Talk:Looted art

Old talk

For an interesting article relating to looting Tibetan artifacts from monasteries during the 1903/4 Younghusband Mission see; Carrington, Michael ‘Officers Gentlemen and Thieves: the looting of the monasteries during the 1903/4 Younghusband mission to Tibet’ Modern Asia Studies pt. 1, vol. 37, 2003, pp. 81-110.

Proper sources are required for the statement that looted art "most commonly refers to artwork looted by the Nazis during World War II in Europe." The sentence it contains contains information which is particularly difficult to verify and/or of unlikely information, without providing references. I am confident that there must be a way to confirm/deny that statement, but I am a little bit concerned about the fact that such an interpretation would neglect the art theft of other times, periods, actors and parties. The Herald Times, April 2007 states for instance that: "Napoleon was a model for Hitler in terms of art looting." Herald Times. April 29, 2007, http://www.heraldtimesonline.com. Editor Johnbod manipulated the entry and added a spelling mistake (again) - The German magazine Spiegel is called Spiegel and not Speigel, the url actually indicates the proper writing: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,447136,00.html. Okinawasan 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is quite easy to demonstrate this - firstly one should look at the meaning of "loot" in a dictionary; clearly the removal of some Pyramid contents by lengthy organized and publicised expeditions does not meet the definition of this term, though some other 19th C acquisitions do. Secondly "looted" rather closes the door on the legitimacy of museum's acquisitions; that is why it is mainly used of property seized by the Nazis etc. Some Greeks might call the Elgin Marbles looted; by definition the British Museum will not. The semi-official "Commission for Looted Art in Europe" (website here) deals only with the Nazi period. Antiquities in this context are generally called "cultural heritrage property" or similar, rather than just "art" - ie collected art, so this part of the title also reinforces the statement in the article (not by me incidentally). I don't no how I "manipulated the entry" - I just reverted your drastic undiscussed and, it seems to me, erroneous edit, thereby accidentally restoring a spelling mistake in the Spiegel link, for which apologies. I also looked through the first 40 ghit items for "looted art". The great majority mention the Nazis/Jews/WW2 etc in the short quote, and I could not see any that appeared to relate to earlier periods, though, as the article says, this is also a meaning of the term. Johnbod 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Be careful who you accuse of vandalism. I am going to revert your version again, though I will leave the tag. This article has been pretty stable, and you should have discussed such a drastic alteration on the talk page before making it, especially as the article had had edits in the last 3 days I think. It is very clear to me that the version the article has always had (not by me) is entirely correct in saying that the Nazi era is the commonest use of the term. Much of your version is clearly inaccurate - Cleopatra's Needle for example was presented to Britain by the Egyptian ruler Mehemet Ali, as a moment's research would have shown. Johnbod 22:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see the New York and Paris obelisks were also presented, so I have removed them too. The contents of the Pyramids is also wrong I think - they were all virtually empty, having been looted by grave-robbers two thousand or so years ago. Johnbod 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure whats a better term for "adding an mistake again, deleting a discussion tag, and violating wikipedia protocols." Nevertheless i apologize if this was an innocent mistake of yours. While i agree with your observation that -at the moment- many articles within Google etc focus on the Nazi looting and art theft, I am also aware, that such an observation might be temporary only. Even the the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says about Looted Art: "The plunder and looting of art and other treasures was not limited to the Third Reich, however. The Soviet and American armies also participated, the former more thoroughly and systematically, the latter at the level of individuals stealing for personal gain." http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/bibliography/index.php?content=looted_art. The arguments of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum should not be neglected, a quick search in Google returns more information and background about other art thefts and systematic looting. (Recent examples include Iraq or Mydans, Seth. Raiders of Lost Art Loot Temples in Cambodia. New York Times, April 1, 1999,Section A, Page 4, Column 3, 1152 words). Another note: Russians call it Trophy Art; Germans call it Beutekunst, these are different terms but eventually they describe the same thing. There are several books about it: Akinsha, Konstantin, et al. Beautiful Loot: The Soviet Plunder of Europe's Art Treasures. New York: Random House, 1995; Alford, Kenneth D. The Spoils of World War II: The American Military's Role in the Stealing of Europe's Treasures. New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1994. I believe that the article should include the entire history and not be limited to one particular point of view - especially when the legal basis brought up by you way only established in 1970 - when a conference was organized by UNESCO to address the problem of cultural property theft. The product of that meeting was an agreement (UNIDROIT) that outlines the means of “prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property.” Thank you. Okinawasan 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the other additions I share your opinion, although several countries, for instance Greece, Turkey and Egypt believe otherwise. I am convinced though, that we need better sentences and clearer terms to include the historical evolution of the term and its history. Thank you.Okinawasan 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all military looting in WW2 could/should be included in the primary meaning, although clearly the term is most often used of Nazi-taken stuff, but also of Russian looting, and less often of the other combatants. The UNESCO convention is covered at Illicit antiquities, which is the main article for the contemporary trade. Johnbod 23:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, I think the article looks much better already from a Wikipedia POV. Nevertheless I have five suggestions: (1.) I would prefer to structure the article in a more chronological order ... intro first, history (We need more cases for the looting of South America, Asia, and Africa and maybe we can find more historical sources about Rome, Baghdad etc), Napoleon, WWII (I think we should add more info about the German plans and organizational structure), Post WWII (Will write more about that), and further references. (2.) Especially when it comes to Post WWII/historical significance/uniqueness I believe it is vital to at least include references to the social, ethical and legal development of Looted art from "Winner takes it all" (Babylon, Cortez, Napoleon) to condemnation (Hitler, Russian, American) to The Hague (Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict - 1954), UNESCO (Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Paris, 14 November 1970) and UNDROIT (UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects Rome, 1995). I am further convinced, that it makes sense to briefly include the implications for ratifiers (US is not). (4.) A brief sentence about the development should be included in the introduction as well as a clear definition of Looted art vs. Art theft vs. Illicit Antiques (vs. Collateral Damage) ... There are already several overlaps, none of the articles however is really structured, organized, and or referenced. (5.) The "many others" I was referring to describe the birth of a concept (Maybe it was already done before, must check that.) - the creation of art institutions and archives based on the "bought"/stolen/plundered/looted artifacts of other nations and cultures. Examples include Louvre (France), Museumsinsel (Germany, British Museum (London) and Metropolitan Museum (New York) ... all emerging in the same period with the same background/mindset. So far many other articles - Art Theft, Illicit_antiquities, Nazi plunder are sometimes superficial/trivial ("Adolf Hitler was an unsuccessful artist who was denied admission to the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts.????) but fail to address the crucial development ("bought"/stolen/plundered/looted) and evolution in that area. 6.) Actually I would add an individual paragraph about that and separate it from WWII/Nazi because it is not limited to this area. (See Iraq etc). Comments? Okinawasan 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm broadly in agreement with this (I think we can maybe remove the disputed tag now?), but some comments:

• a)I agree the other related articles are all a bit scrappy & uncoordinated. I think there is room for an article about the history and problems of the West's acquisition of global "cultural heritage property", but I think "looted art" is too POV as a title for this - the present article should really be restricted to either criminal looting or looting in war or military occupation - not to acquisition by dealers or archaeologists etc with the consent of weak/corrupt/unconcerned local governments, in Italy (actually the most consistent victim) or wherever.
• b)Napoleon & Hitler are really alone in seeking to cream off by implicit force the best of all European art (the main concern of both) into a museum in their own capital. Only the Nazis took anything much from Paris, which had previously been occupied by the Prussians (twice), British, Austrians, Russians etc, and the British & Americans afterwards. The Swedes plundered Prague in the Thirty Years War, but the Habsburgs had numerous opportunities for looting which they resisted (though mindless destruction was a speciality of theirs - Rome, Antwerp etc).
• c)I don't think the origins or the founding "background/mindset" of the museums you mention are as similar as you suggest.

my thoughts. Johnbod 20:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I support your request/follow your suggestion. Others could participate in our discussion and add comments, but there have been no additional comments. Please delete the "disputed tag" and let us proceed as discussed. Have a nice evening.

Merger of Looting and Looted art

I edited the looted art article and added many references before i came across looting. 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? Please continue the discussion here: Talk:looting. Thank you. Okinawasan 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Both of the articles are in poor shape, at the very least we can concentrate our attention on one instead of two. That said, although it is not clear from present articles, it makes sense to have looted art as a separate subarticle, as looting concerns looting of non-art valuables, for example - industrial machinery, valuable materials (ex. gold, precious stones) or simple coinage.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article is in poor shape, and I'm in favor of merging this article entirely into art theft, which I think has a great general outline that prevents finger-pointing and lists Famous cases of art theft, be it by individuals, groups, or states. Looting and War loot have many examples that should be merged into Art theft, as well. Both might have a summary section or at least link back for now. (See related discussions at Nazi plunder, War loot, and Looting) Ruodyssey (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On this proposed merger I disagree as the article is already about twice as big as suggested by WP:SIZE. Rather WP:SUMMARY style should be applied to make it much smaller, and then it should merge into the much smaller (and poorer) War loot. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential sources

If you have some time feel free to go through the articles of Archaeology (magazine), especially the ones focused on looting:http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.archaeology.org+looting ... There are 160 articles :) or the FBI http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.fbi.gov%2F+looting , for instance: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/july971.htm or the State Department: http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/99recent.htmlOkinawasan 17:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Priam's Treasure

Priam's treasure is not "hidden" from anyone; it has been openly displayed for years. Besides, it is most likely a forgery of very limited value. If it has anything to do with looting, it's the story of how it was smuggled out of Turkey by Schliemann himself. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Russia's position is that it arrogates to herself the right to withhold those "translocated valuables" which belonged to the "industrialists" or companies that collaborated with the Nazi regime, let alone financed its war effort. Other valuables should be returned to their rightful owners or their heirs (and they are being returned, as a matter of fact). --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How many items are still missing from Russian museums after the WWII? How many have been returned? All this needs to be dealt with. Antonova says that, after returning 1,500,000 items, they have had to assistance in retrieving the looted art from Russian museums, which they can only snatch when it's openly auctioned in New York or London. The nature of Russian damage is that it is irreparable: you can't restore the finest 12th century Orthodox murals in the world, since the Nereditsa church was intentionally blown up and reduced to rubble. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Priam's Treasure was not "looted from Troy" by Schliemann. Rather, he was the acheaologist who discovered the treasure at Troy. He took the treasure illegaly from Turkey to Germany but later on reached an agreement, paid a financial compensation to the Turkish authorities and returned some pieces which are now on display in the Ankara National Museum. If Schliemann's acting is to be called "looting" nearly all the exhibition samples at large European Museums (British Museum, Louvre, ...) have been "looted". I changed the text in the article. --Furfur (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sistine Madonna

The painting was looted by the Soviets and later given back to the East Germans, as stated clearly in the properly tagged source - please refrain from deleting the edits of other editors especially when they are sourced and referenced. The edits of Ghirlandajo appear to have a history of unreferenced statements violating the NPOV standards. Recent additions include the picture of the Amber Room which he uploaded with the comment: "(Amber Room before the WWII )" - he still edited the image with the misleading description: "Amber Room, as reassembled by the Germans in the Königsberg Castle during the WWII" to several articles. Other articles, including articles detailing the destruction of many Russian churches and museums were not sourced, citation tags were deleted with the words "rmv pestering" - a clear violation of wikipedias "assume good face" and "be polite" rules. The editor is involved in several other NPOV disputes, I will therefore add the -sourced- information about the Soviet looting of the Sistine Madonna back into the article. A sidenote: I will be happy to add more information about the German looting of Eastern Europe but I believe that we should rely on reliable sources. Rightwing, antisemitic sources as used to by editor Ghirlandajo in a cited interview (in Russian) should at least be properly marked. Thank you - and be civil ... Okinawasan 12:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Another note, editor Ghirlandajo (after adding unreferenced statements, insulting other editors and deleting referenced statements from other editors) added the NPOV tag but failed to participate on the talk page. The NPOV guidelines do not support such "Drive-by tagging" - they guidelines clearly ask the editors to address "the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies".Okinawasan 12:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Poland and Germany

Speaking of "Drive-by tagging": it's funny, just after a German like me makes edits, two Polish editors who had never edited here before feel the need to share their view: User:Piotrus [1] and User:Molobo, without providing much content. -- Matthead  DisOuß   08:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no coverage whatsoever about American soldiers looting in Germany after WWII? You go on in great length about Russia, but no expansion upon the brief statement about U.S. soldiers looting for "personal gain", which I finde even more despicable than state-sanctioned looting. Most media accounts about people "generously" coming forward with their ill-gotten gains after 60 years don't mention that this was a crime, or was it a crime? I can find no information anywhere about this. (fwiw I'm American) Dailycyclist (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)dailycyclist

Name

Shouldn't this be looting of art?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

China

This article doesn't mention looting (and destruction) of the Old Summer Palace by British and French forces at the end of the Second Opium War. --Tesscass (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Blatant POV in section on Germany

As is far too often the case with articles dealing with WWII and the ramifications for Germany, Poland, Russia, and the Slavic countries in general, this article presents a shamelessly biased rendition of history. The article explicitly states that the art taken from Germany, in this case by Soviet forces, was almost entirely art that Nazis had previously stolen from other places and people in Europe. This is nothing short of a blatant fabrication and deliberate misrepresentation. Under both German and international law, any such art would go to the institutions or heirs of the individuals from which they were taken. To state otherwise is irresponsible at best and goes beyond POV and well into the realm of petty propaganda. The implication that the modern German government and German museums, all institutions that are well-respected internationally, would in this day request restitution of stolen art is nothing short of defamation, based on the passionate, personally-held disdain of the authors. It is also unreasonable to think that the nation of Russia would agree to such restitution based on such claims (the subsequent nationalistic actions of the Duma to rescind said treaties and agreements notwithstanding). As I see from the edits and comments on this talk page, the same few militant nationalist editors behind this are the same who push their POV on all articles related to this general subject. It is unfortunate because efforts to obfuscate facts lead neither to greater understanding nor wisdom.Udibi (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, POV and UNDUE, but not in the way you think

Looting of Cyprus; 20.5k characters (including a bunch of obvious axe grinding on the conflict itself)

Looting of Germany (by Allies); about 20k characters + another 1k in the redundant "Looting by the Soviet Union" section. And that's AFTER 4 to 10k of text was split off into a separate article [2]

AND the lede is full of apologetics whose purpose appears to be to make sure that the reader is fully aware that "the Allies were just as bad as the Nazis, and hey, Napoleon did it too, so Hitler was just Napoleon"

On the other hand:

Looting by British Empire; .76k (Ever been to the British museum?!?)

Looting by Nazi Germany; 3k + another .8k in the Looting of Poland section, for a total of 3.8k characters. On the Nazis.

Yes, this article has some serious NPOV and UNDUE problems.Volunteer Marek 03:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There's actually relatively little loot in the British Museum; try Stockholm for that (30 years War - Sack of Prague). The Louvre has managed to hang on to a surprising amount of Napoleon's swag too. Really the article needs to define when the concept of looting by governments usefully begins, or are we going to include the Ancient Persians & Romans? Napoleon might be a good place. Cyprus & Allied looting of Germany should mostly go to their own articles, & the to/from WWII sections put next to each other. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I guess "relatively" is the key word there. I mean that seriously. But then "relatively" should be a key word here too. .76/20=.038. I'm not necessarily saying the numerator needs to be bigger (maybe somewhat) but the denominator (for both Cyprus and Germany) needs to be smaller.

It would also be nice to have/stick to sources specific to the topic itself rather than the coatrackish mish mash we got now.Volunteer Marek 03:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't do maths, at this time of night anyway. While I remember the Swiss have more 15th century Burgundian textiles than former Burgundy, from the Battle of Nancy. But that was more booty than loot - a fine distinction. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the Iraqi Jewish Archive art or artifacts or neither?

The Archive includes manuscripts and student report cards. Relevant links: http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2013/nr13-96.html http://www.archives.gov/press/press-kits/iraqi-jewish-archive/images.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/stolen-treasures-iraqi-jewish-community/ Nov 2013 http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/11/07/242172553/who-owns-the-archives-of-a-vanishing-iraqi-jewish-world includes video testimony

controversy about ownership may be more interesting than the archives themselves May 2014 http://www.iraqiembassy.us/article/statement-on-extension-of-iraqi-jewish-archive-exhibit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042904584.html http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/02/world/la-fg-iraq-artifacts-20131202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleInSanMarcos (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Looted art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014172723/http://www.kodeks.ru/manage/page?tid=795600177&nd=901705791&prevDoc=901907297 to http://www.kodeks.ru/manage/page?tid=795600177&nd=901705791&prevDoc=901907297

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Looting of South East Asia

It has been necessary to revert yet again an edit that removes sourced material. The status quo ante text of the article contains a paragraph quoting Jason Felch; an editor has been substituting text that appropriates his words, mixes in the editor's opinions and interpretations, and eliminates the citation. This violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and the use of Felch's words without attribution is plagiarism, which is not permitted. The editor cites the full text of US v 10th Century Cambodian Sculpture 12 Civ 2600 as a source for OR speculations, e.g.: "It is more likely that the objects were traded by a Thai dealer which is referred to in the court pleadings but has been overlooked by commentators"; "Mr Latchford ... holds convincing evidence that clearly shows that the staues were in fact purchased and sold by the Thai based antiquities dealer which is also referred to in the same court documents but has been overlooked by commentators"; etc. Wikipedia follows published sources. If something "has been overlooked by commentators", perhaps there are no sources.

The replacement text includes this opinion: "It is highly is unlikely that Mr Latchford, who never spoke the Khmer language, could have created or run an ' organised looting network' from Cambodia." There seems to be a misunderstanding here—nothing in the original text implies that Latchford ran a looting network; it says that he "was identified in [US] federal court records as a middleman in the trafficking of looted antiquities..." A middleman is not the leader of a team of looters; a middleman is one who purchases goods to resell. Ewulp (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

TRUTH EDITOR'S RESPONSE:

Ok, so here is my response: Whilst I appreciate your comments about what you might expect from an encyclopedia, I hope you will also appreciate the following?

- The extent text makes a giant leap -

USING: Unsubstantiated allegations, lack of justice and due process, inability to present case, misreading of the other underlying sources

TO: Making the wild and deeply grave claim that the individual concerned was THE PERSON who looted the entire South East Asian region. The South East Asian region consists of 10 or more countries! The individual concerned did not even speak the Khmer language.

It goes on to make so (yes, factual) statements about return of objects by museums in the US, but it does so in the context of "looting of the entire South East Asian region" ... .by one individual.

This jump and deduction is so patently absurd that the preceding text also has to go. So if you remove my text I would contend that you have to remove the preceding text as well and leave just the opening paragraph about the French.

This is what I have done, and I have included some facts and detailed references. Please take a look. Since I dont think there is any hope of the community agreeing a fair representation of the position here on Latchford . Or would you all prefer that unfounded inaccuracies and speculation, which is defamatory and damaging to the individual concerned - who has had no opportunity to present his case and no desire to do so in public - form part of the Wikipedia rather than hard facts?

I hope this all stops here. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to persecute people and spread unfounded rumours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheditor100 (talk • contribs) 09:21, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

As already explained, the article mentions Mr. Latchford only as a middleman; it plainly does not allege that he singlehandedly looted the entire South East Asian region. Your latest additions to the article are helpful in making this even more clear for the reader. But the issue of repatriation is within the scope of this article and should be included. This article presents a summary of information from reliable sources, and appears to be an accurate summary of those sources. If there is a problem with this section—and I think there is—it's a problem of WP:UNDUE emphasis, as Latchford's name is mentioned nine times. The solution is not to delete the entire discussion of repatriation, but rather to find more sources and augment the section. Ewulp (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You have not 'explained' anything. The article is headed "Looted art" and the section concerned is on "South East Asia" , a massive region. Then you go on to focus on one man? This is absurd. The individual says in the article you cited that , together with others , he obtained objects in the 50s and 60s when the World was very different. You focus on the word provenance and you seem unaware that the word provenance is only recently in usage in this context; the fact that it was not used then does NOT mean that there was no diligence and that everything bought back then was looted. Indeed the preceding paragraphs show that by the 1940s there had already been 80 years of removal of objects from the Cambodian region, part of which was state sponsored. You put 1 and 1 together and somehow make 5. 1950s/1960s: No internet, no social media, no blogs, slower circulation of information, information assymetry; but you are judge those decades by the standards of today, using a word that wasnt used then. How about all the others who acquired objects in exactly the same way in those decades? Whether in Thailand or from US or Europe (as shown by Briggs). Were they also 'Middlemen'? How does your logic make this one individual THE 'middle man' who should be a key subject of this article? Again, you are jumping from a to c . Whilst you may feel that his name has a place in the article, as you say, it is mentioned 9 times in a manner which aggregates to suggesting that he is the only person responsible for anything, which is patently not true and is completely out of proportion to the subject addressed - further more it is defamatory. This is not a newspaper report or a blog its meant to be an encyclopedia and if you try to position it in this manner you are not representing facts , you are merely representing your own unsubstantiated views and pieces of information which together do not make a whole. Lets be fair please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheditor100 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

"Provenance" is not a new word. The OED provides several examples—dating back more than a century—of its usage in connection with ownership, e.g., this from The Times of London in 1867: "Other studies for Titian's ‘Battle of Cadore’ are extant, and their ‘provenance’ from the late Dr. Wellesley's collection is strongly in favour of their authenticity". Another citation is Michael Innes' From London Far (1946): "That aspect of the history of art which collectors call provenance? Who owned the picture last..and who before that. The ideal is to trace it right back to the studio."

There have always been middlemen. The Jason Felch quote is where the word makes its only appearance: "Latchford was identified in [US] federal court records as a middleman..." (Note: "A middleman", not "THE middleman".) The word also appears twice in the "Looting of Italy" section.

I have already stated that I think the emphasis on one individual here may be excessive, but perhaps it is not. In accounts of looted art from South east Asia this person's name comes up again and again; for purposes of our article this may create a problem of WP:BALASPS and WP:RECENTISM. It would be good to hear other editors' opinions. One remedy might be to remove the Felch block quote to a footnote and let the rest stand. Deleting the entire section as you have repeatedly done is not constructive. Ewulp (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM TRUTH EDITOR:

Provenance is indeed an old word but you are missing the point I am making. You have quoted the individual's comments in an article out of context, not fairly giving it appropriate balance. Please re-read the points I have made about about the context of the usage of the word, and the fact that this does not mean that there was no diligence. A completely different point. I hope you appreciate that. Who is Mr Felch to interpret the court records? And again I make the point that the individual concerned was never afforded an opportunity to put forward a defence and has very strong evidence showing that he was not involved with the Duryodhanas; in which case, why should you or the public even be made aware of the (unfounded) allegations in the Sothebys case? Why/how does the name come up time and again? In the blogs which are all repeating the same unfounded information about the Sothebys case, not treating the matter fairly and not appreciating that the individual was never afforded an opportunity to provide a defence. I plan to consistently delete this text because it is conjecture and has no place in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheditor100 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Los Angeles Times are not blogs. Neither is The New York Times, which says of Latchford: "His collecting became more focused in the 1960s, when stone and bronze antiquities and ornaments from the Khmer dynasty began appearing in Bangkok’s old “thieves market.” When asked about those days Mr. Latchford spins tales of bumping his Jeep along makeshift roads in the jungles of Thailand and Cambodia, exploring vine-entangled temples and the shattered outposts from a 1,000-year-old fallen empire. He and other well-known collectors, he said, would buy and trade what became available without fretting over the provenance details that govern modern antiquities transactions." I think our article paraphrases this accurately and provides suitable context.

A paragraph I added several hours ago, concerning the Hanuman statue returned to Cambodia by the Cleveland Museum of Art, is sourced to The Plain Dealer by way of cleveland.com. Note that the cited article also mentions Latchford (although I omitted this detail from our article as he's already been mentioned enough). Ewulp (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Looted art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www8.cnn.com/US/9812/03/holocaust.conference/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821215332/http://www.msz.gov.pl/Rewindykacja%2Cdobr%2Ckultury%2C1775.html to http://www.msz.gov.pl/Rewindykacja%2Cdobr%2Ckultury%2C1775.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~pbruhn/bernzim.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426011453/http://www.niniwa2.cba.pl/komunizm_gospodarka_prl_ipn.htm to http://www.niniwa2.cba.pl/komunizm_gospodarka_prl_ipn.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Looted art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507102252/http://www.sztuka.net.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=www.sztuka.net.pl&_PageID=445&newsId=288&_CheckSum=1378186475 to http://www.sztuka.net.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=www.sztuka.net.pl&_PageID=445&newsId=288&_CheckSum=1378186475
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708215339/http://www.cyprusnet.com/content.php?article_id=2794&subject=standalone to http://www.cyprusnet.com/content.php?article_id=2794&subject=standalone
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627024929/http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~pbruhn/b-kunst.htm to http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~pbruhn/b-kunst.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Tombaroli, not Tombolari

‘Tombarolo’ is an Italian term (plural ‘tombaroli’), derived from the Italian word ‘tomba’, meaning tomb or grave. It refers primarily to ‘tomb-robbers’ operating in Italy (Mackenzie and Green 2009: 3)

I am going to correct the wrong term in the italian section of the article, then. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.231.25 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/21761. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sennecaster (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Looting of Africa

I noticed that the Looted Art article did not go into much detail about the looting of Africa. I believe the article would improve by including this as the looting of African Art was such a prominent trope of imperialism. A section about the looting of Africa would be beneficial, going into detail on some of these stolen artifacts. A focus on the Benin Bronzes, one of the biggest examples of looted African art, would go a long way. In addition to a new section, the section titled 'Looting by the British Empire' could be expanded upon by including these details. See "One Hundred Years of Looting of Nigerian Art Treasures" for more. reference"https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/artniqul3&div=38&id=&page= 3dozie.a (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a new looted art section (this time from Indonesia)

Hi everyone! I noticed there isn't a section for Indonesian looted artworks, so I have decided to add a small section regarding the topic. It won't be exhaustive or long. Considering the long history of colonialism the Dutch have in Indonesia, as well as the significant number of looted Indonesian cultural objects distributed across European museums, I thought it would be a beneficial section to add! If there are anything missing, or corrections, please feel free to edit them or message me! Thank you!--CarmenBanks (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

How much ?

Is known qualified estimation , how many objects are still missing ?

For example , database lootedart.com ( 1933 - 1945 ) contains 8521 objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.34.227.15 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Looted countries

The entirety of North and South America - Canada, the United States, Brazil, and so on - as well as Australia, New Zealand, and most of Russia are looted countries, literally stolen from the previous inhabitants. Every building, every art work on and in the land was stolen. Every ounce of soil, every drop of oil, every mineral, every plant, every tree, every animal, was stolen and is still exploited. No one cares. Burraron (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)