Humanities desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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.

November 20

Historical Statistics of/for Various Large Countries

Other than for the United States (see Historical Statistics of the United States, as well as here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/past_years.html), Canada (see here: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=11-516-X&lang=eng), and Japan (see here: http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/chouki/), has any large country's (a country with a current population of 35 million people or above) government/official statistical agency ever (regardless of when) published a "Historical Statistics" book/report/et cetera for that specific country? Hopefully my question here is clear enough already and no one here misunderstands and/or is confused by what I am asking here. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a privately published one for the United Kingdom: British Historical Statistics[1] (working on the update here: [2]). Rmhermen (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a database of Historical Statistics for Germany. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to both of you. Is the German one free? The British one doesn't appear to be free, but I am unsure about the German one. For the record, though, for/in this question, I was asking specifically about "Historical Statistics" published by the governments/official statistical agencies of specific large countries, rather than by private organizations/private agencies. Futurist110 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INSEE in France has historical statistics on their website...although it takes some digging to find them. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen some historical statistics on their website as well. That said, is there some kind/sort of easy way(s) to successfully search for and find all of these statistics on their website? Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience with the INSEE wesbite, no, not at all :) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a huge amount of experience with the INSEE website? Futurist110 (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, I suppose not, I'm exaggerating a bit. I find it as useful/useless as the StatCan website anyway...if you want all the good info, you need to buy it, they don't just give this stuff away for free. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying here is true, then unfortunately, it is a real disappointment. Anyway, is it okay if I do some additional searching on the INSEE website, show you what I found, and then ask you if you previously found any other historical statistics on this website other than what I found? Futurist110 (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Europe article

Could you help in editing the article?

Prehistoric Europe article states: "Northern Europe, including Northern Russia, remained in the prehistoric period until as late as the Late Middle Ages, around AD 1400, with the Northern Crusades. Thus, much of Europe was in a stage of proto-history for a long period". However at the same time, viking travel between Northern Europe - Western Europe (I.E. Normandy), and across Russia in early Viking period, tied those regions with Southern Europe/Bizantium, Persia, and other western European countries. So to differentiate dramatically that NOrthern Europe and Northern Russia remained in prehistoric period until 1400 is absolutely false. How can they be separated as early Russian Princes were tied by marriage to emperors of Bizantium? And while vikings have created/ruled Normandy in France before they have invaded England in 1066? This events have happened much before 1400s. Please bring this to the attention of whoever wrote this article... and ask them to review their facts.

Certainly there were many parallel developments in Northern Europe, there were thriving cultures in Nordic Europe ... and it is well written and described already in Wikipedia other cultures. So writing in such terms is certainly sound utterly contrary to the facts.

Thanks, Eugene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.28.15 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not true for all of northern Europe, but it is somewhat true for northeastern Europe. The eastern Baltic lands (present-day Baltic states and Finland) did indeed enter the historical record as a result of the Northern Crusades, but in the 12th century, not the 15th. As for northern (European) Russia, the expansion of Russian settlement northward from Novgorod in the 11th and 12th centuries brought that region into the historical record. This was a separate development from the Northern Crusades. I will edit the article. Marco polo (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

corruption of boardmembers in a non-profit organization-SPCA

Request for legal advice removed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I need assistance & direction what to do & who to contact, where do i start trying to get corrupt board members off the board of directors for a non-profit animal rescue that carries the name SPCA. our animals & the shelter is suffering, and suspect that 1 member & the caretaker are abusing our animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.108.10 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name for a human position

It's not in human positions, but I think I've somewhere seen a name for the following position: you're standing, one of your hands is on your chest or high abdomen, and the other is out of the way. In Westsern culture, a speaker in this pose gives the sense of "I'm talking about myself right now". You can imagine someone starting akimbo and moving one hand up to the chest. What do we call this? 2001:18E8:2:28C9:F000:0:0:611E (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Napoleonic pose? Try Google Images for "Napoleonic pose" and see if it's what you're talking about. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hill's manual of social and business forms: A guide to correct writing, page 454] describes a "Dignity" pose, but I do not think that is the pose you are asking about. I looked around for "oratory posturing", "theatrical gestures" and "body language" and there doesn't seem to be a place where there are formal names for specific poses. I also Google'd "Drawing poses", "action poses", etc. I found lots of drawings, but no names. Wikimedia Commons has Commons:Category:Hand on Chest and Commons:Category:Hand over heart and Commons:Category:Hand gestures in conversation. I hope this helps. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous Napoleonic pose is at Hand-in-waistcoat and commons:Category:Hand-in-waistcoat... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obamacare and job loss

All the sources on Obamacare - even the Obamacare site itself - refer people to the income calculator at the Kaiser foundation for estimation of benefits. [3] Now I know that Obamacare has an infamous lower cutoff for subsidy benefits at the poverty line - but additionally, the link above says that subsidies are offered according to expected 2014 income. People with variable income can adjust their subsidies over the course of the year. Now for the normal situation - if a person makes more money, they might have to pay back subsidies - this is a fairly small problem, because they have more money than they ever expected. But what happens when someone loses a source of income and is left high and dry at the end of the year?

For example, consider a person making $11,500 a year. Of course, they have no employer insurance option. [4] The yearly payment is only $230 - easily affordable, indeed - with a subsidy of $7,637 per year. Great!

Problem is, they get laid off around Thanksgiving, and their annual income turns out to be $10,000 a year. [5] The subsidy is now officially zero - same as if they were making $100,000. We'll assume they live in one of the nearly half the states that will not expand Medicaid - even if they did, the person has already been on the private insurance with subsidy.

Are they now on the hook for $7407 in back insurance subsidies? Wnt (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to get this answer is from a customer service representative at your insurance company. --Jayron32 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone anywhere gets Obamacare before January 1. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It seems unlikely it's something that hasn't been discussed. Sure enough, a search for 'obamacare 2014 income changes' finds [6] which provides a clue, there appears to be a limit to how much you have to payback depending on your income level. A semi mistaken search for 'subsidy pay back' is actually fairly fruitful finding [7] which says for for individuals below 200% of the poverty line, the maximum they will have to payback is $300. I presume this is what your $10000 person will have to pay back.

Incidentally, I don't know that much about the US tax system except that it generally seems insanely complicated (although Pay-as-you-earn tax and Tax withholding in the United States suggests a form of PAYE or withholding tax is used), but is there a chance this person might have overpaid tax anyway, so they will be due a tax refund and the actual repayment will end up less than $300?

Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The limit on payback is very interesting. Does this mean that the very low income (unemployed, etc.) people ineligible for Obamacare can enjoy subsidies all year, then pay $300 penalty, plus the $230 for the insurance, by simply:

A) withdraw $1000 in retirement funds in January 2014 (plus something for penalty adjustment, I think)

B) get Obamacare with full subsidy

C) don't report the change in income (it doesn't sound like they're required to)

D) file their return with the penalty

Interesting social implications if true - it would largely undo the effect of Republicans banning poor from Medicaid, but rewarding their states by shifting the cost to the federal government. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]