Humanities desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 28[edit]

Germanian People's ( tribes )[edit]

Is it possible that some of the tribes could have been travelers who wondered into this area and did not originate from the same sorse as the other tribes.

my point here is I want to know If it's possible that some of these tribes could have been of the 10 lost tribes known as the house of Israel.If so they would have probably came tru the cascacus mountains around 600 bc after the fall of the assirian empire.my understanding is the Assirians was keeping these people around the caspian sea as farming slaves than no body knows what happened to them.I think some of the tribes went into Europe and find the debates over the germainian tribes intriging,is it possible that not all of these tribes came from the same sorse? have they done any genetics to see if this is possible or would the peoples of the house of Judia that was taken away bye the Romans and dispursed thru europe in I think 400 ad these are the ones known as the jews caused the genetics to be flawed because the 2 are brothers so they would have the same genes.I am not trying to mix religion with science or history debate.But I do believe that the reference of the 10 lost tribes is of the house of Israel that was captured bye the assirians in 800 bc and has nothing to do with the tribes dispursed bye the romans in 400 ad.not to insite rage here but for instance of the 10 lost tribes one of them was called the tribe of " Dan ".It seems to me that when you look up the germanian tribes and there origins you always get a lot of not sures and dead ends I do believe that most of the tribes probably came from Scandinavian but what if some of them just wondered in and could be of the lost tribes

I do not believe the 10 lost tribes just asimulated into there new surroundings,I think they stuck togeather and when the assirian empire fell they made a run for it,I believe they split up some went into Asia,some went toward Africa,and some went thru the mountains and into Europe.this would have happened about 200 years after they where taken as slaves.I also believe some even went back to there origins but we are talking about alot of people actually 5 times more that what wound up being dispursed bye the Romans that we call jews ( house of Judia ) 2 tribes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.91.224 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Germanic peoples covers their origin. As to whether or not they could have been the "ten lost tribes", probably not likely. Germanic peoples can be reliably traced back to the earliest part of the Nordic Bronze Age, roughly 1700 BC. The "ten lost tribes" refers specifically to the Jewish people living in the Northern Kingdom during the days of the divided kingdom (Israel and Judah). The united Kingdom itself was only founded in about 1030 BC, meaning that when King Saul was founding the Jewish state, the Germanic peoples had been a roughly unified and identifiable cultural group for 700 years or so. When the "ten tribes" were "lost", which would have been fall of the Northern Kingdom in 732 BC, during that time the Germanic peoples were already well established in the red areas of the map below:

.

As to what happened to the "Ten Lost Tribes", there are very speculative hypothesis that the Ten Lost Tribes became almost every ethnic group in the entire world. No joke, the Wikipedia article contains speculations that the ten lost tribes later became connected to such disperate people as the Japanese, Native Americans, the Kurds, the Irish, and well, at this point, we've covered everything. What actually happened to them is probably less romantic; a proportion probably moved into the Kingdom of Judah (southern kingdom) as refugees when their own kingdom fell; they would have assimilated into the local population. Many would have been killed in the warfare or the forced exile to Assyria, the rest probably assimilated into Assyrian culture. --Jayron32 03:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have an article Assyria and Germany in Anglo-Israelism. However, the overwhelmingly probable answer is that the great majority of the so-called "lost tribes" (who can only be counted as ten by splitting Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh and including Levi, even though many Levites stayed with the southern kingdom) were culturally assimilated into general middle eastern populations (mostly Aramaic speaking) and lost their separate ethnic/religious identity.... AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading somewhere that they found an entirely male-line descendant of Charlemagne, who, being a Frank, was German, which proved that he had picked up some Near Eastern DNA, that they tracked back to a time centuries before when the Franks, apparently, were staying around, I believe, the Black Sea. Make of that what you will. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind, 148, that while he may have been a direct male-line descendent of Charlemagne, he was certainly also the descendent of all the female lines - 1 per generation assuming no dynastic intertwinings - that had subsequently married the male line over those centuries, so one could only attribute the "Near Eastern DNA" to Charlemagne if it was on his Y chromosome. Similar considerations apply, of course, to all of Charlemagne's ancestors. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to QI, every European presently living is statistically a direct descendant of Charlemagne. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnogenesis has always been traditionally expressed in terms of genealogy, but modern writers recognize in peoples like the Goths, cultural self-identification instead. Who are recognizable male-line descendants of Charlemagne? Wikipedia has an article Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups.--Wetman (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptree titles[edit]

A lot of James Tiptree short story titles are (often fairly obscure) quotes from somewhere -- e.g. "She Waits for All Men Born" from 'The Garden of Proserpine' by Swinburne, or "The Earth Doth Like A Snake Renew" from 'Hellas' by Shelley. Does anyone know where (if from anywhere) 'And I Have Come Upon This Place By Lost Ways' and 'Your Faces O My Sisters! Your Faces Filled Of Light!" originated? They certainly *look* like quotes from something... Vultur (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a Google Books search, it looks as though the first one is from a poem by Archibald MacLeish. I didn't find the second one, though. --Anonymous, 04:49 UTC, September 28, 2010.

Yes, it's MacLeish. The poem in question is: "L'An Trentiesme De Mon Eage". Ka renjc 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second one looks Whitmanish. DuncanHill (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Jane Harrison Tomkins, who wrote as Jennie Harrison. There is a Google Books snippet here which has a similar "oh my sisters" refrain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on "filled of light", which is sufficiently unusual to yield limited results. There's an Emily Brontë poem that uses the phrase, but it doesn't seem relevant otherwise. I have couple of suggestions. There's an outside chance it could be inspired by an Alfred de Musset play called À Quoi Rêvent les Jeunes Filles. In translation, the phrase (snippet here) comes in a scene where a lover contemplates beautiful twin sisters, "... two forms so filled of light, two hearts as one / And either one might be her sister's mould ...". The other is a poem by May Sarton, "My Sisters, O My Sisters". Reading the critical analysis of it here, it seems to contain similar themes to the Tiptree story. But it's only a suggestion. Ka renjc 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 165.91.175.11 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait identification[edit]

Who is this

please? I have searched tineye without success. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Mould would know. Ericoides 14:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you state on Commmons that it is your own work, perhaps you could enlighten us as to where you got it from? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't paint it! Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not what I meant though. If you could give some more information about where you found it, on the web or in real life, it might be helpful in the quest for a name. For example just a hint about a possible country of origin might do wonders (It bears some resemblence to the style of Joshua Reynolds). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might Alexander Cotswillow Grencham, inventor of the telescoping fish spear. or that might just be pure misinformation.

--Ludwigs2 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was his middle name pronounced "Codswallop"? AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very possibly; he was a significant philosophical figure in the Nova Scotian Lowbrow Enlightenment, you know... --Ludwigs2 22:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Tineye does not find anything. In my experience, Tineye does not find things in non-American domains, which gives a few few grains of information that the portrait is in europe and not North American. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countries[edit]

Why are countries referred to with female pronouns instead of gender-neutral ones? --204.184.214.2 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our gender-specific pronoun article says the origin of this practice is uncertain. --Sean 15:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also cultural. during WW2, Soviets referred to their country as the motherland, while Germans referred to the Germany as the fatherland. Googlemeister (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also this recent discussion of the topic at the Language desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 September 13#Grammatical gender in English as to states. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The two Russian equivalents to fatherland, both common in WW2 propaganda, are feminine (отчизна) and neutral (отечество), but both stem from father. The only "mother-based" expression used in propaganda (родина-мать) is not a word but a poetic mixup of two words. On a lighter note, there's Odessa Mama. East of Borschov 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the French word for "the fatherland", la patrie, is feminine. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the final comment at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 February 12#Do countries have gender? (got there from Wikidao's link) may be relevant to this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you give a company money?[edit]

Can a company like McDonald's or Microsoft or Coca Cola receive a donation from you (non tax-deductable, of course) to account for as 100% profit (donation)? How can I donate money in this way to Coca Cola or McDonald's, for example (to be used however they want, same as profit if I had bought one of their products but without the cost of producing their product and selling it to me). Can they create a "nothing" product that you can buy? (For example, is there a "nothing" product you can buy online, where you will literally get no delivery, though perhaps you could get an email saying you have successfully bought nothing for $779.50, or however much?) Thank you. 89.204.155.194 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing keeps you from doing so, but it is an accounting issue. First, it is not a donation in the general sense since donations often imply that they are given to a charity and the companies you mention are not charities. However, they do ask for free money in the form of stocks. The general concept is that you give money to the company. Then, you get a stock certificate indicating that you gave them money. You can sell that certificate if you like, but often you will hold on to it. As the company turns profit, they pass on a small amount of that profit to the people who own stock certificates - really as a "thank you" for giving them money in the first place. Now, you can resign a stock certificate - just giving it back to the company. So, it appears that the easiest method of giving money to a large company (from an accounting sense) would be to purchase stock and then hand the stock back over to the company. -- kainaw ™ 15:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If both you and Coke were interested in this kind of transaction, I think you could just write them a check, and then they could give you a receipt that said "Donation - $779.50", or whatever.

I don't have any reference for this, but I note that smaller businesses will sometimes do this. Especially online. Many online cartoonists (or other creative types) will accept pay-pal donations. You send the money, then get a receipt. There's no charity involved, you're just contributing money to a small business. You occasionally see this sort of thing in the real world as well. (You go blue-berry picking at so-and-so farms, in addition to paying for your blueberries you might also be asked to make a donation to so-and-so farms to help keep the quaint, locally owned farm going.)

All that said, I suspect that Coke isn't interested in taking your money for nothing. $779.50 wouldn't make any difference at all to Coke's overall money situation, but accepting donations would probably cause a poor P.R. situation. Obviously, you can't donate money to anyone unless they're willing to take your money. (But you could use the resign-on-a-stock trick, Kainaw outlines above.)

(However, if you've got $779.50 burning a hole in your pocket, consider donating it to the Wikimedia foundation, of course.) APL (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you must insist on donating money to a for-profit company, just let me know and I will get such a company set up. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that, even absent PR issues, Coke wouldn't cash the check. They would assume that either (a) you had (or thought you had) some clever way to extract millions of dollars out of them by getting them to accept a donation, or (b) you owed (or thought you owed) $779.50 to them for some reason, but they can't find it on their books, so they can't close it out. Even if they knew they were in the right, $779.50 just isn't worth the risk of dealing with legal issues. I feel like the auditors might be upset about money apparently appearing from nowhere, also.

Not part of your question, but related, are the concepts of consideration and peppercorn. These come up even in the case of nonprofits. For example, I once donated intellectual property to a nonprofit and received $10 as a peppercorn. The ever-present danger with receiving something is that the person may try to get it back! Paul (Stansifer) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a journalist or writer who sent cheques/checks for a small value - ten cents perhaps - to various well-known companies, and most of them cashed them. But if it would be better to give the money to charity, especially overseas charity. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most large for-profit companies have affiliated non-profit organizations they contribute to. Instead of giving money to McDonald's, you could give it to their charity, Ronald McDonald House Charities. McDonald's makes this easy by putting donation boxes in their restaurants. Instead of giving to Microsoft, you could give money to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Coca-Cola has the Coca-Cola Scholars Foundation among other charitable efforts. —D. Monack ^talk 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a "nothing product" you can buy, there was the iPhone app called I Am Rich, which cost $999.99 and did nothing except display a message to the effect that "I am rich." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims of Southeast Asia[edit]

So far I know that Thailand has a specific region that has Muslim population significantly (Pattan) and Philippines also has a specific region that significant Muslim population (Moro). What about Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.148 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on Islam in all four countries: Islam in Burma, Islam in Vietnam, Islam in Laos, and Islam in Cambodia. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Speaker[edit]

From House of Commons of the United Kingdom#Procedure: "Speeches are addressed to the presiding officer, using the words "Mr Speaker," "Madam Speaker," "Mr Deputy Speaker," or "Madam Deputy Speaker." Only the presiding officer may be directly addressed in debate; other Members must be referred to in the third person." A discussion has ensued on German Wikipedia why this is so. (In Germany, most people would consider it polite to address all the people present.) Might someone here be willing and able to shed some light on this question of protocol? Greets 85.180.192.221 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a technique to stop people from using the word "you" – thus keeping everything more polite, supposedly. If one is technically talking to the Speaker, then it's, "Perhaps the Prime Minister could explain why he did such and such," rather than anything direct, personal and more likely to become disrespectful. (Interestingly, in the House of Lords, remarks are addressed to 'My Lords' – the House as a whole – although with the same effect that personal references are banned.) ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

expanding on the last, this is a system for maintaining order in the discussion. if members are allowed to speak directly to each other, then (at more irritable moments) the house will suffer from excesses of noise, as members direct comments to each other whether or not they have the floor. This would make it difficult to follow discussions on the floor and impossible to keep accurate minutes of the ongoing conversation. by requiring that all comments be addressed to the chair only one person can speak at a time, and all others have the opportunity to listen to what s/he says carefully. It's basically the same rationale that's used in formal debate (separate point/counterpoint periods, to ensure that both participants have equal opportunity to present their case) expanded to larger groups. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more than that — it's a kind of exceptional formality and politeness which is used in a few, but not all, legislative bodies. It's not just because it is practical (which is arguably is or isn't). It's a specific type of formality known as "Congressional etiquette" in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He or she sits on the Chair and is thus the Chairman. Everything is addressed through the Chair for the reasons already given above. Here are the duties of the The Lord Speaker who resides in the other place for comparision. --Aspro (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have also missed the obvious out of over familiarity. The debating style of the House of Lords is courteous, even tempered and delivered (mostly) at a genteel pace. Whilst in the House of Commons, debates are much more of a cut-and-thrust adversarial style, with much uninhibited and noisy reaction to the wordage uttered from who ever holds the floor. The Speakers different powers and duties reflect this tradition. --Aspro (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing applies in the US Congress. One addresses "The Junior Senator from California" instead of using her real name. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Everard: That is not quite the same thing, though, is it? Many thanks indeed to all of you. Your explanations make perfect sense, of course, and yet I wonder if this is all there is to it. Treasury provided the interesting piece of information that with The Lords addressing the whole assembly is the polite thing to do. So, apparently, directing whatever you say to the chair instead of the audience is not in itself more polite than the "European" way, but only by convention. After all, one might argue that talking to somebody who is actually in the room via a third person in the third person is a bit artificial (not that I mind; I confess I am a great fan of ceremony and ritual, particularly of the Anglo-Saxon variety), and that an insult in the third person is no less harmful than in the first person. So please pardon me when I keep nagging: What information is there on the history of addressing the Speaker only? On a somewhat tangential note: What happens (or rather happened, in the case of Michael Martin) when the Speaker himself is the target of criticism? Is he then directly attacked in the second person (I suppose so)? 85.180.192.221 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the IP is misinformed. Deflection of the aggressive you is a feature of Italian, in which lei is a reference to the addressed person's (unstated) excellence, which is directly addressed. Aggressive informality, as when telemarketers address one by one's first name, may violate minimal requirements of decorum.--Wetman (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm all for getting rid of excessive formality, but this trend has gone too far. Thank you for "aggressive informality" - I will use it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion may be taking a wrong turn. I am, of course, not referring to the use of the grammatical honorific (which in German is, perhaps rather absurdly, the 3rd plural), but strictly to the practice of not addressing your real audience at all, but a sort of placeholder. 85.180.192.221 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The formality is common in many committees in the UK, and serves to keep the discussion together, preventing the meeting from degenerating into private discussions (as Ludwigs2 explained above). Is it not used in US meetings? Dbfirs 22:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary for members of the House of Representatives to address "Mr. Speaker" or (since 2007) "Madam Speaker." In the Senate, members address "Mr. President," who is not Barack Obama (the president of the United States) but Joe Biden, who as vice president of the U.S. is also president of the Senate. Biden is almost never in the Senate, so they're really addressing President Pro Tem Daniel Inouye, or, more likely, the acting president pro tem, who can be any Democratic senator. I don't think I've heard this convention used in places like city councils or boards of education or what have you, which tend to be much less formal. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly true. What they are addressing is the office which he holds, in this case that of the acting President of the Senate. They would never address Inouye directly on matters which concern him and his actions as a Senator. It's a bit of a convoluted disconnect, but they are addressing the Chair, not addressing the person who holds the chair. --Jayron32 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at our article Speaker (politics)? This offers insight on the role of the speaker in Anglo-Saxon legislatures. In one of my past careers, I worked for a state legislature in the United States, in which legislators followed the custom of addressing the speaker in the state House of Representatives and the Senate president in the Senate. I think that the roots of this practice are to be found in the ancient dual functions of Anglo-Saxon legislatures as both legislatures and courts. (The legislature where I worked is still called the Massachusetts General Court.) When legislatures serve(d) as courts, the speaker had some of the functions of a judge, moderating discussion. When legislatures debate and legislate, the speaker retains this function, and legislators address the speaker just as a trial attorney would address the judge. I strongly suspect that this is the root of the custom. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by your references to "Anglo-Saxon legislatures". The title of speaker was first recorded in 1377; the Anglo-Saxon period is generally held to have ended with the Norman Conquest in 1066, so to talk about the role of the speaker in Anglo-Saxon legislature is anachronistic. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was sympathically adopting the OP's use of the term Anglo-Saxon (see above) to refer to (modern) English-speaking cultures derived from the English-speaking cultures of Great Britain. This usage is common in many European countries. Marco polo (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates on Melos?[edit]

Dear Wikipedians! I write to you to inquire on philosophy and history!

I have learned of Melos, that which figures in the Melian Dialogue (416 BC). I wonder, therefore, did Socrates (469-399 BC) (or possibly Plato, as an opinion of Socrates is hard to discern from that of Plato) mention anything about the massacre of Melos? It seems to me to figure as something of a contemporary proof of the absolute wretched quality of the mob's tyranny - as perceived by Socrates or Plato, anyway.

Dear Wikipedians, I should be delighted and thankful to reecive your help on this matter. To me it reads like the most natural thing that, in search of evidence of Socrates/Plato's views, their comments on Melos should provide enormous help. Thank you in advance. 88.90.16.226 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP. Socrates was not much given to commentary on particular political events, being more interested in the idealized abstractions of philosophy and reason. Aristotle would be a more likely choice, but I do not recall him having made any particular comments about the act. Massacres of that sort were not particularly uncommon in the ancient world (armies were often paid in war-spoils, which included things like trade is women and slaves); the only notable difference in this case is that the Melosians had no support from other cities and were particularly stubborn, which may have annoyed the Athenians a bit more than usual. --Ludwigs2 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These weren't massacres...there were democratic slaughterings... Also at the time that the Battle of Melos, Plato would have been around 12-13.Smallman12q (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP IP here. I am aware Plato would be of that age, but I don't think it signifies to say he would be left untouched by it. My chief concern was if Socrates had had any opinion on it that he aired publically. Were he to have let this opinion show through to his students, then I imagine Plato would be able to produce a good argument against the Athenian democracy, should he share any elaborate view on the event. So far I've only been able to extract the historical account of Thucydides, but I trust people closer to Athens and Socrates/Plato may also have written something. Not yet sure if Xenophon, another contemporary, might have detailed reactions. 88.90.16.226 (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is speculation that Socrates was silent on the matter because Alcibiades supported it... though it may simply be that no record of his discontent is extant.Smallman12q (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

America entering the downside?[edit]

According to this, http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us the average height of Americans is not only now less than western Europeans, when it used to be greater, but Americans have actually become slightly shorter than in the recent past. What is the cause of that? Thanks 92.15.29.254 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoridation? ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the author's paragraph about height, "Recent Stagnation"? By the way, he has to support several of his claims he's making there — I question whether influences of immigration are magically made irrelevant by simply requiring the data to be from native-born Americans. Also you'd need to show that the most recent decline is statistically significant. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "recent" on his chart means a difference of one data point between 1960 and 1970. I'm not sure I'd put a lot of faith on that little data, and it is not that recent. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has something to do with the weight of the world on our shoulders? Just a thought. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the 1960's. Apparently weed stunts your growth. --Jayron32 06:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]