Talk:Looting

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): National militaries task force

Untitled

Discussion archives:

• Talk:Looting/archive1 (2005)

SOURCES

This article is missing many sources. example, New Orleans post-Katrina statement about looting, including looting by police, is totally unsources. Iraq and other sections also unsourced.Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nefertiti bust

"The iconic bust of Nefertiti, was illegally obtained by the Germans(...)" - The article on the Nefertiti bust is far more cautious to make statements about the legality or illegality of this acquisition. There is a decades old disagreement between Egypt and Germany on this matter, but it is undisputed that the German archaeologists were legally entitled, under Egyptian law of the time, to take a considerale part of their findings home - the dispute is only about the question wether the sharing between the German and the Egyptian Government was a fair deal. As I said, the article about this matter does avoid this POV. I have thus changed the caption of the picture to "claimed by some to be illegally obtained(...)", since this agrees with the wikipedia article about this issue. The quoted sources also agree that this question has not been settled in a legal or diplomatic way, and there is no reason for wikipedia to take a side in this conflict.

178.200.211.126 (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

Why is there no source for this statement: "However, upon investigation many of the looting claims (in Iraq) were in fact exaggerated." Iraqi installments are being looted to this day.

Several sources about the looting in Iraq are cited in looted art - i propose a merger of both articles.Okinawasan 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

::"Iraqi installments are being looted to this day." - What is your source for that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 

Burning and pillaging

Pillaging now redirects here. I was wondering if there should be information here about "burning and pillaging" (which does not yet redirect here), including details about the practices of the Vikings and other groups throughout history. -- Beland 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In 1664 the Maratha leader Shivaji sacked and looted Surat.

In 1664 the Maratha leader Shivaji sacked and looted Surat. When Shivaji arrived at Surat he demanded tribute from the Mughal commander and the small army stationed with him for port security. The tribute was refused and so after Shivaji took the city, he put it to sack. Surat was under sack for nearly 3 weeks, in which the army looted all possible wealth from Mughal & Portuguese trading centers. All this loot was successfully transported to Maharashtra before the Mughal Empire at Delhi was alerted. This wealth later was used for development & strengthening the Maratha Empire.

The only exception to the looting was the British factory, a fortified warehouse-counting house-hostel, which was successfully defended by Sir George Oxenden. But the prosperity of the factory at Surat received a fatal blow when Bombay was ceded to the British as part of the dowry for Catherine of Braganza's wedding to Charles II in 1662. Shortly afterwards in 1668 another factory was established in Bombay(Mumbai) by the British East India Company. From that date Surat began to decline with the rise of British interests in Bombay, and the city was sacked again by Shivaji in 1670. By 1689 the seat of presidency was moved to Bombay by the British East India Company. The Surat population had reached an estimated 800,000 in its heyday, but by the middle of the 19th century the number had fallen to 80,000. Surat was again taken by the British in 1759, and the conquerors assumed the undivided government of the city in 1800. Since the introduction of British rule, the city and the surrounding district remained comparatively tranquil; and even during the Revolt of 1857(also known as the first struggle for India's independence) peace was not disturbed, owing in great measure to the loyalty of the leading Muslim families to the British and to the largely mercantile interests of the local population.

vkvora 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Looting and Looted art

I edited the looted art article and added many references before i came across this article. I propose a rewriting/merger of both articles as they both cover the same area. While looting provides a better introduction, the looted art article has gathered many examples, references, and sources that might be useful. Any comments?Okinawasan 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they are best kept seperate. Looting means the taking of money and valuables of all sorts - to most people the first thing they think of is TV sets etc after American riots, or after the occupations of Iraq, Kuwait etc. Looted art is far more specific. Of course they could be interlinked more, but i don't see how the looted art article could keep its focus after a merge. Johnbod 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge -- Looted art is a specific subcategory and better treated in a focussed separate article -- a merged article would be far too long anyway. Need a clearer link out of Looting to show there is a major sub-article at Looted art. Also, both articles need a lot of cleanup!!! --mervyn 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the topics are quite distinct. Looting has a much broader compass. Ergo, I remove the merge tag. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "Looting" article should contain a link to "Looted art", though, e.g. in the "Examples of Looting" section where Nazi plunder is mentioned, but the plundering of art and treasures by the Allies isn't. Alternatively, we could add a "See also" section and put the link to "Looted Art" there. -- 134.2.190.254 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looted art, while it has many great examples, lacks the neutrality and organization of Art theft, which notes controversial relocations of art. I'm in favor of merging looted art entirely into art theft. Looting, however is more generic than looted art or art theft. (See related discussions at Nazi plunder and looted art.) Ruodyssey (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yamashita's Gold

Yamashita's Gold is an urban legend in the Philippines. It is in regards to searching for looted items, and not necessary about the looting that took place. This reference may not be appropriate for this article. Jim (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sack of Rome

How absurd is the request for a cite to a source for the sack of rome or constantinople? Are you gonna ask for sworn and signed affidavit from Geiseric? Next I expect to see someone demanding a citation for the assertion that Rome is in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naerhu (talk • contribs) 14:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. The stubbed article on this, Sack of Rome (455), has 3 references but could very easily include many, many more. Ruodyssey (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing video

I have removed a video inserted into this page. The video was released by As-Sahab Foundation for Islamic Media Publication, the media production house for Al-Qaeda. We do not know where it was filmed, although it is presumed to have been in Afghanistan. We don't know where or whether it was edited, by whom, or in which country. What we do know is that the human remains being looted are of a clearly identifiable person.

There are all kinds of images of looting scenes that would be available that do not involve identifiable individuals, and whose copyright and licensing status is clear. They may not be from the past few years, but they will probably provide a much better depiction of looting than the stripping of valuables from a single body. Risker (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I have located an appropriate image on Wikimedia Commons which elegantly matches the text of the article, and have now added it to the page. Risker (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because I do not agree that the 1906 image is superior to the video. One cannot tell from the 1906 image that it really depicts looting -- as opposed, for instance, the clearing of traffic hazards from a roadway. Geo Swan (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looting a rascist term??? NO!!!

Someone added the follwong to the header of the article: "The term looting has been depicted in some quarters as an intrinsically racist term as it seems to have been applied more frequently to the behavior of African Americans than to that of white people." with the following source: http://www.aamovement.net/news/2005/katrinacoverage.html While I do indeed concur that the article describes a rescist application of terms, I ABSOLUTELY disagree with the claim that this validates the usage of the term 'looting' as intrinsically rascist. While the medium did use the word looting in a rascist context, this does not mean that looting is intrinsically rascist. Looting has a connotation that is by most accounts negative. This negative connotation was used in the describtion of the activities of a black youngster, who was doing the same thing as white people, while what these white people where doing was described with a word with a positive or at least neutral connotation: 'finding'. In this particluar article, the context of the usage of the word looting is rascist, not the word itself.Mkruijff (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is concerned with context, that is true, so as a provisional compromsie I have moved that paragraph to the end in a small new section of its own, hoping that is now a satisfactory outcome. Peter morrell 18:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be removed all together, as all three of the pages it cites to are unreliable: a clearly biased blog from a political group, a metafilter page with links to photos on what appears to be flickr, of screen captures of what looks to be AP photos that could easily have been doctored, and a non-academic blog by a research student. If no credible citation is added, I will delete the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.97 (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor. Given the demographic location of the disaster, the looting was done by the residents. Had the disaster happened in Beverly Hills, the ethnicity of the survivors or looters would not be an issue. I think any reference to race should be removed from the article. Jim (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it should go, too. Its three refs are not reliable as the above editor stated. It may also border on WP:OR. Just because one caption says "looting" for black people and another says "finding" for whites doesn't mean the word "looting" itself is intrinsically racist; it means the captions' authors may be racist or at the very least made an egregious choice of words. Looting for survival or personal gain is thousands of years old and shouldn't be redefined with modern, race-related connotations. Ruodyssey (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Though the listed "examples" go back over a thousand years, the English term itself is certainly from no farther back than the late 18th century, and was only converted into a verb in the mid 19th. The situation of the former was in British colonized India, and the use of the term in the United States began in earnest in the highly racialized South, especially gaining steam during the post-Reconstruction Jim Crow era. Thus, the term as it is understood in modern English was created entirely within the confines of "modern, race-related connotations" 24.14.38.230 (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but in that last sentence I was not referring to the word "looting", which as you know is rooted in Hindi, predates British Raj and was integrated into the American South. Indeed, the word "looting" is closely tied to racism, but I'm not convinced of its the subject's intrinsic racism due to the vast (and scarcely listed) historical context it is commonly used to describe. I'm really more concerned that this article serves as a redirect for plundering, pillaging, despoiling, sacking, spoils of war and their variants. An etymology paragraph for "looting" and other terms would be a great expansion to the article, but since this is a point of contention, solid RSes would be needed. Do you agree the those three sources are not? Ruodyssey (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New York City blackout of 1977

I removed the {{fact}} tag (dated Sept. '08) on this item due to its extensive coverage at New York City blackout of 1977. Ruodyssey (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1992 Los Angeles riots

I removed the sentence along with its {{fact}} tag (dated Sept '08) about shop owners defending their stores with personal firearms. This point is already sourced and elaborated upon in the main article here. Ruodyssey (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ethics of looting?

Don't looters typically justify their actions based on expediency and/or some concept that they are owed equality of outcome in revolutions and so forth? Surely there's been papers on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.177.126 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looting and War Loot

There's been a merge tag on war loot since 2009, and it really has no business being a different article to this one. Also, what's with the ridiculous over-representation of Indian burial sites here? Shouldn't it be at best a minor note under "Archaeological removals" to avoid undue emphasis? Herr Gruber (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)