arch, Burt and Allie are truncated forms of generally used longer form names such as Edward, Archer, Robert and Allison. Green and Pink were colors that were used as given names. Garfield is an interesting case, as the name of English origin meaning spear-field, fell out of favor in the United States, having disappeared by 1960 as shown in Chart 4.4. (Think Baby Names, 2018)

Chart 4.3: Top Ten No Longer Used Men’s Names Overall

Chart 4.4: Popularity of the Name Garfield (Think Baby Names, 2018)

Claud likely fell out of fashion due to Claude being used instead as it is listed as an alternate form of Claude. Claude has a respectable 55 occurrences in 2016 as shown below in Chart 4.5. Pearl and Adelbert are no longer used, however, Pearl was a common women’s name in 2016 as shown in Chart 4.5.

No Longer Used Overall Rank

No Longer Used Male Rank Name

Number of Occurences_1880 Sex Overall Rank 1880

5 1 Garfield 122 M 244 6 2 Claud 90 M 303 9 3 Pearl 62 M 392

10 4 Arch 61 M 396 14 5 Edd 52 M 439 17 6 Burt 42 M 497 20 7 Green 39 M 522 23 8 Allie 31 M 580 25 9 Pink 30 M 597 28 10 Adelbert 28 M 624


Chart 4.5: Overall and Male Rank of Claude in 2016

Overall Rank Male 2016 Overall Rank_2016 Name Sex Number of Occurences_2016 2352 5393 Claude M 55

Chart 4.6: Overall and Female Rank of Pearl in 2016

Overall Rank Female Overall Rank_2016 Name Sex Number of Occurences_2016 567 1100 Pearl F 546

After looking at Names that were no longer used in 2016 that were used in 1880, we are now looking at names that had the biggest change in overall rank. The name’s rank in 2016 was subtracted from the name’s rank in 1880. This gives us a measure of where the name stands in 2016 compared to 1880 with a caveat. The caveat is that there are now over 36,000 names overall that have at least 5 or more occurrences. Looking at the overall list in Chart 5.1, we see that there is not a need for a separate list for men’s names as the top ten list is all names with the first women’s name being Myrtle at 18.

Chart 5.1 Biggest Change in Overall Rank

Overall Difference Name

Number of Occurrences

1880 Sex

Overall Rank 1880

Overall Rank 2016


2016

Overall Diff

1 Ora 64 M 386 32328 5 -31942 2 Young 14 M 969 32808 5 -31839 3 Loyd 14 M 958 32099 5 -31141 4 Orie 10 M 1206 32329 5 -31123 5 Rose 7 M 1533 32468 5 -30935 6 Dock 46 M 476 31375 5 -30899 7 Lonzo 10 M 1200 32095 5 -30895 8 Dewitt 30 M 593 31358 5 -30765 9 Lafe 9 M 1290 32051 5 -30761

10 Redden 6 M 1723 32405 5 -30682 18 Myrtle 615 F 65 30026 5 -29961


Chart 5.2: Bar Graph Comparison of the Number of Occurrences in 1880 vs. 2016


Chart 5.3: Comparison of the Number of Occurrences in 1880 vs. 2016

Chart 5.2 Biggest Change in Overall Rank-Women’s Names

Overall Difference

Women's Overall

Difference Name


1880 Sex

Overall Rank 1880

Overall Rank 2016


2016 Overall

Diff 18 1 Myrtle 615 F 65 30026 5 -29961 21 2 Tena 19 F 777 30599 5 -29822 25 3 Orpha 29 F 606 30162 5 -29556 26 4 Zoa 8 F 1358 30840 5 -29482 27 5 Madge 41 F 505 29821 5 -29316 29 6 Lucretia 29 F 605 29786 5 -29181 30 7 Hettie 69 F 364 29185 5 -28821 31 8 Lotta 12 F 1036 29776 5 -28740 32 9 Manda 10 F 1166 29865 5 -28699 33 10 Maudie 9 F 1255 29913 5 -28658


To ensure that we do not miss some “hidden” names, we take an added step of using percentile differences. This is achieved by dividing the overall rank by the total number of names and the subtracting from 1. For instance, if a name had an 1880 overall rank of 1000, then it would have a percentile rank of .50, or:

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 1 − (𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃𝑅𝑅 1880𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑅𝑅𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑇𝑇𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜 𝑁𝑁𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑁𝑁 1880� )

Percentiles were calculated for both 1880 and 2016 and the difference between them was calculated with the highest difference sorted and ranked as shown below in Chart 6.1. After calculating the biggest change in overall percentile, we see that Myrtle went from the 97th percentile to the 9th percentile, a percentile difference of 88. We also see that Bessie, which had an overall rank of 42, was in the 98th percentile in 1880, dropped to the 37th percentile. However, we see that Bessie had 8 occurrences in 2016. These 8 occurrences in a fraction (~1/100th) of the number of occurrences in 1880. However, because there were 8 occurrences in 2016 (vice say 5), this prevents Bessie from likely being the name with the most negative change. Ed with 8 occurrences, is similar in this fashion as despite the use of Ed has been replaced with the formal Edward, would rank third behind Bessie (using the same standard) and Myrtle. Despite the small differences in occurrences, it is still statistically significant in that there were 8 occurrences of both Bessie and Ed vice 5 for Myrtle.

Chart 6.1 Biggest Change in Overall Percentile Rank

Percentile Diff Rank Name


1880 Sex

Overall Rank 1880

Overall Rank 2016


2016 Percentile

1880 Percentile

2016 Percentile

Diff 1 Myrtle 615 F 65 30026 5 0.97 0.09 0.88 2 Ora 64 M 386 32328 5 0.81 0.02 0.79 3 Dock 46 M 476 31375 5 0.76 0.05 0.72 4 Hettie 69 F 364 29185 5 0.82 0.11 0.71 5 Dewitt 30 M 593 31358 5 0.70 0.05 0.66 6 Madge 41 F 505 29821 5 0.75 0.09 0.65 7 Orpha 29 F 606 30162 5 0.70 0.08 0.61 8 Bessie 796 F 42 20630 8 0.98 0.37 0.61 9 Lucretia 29 F 605 29786 5 0.70 0.09 0.60

10 Ed 310 M 129 21808 8 0.94 0.34 0.60

Examining the women’s names in Chart 6.2, we see that there are many women’s names that 80% of the names on the list were in the top 60 female ranked names in 1880. For comparison, we see that only 1 name on the men’s list were in the top 60, as Ed was ranked 55th.

Maude, as compared to Maud, which did not register in 2016, dropped from 858 occurrences in 1880 to 39 occurrences in 2016.It is interesting to note that if we were to add the 345 additional “Maud,” occurrences, that the overall Maud/e would overtake Blanche for third place on the women’s rankings.


Minnie stays in the top ten as it is joined with Bertha and Gertrude ranked 9th and 25th respectively in 1880. Bertha, a feminization of the men’s name Bert, which is a truncated form of Robert, still registers at a respectful 34 occurrences and a 76th percentile.

Chart 6.2 Biggest Change in Percentile Rank-Women’s Names

Women's Percentile

Diff Name


1880

Female Rank 1880

Overall Rank 1880


2016

Overall Rank

Female Percentile 1880

Percentile 2016

Percentile Diff

1 Myrtle 615 40 65 5 17925 0.828326 0.00676 0.821566 2 Bessie 796 23 42 8 11868 0.901288 0.342384 0.558904 3 Blanche 427 59 96 9 10940 0.746781 0.393805 0.352976 4 Maude 858 21 39 17 7065 0.909871 0.608522 0.301349 5 Bertha 1320 9 25 34 4230 0.961373 0.765612 0.195761 6 Hettie 69 181 364 5 17084 0.223176 0.053361 0.169815 7 Ethel 633 38 63 25 5300 0.83691 0.706322 0.130588 8 Bettie 113 138 253 7 13025 0.407725 0.278273 0.129452 9 Minnie 1746 5 18 65 2673 0.978541 0.851887 0.126654

10 Gertrude 787 25 44 36 4085 0.892704 0.773647 0.119057

Ed, Dewitt, Adolph, Columbus, Dee, Winfield and Gustave are all very interesting additions. Dee is likely a truncation to go along with Ed. Adolph’s decrease is more than likely due to Adolph Hitler, as parents were likely leery to name their child after the past leader of Nazi Germany. Although restrictions on naming a child vary, as Kat Steimetz stated, “New Jersey law allows parents to confer any name on a child so long as it doesn’t include obscenity, numerals or symbols.” (Steinmetz, 2013)

Chart 6.3 Biggest Change in Percentile Rank-Men’s Names

Men's Percentile

Diff Name


1880

Male Name Rank 1880


2016

Overall Rank Male 2016

Male Rank Diff

Percentile 1880

Percentile 2016

Percentile Diff

1 Ora 64 194 5 13571 13377 0.903 0.587106 0.315894 2 Dock 46 245 5 12618 12373 0.8775 0.616101 0.261399 3 Ed 310 55 8 9027 8972 0.9725 0.725356 0.247144 4 Dewitt 30 306 5 12601 12295 0.847 0.616618 0.230382 5 Adolph 93 145 7 9625 9480 0.9275 0.707162 0.220338 6 Columbus 64 192 7 9798 9606 0.904 0.701899 0.202101 7 Dee 20 384 5 12560 12176 0.808 0.617865 0.190135 8 Winfield 108 122 10 8064 7942 0.939 0.754655 0.184345 9 Gustave 49 238 7 9959 9721 0.881 0.697 0.184

10 Young 14 504 5 14051 13547 0.748 0.572502 0.175498


Parents, based off of the information so far, are still very unlikely to name their children names that could stigmatize them or create difficulty for them unless there is a

Below in Chart 6.4, we have a side-by-side comparison of the change in overall rank versus the change in percentile rank.

Chart 6.4 Biggest Change in Percentile Rank-Men’s Names

After examining the side-by-side comparison, it is noticeable to see that there are some names in the top 50, that have a notably larger percentile difference than their overall difference measured by overall rank changes and vice versa. From this we devise a system or an equation that will take 50% of the percentile difference and 50%. As shown in Chart 6.5, we see that Dee and Lucretia are the only names that were not in either of the Men’s or Women’s Top Ten rankings.


Chart 6.5: Computed Difference Rankings

Computed Difference Rank Name Sex Computed Diff 1 Myrtle F 58919 2 Ora M 57926 3 Dock M 54451 4 Dewitt M 52378 5 Hettie F 52024 6 Madge F 50838 7 Orpha F 49759 8 Dee M 49419 9 Lucretia F 49024

10 Young M 48722

Chart 7.1 below shows the new names, or names that were not registered in 1880 that are now registering in 2016. We see that Liam, Mia, Ethan, Lucas, and Aiden have over 12,000 occurrences, with Liam becoming the fourth most common name. There does not seem to be a consensus as to why Liam has become so popular. Liam, the short form of the popular Irish name Uilliam, has essentially sky rocketed in popularity in the last 20 years. (Uilliam, 2018)

Chart 7.1 Top New Names

NEW NAMES OVERALL RANK

OVERALL RANK_2016

NAME SEX NUMBER OF OCCURENCES_2016

1 4 Liam M 18138 2 13 Mia F 14366 3 16 Ethan M 13758 4 21 Lucas M 12838 5 23 Aiden M 12158 6 30 Harper F 10733 7 35 Sebastian M 10249 8 37 Carter M 10134 9 38 Jayden M 10063

10 44 Dylan M 9657 48 140 Aaliyah F 4611


Chart 7.2: Graphical Representation of the Top 50 New Names

Chart 7.3: Top 50 News Names by Gender


The name Aaliyah was listed in Chart 7.1, ranked at number 48. This name is of importance since there was a sudden surge in the use of this women’s name. Unlike Liam, where there was not an attributable event that lead to the surge, Aaliyah was likely due to the popularity and death of Aaliyah Haughton. Aaliyah Houghton, know by her first name, released her first album in 1994, where we see an initial uptick in the use of the name. (Schumacher-Rasmussen, 2018)

The initial uptick is followed up in 1997, that coincides with Aaliyah’s second album. Tragically, the spike in 2001 coincides with Aaliyah’s movie debut, “Romeo Must Die,” and her death on August 26th, 2001. (Schumacher-Rasmussen, 2018)

Chart 7.4: Popularity of the name Aaliyah

Conclusion

The computed difference rank is used as the final ranking as this compound system mitigates names that appeared to be in great decline based on individual rank by utilizing the percentile difference. From this we see that Myrtle is the name that has the greatest decline, as this name was commonly used in 1880 as it is almost in non-existence in 2016.


Chart 6.5: Computed Difference Rankings

Computed Difference Rank Name Sex Computed Diff 1 Myrtle F 58919 2 Ora M 57926 3 Dock M 54451 4 Dewitt M 52378 5 Hettie F 52024 6 Madge F 50838 7 Orpha F 49759 8 Dee M 49419 9 Lucretia F 49024

10 Young M 48722

Works Cited Age and Sex Composition: 2010. (2018, January 31). Retrieved from Census.gov:

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

Censusrecords.com. (2018, January 18). censusrecords.com. Retrieved from censusrecords.com: https://www.censusrecords.com/Search?CensusYear=1880

Keyser, H. (2015, June 26). Watch How Baby Name Popularity Changes Over Time. Retrieved from Mental Floss: http://mentalfloss.com/article/65585/watch-how-baby-name-popularity-changes-over-time


Martha Stewart Bulloch. (2018, February 8). Retrieved from The Roosevelt Center: http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Family-and-Friends/Martha-Bulloch-Roosevelt.aspx

Schumacher-Rasmussen, E. (2018, February 21). AALIYAH KILLED IN PLANE CRASH. Retrieved from MTV News: http://www.mtv.com/news/1448402/aaliyah-killed-in-plane-crash/

Steinmetz, K. (2013, August 12). From Messiah to Hitler, What You Can and Cannot Name Your Child. Time.

Think baby Names. (2018, February 8). Retrieved from What does Garfield Mean: http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/1/Garfield

Think Baby Names. (2018, February 5). Retrieved from Gussie (Girl): http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Gussie

Uilliam. (2018, February 20). Retrieved from Behind the Name: https://www.behindthename.com/name/uilliam

United States of America Government. (2018, January 18). Data.Gov/datasets. Retrieved from Data.Gov: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/baby-names-from-social-security-card-applications-national-level-data

Documents

Executive Summary - storage.googleapis.com€¦ · Executive Summary . Have you ever been introduced to someone and you instantly thought that their name sounded like something that