Talk:Looting/Archive 1

scavenging
OK, so if there’s a riot and you steal a stereo out of a store, yes, that’s looting. But, if you steal food from a half-submerged store that is just going to go bad and be thrown out anyway, is that “looting”?

The perpetrators might call it "scavenging." The law doesn't look at it any differently, though.--65.113.231.67 20:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the law does look at it differently. I.e. looting a grocery store for bottled water and food is different than looting an electronics store for a new 42 inch plasma TV and an I-pod. --Kvuo 00:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions?
Is it looting if the goods will go bad before the owners return?

If the looters don't resort to violence or physical force, I don't really see the harm of looting, especially if the looted inventory is already spoiled. In disaster situations, I'm more appalled by functioning businesses that resort to price gouging. --Madchester 18:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oddly I would agree on the first point, but not on the second. "Price gouging" as you can it is really a "Market Price Signal' to conserve a scarce resource. Raising the price of gas to $6.00 should encourage people to think twice about using fuel for unnecessary trips at a time when fuel is expensive. Even charging large amounts for water will encourage critical conservation. Does it represent a moral question wherein the poor are impacted more than the rich - yes, but Capitalism is the worse form of economy - with the exception of any other, and there is no system which can react as quickly and as intelligently to changing resource levels than a free market system and thus reduce the impact of change on everyone. Shutting down the markets is the biggest disaster. Benjamin Gatti

About this part of the article:

'The media in Hurricane Katrina have come under criticism for portraying identical acts as justifiable "finding" or deplorable "looting" depending on the race of the perpetrator.[2]'

I've seen the photos to which this refers, and I really don't see it as a fair comparison (one person has a loaf or two of bread, the other has as much as he can carry - literally a couple full sized trash bags filled with stuff and a large pack of soda). It's very obvious that one person stole something that could be considered essential, while the other was just taking advantage of the situation. There are people who just feel the need though to place these photos together as if everything depicted in them was exactly the same except race, and then use them as 'examples' in their own political agenda with the media. Please.

Everyday looting
When President Bush wanted advertising space for his campaign, did he pay for it under the free market system? No - he (and his minions) simply "Looted" public property for use as his personal billboard property. Check the laws of any state and you will see it is against the law to "take" public property for use as ad space. But it is commonplace. This is everyday looting. But when black people "take" things necessary to life, its suddenly morally apprehensible? How many people dying of thirst are going to wait at the check out counter until the clerk comes and takes their money in a Flood? The social contract of stores is that they provide a public service of distributing goods in exchange for military protection of their enterprise - when that contract is broken, it breaks both ways, and the ownership rights which we accept from our youth - simply vanish. There is no right to own air - nor water, nor food except as part of a system in which it is fairly distributed to the people who need it. We call that system capitalism, and it is justified because it serves the highest good - however when it ceases to exist - the default common ownership of all natural resources remains. The Indian cultures understood that everything is everyone's, you take what you can eat, and that's that. Such a system is neither more nor less morally superior to any other system. To imply that a system of exclusive monopoly is morally superior is a silly and uneducated POV. Benjamin Gatti

I don't think many people are going to equate posting a 8.5x11 sheet of paper on a telephone pole with breaking a window and removing a loaf of bread, Nintendo, or pack of underwear. Regardless, how does Bush's violation of property rights legitimize the violation of property rights occurring in New Orleans? I would agree with you in a sense, that the right to life is a higher priority than the right to property, but I would argue that if property rights are suspended, the right to life will shortly be suspended as well. See: French revolution, New Orleans snipers, etc. -brj

George Bush erected a 4 foot by 8 foot billboard on public property in the median of a highway. Distracting drivers has been shown as a root cause of accidents which kill 55,000 people a year. The "Value" of a community free of litter is palpable in terms of attracting new investment, tourism, jobs, all of which lead to putting food on the table, having the money to make better life decisions (such as buying a car with airbags, medical insurance and timely check-ups) which extend life. "Snipers" is NO is a "man bites dog" story. The likelihood is that violence went down in NO after the Hurricane. "Looting" is the redistribution of wealth under suspended rules. On a moral basis this is equivalent to pirating and illegal use of public resources. - why should there be a line drawn - especially one which cuts across racial and socio-economic standards. In this case "Brownie" - "Lied" on his resume, effectively to get a job where he’s paid in excess of his capabilities. - is this not "looting"? I would suggest that George Bush is the first looter here because he looted FEMA for its "trophy jobs". Benjamin Gatti

What??? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Your sentences don't relate to each other. In any case, I think this article should stick to a discussion of looting as is commonly understood: the violation of property rights (stealing), especially during a time of unusual circumstances where the likelihood of punishment is decreased, or the regular channels for procuring property do not exist. Litter in the streets, or appointing an idiot to be the head of FEMA do not seem to qualify. -brj 15:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting we should propagate the media bias that when white people "steal" it is noble and honest, but when poor blacks take something by less than formal means, they should be shot? I suggest we address looting at every socio-economic status - regardless of race. I think we can find substantial "looting" at every level - think a little outside the box. The use of pejorative words to describe the lives of the poor, while separating the moral equivalent actions of the rich is perverse. Benjamin Gatti

Cleanup...
This article needs serious help. Benjamin, how much of this are you responsible for? &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think that's what history is for. If you go back to my first edit, you'll see what it looked like before. Basically - it was the "looting is stealing" racial ignorant POV. Now it has a new shiny - "everybody steals you idiot" look to it. Jump right in there's plenty of room for synthesis. Given that WASP looted the entire continent, I suggest we start with that. Benjamin Gatti
 * I'm listing this on RFC; it was a lot less biased before you started working on it. I'm tempted to just revert to The Anome's last version before you starting inserting unproven assertions and POV statements. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 05:05, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope of course that we do get some eyes on this. However, the assertion that "looting" is simply theft is ignorant and I won't stand for it. Looting is a complicated psychosocial dynamic separate from other forms of "wealth redistribution". Benjamin Gatti


 * Looting is a complicated psychosocial dynamic - true. Your edits are blatant POV - equally true. Sorry, I revert. Cyclopia 19:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Looting is no more theft than taxes are theft - both are system of wealth redistribution.
While it is true that some "looters" are motivated by the same base instincts as "thieves" - it is equally true that many "looters" are simply replacing a defunct market system, with a rather communistic "to each according to their needs" system of redistribution, which from a position of "natural law" is not morally inferior to any other system, including the private ownership capitalism model the US-centric editor takes as normative. Benjamin Gatti


 * I think looters redistribute goods according "to each according to how much I can take, without caring about anyone else". This behaviour does make sense for survival in catastrophic situation. But I won't call it a viable economic system of redistribution. And BTW we don't care about moral hierarchies of economic systems here - we're doing an encyclopaedia. Cyclopia 19:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest that one point of view (POV) is that "looting" is theft, while an equal or higher-though-less-likely-to-own-a-computer feel that taking what they need to live is part of the daily struggle to survive, a struggle which is often exacerbated by the burden which the sovereign places on their labor. The article should express all points of view. Benjamin Gatti

Benjamin: Unfortunately Wikipedia does not cater for all points of view. Majority points of view are given top billing, and, where there is a significant minority point of view, then that is covered as well. Majority – in the case of the English language Wikipedia – is the 'Western' viewpoint: many people recognize that this is not ideal, and try to do something about it, but it's an uphill struggle. The only way to achieve change is to produce work that is well documented from an academic perspective. If you can cite resources (internet or hard-copy) that offer well-argued discussions that support the slant you wish to introduce into the article, then you are going to find life a lot easier. You should also acknowledge that the viewpoint you are representing is a minority position&mdash;again, given the caveat that there is perhaps an inherent bias in the whole of Wikipedia.

As a lone voice, you could find it very frustrating: however, you are not alone. You should consider investigating WikiProject Countering systemic bias. There are other people who seek to make Wikipedia a truly global resource, and they would surely welcome additional support from such as yourself. In the meantime, I am afraid that the additions that you are trying to make to this article are just too far away from the norm to be easily accepted. Please try and moderate your ambitions. Thanks. Noisy | Talk 23:15, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have sourced several comments from current moderate news sources (MSNBC) and Al Shaprton, who clearly represents a "significant minority." I would challenge the basis in intellectual publications for the current "Looting is theft" dogma. Benjamin Gatti

Al Sharpton is hardly a serious academic! News media aren't very good references, either. You'll need to trawl the net or your economics reference works if you are going to provide cites that hold up under scrutiny. Noisy | Talk 09:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin, we can try to settle the question starting in this way. Can you write here in the talk page an exhaustive paragraph explaining your POV clearly, encyclopaedically and with clear, good references? It could be a good starting point to see what and how can be merged in the article. Cyclopia 13:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See Below

A Less Prejudiced POV
This has little to do with my POV. My observation is that there exists a plurality of perspectives for this term, and few if any serious ethicists would fail to carve out a moral exception for those who distribute critical resources to the dying in the event of a market failure. One of the reasons people died during Katrina is the unwillingness of individuals to rise above the intellectual squalor of an artificial market system, and address real needs with real resources. For example, one person "commandeered" a school bus and drove it 5 hours from the Superdome to the Astrodome, in order to assist in the evac. This article would describe that as looting, and many people who retain their inhibitions to saving lives by violating lesser laws - do so because we as a society project an "immutable rules" version of law and order. However, we recognize that government need not abide by them - for example, we as a nation can enter the middle east with guns and leave with oil, and thing nothing of "theft", while an individual doing the same thing is a crook. The article ought not limit itself to a predefined and misunderstood kindergarten schedule of behavioral norms, but should lift its sight higher and carve out a word that applies to every person and bureaucracy with equality - and leave room for moral distinctions to be applied on a case-by-case basis. These views (and others) should be included:

Described on MSNBC as "self-help humanitarian aid." (ethics special) Reverend Al Sharpton said "the ones who have been looted are the people that have been a result of structural and institutional neglect in New Orleans that are watching grandmothers and babies die, when we should have prevented the infrastructural decay that collapsed under the weight of this hurricane."  Looting is also used to refer to CEO's who divert money from investors into their own pockets. 300K examples

Benjamin Gatti


 * Ok, trying to extract the substance from your prose: (1)By mean of looting people redistribute economical resources in emergency situations, trying to address their immediate needs by picking up what they need. By doing this they often break the common economical and judicial laws of their state (no moral judgment on this is intended), more precisely they subvert the concept of "public good" and of "private property" by swapping them following their needs. (2)The word "looting" can be also used to describe questionable (and questioned) geopolitical behaviours of nation states, especially to describe wars pushed by economic reasons. (3)The word "looting" can also be used to describe questionable (and questioned) behaviours of CEOs to investors.


 * Now I answer to your paragraph. First, your paragraph is non-consistent because it describes three different uses of the word "looting". But that's OK if we can disjoin them now.


 * To point (1): Point (1) is interesting and I would welcome some brief statement explaining that sometimes looting is necessary as a survival strategy, and that theoretically many behaviours described as looting can redistribute resources more efficiently (an academic ref by an economist/sociologist would really help here), and I could even accept the Al Sharpton reference as an example of POV on the subject.


 * To point (2) and (3): You're basically describing a metaphoric use of the word "looting" for two special situations. Describing each metaphorical use of the word is IMHO (1)nonsensical for an encyclopaedia article (2)would require to cover each conceivable situation: from Iraqi wars to tribal wars to subjects like red ants looting black ants anthills, and so on.


 * My opinion is: Let's merge some referenced sentence about the socioeconomic hues of looting (there is no need to refer to current events like Katrina, we're doing an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper), and discard the proposal of describing metaphorical uses as useless. Cyclopia 21:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:
 * ansers.com includes one source which holds the theft of intellectual property out as the first definition (which of course this article, and those who revert the picture are themselves guilty (of).
 * I hardly see how plundering the finances of a company is metaphoric. Money may be somewhat abstract, but not so abstract as to be metaphoric.
 * The etymology suggests "plundering" in its association with the right of the victor to appropriate the goods of the vanquished. (I wonder, do the vanquished have the reverse right, when the tables are turned? no - hmm funny - who made that rule and how does it fit under the rubric of equal protection?
 * You agree that looting serves the "public good" in some cases, then I suggest we introduce the word in a unbiased language, and if one feels possessed to moralize certain examples of looting, then it ought to be reserved for particular cases - my argument is that "looting" by itself is morally neutral without additional facts. Again a policemen loots gas to operate a squad car to prevent looting begs to be resolved at the "highest common good" level and attaching the morality at the verb level is childish and unencyclopedic, however popular it might be for rich white people to condemn the desperate poor for failing to respect a series of abstract rules which have systemically excluded them from the table. Benjamin Gatti


 * "Looting" in the case of finances of a company or in the case of geopolitical acquisitions is metaphorical (or at least semantically stretched), because the common use of the word is not for that. Simple. There's no political bias or judgment on this, it's just a matter of definition. Looting AFAIK is used for individual or poorly organized actions of individuals, directed at small, mobile goods, during emergency situations. Can you talk about looting acts by individuals or small groups during warfare? Yes, they probably happen every day. Can you talk about looting of a whole nation? Only metaphorically. Talking of looting of black ants by red ants, for example, is closer to the real meaning of the word, but it would be useless to put it in the article. Anyone agreeing with the word definition will immediately understand its metaphorical uses.


 * As for looting being theft, it IS technically theft. The current wikipedia definition of theft is: "in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent". You disagree on "wrongful", but in this case I'd remove "wrongful" from the theft article (giving a technical definition) instead of not calling looting theft. Stealing to feed your children is not that objectively wrongful, anyway. Again, that's not a problem of ethics, just of definitions. If you want to define something else, use other words. Cyclopia 16:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Benjamin, I've reported you for a violation of 3RR. Not only have you violated 3RR, but your additions have been rejected by three editors (so far), meaning you're also violating consensus. Please stop. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:53, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll be careful not to exceed 3rr's per day (which I haven't), but until I see some sources and better research for this biased and intellectually bereft (and racially biased) version, I'd hope for for a more neutral article. For whoever is counting (merge) isn't a revert, it's a merge taken in good faith, subsequent deletions of sourced materials are IMO less than the best of faith. Benjamin Gatti


 * Your hope for a better and more neutral article is good. But please consider resolving the debate on the talk page. In the meantime I added a POV warning on the page. We should both agree on the fact this warning is needed (although for opposite reasons), so please leave it untouched until we resolve the dispute. Cyclopia 21:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * More the merrier. My disappointment is that Wikipedia continues to push a "taking is bad when poor black (see picture) do it, but just fine when rich white people do it." - for example, if I suggest that the Europeans "looted" America from the natives - or that they "looted and pillaged" African nations for their young and strong - that would (has been) reverted. God speed your POV and racism. So we want to play snatch and grab until "we're" on top, and then we expect everyone else to see things "our" way - ie. that redistributing wealth is suddenly out of style, now that "we've" got "ours" - What a perverse and unreasonable notion. I suggest the moral argument for sharing is strong - even though more people arguably benefit from ruthless capitalism, doesn't mean we should hold out pejoratives words for the poor, while we make excuses for the rich. Do we say Christopher Columbus "looted" America. No - he "discovered" it. What a noble word. And when a few black people dying of dehydration "discover" water - do we use the same word? no - we replace the word with a pejorative and call it "theft." How silly. "Theft" is an invention of capitalism, just like "animal" is an invention of in-and-out burger. It doesn't have much meaning _outside_ the context of a system of private ownership - but then I ask you, what is that system? - That system is probably a form of theft itself. Again, we "Stole" land from the Indians, and then create a framework of "ownership" wherein the taking of land is "stealing"? how absurd. Only the taking of land from White people is stealing. Taking land from Indians has enjoyed a long a respected tradition in this country which remains unmitigated. - The native lands involved in the "Trail of Tears" continue to this day in their "stolen" state. So now we come to the definition of looting. Again we have concurrent evidence that theft is considered the taking of things by black people: white people simply "discover". What hooey. Benjamin Gatti


 * Benjamin, apart from your political propaganda (which is nice, but of which we don't care, because we're writing an encyclopedia article) please, can you explain me where is any racist issue in the article? Do you refer to the picture showing Africans? If you can upload another picture showing white people looting (an incision about whites looting Native Americans for example would be good), that's OK for me. Cyclopia 11:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The picture we now have is "looted" itself from CNN - so we lunge into the article on a hypocritical note.
 * The etymology of the word comes from "Plunder" which has is primarily associated with the spoils of war - thus the picture ought to show a war victory "taking" property and goods" Perhaps the Israeli incursion into the west bank would be a candidate.
 * The Pictures of Whites plundering African villages for their young and strong may not even exist in the public domain - but that is no excuse to participate in a demonstrable - if semiconscious effort to make the argument that people are looters by race.
 * In addition, "looting" is used to describe "self-help humanitarian aid" meaning, the scavenging of clean water to preserve life during a crisis because the market economy has failed. In the introduction, we ought to start general, leaving the moral options open, and develop moral conclusion on a case-by-case basis later in the argument. I'm certainly not saying that all looting is good, but it is hopelessly ignorant to say that all looting is "wrong" or "theft" or "stealing". When a person "loots" a schoolbus in order to drive people out of the hellhole - is that "theft" or is it the efficient use of available resources for the common good? When we get back to first principles - private ownership is not the "values" of this country. Human rights are our chief values, and the redistribution of resources to the end of human rights and the alleviation of suffering is consistent with the moral fabric of our society. We justify capitalism - only because and so long as it serves the greater good, however - when capitalism fails to perform - ie, the shops which supply clean water and food are closed (for whatever reason), there is no absolute moral code which prohibits us from abandoning the sinking ship of capitalism, and swimming to shore in a desperate "each man for themselves" race for survival. It would be nice to think we had a system in place to distribute resources fairly under the condition of a market failure, but we didn't, and to criticize those who "were simultaneously victims and perpetrators" of a chaotic and unorganized ad-hoc system, by describing their behavior in terms of a market economy which did not exist at the time, is absurd. Benjamin Gatti


 * When a person "loots" a schoolbus in order to drive people out of the hellhole - is that "theft" or is it the efficient use of available resources for the common good. - It IS theft, and it IS efficient use of resources. I can't see why there is a conflict. --Cyclopia 16:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But theft is considered a crime - are we to suggest that it is a crime to borrow a schoolbus and drive people out of harm's way? Benjamin Gatti
 * Theft is a crime from the purely legal point of view. As you are implying, it is not necessarily an ethical "crime". From the point of view of US (or Italian, or 99%-of-countries-out-there) law, borrowing that schoolbus is a crime. From an ethical point of view, it is not necessarily so. That's exactly the same as stealing to feed starving children. I think defining looting "theft" is nothing else then a technical definition on which I think it is hard not to agree. We can work to clarify the possible ethical implications of looting in several situations. You push on "good" looting, but I'd like to clarify also that's a minority of cases. Robin Hoods are just a few. --Cyclopia 19:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Continued ...

 * I am pushing AGAINST a cycloptic article in the one-eyed, one-perspective sense of the word. I recognize a good deal of awful looting occurs however, more has been looted by those "in authority" than by poor minorities. The US Looted from the Native Americans - that is worth noting. And their looting Africa for its people - how much lower to steal people - and then a few years later to bellyache about sodawater? NPOV requires a perspective that escapes the "man bites dog" sensationalism of the press. We've seen many images of "man bites dog" looting - the general case is those with power abusing it at the expense of the powerless. That is the general wealth transfer. NO is going to be looted by Halliburton for wasteful no-bid contracts care of Mr. Dick Cheney, who personally benefits from those "technically illegal" transactions. So here's to a bit of balance. Benjamin Gatti


 * I already wrote above, but I copy-and-paste here: "Looting" in the case of finances of a company or in the case of geopolitical acquisitions is metaphorical (or at least semantically stretched), because the common use of the word is not for that. Simple. There's no political bias or judgment on this, it's just a matter of definition. Looting AFAIK is used for individual or poorly organized actions of individuals, directed at small, mobile goods, during emergency situations. Can you talk about looting acts by individuals or small groups during warfare? Yes, they probably happen every day. Can you talk about looting of a whole nation? Only metaphorically. Talking of looting of black ants by red ants, for example, is closer to the real meaning of the word, but it would be useless to put it in the article. Anyone agreeing with the word definition will immediately understand its metaphorical uses.


 * You see the problem is NOT balance here, the problem is DEFINITIONS. It seems to me you have problems with the current definition of looting. NPOV requires that we make an article that starts by explaining the definition of the word and its aspects in full generality. Then we can start adding material. When does looting happens? Why? It is always bad? How does the media/other view looters and how does this relate with sociopolitics? That's all OK. But trying to push metaphorical or at least semantically stretched meanings of "looting"- be it related with Bush, ants and everything else, it's a no-no. I can try to accept a brief sentence like "Looting is sometimes used to refer to various phenomenona related to exploitation of peoples and resources...", but not much more.


 * BTW, I can't see why you always refer in your discussion to (quite trivial, be at least more original) examples of exploitation by Occidental powers on poors and/or racial minorities. Our discussion would be much more fruitful if we stick to the point; otherwise the signal-to-noise ratio goes very low. I think doing sensiblization about these issues, as noble as it can be, is not the point of an encyclopaedia. We're just presenting a definition and explaining some context around a phenomenon. Promoting your (noble) agenda is not good on WP. Cyclopia 20:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The etymology of the word is "plunder" (Sanskrit) and deals originally with the "takings" associated with victory in war. Now we want to ignore the original and focus on what amounts to a colloquialism. Its offense, because its so very biased, and pedestrian. Language should recognize common usage, but should attempt where possible to preserve the original definitions. Moreover, excluding the "use of authority" to loot promulgates the naive mindset in which the sovereign has the "right" to plunder its subjects. The edits help, but still fail to capture the meaning of the root word. Benjamin Gatti
 * You are reaching. This is an encyclopedia, not a linguistics class. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 02:38, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense, Benjamin. Language must recognize common, correct usage, not digging in remote etymologies. I love etymology, really, but in this case I don't care about what did the Sanskrit root mean -by this reasoning, we would be now discussing in some Ur-Indoeuropean language, not in English. As for the other objection, excluding the use of authority in looting does not promote anything else than the common meaning of the word. I'm sorry if language is not always as politically correct as you would like it to be. --Cyclopia 08:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pick your authority: Original intent, Answers.com's (list of definition incl. Wikipedia). Google.
 * Google has some 300K hits for looting as an act of the CEO taking more profits than his compensation package specifies. Where is the authority for the existing sense of the word as the exclusive and general meaning? I agree that the meaning includes takings in absence of authority, but I don't agree that this meaning is exclusive, and I see no evidence that it is even predominate. My sense is that a few editors have simply presupposed that their own pedestrian perspective is the only perspective, and I dissent. Consequently, the article must be couched, balanced or mediated. Benjamin Gatti

new beginning
Google has 515K hits for "all your base are belong to us", but this fact doesn't make it a grammatically sound English sentence. Anyway, I checked the Webster dictionary (on paper) and I must admit a partial victory for you - it infact gives as first definition "goods, exp. of considerable value taken in war" and also mentions the usage for "illicit gains by public officials". I can excuse my ignorance because I'm not a native English speaker, but it was ignorance indeed. So, OK, we can restart from here. Again, it's not a problem of balance but of definitions, and I would enjoy if you keep the discussion on this point. My proposal is to rewrite the article this way: - a general intro about the general definition of looting and then, not necessarily in this order: - looting in the sense it is described here in the article - looting as plunder during warfare - looting as referred to illicit or unethical behaviour of public officials or politics. trying of course to expand each section and to avoid POV issues when describing each one. --Cyclopia 14:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's progress. (BTW What language is your mother tongue?) can we agree: Benjamin Gatti
 * 1) The general definition should not favor one def over the others nor preclude any.
 * 2) Move the "valuable taken in war to the top since it is the first meaning for a number of reasons including etymology?
 * 3) Include "Looting" as a colloquialism has been used to describe those scavenging for food after a market disruption - especially if they are black.
 * 4) Do we have evidence that the term can refer to morally neutral redistribution of critical supplies - ie the cop who loots gas in order to keep order (and prevent looting)?


 * I agree with the first two points. As for the third, it's not (just) a colloquialism: it's another legit use. The post-Katrina racial incident is already described in the article, I don't think looting is commonly associated with racial bias and saying this would give a racial bias on a word that has none. As for the fourth point, I don't think the term refers normally to morally neutral redistribution, I think that sometimes happens/is possible that looting is that kind of redistribution. (BTW, I'm Italian).


 * As for your edit: "Looting is the suspension of market conditions under which many find it necessary or desirable to gain direct access to goods and services without paying the usual price which occurs during an apparent, usually temporary, absence of authority and order." does not agree with its first definition (valuable taken in war), or, at least, does not give any significant semantic hint about this. I would move this sentence when discussing scavenging for goods after market disruption - that is, inside the article. I'll try to edit today if I can. I would put again one or more images on the front page. --Cyclopia 16:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Looting is the opportunistic taking of goods in the absence of their owner.
 * 1) taking of goods following a war or other victory - ie President Bush looted FEMA by taking the chief executive position for one of his campaign supporters.
 * 2) the use of positions of trust to take that which belongs to others. ie Cheny and his friends at ENRON and Halliburton have been looting the American people and investors.
 * 3) scavenging for critical necessities such as water and food following a natural disaster. ie, the good people of New Orleans were forced to loot underwater grocery store for water and food as Bush and his incompetent cronies debated whether to hit the back nine, or facilitate a long promised rescue for the children, sick, and elderly trapped for days during one of the longest presidential vacations in history. Benjamin Gatti


 * Please don't use POV-risky subjects like Cheney and Bush in the article (it is useless and it will just start flame/editwars - BTW I at least partially agree with your examples, but we don't need propaganda here) and don't forget that sometimes even poor people looting it's not only scavenging for critical necessities but scavenging of luxuries. --Cyclopia 08:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh
Looting is simply group theft. That's been the definition of the word for centuries, so we shouldn't be trying to assign it a completely new meaning here at Wikipedia.

If you want to argue that private property is illegitimate and defend wealth redistribution, you should take your arguments to Theft, Anarchism or Property. But leave Looting alone. Bastie 20:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the point there. the point is that looting - or wealth redistribution as you say is hardly confined to poor black people - in fact, rich powerful white people like Ken Lay, like Slave owners, like ENRON execs, and Halliburton engage in widespread opportunistic (and illegal) "takings". I only wish to ensure we leave room in the definition for those nice WASPS to be mentioned. Also some people need to loot in order to survive long enough for Bush's incompetent trophy executives to resign so the real heros could do their job. Benjamin Gatti


 * The point is that looting is defined in terms of theft, and theft is defined in terms of property, so you're making your arguments in the wrong place. And "group theft" is a completely race-neutral definition, so adding the statement that "White people loot too" is unnecessary. Bastie 20:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Benjamin, you even say you believe the takings of Ken Lay et. al. are illegal. In other words, you consider it theft. If so, please write a nice entry on that. But don't try squeezing your unconventional POV into an entry on looting. DocendoDiscimus 21:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What you call my POV has been verified by checking a deadtrees encyclopedia. IE the first def is takings by highly organized authoritarian forces - ie victors in war ie the "heads of government" - which is what we call victors in war. Moreover, MOST dollar value looting per person occurs by WASPS in corporate hats. It would take a lifetime of trips in waist deep water with a bag of bread and soda to come within a percentage point of the ENRON theft - so why do we put a picture of poor black people on the cover? Because we're racist, and we want to think of crime as something non-whites do. Or ignorant. Or both. Let's rise above the idism and be as neutral as our fortunate souls will allow. Benjamin Gatti


 * Well, let's take a look at the definition given in Wikionary: "to steal, especially as part of war, riot or other group violence." Do you disagree with this definition? Bastie 01:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that historic definitions of stealing tend to favor violence and force as a method - but in the world of abstract value, there is a great deal more stealing by other means. Would you agree that Bush's war on Iraq as a means to appropriate their oil fits within the definition of loot?

How about a picture of the United States armed forces "looting" oil? How about a picture of Kenneth Lay moving his lips? I believe we should try to understand how much looting there is in the world, and how much is conducted by poor minorities vs. the good ole' boys. Benjamin Gatti


 * It's not our job here to update "historic definitions" of words. Folks look up words in reference books to see what they mean, not what they should mean or maybe will mean. And you should make your arguments about Iraq in the Iraq War article. If you can convince the folks over there that the war was a case of "stealing", then it would be consistent to refer to it in this article. Until then, such comments are out of place here. Bastie 03:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact is that you're all right. Benjamin is right in pointing that looting is ALSO taking goods from territories during wartime (it is the first definition that the Webster gives) and it can be ALSO used to refer to illicit gains by people in positions of power. You're right in saying that looting is ALSO stealing and scavenging by group violence. Benjamin is especially noisy and obsessive in its political propaganda (can you PLEASE, PLEASE keep this an academic discussion about the meaning of a word?), and he's trying to stretch semantically the word, but it doesn't mean some of its points are valid. So I'd like to see this plurality of meanings to be accepted by us all: Bastie, can you double-check another valuable "deadtrees" dictionary and control definition of the word looting and accept there is a plurality of usages? Benjamin, can you agree that, since so many people define it this way, looting is a word that defines ALSO group violence and stealing even at the personal level (not only at the corporation/government level)? --Cyclopia 08:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Cyclopia, I appreciate your attempt to find common ground, but to be honest, the meaning of the word looting is theft as per the Wiktionary definition. Following the thread, there are two possibilities here:
 * Does the word looting neutrally describe illegal appropriation by people in authority?
 * Is it used as a metaphor for that phenomenon?
 * Clearly it is used as a metaphor. It is especially powerful as a metaphor, exactly because its meaning is group theft. In this way, the word conjures up the image of a pillaging mob not restrained by any authority. That is precisely the image Benjamin believes people should have when thinking about Bush, Iraq, Ken Lay, etc. Even if we come to the conclusion that the word is a neutral description for the phenomenon, then we would still have a discussion on whether certain events do constitute illegal appropriation by people in authority. And only if Benjamin manages to find a Wiki consensus that it is NPOV for instance to say that Bush illegally appropriated Iraq's oil, only then could we put it into this entry as an example of looting. -- DocendoDiscimus 10:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally I trust more the Webster dictionary than Wiktionary (even if I strongly believe in the Wiki model). I agreed with you 100% until I saw that some of the definitions Benjamin tries to push forward are not completely wrong. They're recorded as uses of the word. It is possible that it is the Wiktionary that needs editing. But I'm not of English mother language, so I must confess I don't feel on firm ground about this. Can you double check on a couple of English dictionaries to reach consensus?


 * I will anyway fight ANY attempt to put references to Iraq wars and any other recent (post-1945, ideally) economical and political event as examples of looting, as blatantly POV (at least for many years, until this becomes history and objective, accepted judgement will follow), useless for the article and dangerous (leading only to edit wars). --Cyclopia 11:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't have a copy of Webster here, nor of that deep well of knowledge the Oxford English Dictionary. (I'm bilingual btw, English & Dutch). There is no dispute here that the word is sometimes used in the way Benjamin uses it. That does not automatically mean that it is should be included into a definition of the common meaning. It can have been used as a metaphor (or it could have been used incorrectly of course). Compare my earlier use of the word well. It is often used metaphorically. That doesn't mean that in the definition of the word well it will say: something that knowledge springs from. Still, I agree with you, we should see if we can indeed find a dictionary entry with Benjamin's definition. If not, I believe we should mention that it is sometimes used metaphorically to strengthen arguments for someone's point of view; that should be fine. We could even add a quote with a link (from someone who is someone, i.e. who's on Wiki!). Have a look on metaphor and see if this would fit everyone.


 * Either way, I agree completely that there should be NO mention of Iraq wars etc. (maybe except for the quote describing the metaphorical use, which seems suitably qualified to me). The discussion is now about semantics, not about what constitutes examples. It is about whether we agree on Benjamin's wider definition or not. Bastia, Cyclopia and I will NEVER agree to adding examples of Ken Lay, Bush etc as looters. Benjamin, if you keep insisting on this, then we will be here for a long time. I do hope in that case that Godwin's law isn't true... DocendoDiscimus 12:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The mere mention of Godwin's law satisfies Godwin's law by reference. I found 300K Google hits for CEO and loot. It is clear to me that the term "loot" is often applied to takings by executives. The argument has long been to accept the common vernacular - remember? I recommended we stick with the "real" meaning - Cyclopedia has been insisting we accept common use - so when the shoe is on the other foot - it's now back to the "classic" definition? I'm Bebaffled (that's a pseudo-Bushism).
 * How about we agree on accepting all common usages?
 * Reject common usages in favor of historic meaning (war plunder)?
 * Third option cherry pick new meanings based on personal and racial biases?
 * Do you see why I dislike option 3? Benjamin Gatti
 * Benji, before all discussion goes on, please STOP doing political propaganda and overall STOP assume that here we have a racial bias by default. As a son of refugees from an ethnic warfare, it is pretty insulting to me. --Cyclopia 14:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Cyclopia, I could not agree more. It's very sad that there is some much bigotry going around, even here on Wiki. -- DocendoDiscimus 14:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Before you fall on your swords claiming martyrdom, Given the current and quite newsworthy example of racial bias with respect to this word already existent in the media - the question is whether or not we on wikipedia wish to propagate a similar message (Which clearly an image of black people, and a narrowed definition supports - or do we intend to expand the definition at least to include its etymological roots, and first definition in at least one deadtree - perhaps include a few examples of non-white looting (which are not hard to find) do we include the looting of intellectual property? or exclude it? etc ... claiming suffering in your family tree gets you no free pass to express a bias here. Benjamin Gatti


 * I don't claim martyrdom. I claim to know what racism is, and I'd find quite impossible to push it by myself. Please stop thinking you're the only one illuminated. Please stop thinking you're the only one right. Your theoretical respect for skin melanin levels seems not followed by practical respect for other people's opinions. Your theoretical lack of prejudice about tiny genomic difference between humans also seems not followed by practical lack of prejudice about fellows that are trying to collaborate to build free knowledge. --Cyclopia 11:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You claim that a ""narrow definition"" of looting ""clearly supports"" racial bias with respect to this word already existent in the media. Please elaborate, as I do not see how this follows. DocendoDiscimus 16:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If we ignore all definitions for looting save the scavenging for food displayed in the image, as well as in the recent media, then we contribute weight to the view that "looting" is what poor minorities are doing here - or there. When in fact "looting by rich whites is every bit as common, and by proper historical application of the term, applies at least as much to the use of power by others to "loot" trophy titles for their retinue. (See Al Sharptons remark as non original research on this topic.) Benjamin Gatti


 * It is obvious that the picture should go. The fact that Al Sharpton's remarks are non original research, does not mean that it they are NPOV. What would you say if someone inserted some research by Bill O'Reilly? DocendoDiscimus 11:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Of metaphor and meaning
On the subject of metaphor - it strikes me that the original word (warring for plunder) has been extended over time by applying it first as a metaphor, and then over time, as the metaphoric use becomes recognized, it is considered less and less a metaphor. Plunder as I understand it refers to organized and cooperative violence planned and executed for the purpose of acquiring wealth. But has been stretch to refer to opportunistic acquisitions which occur under an unplanned interruption in authority. - so it seems to be the use of a military to acquire wealth, or the absence of a military used to acquire wealth. In the end, if we accept every incrementally metaphical application, we ought to embrace them all. Perhaps we start with the historic meaning, and then list the incursions of the word into new territories in sequential order but otherwise without preference. Benjamin Gatti


 * Given the overall perplexity and disagreement, I'd wait for someone to double check on other dictionaries before going on in the discussion. --Cyclopia 14:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. DocendoDiscimus 14:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Webster's New World College Dictionary defines loot thus: 1) goods stolen or taken by force, as from a captured enemy city in wartime or by a corrupt official or by rioters; plunder; spoils. 2) the act of looting. 3) [Slang] a) money; b) items of value; esp. gifts received. &mdash;vt. 1) to plunder; strip of everything valuable; despoil. 2) to take or carry off as plunder; steal. Etymology is listed as Hindi "lut" < Sanskrit "lunt", to rob". &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So can we agree that leaving out corrupt officials (most likely to be white) and feature an image of blacks, does have a skewing effect on the term towards the Blacks are looters, whites are lookers? I hope we spend every bit as much paragraph and image space on corrupt officials, as we do on survivors. In addition, I'm curious - since "force" is required per this def, is the taken of food from a completely abandoned grocery store technical "looting"? Look at the picture again - I see no force being applied. I would suggest the image looks like peaceful and orderly humanitarian aid. Benjamin Gatti
 * It does not require force. It plainly says goods stolen or taken by force. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So can we agree that leaving out corrupt officials (most likely to be white) and feature an image of blacks, does have a skewing effect on the term towards the Blacks are looters, whites are lookers? I hope we spend every bit as much paragraph and image space on corrupt officials, as we do on survivors. Benjamin Gatti
 * I don't agree that feature an image of blacks is racist. You're just pushing "reverse" racism, and that's racism indeed. --Cyclopia 11:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as an aside, a friend of mine who has the OED is going to look it up tonight for me, so we'll have a couple good print sources. Interesting how the word has changed -- a 1913 Webster's Dictionary defines "loot" thus: (Hindu, Sanskrit: ltra, lptra, booty, lup to break, spoil; prob. akin to E. rob.):  1) the act of plundering. 2) plunder; booty; especially, the boot taken in a conquered or sacked city. VT & VI: To plunder; to carry off as plunder or a prize lawfully obtained by war. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps then we agree it is less metaphorical to suggest that a politician who carts off several trophy cabinet positions for his incompetent friends, is in fact expropriating a "prize lawfully obtained by [victory]" - or "looting"? Benjamin Gatti
 * Nope. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. I'm becoming pretty sure that the semantic "world" covered by the word looting is that of fast, immediately violent, barbaric, loosely organized, massive, direct theft by warriors on a conquered city or territory. In origin it referred to operations of this kind happening during wars. It was immediately expanded to indicate operations of this kind happening in non-war scenarios, like catastrophic situations. It was later used as an immediate metaphor to indicate thefts by people in position of power. I say metaphor because there is nothing immediate or barbaric in this cases: they are with all probability well organized and they're not directly taking off goods with their hands.


 * On the other hand, looting is technically massive stealing, and there's no more doubt on this, I now feel clearly. If sometimes the word refers to justifiable stealing done to survive, it can be written in the article. About the objection that the private property system is likely to be at least not enforced in many cases, I answer that
 * (1.1) (previous) owners of looted objects knew these objects were of their property indeed, even if now conditions are changed -they do not agree, so they experience theft indeed
 * (1.2) if there's looting, there is a localized situation of anarchy but that's almost never recognized by larger authorities, so it's still technically stealing from the law point of view ;
 * (2) private property exists during looting: it is just a switch from a proprietary that cannot hold its property more, and another that takes it instead.


 * What Benji tries to hide to himself to push his logic is that one thing is the semantic network that the word implies, another its metaphorical uses (as immediate and widespread as they may be, and that are based on the true original semantic network). These metaphorical or almost-metaphorical uses can be largely used and deserve to be cited, but they're nevertheless a departure -although not far- from the both the original and common meaning of the word (here finally reconciling both views, the "etymological" and the "common speech"). --Cyclopia 11:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your definitions, which come down to opportunistic theft in the temporary absence of law and order. To be honest, whether the wider usage is metaphorical or part of the definition, is irrelevant. Benji would still have to prove all his statements such as (and I quote):
 * When President Bush wanted advertising space for his campaign [..] he (and his minions) simply "Looted" public property for use as his personal billboard property.
 * George Bush is the first looter here because he looted FEMA for its "trophy jobs".
 * "Theft" is an invention of capitalism
 * Bush's war on Iraq as a means to appropriate their oil
 * Well, you get the picture. Whatever is the end of the discussion of what the definition of the word is (exclusive or inclusive), we would then need to agree all these points. Therefore everyone (well, almost) will agree that there should be NO examples from post WWII history. Which by the way means, that we will have to resort to Nazi's looting art treasures, Napoleon's troops looting Moscow, Odovacar looting Rome signaling the fall of the Roman Empire. But wait a second - these were all white looters! Btw - it's interesting to see a non-American (public broadcast) site use the word: . All instances fit the narrow definition. DocendoDiscimus 11:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So we agree that the Iraq war fits the definition of massive violence with an aim toward the expatriation of oil from their "natural" owner, the people of Iraq?
 * Aside from taking physical things - to what extent do we agree that intangible goods can be subjected to looting? - at least one definition cites "especially intellectual property". is there any reason why "natural resources" are immune to looting. What is strip mining if not looting the earth - pillaging for oil, or in my example: replacing the natural flora and fauna with some god awful billboard (illegally).


 * When President Bush wanted advertising space for his campaign [..] he (and his minions) simply "Looted" public property for use as his personal billboard property. - I've got proof, if that's the concern.


 * George Bush is the first looter here because he looted FEMA for its "trophy jobs". - This is now a mainstream understanding.


 * "Theft" is an invention of capitalism - i'll retract this - stealing in communism means keeping the fruit of your labor (deserves the death penalty under christianity by the way)


 * Bush's war on Iraq as a means to appropriate their oil - we certainly aren't bending heaven and earth to bring democracy to Sudan.

Benjamin Gatti


 * Benji, please stop starting every comment with 'so we agree that'. No, I do not agree. Of course there was looting in Iraq after the invasion . Or do you deny that this should be called looting? I'm not even going to go through your other POV's. If you believe they are NPOV, please go to the relevant entries and add it there. For instance, please add your billboard and FEMA claims to the George W. Bush entry. They'll no doubt welcome you back there. First establish what the facts are, then come back here to discuss whether this constitutes looting. Your arguments regarding natural resources and intellectual property should also first be made at the relevant site. Try the mining site, and add the sentence mining is the plundering of natural resources. If there is a broad consensus there, good for you and we'll discuss. Otherwise stop wasting our time with your POV's. Apart from that, please let us know which sentences as they are now you don't agree with, and we're all happy to discuss. -- DocendoDiscimus 14:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Perigee of Unity

 * Benjamin, in all this discussion that's what we have agreed on:
 * Defining looting according to its dictionary meaning and referring to its etymology - i.e. as plundering during warfare. I even added a section (to complete) on "Looting as an act of warfare".
 * Making explicit there are metaphorical uses of the word that are in common use.
 * Avoiding any post-1945 reference, as they're most likely at risk of POV and they also sometimes risk to make sense only in local contexts both in space and in time (I do not know about FEMA because I'm Italian, and a discussion about FEMA makes little sense for me; moreover it seems an incident that will be forgotten in 2016).
 * As you can see, we have done much work to add information, clarify, explain the semantic facets of the word, and also to be kind to your opinions. It doesn't mean the discussion is close, but be ready to accept a compromise, just like we're doing, and this compromise won't be much far from what the article is now.
 * I also want to make clear that from now any reference to Bush, Iraq or any other current geopolitical event will be considered POV and therefore ignored. --Cyclopia 15:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Some of those goals may be noble but I doubt they are binding (for example on future editors) Certainly we've made progress by agreeing that the world is broader than simple theft. The article as it currently is substandard, and largely directionless (My POV) I might have another go at a cohesive and coherent article which winds its way through the meanings on which we agree. I feel that the benefit of a non-deadtrees encyclopedia, is that it discusses words in a contemporary context (None of this will remain until 2016) - so I expect Katrina and FEMA (largest natural disaster in the Americas) to be covered. Al Sharptons spin is priceless and a great example of how the word is spun and counterspun by professional wordsmiths.
 * I'm not persuaded that the opening line is broad enough for the word - expanding the definition after a first impression is unencylopedic. Benjamin Gatti


 * Right... so we've made progress by agreeing that the world is broader than simple theft? Another one of your unsubstantiated statements. Firstly no one agreed to this statement, which comes out of thin air. Secondly, if you believe there is agreement here, then I fear the worst on your re-editing.
 * But a real beauty is: Al Sharptons spin is priceless and a great example of how the word is spun and counterspun by professional wordsmiths. In my mind, with this you show your true POV colours and have completely discredited yourself as a contributor. Wikipedia is not a forum for your own eh, let we say, unorthodox view on the world.
 * I know you're not persuaded by the opening line. Considering the POV statements you make, you have lost any persuasion towards me. DocendoDiscimus 18:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The goals are not binding for all time to be, but they're a summary of an agreement a number of editors are reaching on this article, so I would like to see them, let's say, respected. Otherwise the very existence of this Talk page has no sense.
 * The article is substandard - yes: it needs to be expanded, and surely grammar and lexicon need editing.
 * The article is directionless -yes, and I hope it to remain directionless. Directions look much like POV to my ears.
 * I expect Katrina and FEMA to be covered if and only if they were outstanding, important and historical examples. The advantage of Wikipedia is that it should be constantly up to date, not that it has to deal with daily news -there is Wikinews for this.
 * I agree with DocendoDiscimus about Al Sharpton. I'd like to see him less aggressive, anyway, because it would lead only to flamewars -note that you're often as aggressive as him, Benji, by the way, although in a more complex way. DocendoDiscimus, if we learn the art of compromise and respect, we will lead Benji to learn it too, IMHO ;) --Cyclopia 21:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, you cannot agree permanent rules. These are only rules for our current 'consensus-finding' effort.
 * I've tried to simplify the language (Verbosity is Evil!). There are also no more references to the US in the first paragraph (only if you click on one of the links). Worked-out examples are needed though in the other paragraphs.
 * Agreed, only essays trying to convince someone of a ... POV have directions. And try to spin things.
 * re Katrina & FEMA, the ONLY reason I see they would be inserted is to discuss (objectively - leave it to the Europeans!) the debate that has been going on across the pond. But then we would need both points of view, qualify them etc. Give them both 50% air time. 50% Sharpton and 50% O'Reilly (probably two extremes). Are you ready for that Benji? Or are you now going to say that obviously Al is right as has been proved to be so many times etc etc etc blah blah.
 * grazie. Though I'm quite jealous of your optimism! ;-/ -- DocendoDiscimus 22:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * With respect to Al Sharpton, I don't so much "agree" with him as feel that his viewpoints at least set the goal post on the left. There aren't likely to be important positions any farther in that general direction. The article should include everything from the left to some other extreme. My objection initially was to the narrow definition (theft in the absence of authority - particular see image - starving black people redistributing food.) I like the idea of O’Really representing a counterpoint to Sharpton, but I doubt he is the truest firebrand of the right. Rush Limbo would be a superior candidate, if you can catch him between condemning marijuana users and toking his own supply of narcotics. Benjamin Gatti


 * A definition in the article should not include everything from the left to some other extreme. Should we also ask some Stormfront guys? It's admirable that you want to widen the scope of opinions, but to be honest only bigoted people try to enforce politicized meanings on words that don't have them. Looting can be defined without race or class bias (as it is in the current version). Apparently you don't accept that. Instead, you sound so cheated by life, trying to argue with everyone. If you think that's the way forward, be ready to be very bitter all your life. Your choice. Try to think independently, rather than to feel you have a mission in life to spout other people's spin. Anyway, my statement re Al & Bill was about a potential paragraph about the controversy in the "American" press on looting after Katrina, not in the general definition about looting- but what do I see?? There already is a discussion about this in the general Katrina entry []. Please have further discussions there. Btw, I've never heard of this Limbo guy. Can you explain his point of view and why he'd be a better counterweight to your Al?DocendoDiscimus 01:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My goodness "you sound so cheated by life" - where does that come from? I think you're leaning on making my personal life an issue in the debate - and while I might be offended enough to change my view, I doubt that your fellow contributors are going to find your arguments more persuasive for having attacked me personally. As for "touting other people's spin" - some can vouch for my unbridled enthusiasm for self-expression; however - at the end of the day - we are sadly confined to "reporting" on the views of others - see NPOV. Rush Limbough? is a right-wing windbag which would make the italians grateful for the limited range of am radio. chao Benjamin Gatti

Whatever. Let's just finish this entry. Sorry to hear you are so diappointed that Wiki is a platform limiting you to objectivity. Says it all really. DocendoDiscimus 08:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Limitation has little to do with objectivity. My personal research may be far more objective than Al Sharpton's opinions - but under NPOV and OR, his comments are in and mine are out. (I think sadly was what we call tongue in cheeck - your mileage may vary). Let's be decent, if for no other reason, than because i'm italian too. Benjamin Gatti


 * OK fellas, no personal attacks. I know it's difficult with agitators around, but try to control yourself, thanks. --Woohookitty 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

New editor here
I thought I'd drop in and see if I can help. Just a little pointer...I'd rather not see comments like "Write here" in the article itself. If you want to make it a comment on the page, that's fine, but that kind of stuff really shouldn't be in the article itself for everyone to see. Just looks sort of messy. --Woohookitty 00:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is messy, but it is a section that must be written and that someone has to do. It is a remark, like stub alerts are. Unfortunately AFAIK there's no "stub alert" for paragraphs, it would be nice if it exists. --Cyclopia 14:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep I know the purpose, but there is a better way. Making it a comment on the page is cleaner and it serves the same purpose. Actually I don't like meta comments at all, especially since you can make the same comments here (i.e. "someone needs to write...). But I'm ok with them as comments as long as we don't have a ton of them. --Woohookitty 15:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Can I see where is that metacomment? I'd like something much more visible to the casual reader as a stub alert. --Cyclopia 19:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the section stub tag instead. I'm tired of arguing with people on here. Btw, to see meta comments, you just have to click on "Edit this page". Right now, we have a meta comment about needing a free picture for the article. --Woohookitty 04:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know the existence of the section stub tag! :) I have never seen one before, so I didn't know about their existence. Anyway I don't think meta comments are a good idea, especially in this case where a comment would have to induce people to edit. It is plain nonsense that an "Edit me!" comment is put in a section visible to people that are already editing. Remember that WP is a work in progress, there's nothing bad in stub alerts or comments on pages. Even more, it emphasizes the fact that's is an unfinished product, so we're honest with the casual reader. --Cyclopia 14:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. --Woohookitty 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I made the comment a meta comment outside of the article. --Woohookitty 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like the thrashing around has actually stopped for the moment. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm good, I admit it. lol --Woohookitty 15:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * HA!! No shame! :D &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

deletions by 200.122.153.10
This anonymous user seems to vandalize articles by randomly deleting content from the article. I sent him/her a warning, so please keep attention on edits by this IP or similar anonymous users. --Cyclopia 17:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"One young man was seen drunkenly attempting to break the window of a bank with a large pipe."
First - I object to redefining looting as theft in the first Sentence. If they were the same thing - we arguable could use a redirect.

Second, this Sentence: "One young man was seen drunkenly attempting to break the window of a bank with a large pipe." doesn't belong anywhere in an encyclopedia. This isn't a newspaper. Breaking into a bank with a large pipe in no way serves to enlighten the reader as to the meaning of the term.

Looting (IMO) is morally neutral - some looting is theft - but some looting is simply a necessary reversion to a state of nature, and we unfairly discuss the issue if we begin with the presumption that the term refers to theft.

Put yourself in the position of persons cut off from society, trapped in the shell of a city with boarded up and empty stores while your children are dying of thirst. You would quite likely break down the boards are get to the water and such really is not theft. Theft presumes a system of private ownership and voluntary transactions - in the absence of such a market, and where lives are at stake such abstraction are unhelpful and irrelevant. You cannot sit there in your easy chair with your cable modem and criticise people in a life threatening situation for failing to choose death rather than appropriate available stores of necessary goods. Benjamin Gatti 08:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I know we're "enemies" in your arbitration case, but here I agree on your behaviour on WP. I removed the sentence about the young man you correctly warned about. If only you were always so polite. --Cyclopia 15:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "enemies"? good grief save the hyperbole, we're parties to a debate; an interesting and harmless debate about ideas, words, orthodoxies, normative presumptions, and clashes of intellect. I'm curious to see how or if Wikipedia will climb above the mediocrity of the average reader/user. The challenge of democracy really; people want to be represented by someone who feels close to them in background, in speech, etc ... so we elect Everyman to be President, an intellectually uninspiring mostly beer-drinking, spoon-fed man-child - instructed by handlers on how to perform, who can thank his parents for every privilege and has conducted the first multiple-choice Presidency - over say - a legend in his own time - John McCain - war hero, author of inspiring books, lived through the best and worst humanity can offer. Why? John McCain is not Everyman - he isn't similar to any voter, and loses a serious advantage in a democracy, in the US we have become an instinctive democracy. (The first expense of a political campaign are hordes of illegal road-side adverts which only sing the Candidates name to the subconscious of drivers) The Best Vice-President the Democrats could field was an ambulance-chaser - but Edwards is an everyman in the Red States, never mind his intellect or principles, he feels right to the mindless class. So how do we here, as a bit of a democracy elevate the level of dialogue so that it represents the best of the editor group, and not the mean. Let's find out. Benjamin Gatti 16:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "enemies" was just an hyperbole (note the quoting marks). I'm glad you don't take it personally. I agree on the principle that WP should not become a voice of the majority, but a voice of the best. Meritocracy is a hard and painstaking process, however, to achieve here. It's a trade-off: freedom of editing and improvement VS quality. The problem is, many people (me and you, for example) disagree on what is quality. BTW, can you frankly explain me something: why are you so obsessed with GW Bush? I very personally agree it must not be nice to live under his presidency, but you seem to have to deviate every subject on a rant about current US politics. I feel under my skin you would eventually talk about Bush in a debate about quantum properties of electrons, or paleolinguistics. Why? I just can't get it. --Cyclopia 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Bush is a metaphor for the problem of allowing the incurious to participate in democracy. Quite probably democracy cannot survive if we continue to flood the polls with the ranks of ignorance and egoism. China, with its increased structure and the ability to graduate more engineers (while we focus on remedial reading for the least of these) has a fairly good chance of trumping democracy. Israel (highest engineer per capita) is devolving from a democracy to an ethnic oligarchy, and its fairly clear that a democracy in Iraq would be more fundamental and radical than a Hussein presidency. Benjamin Gatti 18:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Untitled
Discussion archives:
 * Talk:Looting/archive1 (2005)

Nefertiti bust
&quot;The iconic bust of Nefertiti, was illegally obtained by the Germans(...)&quot; - 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 &quot;claimed by some to be illegally obtained(...)&quot;, 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)

- 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)

Akerlof
Note to self & others: Could be improved with Nobelist George Akerlof's work on (corporate) looting.John Z (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

passage on commercial natural resource exploitation in wars
"Modern commercial actors are seldom held accountable for their role in the illegal exploitation of natural resources from modern conflict zones, even though pillage is prosecuted as a matter of course in other contexts." writes James G. Stewart.

I don't see how this passage, in the article since June, is misplaced in war looting, nor how it could be undue weight, as it surely is economically the largest looting / pillage (redirects here). There are plenty such sources and articles Blood diamond, Conflict minerals. Could be quoted better, yes, but don't see any confusion. John Z (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I meant that it gives undue weight to a single essay; as expressed, it appears to be one person's opinion (I realise that it isn't, but that's how it appears). The section on war looting is about something completely different, and appending that quote to the end of it makes it seem something of a non-sequitur. If it were part of a section on the commercial pillage of war zones, that would be fine, but since such a section hasn't yet been written, that quote doesn't really fit anywhere. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ransack unexplained redirection.
I've land here looking for the meaning of ransack, was redirected here, but can't understand what is the relation between the terms. Ransack is not mentioned, except for the redirection notice.

If someone can fix it, it will be appreciated.

El Hoy (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To ransack something is to loot it. They're synonyms. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

rewording needed ?
Based on the definitions mentioned in the beginning of the article, the following sentence in the latter part of the article should be re-worded, as being desperate for food is not looting, but is actually scavanging.

"In 2005 in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina there was extensive looting by some people desperate for food" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there are further problems with that definiton (Looting is loosely distinguished from scavenging in terms of objects taken: scavenging implies taking of essential items such as food, water, shelter, or other material needed for survival while looting implies items of luxury or not necessary for survival such as art work, precious metals or other valuables.) - "Scavenging" to me implies taking stuff that is abandoned or unwanted (regardless of value or why the scavenger wants it).  The Scavenger article seems to agree, as it points to Waste picker for the issue of humans taking stuff.  Conversely, straving people breaking into a warehous to take food necessary for survival would probably still count as "looting", even if justified. 62.172.108.24 (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Looting
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Looting's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Haykal 1976": From Al Kudr Invasion:  From Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa:  From Expedition of Abdullah Ibn Unais:  From Al-Is Caravan Raid:  From Invasion of Banu Qurayza:  From Invasion of Buwat:  From Expedition of Dhat al-Riqa:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ DoctorKubla (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Broken window theory?
Is there a term or phrase that encapsulates: Once the first person has broken a window, everyone starts looting?

Don't know where to look to search for such an entity of language so I typed it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.100.150 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Looting. 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/20070426011453/http://www.niniwa2.cba.pl/komunizm_gospodarka_prl_ipn.htm to http://www.niniwa2.cba.pl/komunizm_gospodarka_prl_ipn.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://melitensiawth.com/incoming/Index/The%20Arabs%20in%20Malta/1995proc%20Malta%20870-1054%20by%20J.M.%20Brincat.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)