Talk:List of missing treasures

Kusanagi

A discussion needs to occur on whether or not Kusanagi belongs on this list, and which story to believe about it being lost if it is, indeed, a lost treasure. There are several accounts of it being lost and found throughout the centuries.

DFS (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, two points: (1) It seems the last un-biased (or least biased) witness account of the sword was the Genpei War when it was lost. I say "least biased", because all the Taira were wiped out, so there was nobody to really take up "their" cause. The Imperial Family would lose alot of legitimacy if during the last 800+ years they had admitted it was lost, and even now, I suspect, if they admitted they didn't have it, it would make them look quite foolish, if only for keeping up a deception for so many centuries. People would not be happy.

ALSO - (2) even if the relic at Atsuta-jingu is the real Kusanagi, it is somewhat "lost" from the perspective of the Japanese people, who are not even allowed to know its authenticity is confirmed.Boneyard90 (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Great points. My issue is the unknown. If we are comparing sources to determine which is the least biased, I feel that this item should be placed with a greater description of the controversy or some sort of note that there is no true record of it, but there are several theories. Agreed, that it is a huge point of controversy in that the Japanese, culturally, probably do not want to admit that it is lost. Possibly, this should be addressed more in the article itself, but the "truth" is far too convoluted to be able to include it with certainty on this list without a footnote.

DFS (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's more that could be added to nearly all the listings. I didn't create the list, but all the listings I've added I try to keep to a minimal necessary information to get the point across. Lists should be concise. I find it distracting when someone fills in a paragraph. Y'know, you're scanning down a list of items only one or two lines and you come to a paragraph crammed into a box. That's what the links to the articles are about. The list is briefly organized, the article is for the details. But if you think the listing could benefit from a footnote summarizing the two points of "It's lost at sea" versus "No, they have it, it's just really really secret", then go for it. A footnote certainly won't be a distraction to a list, and is probably the best thing for a balance between a concise listing and accurate disclosure.Boneyard90 (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Defining the article

This is sort of turning into a list of robberies. I think the focus should be on the treasure, and so, maybe the only items on the list should be those with notable treasures, as opposed to notable robberies. I don't know. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if money from a robbery is not accounted-for, then isn't it "lost"? I suppose I could also ask of you: Please define "treasure". Boneyard90 (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Maybe the scope should be non-cash, period. I don't know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

So are gold coins, which were legal tender when minted but also the stereotype "treasure", cash or not cash? I'm feeling that maybe somehow bank loot is somewhat more vulgar, less romantic, than missing Faberge eggs and buried chests of gold, but by all definitions, I think the bank heist stuff belongs in the list. It's just a more vulgar, less romantic time that we live in. And I'm sure that eventually the list will be filled out with more examples of pirates and whatnot. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Anna. A treasure is something that the world has lost (in a sense) like the Amber Room. It is not an amount of cash that has been stolen, i.e., transferred from one person to the other.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds subjective. But go on. How would you define "treasure"? - Boneyard90 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We could use the phrase from the film, National Treasure: "items, of historic and intrinsic value"! I think something that used to be legal tender is obviously very different from something which is still legal tender. It is perfectly possible to trace banknotes stolen in a heist. However, because of the nature of money, this does not mean that the loot that the thieves took has been taken back from them. On the other hand, if they stole a valuable item, and then sold it back, the treasure would be recovered, even though the treasure's rightful owners were out of pocket. To give another example, the German government compensated the Russian government for the loss of the Amber Room, the Amber Room would still be missing. If a list of missing treasure includes money that is lost, this could include money that was "lost" in the Global Financial Crisis, in the collapse of Enron, etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Lost Treasures

I added an external link to a site that lists a lot of lost treasures. The site itself if probably not a RS but we could search for other sources that talks about the listed treasures over there. The User 567 (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Juicy. I will look through them for more items. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the lost FIFA world cup be included here? De leeuw blauw (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Archive

Is there is an archive for this talk page? If so this talk page needs a header to navigate to it.War (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be no archives. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah...User:Boneyard90 reverted my edit claiming that the issue was discussed in the talk page archive. Since the archive or the discussion does not exist, I've undone his reversion. War (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant

The item Ark of the Covenant has for a long time been on this list. User:War has removed it, pending discussion. The item was added some time ago, and when editors disagreed on whether it should be on the list or not, the explanation "Historicity disputed" was added to the description. This line is intended to convey that there are some people who believe the Ark of the Covenant existed, and may still exist, and has yet to be found. If any such Ark is real, then it is indeed a treasure, and if is status is not verified, it is "missing". There are treasure hunters and archaeologists (real, not fictional) that have searched for it. One only searches for something that is considered "missing" or "lost". User:War, in the edit summary, likewise admits that the Ark of the Covenant has a "questionable existence". Therefore, by virtue of accepting that there is a question on the Ark's existence, for which a possible answer may be affirmative, User:War has also admitted that the Ark of the Covenant may exist. Therefore, pending its discovery or confirmational evidence that it was always completely fictional, I move that the Ark of the Covenant be restored to the List missing treasure. - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I admitted nothing by the edit. I just removed it because it's likely a myth. The burden is on you to include a reference that shows the item ever existed, not that it 'may have'. By your argument the list should also include nearly all of this: List of mythological objects, Ephod, Solomonic column, Noah's Ark, et all. And that doesn't even begin to cover the Asian and American "lost treasures" that may or may not have ever existed.War (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The Kusanagi existence is questioned also. It looks like there is little historical evidence. It should be removed from this list also.War (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dracula's Treasure also. I could not find any references that such a thing ever existed. The reference in the article is to non-scholarly book. Not good enough.War (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

La Noche Triste treasure also. The event is real. The treasure...maybe not. Noone disputes the history of the event. We can't include every time a place was looted in history as a "lost treasure". This, too, has got to go. War (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"It's likely a myth" - your words. You don't know, you can not say with certainty. But removing the the Noche Triste treasure is now a little bizarre. Both Spaniards and Aztecs attest that the royal gold was stolen. It was the very reason the Spaniards were slowed down in their escape. That Kusanagi ever existed is not questioned by any Japanese, only if the one supposedly held by the family is authentic. That item was discussed, above. Your reasons are becoming steadily more bizarre. Perhaps it's time more editors weigh in here. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a Foot-in-the-door technique argument. I'd like more editors to weigh in here also. To be perfectly clear, my position is simply that items of legend, myth, or hearsay should not be included in this article.War (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So I've been thinking about it...I would be ok with adding a column that indicated the existence of the item in question. Off the top of my header could be "existence" with the options: "confirmed", "disputed", and "likely destroyed"...or something similar. I think that would be a good solution to this dilemma. Then, people like me that only want facts and historical truths can sort and filter for what we want and people that are interested in the possibility of legendary treasure can see those things also.War (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Using the Wikipedia policy to "be bold", I added the column. Now we can have a fun time deciding what to put in it! War (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw, read, and responded to the topic below before I saw this one. I think you have come up with an excellent solution. - Boneyard90 (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What happened??? Was it raided??? I don't see why it is likely to be a myth that the ancient Hebrews carried round a box.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dracula Treasure

I contend that the listing for "Dracula's treasure" should be re-included. I added it with a reference, In Search of Dracula. It has been suggested that it is not a "scholarly work". The book contains a full annotated bibliography, and was written by two professors of history at Boston College. I don't see the problem with this reference. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference in question is a collection of scholarly studies mixed with a large amount of folklore and conjecture. The reference in the book to "Dracula's treasure" is clearly in the folklore category. If you can cite a single reference to a archeology or historical text that references it, then we are getting somewhere. Citing a fairytale is not good enough. War (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If there was an archaeological text on the item, then it wouldn't be missing. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, by that logic the article should include things like Excalibur or Rumpelstiltskin's spinning wheel. I don't believe the article should include items that are based on myth, folklore, legend, fairytale, or hearsay.War (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I added an "existence" column. Now, hopefully, the article won't fill up with too much stuff. War (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the list should include those items. Can you even define "treasure"? Or "missing" for that matter? Another editor asked if all the bank robberies should be removed, because modern stolen cash didn't fit her idea of "treasure". One could also say that if bank cash is "stolen", then someone has it, and it is it really "missing"? The point is, neither term of the title have been, or possibly can be, adequately defined to exclude all the categories you insist should be excluded. - Boneyard90 (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Egypt and Iraq's missing treasures

Maybe we could make a couple of redlinks to represent these:

• http://www.sca-egypt.org/eng/RST_MISS_MP.htm
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/21/kuwait-lost-treasures-stolen-riches-rift-iraq and http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/16/251110/iraq-wants-all-usstolen-treasures-back/

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Benito's Treasure

This seems to be a hoax.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, Jack Upland. Consider posting at Benito Bonito. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have done so.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Benito Bonito has now been deleted - without much discussion, incidentally - so I have removed him from this list.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

sorry

dont know how to add reference number 16 for the Honju Masamune Sword . theres a article about it here http://thedailybeagle.net/2014/03/23/the-honjo-masamune-a-lost-japanese-treasure/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.152.107 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What is a "Treasure" ?

First of the all the article has some problems with defining its own terms: "Treasure" and "Existence" are undefined terms. But I'm first concerned with the ambiguity associated with the word "treasure". This list is rapidly filling with artifacts'. Are they "treasures"? Sure, as the historical and cultural worth is invaluable....but they aren't piles of gold coins or gems.

From Merriam Webster Definition of treasure

1

a (1) :  wealth (such as money, jewels, or precious metals) stored up or hoarded <buried treasure> (2) :  wealth of any kind or in any form :  riches

b :  a store of money in reserve

2

something of great worth or value; also :  a person esteemed as rare or precious

3

a collection of precious things'

To save this article from being bloated with the literally countless priceless artifacts known but lost through history, I suggest we limit the listed items that fit only definition #1."wealth (such as money, jewels, or precious metals) stored up or hoarded <buried treasure>" War (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I think we should use all three definitions. This article is far from bloated.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Recent robberies

A "missing treasures" list shouldn't include recent robberies IMO. Presumably the thefts are still "hot" and have active investigations. At what point does the treasure become missing in a historical context, rather than an immediate theft. It would be easy to set an arbitrary 10 or 20 year minimum age limit. -- GreenC 14:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarify meaning of legend vs confirm

I want to know what do Wikimedia mean by leagend vs confirm about exsistance 115.187.47.66 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)