Humanities desk
< June 8	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 10 >

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.

June 9

Hard labor

While reading up on the sentencing of the reporters in North Korea, I found that the link on the main page In The News section links to Penal labour whereas the term "hard labor" in the article about the arrests links to Labor camp. Neither of these articles go into what the reporters will actually be doing. Does anyone outside North Korea really know what they'll be forced to do? If so, what will it be? Dismas|^(talk) 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no information — I wondered about this too when I saw they had been sentenced to 12 years "of labor" — note that in the US federal prison system, all prisoners are required to work, either at jobs at the prison or for Federal Prison Industries, Inc., which technically might qualify as being sentenced to "labor". Tempshill (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on the Chinese-language term Laogai and the equivalent English-language term Penal labour will probably give you some idea. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I didn't specifically say so in my original posting, I've already had a look at Penal labour and it doesn't say. None of the articles mention North Korea's idea of what "hard labour" constitutes. So, I have an idea of what hard labor is but not NK's definition of it. Dismas|^(talk) 05:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone at the LA Times wondered the same thing as me... "[the prisons] are affiliated with mines or textile factories".[1] Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

breaking rocks

In old movies (especially comedy), "hard labor" often means breaking boulders with a hammer. How much truth is in that? Was there an economic purpose to it? —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

1995?

I'm surprised that there's no mention of breaking rocks in the Penal servitude article, but it does briefly mention some even more pointless work assignments. APL (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't pointless before steam power, but then it wasn't "hard labor" either:

The proper mode of breaking stones, both for effect and economy, is in a sitting posture. This work can be done by women, boys, and old men past hard labour.[2]

—eric 07:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, back then, 7 year old children working 14 hour shifts at the textile mill probably was not considered hard labor either. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya...lazy kids these days.—eric 23:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech provision of Canadian criminal code

When were sections 318-320 of the Canadian criminal code created? I cannot find anything about this on Google. Note that this is not legal advice -- I don't need to know anything about their breadth or enforcement, only when they were created. The purpose is for a research paper. Lesath (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the Justice Laws version of the Criminal Code and scroll to the relevant sections, you will see the legislative history relating to each section at the bottom in small font. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, that only tells you when the present wording of the section dates from; to see if there were earlier versions, I think you would need to go to a library to find an annotated Criminal Code (I assume such books exist; they do for the Income Tax Act, for example) or a prior version of the code. --Anonymous, 07:50 UTC, June 9, 2009.

You should be able to obtain the legislation "as made" electornically. Tracing from that through the various amending acts to today's version should tell you the evolution of every single clause in the act. That's a bit of detective work though. If you don't have electronic access to a legal encyclopaedia or annotated commentary, your local academic library should be able to help you access both the hard copy and the electronic version. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula in the public domain

Dracula was once a character in a novel written by Stoker. But now the character is in public domain and can be used in any media because I assume enough time has passed? If this is true, will other popular character like Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, etc fall into public domain if given enough time? ScienceApe (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this chart: File:Copyright term.svg, according to U.S. copyright law, Superman, created in 1932 but first published in 1938, will enter the public domain in either 2017 or 2023 (depending on which date you use). Batman looks as though he will become public domain in 2024, Spiderman in 2057, and (not that you asked, but its a common enough character, so I thought I would look), Mickey Mouse in 2013. Although, another reading of the law indicates that all published works created between 1923 and 1978, but first published or had their copyright renewed before 2003 may be copyright at LEAST until December 31, 2047, (or maybe under the terms noted above) and most other works during that time period, unless they let their copyright lapse into the public domain, are guaranteed copyright until 2019. Thus, none of these characters will likely enter into the public domain until at least 2019; and most if not all of them may not be public domain before 2047. Of course, that still gives 48 years for the term to be extended even more; it may not be, but one never knows. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. Yes, if given enough time, all these guys may fall into the public domain. Mickey Mouse is particularly aged. However, the Disney company, as the years go by, will exert as much political pressure as it can to continue to cause the legislatures of many countries to keep extending copyrights so that Mickey stays copyrighted. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act is an example in the US. (A Supreme Court case, Eldred v. Ashcroft, was a challenge to this; the corporations won.) A related issue is that it can be argued that Mickey's image is very often used by Disney as a trademark, and trademarks are perpetual as long as you keep using them. If Mickey's copyright were ever to actually expire but his status as a trademark was still valid, then others could probably use Mickey's image as a character, but could not use his image to advertise anything. Tempshill (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, all artistic creations should fall into the public domain—they become, with enough time, common culture that we can repeat, play off of, evolve. Like Dracula, or Snow White, Pinnochio, or the idea of, say, zombies. Alas—the powers-that-be, those with money, have taken to extending this almost indefinitely. I would be very surprised if they ever let these characters expire into the public domain, they see far too many dollar signs attached to these old franchises. (If you find such a thing interesting or appalling, check out Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture, which is available, gasp!, free online. It's a great read and a great copyright law primer.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While all texts theoretically eventually enter the public domain (allowing them to be reprinted, adapted, and quoted freely), the names of many modern popular media characters (e.g. James T. Kirk) are trademarked, which I think can be renewed indefinitely. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but being trademarked does (really) affect your ability to use them in creative works. Trademark owners have an exclusive right to use such marks as marks. That is, as a badge of origin of goods or services. It's perfectly fine to use them in other ways. If you were to take Superman, say, and write a work of noir crime fiction around his descent into alcoholism, you are not using Superman as a mark, and whether it is trademarked or not doesn't affect your ability to use him in that way.

Trademarks do not have to be registered. An unregistered trademark remains a trade mark provided that it continues to retain the ability to distinguish goods and services, and continues to be used as such - so it might fall out of trade mark status if it becomes a generic word, for example. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, say the character of Superman enters the public domain, but DC Comics has trademarked the Superman logo. (I'm not sure if they have, the article isn't clear on that.) In that instance, what happens with the character and his image? — Michael J 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credit cards and currency

If I was to pay for a game in dollars, using a British credit card (one that uses pounds sterling), what would happen? Would I need to do anything in order to actually be able to buy it? Vimescarrot (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally your credit-card company will charge you based on their 'exchange rate' (which may or may not be competitive). So if you bought a game at $10 and their exchange rate is $1 = £1.20 then you're charged £12 for the game (assuming my math is correct). This is, basically, how it worked when i've bought in US dollars on a UK card. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the current exchange rate is approximately $1 = £0.60, that really is a terrible rate. I know it's hypothetical, but all the same... 209.251.196.62 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what you have to do: no, there is nothing extra you have to do just because the amount is in dollars. You may get a call from your credit card company asking you to confirm that you really did make the purchase. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's usually no problem buying stuff in US$ and having it shipped. The credit card company has a (variable) exchange rate that is usually close-ish to the officially published rates in the paper or on a site like xe.com. The problems you might encounter are:

The credit card company blocking the transaction thinking someone stole your card (call them first)
The post office keeping the package until you stump up the import duty/VAT. That only apples if it is worth more than £18 (contact the post office for details)
The game might only be compatible with NTSC consoles and won't work at all in your UK bought console. I don't think PC games have any regional lockout.

Astronaut (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braid is download. Thanks, though. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that although the credit card or banks exchange rate is usually close to the official exchange rate, there will often be an additional currency exchange surcharge which will likely be list somewhere on your banks website or credit card terms and conditions, and will probably also be disclosed in your statement (in NZ this is a legal requirement and indeed several banks had to refund the amount a few years back because they had neglected to do so). This will probably be 1-2% in total. Despite this surcharge, the banks rate will usually still be far better then the rate given by someone else like the payment processor or website. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game purhcased! Thanks for your help, everyone. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schleswig-Holstein

Did these two Duchies ever existed in one union with the hyphen between them or were they like Duchy of Schleswig and Holstein? They was never an union they were ruled by the same monarch after the 1400s but the later Danish kings used the title Duke of Schleswig-Holstein instead of Duke of Schleswig and Holstein. And also what are the dates Valdemar I of Denmark and Valdemar II of Denmark's reigns; its not in Wikipedia. And also why was Valdemar II, the only Duke to stop reigning after becoming king of Denmark? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi Cost - Charles de Gaulle Airport to the Louvre

How much should one expect to pay for a taxi between these two places? We will be arriving in Paris early morning (8:30am) on a Thursday, clear customs and should be on the road around 9:30 - 10:00am. Is there an alternate form of ground transport that is readily available from the airport?131.137.165.27 (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buses and RER train[3].--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50-60 Euros for taxi according to Lonely Planet[4]. This really isn't hard information to find; try a guidebook, airport website, or Google next time. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a question I can answer! We visited Paris just this past April (from South Africa), landed at night though so your taxi rates might be cheaper. From the airport to our apartment in central Paris (Marais district which is walking distance from the Louvre) cost us approx. €30 for 3 people and €35 for 4 people (we were 7 altogether in 2 taxis). This worked out SLIGHTLY cheaper than 7x(multiple bus tickets) cost for the same trip. The bus(es) would be about €11 per person in total. If you are 3 people or more, take a taxi. If less, take the buses. You can ask any of the airport staff about which bus to take and which tickets to buy, and also where the taxi rank is. Good luck! Zunaid 11:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A colleague of mine recently travelled to CDG, and was offered a discount rate in the airport by a "taxi driver". He ended up getting to the centre of Paris on the back of a motorbike. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cheaper route is to take the RER train. Tempshill (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely take the RER (there's a station in each terminal). Change at Châtelet – Les Halles and go 2 stops on Metro Line 1 to the Louvre. It is considerably cheaper, and at rush hour the journey time by car/taxi/bus can be an hour or more. I used to live in central Paris near the Louvre and commute to work a couple of km from the airport - the traffic jams on the A1 autoroute were the worst part of working there (and the RER stations at the airport were just too far from the office). Astronaut (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the way I'd go, but I like trains, so I'm biased. I'll add that the RER fare to Paris includes your transfer onto the Metro, so it takes you basically anywhere in the city instead of to specific drop points as with buses. It's not correct that there is "an RER station in each terminal", though. See Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport#RER. Terminal 2 has its own station (CDG 2), from Terminal 1 you take an airport shuttle bus, from Terminal 3 it's a short walk to the same RER station (CDG 1) that Terminal 1 uses (there might be a shuttle bus too, I don't remember). --Anonymous, 23:35 UTC, June 9, 2009.

There is also an automatic driverless train called CDG-Val that will take you from Terminal One to the RER station. If you're into that sort of thing, sit in the front for a nice view. The CDG-Val is free. The RER to Paris is €8.60 per person, and as stated above, includes transfers to the metro and other RER lines. 84.102.218.208 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National portrait gallery and copyright

Surely there can be no copyright on portraits of Victoria? The rule is usually "death of the artist plus 70 years", why then do the NPG wish you to fill out a form on using these portraits and, by the look of the link I just clicked, actually charge you! How are they legally doing this? Would they prosecute people using it without a license? How does this figure? Maybe I'm just not getting something. Could somebody explain!? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.84.179.171 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not using the portrait, you're using a photo of the portrait. US case law has established (Corel v Bridgeman, I think) that photos of 2 dimensional works don't generate a new copyright (so if the original work is out of copyright, so is the photo). That's not true in the UK (which I guess is what you mean by "national portrait gallery"), where it seems such photos are held to be copyright (I know of no case law supporting that claim, however). NPG (or maybe it was NG) have tried in the past to get Wikipedia to remove such photos claiming they're copyright. Hopper Mine (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(as an aside:) Yes, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is the one - interesting, the US Supreme Court tacked onto their findings (that museums etc. had little copyright protects) that this would also hold under UK law but that has remained untested and largely ignored. There is presently little incentive to go up against the big companies. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Bridgeman v. Corel was not a US Supreme Court decision (though I imagine the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way).) -- BenRG (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting answers, I was under the impression photos of 2d works that are public domain were not copyrighted either. The US have better copyright laws anyway if you ask me. Oh, well its a good job Wikipedia servers are in the US! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.108.251 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US does not have very good copyright laws per se, but there are a few points in which the courts have made good decisions, often in spite of the intentions of the laws. The laws in the US almost all favor the copyright holders and not the copyright users. But the courts are in charge of mitigating compromises and they often (but not always) make much better decisions than the lawmakers do (who basically do whatever the big copyright holders want them to do). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I feel just the opposite about Bridgeman v. Corel—US law clearly doesn't protect reproductions like Bridgeman's and the judge could hardly have ruled otherwise, but I think they probably should be protected (see below). -- BenRG (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that 2d copies of PD 2d works are themselves PD is a manifestation of a deeper legal theory. You can generate a copyrighted work by starting from whole cloth (painting a new picture, composing a new song). You can also generate a new copyrighted work by making changes to an existing work (like rewriting an existing wikipedia article, based on the old text). For a new work to get a copyright of its own, the task you do to it has to be (roughly) creative or requiring skill - the formal test is "originality". So writing a bad article into better prose needs art and skill, but running it blindly through a spellchecker doesn't. Similarly making a photocopy doesn't. The argument is about whether a 2d photo of a 2d pd work is simply a straightforward, mechanical process like making a photocopy, or whether it requires skill. Photographers argue that it takes great skill to position the camera and lights, choose the right lens and film and exposure, and that different photographers will take surprisingly different pictures of the same painting. Those who don't buy this theory (that's Corel et. al) say that the clever setup is the same for each painting you take (a standard rostrum camera setup), that once the system was set up a blind person or a robot could take any individual picture. So they're saying the skill was in building the copying machine (just like there's skill in building a photocopier), but that operating it is button-pushing drone work, and so no copyright arises. If a court were to uphold this latter interpretation (and go against Bridgeman and arguably Feist v Rural) then that would risk setting the threshold of "originality" very low - if your fancy Canon camera automatically focuses on faces and tweaks the colour balance for skintone, can Canon claim copyright on pictures you take with it? 87.112.85.8 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The argument is about whether a 2d photo of a 2d pd work [...] requires skill"—not true. The judge and defendant agreed that making high-quality reproductions is skilled work, but skill isn't originality. A more faithful reproduction requires greater skill but is less original, and therefore less likely to qualify for copyright. An amateurish approximation of the Mona Lisa has copyright protection, a perfect forgery of the Mona Lisa does not, at least under US law.

(Personally I don't think that's a good thing—if there's no protection for high-quality reproductions then it discourages archives from paying for them and threatens the livelihood of the people with the skills to produce them, and it's for those kinds of situations that copyright was introduced in the first place. They probably should be protected, since society benefits from their existence. But the situation with the National Portrait Gallery, where these centuries-old works are effectively in perpetual copyright because the Gallery jealously controls all means of reproduction, is even worse. At a minimum they ought to be required to release medium-quality reproductions for free to qualify for copyright on the highest-quality reproductions. While I'm at it I'd like a pony and a world where there are no laws and we all do the right thing out of the goodness of our hearts.) -- BenRG (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the works themselves are out of copyright, if the National Portrait Gallery want to charge people for photo permits and some assurance that they're not going to make high quality prints for a massive profit, I guess they can do so - it is their (or our?) building, and how would the gift shop make any money selling posters if any yahoo could snap a photo? I know it sounds absurd, but have you ever been to the Louvre in Paris, where they seem to let anyone take a photo? - trying to just see the Mona Lisa without the reflection of hundreds of flashes in the bulletproof glass makes for a rather unpleasant visit. Astronaut (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different questions: access permissions vs. copyright. Not the same thing. A museum can say, "no cameras allowed"—that's their ability, they own the space, they can dictate how you use it. But they shouldn't be able to say, "we exclusively own this piece of culture" if something is in the public domain. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The museum owns the physical thing itself, but the intellectual property attaching to it is in the public domain. Thus, the museum can restrict access to the physical thing itself - prohibiting photography, etc. The area of law involved here is (non-intellectual) property law. When you buy a ticket (or not, if it's free) - you are given a licence to enter the building for specific purposes on specific terms. Violating the terms of that entry means that you are stepping beyond your permission to be in that building, and it probably means they can terminate the licence (and kick you out), and claim damages against you if they suffered some loss: for example, they could "fine" you because your flash photography may have damaged the work.

The intellectual property question is very different. The museum cannot stop you from producing and selling posters of the image if you somehow do gain access to an image of it - for example, if you take one of their high quality copies and run prints off that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 217, the US has dreadful copyright laws as far as a user is a concerned, and WP would be far better off to have servers located elsewhere, since the US refuses to recognise the Rule of the shorter term: works which come into the public domain in their home country after 50 years are restricted in the US until 70 years. That said, the rule about 2 dimensional works is one advantage. You might want to look at Threshold of originality, For use on WP, see Wikipedia:Public domain or ask questions at WP:MCQ. Gwinva (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Age " Movement "

hello , can some one tell me why new age is considered a movement ? and what is the definition of movement that applies here ? Hhnnrr (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't see it, either. The New Age article claims in sentence #1 that it's a "decentralized Western social and spiritual movement", but later on it mentions "there is no unified belief system", and goes on to mention a very scattered list of practices and beliefs that are associated with the term "New Age". The article doesn't explain why this broad set of beliefs and practices is a "movement". Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the early 1980's there was a whole slightly silly book The Aquarian Conspiracy by Marilyn Ferguson, devoted to explaining why it was a movement that was soon to transform the world... AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon and Iran: Which nation are most democratic ?

Both these nations are considered among the most democratic nations i the Middle-East (after Israel). Which of these two nations are assumed to be most democratic according to elections, freedom of speech etc ? (PS! I dont want a heated debate, just viewpoint based on facts). --Ezzex (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference desk can't take a meaningful vote on these viewpoints. It is simply a Reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I probably shouldn't touch this one with a ten foot pole, I'll give it a whirl... On the one hand, Lebanon has long been under significant Syrian influence (and of course Israeli occupation in the south) the "power" in their government is elected under universal suffrage. However, the use of a quota system (half the members of parliament have to be Christian, the other Muslim and have certain positions always filled by people of a specified religious group) doesn't strike me as particularly democratic. On the other hand, while parts of the Iranian government is democratically elected (such as the president), significant power is held by non directly elected officials, namely the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Guardian Council. On the balance, I would say Lebanon is more democratic, although neither is a perfect democracy. TastyCakes (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to put such complex multivariate ideas into simple rank order, but an important feature of a democracy is the process that determines who can stand for election. In Iran the Guardian Council can veto any candidate, and so does frequently, on ideological grounds. I'm not aware of any equivalent in Lebanon. There may be other legal or de facto issues (e.g. qualification of electors, fairness of votes, candidate access to media space) which tilt the balance the other way, however. 87.112.85.8 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be difficult to rank countries by how democratic they are, but some people have tried. Freedom House gives Lebanon a "5" in political rights and Iran a "6" on a 7-point scale where 1 is best and 7 is worst. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that the background for my question was a sentence from norwegian wikipedia about Iran. The sentence in the article was: "Spite their violation of human right Iran is considered to be the most democratic nation in the Middle east, except Israel". Based on this a user claimed that Lebanon where more democratic than Iran.--Ezzex (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, on Wikipedia the question is much easier to deal with. Presumably the Norwegian Wikipedia also has the equivalent of the Verifiability rule that we have here on English Wikipedia, so the sentence in the article should be removed entirely unless a good source can be found. And even if it is found, the sentence would have to be rephrased with the source in it — "Iran was called "the most democratic nation in the Middle East" by The Economist in 2007" — or there will forever be edit warring over it. Tempshill (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is too subjective and controversial a subject to be in an article like that. TastyCakes (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if there's general consensus amongst political scientists if backed up by verifiable reliable sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian riots in UK

Wasn't a riot which was against Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis? Somewhere in 1990s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.194 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably 2001 Oldham race riots is what you're looking for. 1981 England riots might be related. Tempshill (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Bradford race riots? Also look at List of riots#1990s - 2000. Gwinva (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a race-riot in Leeds in the early 1990s (1993-4?), in which a lot of cars were burned and there was terrible street fighting in Hyde Park. Maybe this is what you are referring to? I've looked for a link for it, but can't seem to find one. I am surprised, because it made the big news. Also, I lived there at the time, and it was not much fun having to stay inside the house. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the Bradford of Oldham was one of those places. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.194 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]