Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:02, 8 September 2010

Visual arts C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Germany C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Translation

Need a better translation of "Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg für die Besetzen Gebiete". Add information on the activities of the group in the West, as well as its eventual activities in the East. Add information on Hitler's museum, as well as information on personal collections (e.g. Göring).

Detailed information on activities of organizations such as Central Registry. Plunder currently in modern museums. Success stories of returns.

Also need verification of the '20% of western art' figure, and detailed discussion of Washington Principles.

Rape of Europa

New documentary playing in theatres now:

http://www.rapeofeuropa.com/

Green Squares (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a documentary http://www.rapeofeuropa.com/ about the Nazi Plunder of Europe, it is premiering this week in Canada. The link should be in the External links page of the Nazi plunder article. One editor reverted it. Green Squares (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

policy guidelines would seem to suggest otherwise. --Rodhullandemu 14:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a documentary about this topic, therefore allowed. Green Squares (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit of a grey area. It should probably not be included, since it's a link to a site intended to promote a commercial product, but at the very least, it doesn't deserve first place. Primaryspace (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland

The linked sources are in Polish. Can the author who included them please indicate here if the cited numbers for looted objects are specifically for those items looted in Poland, or if they indicate items looted in all of Europe? Also, are these numbers for items looted solely by Nazis, or for items looted by both Nazis and Soviets? An English translation of the source would be appreciated. Primaryspace (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Claims of disputable validity

The introduction claims:

Nazi plunder refers to art theft and other items stolen as a result

While the phrase and its meaning are correct, the use of "refers" seems dubious to me: The current implication is that "Nazi plunder" has a meaning that is somewhat formalized and fixed. (To exemplify: "North America" has a sufficiently formalized meaning that "refers" would be justified, but "Northern America" does not.)

Correspondingly, the "refers" should only be left in, if a similar formalization is present e.g. in art or history academia. In my opinion this is not the case, and the formulation should be changed.

A later section claims:

After the occupation of Poland by German and Soviet forces in September 1939, the Nazi and Stalinist regimes attempted to exterminate its population as well

as culture.

This is a very far going claim that is not necessarily born out (although I have heard similar claims before), and the inclusion would necessitate a very solid reference. As is, a review of a single source is given as the only reference. I would suggest a removal or a more solid reference.

I note that while the allegeded deliberate extermination of culture is significant to this article, the same claim about the population is not. 94.220.243.32 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We shall also not forget the intentions of the polish sources, most of the data and the claims are not verified by independent / english speaking historians. Eventually we can find some German or English documents or sources verifying the statements. All claims that can not be sourced directly however shall be removed as soon as possible. Okinawasan (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible page move

My thoughts are just in the beginning stages right now, and I don't know where to go, so I'm bringing this to the two pages concerned. It'll take a bit before its clear why I am here.

Recently, Japanese cultural artifacts controversy survived its second AfD, but in order to do so, it had to be chopped down to little more than a stub. (Current appearance). The issues that precipitated the AfD were largely ones of POV, but it survived, in part, because someone pointed out the existence of this article. Then, after the AfD, an editor made the following salient point: the title is misleading because the cultural artifacts aren't Japanese, and of course, that's true—they're Korean and Chinese and othersuch artifacts. So I decided to find a new title. And in thinking about the matter, I finally looked at this article, Nazi plunder.

Nazi plunder certainly is a more accurate title than JCAC. So what about renaming JCAC Japanese plunder? Ahhh, but now the problem becomes clear, because (except perhaps to the Koreans), the term "Japanese plunder" would be deemed so POV that it would never stay there. Nazi plunder is not a problem because today, no one reputable wants to be considered an heir to the name "Nazi". But this is not so with the Japanese; a hundred million still are proud to be called Japanese. Perhaps had this article been called German plunder, then maybe Japanese plunder would survive, but of course its not.

So what I would like to do would be to find a name that works for both articles, with a parenthetical distinction. Something like this:

• World War II artifact relocation controversy (Europe) and
• World War II artifact relocation controversy (Asia)

or perhaps this:

• Artifact relocation controversy, World War II (Germany) and
• Artifact relocation controversy, World War II (Japan)

I'm not stuck on either of these, I'm just providing them as examples of what I'd like to see happen. The Japanese article is just a stub now, and I think that properly titling it will help it to grow, without becoming too POV.

Any thoughts, anyone? Unschool 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I never liked "Nazi plunder", which seems to colloquial, and not that descriptive, but "artifact relocation controversy" seems as bad, just from the other side. I am open to better naming suggestions (I support including nationality - German and Japanese - in names), but I would have to object to the titles proposed above. Perhaps Nazi German plunder of cultural artifacts/Japanese plunder of cultural artifacts during World War II? Not that I am very happy with my suggested titles, neither (and I am not a native English speaker). Does the literature offer any suggestions? Misplaced Pages itself would suggest using art theft but also looted art, so maybe Nazi German art theft and Japanese art theft during World War II, or Nazi German art looting and Japanese art looting during World War II? PS. I am surprised we didn't have a main article for art theft during WWII; I've stubbed Art theft and looting during World War II for now. I actually like this name the best, so I'd suggest the following names: Art theft and looting by Nazi Germany and Art theft and looting by Japan during World War II (do we really need the "during World War II" qualifier?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Art(i/e)facts relocation controversy" is silly. "World War II plunder of cultural art(i/e)facts" might be a reasonable name for the parent article with "Nazi plunder of cultural art(i/e)facts" area good name for this daughter article, not sure enough about the Japanese equivalent. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, plunder is a bit "in your face". "looting" is good, what with the looted art article, but i'm not sure it also covers the phenomenon of people forced to "sell" their belongings at nominal prices under duress and/or imminent deportation. Gzuckier (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What Piotrus has done in starting that stub is great. It provides us, if not a framework, at least some guiding principles. All the articles need to have parallel titles, as Piotrus appears to have done. But the specifics are important to me. I would prefer to not have the articles with the titles that we see in the stub now, simply for this reason—they are not "parallel". One refers to Japan, one to the Soviet Union (and thank you, Piotrus, for thinking to include that), and the other, if it was parallel, would refer to Germany. But instead it refers to Nazi Germany. It's not that I don't like the use of Nazi Germany, in fact, it's the best of the titles, because it makes all the more clear when this is taking place. But I wish we had names for the USSR and Japan which reflected their regiemes and their time places. Any ideas? Unschool 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, there's no controversy, at least about those who lost the wars. As to looting vs. plunder - is the difference sufficiently strong to motivate plunder > looting rename? NVO (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "plunder" doesn't have the right tone - connotations of pirate swag! Pity, because its a good straightforward word. Perhaps appropriation is the best term here, coupled with the term "cultural property". This would give a family of articles,

• Appropriation of cultural property by Nazi Germany
• Appropriation of cultural property by the Soviet Union
• Appropriation of cultural property by Japan
• Appropriation of cultural property by the British Empire

etc. etc. Too long to be ideal, but could it work??? --mervyn (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn: the suggestion expands scopes of each topic, perhaps too far for their current state. Also, it emphasized role of the state as opposed to private bounty hunters (the latter is relevant mostly for the Brits, i.e. Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin et al., the Spanish and Portuguese in Americas etc.). Not that it's an inappropriate stance, but Appropriation by the British Empire, as a state, will be quite lame. Appropriation by the (state) is a good choice only in cases of direct (and notable) state action (Germany, the Union, not sure about Japan). NVO (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, happy to forget the complications of British Empire and Japan for now ... but do you think seems best suggestion for accuracy and neutrality to avoid problematic connotations of the terms plunder or loot or theft? --mervyn (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

List of proposals

This is just to place the proposed terms side by side, for easy consideration

Key word choices

• Plunder
• Looting
• Theft
• Appropriation
• Relocation
• Provenance
• Repatriation

Proposed Titles

• (Country name) plunder
• Plunder by (country name)
• (Country name) art looting during World War II
• Art theft and looting by (country name)
• Appropriation of cultural property by (country name)
• World War II artifact relocation controversy (country name)
• Artifact relocation controversy, World War II (country name)
• (Country name) art theft
• (Country name) plunder of cultural artifacts during World War II
• (Country name) looting of cultural artifacts during World War II
• Art theft and looting during World War II by (country name)

Comments on current proposals

• I think that the most critical thing is to decide which word will be used to describe what these countries did. So I've listed the words used so far. I didn't like "looting" at first, but now that's what I'm leaning towards. Unschool 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Though to me "looting" conveys more the idea of unorganised theft, rather than something systematic and state-supported, as in WW2. --mervyn (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• My apologies, I've been inactive for a while, and have just seen this. I agree that "Nazi Plunder" is a bit less academic and more colloquial. I'm concerned, however, that the suggested titles having "country name" do not take into account that this article is very specifically about Nazi looting of cultural property. It would be unthinkable, for example, to suppose that the Weimar government of Germany post WWI would have engaged in this kind of behaviour, or the West German government post WWII. Somehow, including the country name without qualification seems inaccurate to me, at least in the current article. It requires the qualification that the government-sanctioned looting occurred during a very specific historical and political time in Germany. In short, whereas I'm not opposed to making the title more accurate, I am not sure removing the "Nazi" qualification is such a good idea. (Note that the article is also part of the "Nazi Germany" category. Primaryspace (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of a name which would encompass all the "plunder" of all nations during WW II? Unschool 03:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

After consideration, I'm going to reverse myself. The suggested titles are accurate. My choice, which I've added above, would be: Art theft and looting during World War II by (country name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primaryspace (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigger Picture

While i can see the fascination of World War II in a claim and reparation driven political and social environment, we might also want to consider the bigger picture of art theft, looting, relocation or recovery. I believe, that its a good idea if a naming declaration also considers examples like the looting of Europe by Napoleon, the plunder of the Imperial Palace in China by Western armies, or the systematic art theft in Iraq.Okinawasan (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okinawasan, thank you for your insight into the larger scope of art theft and for your discussion at Talk:Looted art. I think when formulating a naming convention we should avoid the wordy "cultural property" or "artifact controversy," and go with/settle for "Art..." for the time being, and I'll explain why shortly. Also, I think words like theft, loot, plunder would not provide a world view amid controversies over art provenance and art repatriation. I'm starting to like Art provenance for its scope and neutrality, however it worked into the convention.

I think Art theft and looting during World War II adds great structure to Art theft, which which is a well-organized, little-discussed article that distinguishes between individual theft, state theft, wartime looting and misappropriation by museums, and chronologically details famous cases of art theft. It could serve as a great outline for the eventual expansion of these types of art-related "plundering" or recent "theft" articles. If its name were changed to something neutral, like Art theft and relocation or Art theft and appropriation, the article could include public gifts (ex. Cleopatra's Needle), controversial/questionable relocations (Elgin Marbles,Korean antiquities) and outright sacking of ancient cities.

I would like to bring to your attention a few related articles to consider:

• Looted art - It's in dismal condition and should be completely merged into art theft in my opinion. Its structure (Sections: "Looting of Countries" and "Looting by perpetrator") and use of "perpetrator" could in some cases be POV.
• Works of Art with Contested Provenance - an old, very short article
• Looting - contains many instances of theft of cultural artifacts that should be merged into art theft and provided as a main article link. It is also serves as the redirect for sacking, pillaging, plunder, and others. Ruodyssey (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this article, entitled "Nazi Plunder", being pretty much focused on the plunder of art. Would the forcible taking of other types of property also be considered "plunder" (e.g., real estate, bank funds, etc)? 165.189.169.156 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• C-Class visual arts articles
• WikiProject Visual arts articles
• C-Class Germany articles
• Mid-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles