Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 October 19

= October 19 =

Kid -- the young of the goat and the young of the human, are they related somehow?
(Moved to Language desk here - -- the Great   Gavini  04:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC))

Law
Why are some cases, such as United States v. Lopez, titled with the name of the US whereas other cases, such as Gonzales v. Raich, are titled with the attorney general's name? TIA, 76.78.154.197 (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not especially familiar with Gonzales v. Raich, but as far as I understand it, the difference is that in Raich, Raich brought an action for declaratory judgment, whereas in Lopez, Lopez was appealing his conviction in federal court. You're obviously looking at the recent line of commerce clause cases; a topic that isn't internally consistent. But the naming conventions tend to depend on the procedural posture of the case. The person challenging someone is named first, then versus who they're challenging. I'm not especially familiar with naming conventions with declaratory judgments, but I think the law enforcement authority of the sovereign being challenged is named, in this case the Attorney General. In Lopez, the defendant was appealing a conviction so the U.S., the opposing party, is named. In Raich it's a declaratory judgment, so the AG is named. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Thank you. 76.78.154.197 (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The really funny case names are "The United States" versus some inanimate object or silly sounding entity. An example is "The United States versus 1960 bags of coffee" from 1814. It reminds me of Bambi Meets Godzilla. Edison (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And there's always United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, and the text of that one is even funnier than the name. rc (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I bet the judge had a fun time writing that opinion. Googlemeister (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are Greek bonds more expensive than other Euro-bonds?
Even if their economy is screwed up, isn't it reasonable to expect that other Euro-countries would hurry to save them, if the need arises?--Quest09 (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no guarantee that Greece would be "saved" if it found itself unable to fund its borrowing. A number of states have defaulted on bonds obligations - IIRC, Brazil is one - and have done very nicely in later years. The increased yield from Greek bonds is the risk premium on a default. The price of Greek bonds is presumably low. (Bonds have fixed interest. The interest is varied by varying the price.)
 * Were Greece to be bailed out, it would be that country's relatively small debts spread amongst whichever other EU countries picked up the tab. The risk falling on these other countries is considerably lower than that falling on Greece. And presumably these other countries would only lend to Greece if they could afford it - i.e. would so so only in a period where their own bonds were being sought in the market. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The E.U. would act to prevent the Greek economy from going into deep depression, but that wouldn't necessarily ensure that all Greek bonds would still pay out at 100% of the originally-promised level... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish to point out that the question "Why are Greek bonds more expensive than other Euro-bonds?" is a diffent matter than "Even if their economy is screwed up, isn't it reasonable to expect that other Euro-countries would hurry to save them, if the need arises?"

The short answer for the 1st question is that health of Greek public finances is (and was) simply poorer than those of other countries. A bank will charge more interest to someone with a poor bank record (high chances of a delayed payment) than to someone with a good record (this customer is almost certain to pay the loan in time).

The answer to the 2nd question is that the EU can't help Greece early on. If the EU helps Greece now, other countries facing the same problems (PIIGS and others) would be inclined to ask for the same treatment. "You helped Greece, help us too". Flamarande (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cynics could argue that some EU governments might secretly hope to see Greece fail; if that happens the Euro would fall significantly, which would be great for other economies, especially the big export-oriented country in the north. When the Greek economy went through a crisis a few months back, the Euro went down a lot and so went German unemployment. If I were buying Greek bonds, I'd keep that in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Realists know that a complete failure of the Greek government to pay its employees and debts would create storm in the international financial markets. A frightened market would certainly raise its interest rates. I believe that all EU governments are borrowing money, so they are not interested in borrowing it with higher interest rates. Flamarande (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Uplifting classic novels?
What classics or minor-classic novels are emotionally uplifting, in other words not depressing? When I was a youth I unwittingly read Jude The Obscure and The Bell Jar, and although I did not realise it at the time they may have caused my youthful gloom. Thanks 92.24.191.1 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Pride and Prejudice, Emma and Jane Eyre, although you need to read them to the end and not find the basics of the society depressing! 109.155.37.180 (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To Kill a Mockingbird, despite its serious themes. --Viennese Waltz 12:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Silas Marner - George Eliot manages to include much of what is satisfying about Dickens, without much of what annoys me in his works. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Les Misérables by Victor Hugo has some pretty uplifting stuff, but it also has some fairly depressing stuff. Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can get through the hundreds of pages of trivia. The protagonist, Jean Valjean, doesn't even show up till about 150 pages into the damn thing.  216.93.213.191 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What can I say? It was a time before iPods, TVs and 2:00 microwave dinners.  Things went slower back then.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Neville Shute's work is yet old enough to be considered 'minor-classic', but I find nearly all of his novels have a cheering effect. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You find On the Beach uplifting? Anyways, I think Robinson Crusoe and Huckleberry Finn are both quite nice, as is everything by Jules Verne (however, the English translations are reputed to be horrible - I read them in the Klingon German original). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did say "nearly": anyway, aren't I allowed the odd misanthropic mood? :-). Re Jules Verne, the earliest English translations were, I have read, often hastily translated pirate editions, which also abridged and juvenilised(?) the material, but more recent ones such as those edited by I. O. Evans are great improvements. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean the German translations? The originals would be in French.--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon!" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Under the Greenwood Tree might help counterbalance the lingering effects of Jude the Obscure, which I agree is Hardy at his grimmest. A Christmas Carol, of course, is guaranteed to rouse the feelgood factor.  Do not, if you value what remains of your capacity for joy, touch Brighton Rock with a ten-foot spiked pole.   Ka renjc 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall reading Travels With My Aunt, which was somewhat uplifting. I speculate that those novels by Graham Greene described as entertainments or comedies will serve the purpose, as well as being reliable good reads. 92.15.2.202 (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim is wonderful. On no account ever read any novels by Hardy - not only will you want to pluck out your own eyeballs to end the agony, but worse, it'll put you off exploring his fine poetry. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The American Library Association provides lists of Best Books for Young Adults. Wiki Dao &#9775;  (talk)  19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So your answer has got nothing to do with uplifting novels, but just points to a list of recent books? 92.15.11.176 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yuh-huh. But there are many in those lists, and in the other list I link to below, that might be of interest to the OP.   Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just give a link to Amazon? BTW, when you read the question you will see that the OP is not looking for youth books. 92.28.245.255 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason, books chosen as 'quality' books for young adults tend to be depressing more often than books chosen as 'quality' books for adults. Those lists are also made up of recent books (published in the last year), rather than classics. They are also mixtures of non-fiction and fiction, with no indication I can see to identify the novels in the list. Is there a selection from that site which lists emotionally uplifting classic or semi-classic novels? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was something interesting in a New Yorker article recently about young adults books tending to be "depressing" as you say -- I'll see if I can track that down in a minute perhaps.
 * I thought linking to a list might be helpful in addition to all the more personal recommendations. Another list that might be helpful is Modern Library's 100 Best Novels, on which are some that would certainly be suitable for young adults.   Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a good recent article on "depressing" young-adult fiction in The New Yorker magazine in case it may be of any interest:
 * Fresh Hell: What’s behind the boom in dystopian fiction for young readers? by Laura Miller (June 14, 2010). Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  20:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich really sounds like it should be appallingly glum: glum setting, glum weather, glum story, glum author, and they always put horrible glum pictures on the cover. Even the Wikipedia article is unremittingly glum too. But yet, for reasons that are hard to explain, and that don't involve trite happy endings or fanfares of trumpets at unlikely moments of sunlit triumph, it is (taken as a whole) anything but glum. It's also short. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting use of the word 'glum', Finlay. I associate that more with what Tony Hancock would be on a wet Sunday afternoon; goings on in a 1960s Siberian gulag would be more likely to be grim. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * TVTropes has an article on Death By Newbery Medal, about how Newbery medal winning young adult novels tend to have depressing subject matter. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bridge of San Luis Rey has what one might consider a depressing theme, but the prose is so perfect and the gentle ending gives such chills (in a good way) that it qualifies for me as emotional feel-good fodder. It's a definite favourite of mine, and that's coming from someone who's been trying to continue Les Mis for the last 5 years but can't bear the tension of the story, so it must be okay! Another option is Ray Bradbury's Dandelion Wine. Not a classic nor even a minor classic, probably, but good and "uplifting" in a classic fashion (I think so, anyway). Plus, it's about childhood, a happy one, so might go some way towards undoing the gloom of having read Hardy and Plath too young, :)  Mae din\ talk 21:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so far. However I'm disapointed that one or two people have not read the question from end to end, but have just seen the word "youth" and have given an answer about that. 92.28.245.255 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between being the antithesis of depressing and being "emotionally uplifting". Any work one cares to name by P. G. Wodehouse, for instance, is certainly the former but also probably not the latter. I tend to find some pretty odd things emotionally uplifting, but it strikes me that many Victorian novels fall into that category—most of Dickens and most of Wilkie Collins, for instance. If you'll accept something that's not a verifiable classic (and is pretty short), allow me to recommend Mark Helprin's story "Ellis Island". Of course, the young can manage to find almost anything depressing; as Bart Simpson said, "Making teenagers depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel." Deor (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, apart from the chapter about Beth March's death which always made me cry as a child. Her two sequals: Little Men and Jo's Boys are also uplifting.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have always found The Count of Monte Cristo to be strangely uplifting. It does start out being somewhat depressing, but that is just to create the setting for the rest of the novel. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It really depends what you mean by classics, but I would suggest Cold Comfort Farm and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Also, I disagree with Deor about the oeuvre of P. G. Wodehouse, whose work I cannot dip into without the risk of audible snorts of laughter. Intellectually uplifting, no, but this sort of comedy certainly uplifts my emotions. Waugh and Adams agree re Plum:
 * Evelyn Waugh: "He will continue to release future generations from captivity which may be more irksome than our own. He has made a world for us to live in and delight in."
 * Douglas Adams: "One of the most blissful joys of the English language is the fact that one of its greatest practitioners ever was a jokesmith. What Wodehouse writes is pure word music."
 * Another good source that I turn to in darker days is E. F. Benson for Mapp and Lucia. Others more erudite than I agree -- Nancy Mitford, W H Auden, Noël Coward and Gertrude Lawrence said "We will pay anything for Lucia books". BrainyBabe (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the OP (Special:Contributions/92.28.245.255) isn't asking about "young reader" novels as it perhaps seemed at first. And he or she seemed not to find my first suggested "list" helpful, but here's another one: List of winners of the Booker prize. I'm not sure what might be considered up-lifting exactly, but all the books there are probably worth reading.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your english comprehension has room for improvement. 92.29.124.202 (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose doesn't? If you would like to clarify your question for me, so that I understand more exactly what you are asking, I'd be happy to try to give you an answer you'd be happier with.  Could you give an example of something you did find uplifting, for example?  "Not Jude The Obscure and The Bell Jar" is rather a broad category; hence my rather broad answer. (I'm guessing you are the OP at a different IP, but even if not...).  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I may be the solitary heretic here, but I rarely find "cheerful" novels to be uplifting -- sometimes perhaps (Confederacy of Dunces comes to mind). The function of tragedy is not to leave the audience depressed, after all, and thinkers from Aristotle to Nietzsche realized this! The Brothers Karamazov has some sections that are so uplifting that they left me giddy with joy, my first time through -- Alyosha's mystical experience under the stars, the life of Zossima, and even Ivan's relation of the tale of the Grand Inquisitor -- that's about love after all -- yes, your mileage may vary, but this is one of many "heavy" books that brought me a great deal of happiness and I've carried it in my head for many, many years. Lots of others along this line. What may seem "depressing" in the subject matter may be uplifting over the long term. IMO. :) Antandrus (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ :) Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  03:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dostoyevsky's sardonic humor can be viewed "uplifting"... (though for most, such an interpretation is outside their comprehension.) Smallman12q (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Try Moll Flanders or Tom Jones or The Vicar of Wakefield. There's a happy ending in each.  Zoonoses (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Delivery" in telling jokes - how to perfect it?
I once said that when I heard someone give a joke in middle school, it got great laughs, but then when I told it to another group of kids word-for-word, the results weren't the same.

The reason: "It was all in your delivery."

When I think of "delivery," I think of getting a box of pizza to someone's house on time, making sure that it's not cold or smashed, and getting a tip from the customer. I think of taking an order of a meal from a restaurant to someone's residence.

But apparently there's another type of "delivery" that has something to do with telling jokes.

Therefore, would anyone please hypothesize how my delivery of the joke was wrong somehow, and how I can correct it so that it procures better results next time? I'd like to hear the finer, intricate details; all I'll need to get it done right. Thanks. --70.179.178.5 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't something that can be effectively learnt from reading text: the delivery of a joke is all the things like timing, tone of voice, voice effects, body language, facial expression, etc, all of which contribute to how funny the joke seems to the listeners. There is no single 'delivery' to learn: different jokes, different comedians, different audiences, different situations all work better with different deliveries. I've watch comedians reduce an audience to hysterical laughter with completely deadpan delivery, and others achieve the same effect with over-the-top 'wacky' delivery. You best bet is to watch and listen to a lot of comedians, as well as observing when other people tell stories and jokes, to see if you can spot tricks and patterns that work well with given audiences and jokes. An example (if you are over 18) is to watch several different comedians tell The Aristocrats. This is a fairly rubbish (and obscene) joke which comedians use to demonstrate their skill: the trick is to try to outdo each other in obscenity and delivery, making the joke funny. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (A lesson from when I was a child in acting school...) One way to think of it is as a sucker-punch. If you are going to effectively sucker-punch someone, you need to do everything possible to ensure they don't see it coming.  How?  You can be over the top with other actions so they are confused. You can do a series of fake punches.  They know something is coming, but not when.  You can pretend to be nice and, without warning, sucker-punch them.  Delivering the sucker-punch is mainly about hiding the delivery.  A joke is the same in that people won't find a joke funny if they see it coming.  You can be wacky so they get confused and then have a weird joke tossed in.  You can tell a series of unfunny jokes so the funny one seems funnier.  You can dead-pan the whole thing so the joke is completely unexpected.  All in all, you should work on copying those who do it well in the style you would like to have (which may not be the style you enjoy most - ie: I enjoy Emo Philips very much, but I have no intention of perfecting his style of delivery). --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A group of inmates in a jail has developed a way of telling jokes between them in order to circumvent restrictions on their free speech imposed by the governor. Each joke is assigned its own unique number.  In order to tell a joke, all the inmate needs to do is call out its number.  So, for example, one prisoner calls out "25!" and everyone falls about laughing.  A new arrival at the prison watches this and tries it himself.  He calls out "37!" but no-one laughs.  He turns to his cellmate and says, "Hey, why didn't anyone laugh?" "Ah," comes the reply, "it's all in the delivery." --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A few more jokes elicit moderate amusement, and then the new inmate calls out "Sixty-three!" at which everyone collapses in paroxisms of laughter. "How come that one went down so well?" he asks. "Ah, replies the cellmate, "we haven't heard that one before!" 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The likely origin of "numbered jokes" is Miller's Jests" (later "Joe Miller's Joke Book") from 1739. Number 25 has a good punch line.  Edison (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My Google search for how to tell jokes reported 34,900,000 results.—Wavelength (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it involves a peculiar kind of suspension of disbelief. Even though everyone (including you) might be aware that you are in fact making a joke, you need to give the impression that you're just engaged in perfectly normal - even uninteresting - conversation or behavior.  Slapstick works because we are willing to believe that someone could be that oblivious to the fact that they are that spasmoid; vocal jokes work because we are willing to believe that the story might just have a normal, conventional ending (which lets us set ourselves up for the surprise twist); even sarcasm works best as humor when it's hardest to tell that the person is being sarcastic (sarcasm laid on too thick just plain isn't funny, as anyone with teenagers in the house knows).  The Marx brothers were masters at this: Harpo and Chico were always doing utterly absurd/antisocial things while somehow convincing everyone that they were perfectly normal and appropriate behaviors, while Groucho played along, looking simultaneously suspicious and gullible and giving big bushy-eyebrowed "can you believe this cr@p?" cutouts to the audience.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Original research, but a lot may depend upon the mood of the recipient. If they are in a light-hearted mood for whatever reason, then I expect that jokes are better recieved. The happy mood may be because they have already laughed at other jokes, or are having a night out, or whatever. Telling the same joke in exactly the same way after the subject has a) just heard that their cat has been run over or b) just heard that they have won £1000 in a lottery, will produce different results. 92.29.117.157 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If "Mr. A" is popular, and considered "the life of the party," and tells a funny joke well, folks are likely to laugh. Even as he is telling it, they smile and nudge each other. If "Mr. B" is unpopular, perhaps because he is a geek or a loser of any description, and were to tell the same joke with the same pacing, same inflections, and same delivery, it more likely to fall flat. If "Mr. C" tells the joke, paces it badly, fails to give little clues that something really funny is coming, leaves out some important detail and says "Wait, I forgot to say that the first guy was a Rabbi," or whatever, it is also likely to fall flat, unless he is the boss, in which case some folks are likely to laugh. Psychological "set" and expectations are important in how a joke is received. An "insult comedian" in a club gets laughter and smiles by calling people in the audience dummies. If he did it on a bus or on the street, he might get punched or worse. Standup comics don't just have some jokes; they polish the delivery as surely as a juggler or acrobat or concert musician practices, varying not only the pacing but the little details, facial expressions, and voice tones. And timing---is everything. Edison (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I always thought Stephen Wright was one of the best; his timing is excellent, and he speaks totally deadpan. He's an interesting case, if you want to go that route.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Outrageous Okona," in which the subplot has Data trying to learn how to tell jokes:
 * Guinan: "You spoiled the joke. It could have been your timing."
 * Data: "My timing is digital."
 * — Michael J  20:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You could do far worse than to study the Old Masters. Here's a set of short clips from a Carson annual, capturing various comedians' elements: ad lib, schtick, surprise, and nostalgia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note also the style of the late, great Rodney Dangerfield, who was in many ways the successor to Henny Youngman as the traditional standup: one joke after another, maybe not necessarily all that funny individually, and some jokes repeated many years apart, but the delivery style and the rapid-fire approach was what made it work:   ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Council houses in the UK
1) I was surprised to learn that the rents for council houses or council flats are subsidised below market rents. What proportion of the private rent would a council house rent be?

2) Council house tenants apparantly get a house for life. What proportion of householders move somewhere else, or move to non-council accommodation? Is it in fact common for them to stay at the same address until death or until moving into sheltered accommodation? Thanks 92.29.117.157 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here]'s an explanation of rent calculation in social housing. Note that there is little difference between the maximum for a bedsit (studio) and the maximum for a four bedroom house. So a single person would be paying about the same amount as someone renting privately. A large family would be paying about a quarter of what they would pay privately for a property of the same size. Whatever the rent is, they may get a means-tested benefit to pay it. There are other factors that make it difficult to compare: council houses tend to be on council estates where there could be high crime levels and other social problems; private rented housing could be in much worse repair or better repair. 2) is another a complicated one. Many social housing tenants are elderly so yes they would stay in the same property until they could no longer live independently. There are council house exchanges, so people can move while remaining council tenants. And then another group of social housing tenants are young families. Over the past decades many families who were once in council housing have become owner-occupiers, either by exercising their right to buy or otherwise. But now it is difficult to get social housing unless you are in great need, which means that tenants are less likely to be in regular work and probably can't get a mortgage. There have been some rent-to-buy schemes. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that it is extremely hard to evict council/housing association tenants, whether for arrears, failure to take proper care of the property, or antisocial behaviour. OR/SYNTH here, but I have become increasingly of the opinion that the system of social housing that we have in Britain has failed to resolve the problems it was intended to solve, and has become the source of many more. It has tended to produce ghettos of poor education, low aspiration, normalised crime, and a culture of dependence ("The council hasn't given me a new cooker for 10 years!"). Council estates in many cities have been designed to be separate from mainstream housing, often isolated from transport networks, and remote from places of employment. There's nothing quite as blatant as the wall that divided one end of a street in Oxford from the other - one end being council housing, the other being a private development, but if you look at street maps of, for example, Brighton, you will see that the council estates are often unconnected to neighbouring private housing. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * When many large council estates were first established in the early to mid 20th century, they were deliberately designed by architects and town planners as free-standing estates, often using quite innovative designs and technologies, with communal living areas and facilities, and clearly intended by governments and local authorities to encourage a more community-based lifestyle than the speculative estates put up as suburbs by private developers. However, over time, the lack of public resources, coupled with lack of private investment (for example in shops) and a declining sense of "community ownership", led to the ghettoisation of such estates in many areas.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That "getting on your bike" slogan to find work in the Thatcher era must have seemed meaningless to council tenants, as they were rooted in one spot and would never move to another town or city. Living in the same rented council house for life must have an effect on their psyche, as they do not have the life-long aim of living in a better house which motivates most people to work and save. 92.29.120.48 (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps being rooted in one place for life explains why fans get so excited about their football team and are so very territorial, as their town or city is seen as being an unchangable core part of their identity, and not a matter of choice as it is with the middle-classes. The suspicion and hostility to people of a different social class or from a different area, that I observed while living in a working-class area, may be due to working class people seeing both of these things as being pernament and unchangeable. Perhaps those who do change their class or area are thought of as trangressors or cheaters. 92.29.124.202 (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that really what motivates most people to work and save? I know certain parts of the UK media are obsessed with the property market, and owning property, but surely most people work and save to pay the bills, buy nice things, have a buffer in case things go wrong, and retire? Also, don't forget that the working class in Britain has traditionally (for at least a couple of centuries) lived without saving money up in the way the middle classes do. That's not a new thing brought on by council housing: it's a combination of generations of living with barely enough to pay rent and buy food, heating and clothes, and an associated culture with different priorities and expectations than the middle classes. This is a generalisation, since of course 'the working class' and 'the middle class' have always broken down into finer gradations and many separate subcultures, and individuals differ, but it's not something you can lay at the feet of council housing. In fact, the 'right to buy' which has so reduced the council housing stock (making it less available for people now) was an attempt to make the working class think and behave like the middle class. It was an attempt to introduce aspirations to own property, and save up, and invest: without this scheme, those same people would have been living in rented rooms/houses, and could not have afforded to get on the property ladder, had they thought that owning property was something people like them were supposed to do. In the same way, the child trust fund introduced by Labour was supposed to get working class parents in the habit of saving up. This is one of the many ways in which class in the UK is not really about how much you earn. 86.163.212.182 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Financial Times reports that currently council house rents are 50% of the market rent, but this will be increased to 80%. I'm astonished that every tax payer has been paying for the council estate lifestyle to such a huge extent. Even a 20% subsidy is too much. I imagine that a lot of council estate problems will be cured when the residents are treated no differently from any other renters. Oops, got into soapbox mode, sorry. 92.15.29.194 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What on Earth did you think the purpose of Council Housing was? How will evicting thousands of families who can't afford housing in the middle of an economic crisis help anything, which would be what cutting all subsidies and treating them like other tenants would involve? Particularly as the council have a duty of care to them, and so cannot actually leave them homeless. Will they then be housed in completely subsidised accomodation, fully paid for with housing benefit or through some other system, because they are no longer allowed to live in a sufficiently subsidised council house that they can pay some rent towards? Maybe you should stay off that soapbox. 86.163.212.182 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a tax payer I object to paying people, from my pocket, a bonus of half their rent even when they are in work. I'm not happy with supporting the rest of them either, with the exception of the disabled and ill. 92.28.246.137 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Council Housing was intended to resolve two main issues, unhealthily substandard housing, and shortage of housing. If council rents are set closer to market rents, tenants will still be able to claim benefits to help them pay the rent, just as private tenants can. Those tenants who are earning enough to afford to pay will have to pay. The effect of reducing the rent subsidy will be to put council tenants on an equal footing financially with the rest of us. It has been profoundly unfair that those lucky enough to have both a council tenancy and a job should be financially subsidised by people with similar levels of earnings but living in private rented or owned housing. Market rents would also help council tenants to gain a more realistic understanding of the cost of living. DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cro-magnon stature
The Cro-magnon article says that, on average, they were taller than modern Europeans. How tall were they? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The source (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, note 20) says between 5'5" and 5'7". Now, being 6'3" myself, that doesn't seem terribly tall to me, nor am I sure that's quite accurate by today's standards, but historically Europeans were, on average, significantly shorter up until the last few generations.  I think that information should probably be added to the article, but I'm on my way out now, so if someone wants to before I get back... The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. (see Cro-magnon) 128.59.180.164 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Can anyone see which sources EB's entry is based upon? A Google books search, for example, gives a variety of average heights, quite a few of them measuring above the quoted average. Some of them are based on an older paper by Henry Fairfield Osborn, but all the same, I think it would be worthwhile considering secondary sources too. ---Sluzzelin  talk  20:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)