Jump to content

Talk:Gurlitt Collection/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Original version

Original version of this page is based on this version of Nazi plunder. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Improve English

The English in this article is partly not idiomatic. Please somebody English-speaking fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.179.227 (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Currency

I noticed that the two currencies that are presented in addition to Euros seem to have no proportional connection. If €500 is £430 and US$675, shouldn't €1 billion be £860m and not £846m? Further, several of the Euro values have no exchange mentioned. Like distances, if one is converted or abbreviated, all instances in the article should be for consistency. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Looked it up in the Wikipedia Manual of Style:
  • If we consider this a country-specific article the currency conversions should simply be removed.
  • If we do not consider the article country-specific, the date of the exchange rate should be added. Something like €500 (£430 / $675 as of Nov. 2013).
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Currencies for full details.
Personally, I would go with the first (and simplest) solution for the following reasons:
  1. The value of the looted art is a wild estimate anyway.
  2. The rent of the flat is not comparable between Germany / US / UK, because the housing markets are completely different.
I'm hesitating to make this change however, because I'm used to euro's in daily life and may bother others. Jahoe (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

statement _not_ coming out of thin air

"Cornelius Gurlitt, lived off the collection and as a consequence he has managed to survive his entire life without any official bank account, pension or insurance." Read: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486251/1bn-haul-art-Picasso-Renoir-Matisse-squalid-Munich-flat.html#ixzz2jhhiGdAJ --79.223.11.26 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That article is at best inconsistent. Besides no official bank account it mentions a bank account with hundreds of thousands of euros.
And what means no official bank account? Do unofficial bank accounts exist? Besides that, how can someone in a EU country have a bank account without being known to the tax authorities?
I'm afraid we need better sources than that. Jahoe (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The guy was caught with cash in a train coming from Switzerland. You ask how can someone in a EU country have a bank account unknown to the tax authorities, well Switzerland is how.
I'm sure there is a source out there that says the bank account with hundreds of thousands of euros was hidden at a Swiss bank. 46.18.96.82 (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit protection

Why is this article semi protected? I looked at the history of edits and did not see any overt vandal problem. There are many new editors like myself that can add to this article. I also do not think this subject is very "high profile" that would attract too many vandals. So what is the rationale behind locking the page? Please undo this. Monkeysnap (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, many Nazi-related articles have to be protected. Also, this article is high profile, because the subject is reaching the international headlines and the article is linked from Wikipedia's main page (section "in the news", top-right corner). Note that the article can be edited by autoconfirmed users (i.e. anyone with an account and more than 10 edits). Jahoe (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong lemma

2011 Nazi loot discovery is not a well-chosen lemma. It implies that the works of art were looted by the Nazis. But according to what is currently know, a significant percentage of the recovered art may have been legally removed from German museums based on a law enacted in 1938. How about 2011 Gurlitt discovery, 2011 Munich lost art discovery, or similar? --Lukati (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If I've understood the news articles well, part of the 1500 artworks may well be legal property of Gurlitt, and will perhaps be returned to him, but that's hardly worth a wikipedia article. But some 200 works (the exact number varies amongst sources) were registered for decades as Nazi war loot. I guess those works gave the article it's name. Jahoe (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
True. All I am saying is that it may be better to find a lemma that is inclusive and applies to everything that was found. We are not looking for a newspaper headline, but a lemma for an encyclopedia. --Lukati (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Today's headlines are about a strange old man and 1500 unclassified artworks. A few years from now, the encyclopedic value of the event will be in the recovered Nazi loot. The old man and the artworks he could keep (because they were his legal property) will be forgotten. That's why I believe the current lemma is all right. Jahoe (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The lemma is indeed grossly inappropriate. Obviously, the artworks came into possession of Gurlitt's father because he was responsible for selling art for the Nazi government. However, it is not clear yet where the artworks exactly came from. At any rate, they were not "looted". This is pure tabloid jargon which is absolutely inappropriate for a medium like Wikipedia. --Bernardoni (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Not only tabloids describe this as 'loot': both the New York Times and the Financial Times call it loot. And while not the entire collection might be stolen in the literal sense, the prices that were paid by Gurlitt and his colleagues make his trade hardly any better. A Kandinsky (now in the Guggenheim) was sold for $100, a Klee for $300, two Beckmanns for $20 and Sfr. 1...-- (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The term looted art (German: Raubkunst) is used and accepted world wide by press, art world and authorities to describe the artworks robbed during WWII by Nazi Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union. It is not up to wikipedia to discuss that or invent new terminology. Jahoe (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
On the sideline: in this case it is not so much Gurlitt and his colleagues who are seen as looters, but the Nazi regime itself. The art dealers involved were merely collaboraters. Actually I wonder on what charges the old man in Munich wil be prosecuted, if at all. Jahoe (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The title as it currently stands is POV and misleading. "Loot" is a very broad term, far more so than is appropriate for - specifically - works of art. In addition, saying "Nazi loot" is pre-judging the legal status of art in question, since it is already being reported that some/many may have been legally acquired, and some may even have been before Nazi appropriation or coertion was an issue. At the least we should move it to something more neutral and factually accurate, e.g. 2011 Munich lost art discovery. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
No. That would be a whitewash and an insult to the victims of these thefts. Jehochman Talk 12:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming your bias. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The headline in today's New York Times (website) is "German Officials Give Details on Looted Art". That's good enough for me. Clearly some of this art was looted, either directly taken without payment, or else the owners were persecuted and forced to sell at unreasonably low prices. Jehochman Talk 12:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The title is appropriate given the content of the current news stories in the NY Times and other reputable journals...Modernist (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The BBC refer to it as "a trove of Nazi-looted art", so it's good enough for us methinks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Terms as "loot", "theft" and "robbery" are widely used for the Nazi art confiscations. It is confirmed by the German authorities that hundreds of the works found are in that category. Using any milder term for it would hold an implicit approval of the Nazi practices. Jahoe (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
What is a "lemma"? I've never heard that term before. Does it mean title? Monkeysnap (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know either. Let's look, wikt:lemma. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I only use print dictionaries as they are much more reliable, but I did have a look at that Wikitionary page. The definitions given for Lemma make no sense in the context of the OP. Do you agree or no? The way he's using it contextually sounds like "title" or "word in title" or "description." Am I the only one that is thinking something is amiss? This discussion has gone on for a while and nobody has said anything about this "Lemma" business. Monkeysnap (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
In this context, lemma means title, as you've correctly guessed. This particular use of lemma is not covered by wiktionary, but it is correct. It falls under definition #2: The canonical form of an inflected word. A word's canonical form is it's entry into a dictionary. The term is also used for entries into encyclopedias, and on Wikipedia that's the same as an article's title. Perhaps you should add this as a separate meaning to the lemma lemma on wiktionary. Btw, did you know that the plural of lemma is lemmata? It's a strange, strange word. ;) But we're way off-topic now. :) Jahoe (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Using "loot" in the title is POV of course but the whole problem is that the story cannot be consistently told as good guys v/s bad guys. Journalistic preferences are not an argument.Ael 2 (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis are convicted war criminals. Of course their illegal seizure of property is theft, and the items stolen are loot. POV does not preclude using words according to their plain meaning. Jehochman Talk 16:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
And you're massively prejudicing the subject of this page. As yet there are precious few details to actually quantify what the hoard consists of. Some are known pieces thought to be lost, but it is acknowledged that others are - so far as can be told - are completely unknown. In thaw context it can't be said that everything was looted or forcibly sold. It has been stressed in reports that there is no evidence that Gurlitt Jnr has done anything illegal, making the hysterical Godwinning here even more inappropriate. The page should be moved to a more neutral title until such time as a clearer picture of the hoard emerges. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody doubts that the Nazis were war criminals and that their looting should be called looting. That is not the issue. The lemma of this article is the issue. We know very little about what has been found, but we do know some things. The authorities have discussed eleven individual pieces at the news conference in Augsburg. Of these eleven pieces, one (the Matisse) was likely looted by the Nazis in France, two pieces (the Marc and Kirchner) were probably obtained legally from German museums, and one piece (the Courbet) was probably bought after the war. Given this information, the current lemma just doesn't accurately reflect what has been found. --Lukati (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree. Apparently, there is no doubt that some of the pieces are loot but we don't know yet if even the majority can be called that way. Until more is known, the lemma is not appropriate. --Bernardoni (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Until the provenance of the art is determined, 2013 Munich art discovery is more NPOV.- Gilliam (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Trésor artistique de Munich (2012) or Kunstfund in Munchen are the French and German titles corresponding to this page. Obviously they are much less biased.195.96.229.83 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail

The Daily Mail makes a number of claims for which I can find absolutely no evidence in German reports. I think we should just remove that source, being a tabloid and all. --Lukati (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Which claims? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The Amber Room mystery? Gurlitt told family members he knows where it is:

Which authorities?

One source in the article says it were border guards authorities which discovered the loot, another one and the section title say they were tax authorities. Should be sorted out, I think. Brandmeistertalk 17:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That may seem a contradiction, but it isn't. There are actually two kinds of border guards:
  1. Immigration officers check people entering and leaving a country.
  2. Customs check goods (incl. cash money) entering and leaving a country. They work for the tax office, checking that all duties have been payed.
Gurlitt was checked by German customs on a train from Switzerland to Germany (doing a routine check for Germans with black money in Swiss banks). Jahoe (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It was the Customs - "Zoll" (in long: "Bundeszollverwaltung = Federal customs services), which belongs to the german ministry of finance (Bundesministerium der Finanzen) and it is part of the tax authority (Bundesfinanzverwaltung), not to confuse with the border guards (Bundespolizei), which understand the german federal ministry of interior (Bundesinnenministerium). --Lkl ★ 21:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

2012 or 2011?

The BBC source is dated this year (2013) and says "last year", but all the other sources refer to spring 2011 for the raid on the flat. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

While the initial reporting said 2011, on a press conference on 5 November the German authorities explained that everything was discovered in 2012. This has been reported by Deutsche Welle, New York Times, The Guardian,... -- (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see - Focus had it wrong. The article still uses multiple references saying 2011, though. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional info about initial decision of German authorities not to disclose the list of found art works, worldwide reaction to this decision & change of mind of authorities

On 7 Nov media in Poland [LINK1] and the US [LINK2] reported that German authorities do not intend to disclose the list of art works found. Two reasons were cited: an ongoing Tax investigation against Cornelius Gurlitt and the necessity to protect the art works from being returned to false owners.

On 8 Nov it was reported that German autorities are considering change of decision [LINK3], after their approach was called "incomprehensible" by Polish diplomatic sources [LINK1].

The whole affair is of significiant importance for Polish society and media, since it is estimated that the art works stolen during World War 2 from Polish territory is worth well over 30 billion USD [LINK4].

[LINK1]: http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-ze-swiata,2/niemcy-nie-chca-opublikowac-listy-obrazow-konsulat-rp-niezrozumiala-decyzja,369530.html

[LINK1 Translation]: http://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvn24.pl%2Fwiadomosci-ze-swiata%2C2%2Fniemcy-nie-chca-opublikowac-listy-obrazow-konsulat-rp-niezrozumiala-decyzja%2C369530.html

[LINK2]: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303482504579177171094005740

[LINK3]: http://www.tvn24.pl/wiadomosci-ze-swiata,2/berlin-ugina-sie-pod-presja-lista-odnalezionych-dziel-sztuki-musi-byc-znana,369727.html

[LINK3 Translation]: http://translate.google.pl/translate?sl=en&tl=pl&js=n&prev=_t&hl=pl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvn24.pl%2Fwiadomosci-ze-swiata%2C2%2Fberlin-ugina-sie-pod-presja-lista-odnalezionych-dziel-sztuki-musi-byc-znana%2C369727.html

[LINK4]: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grabież_polskich_dóbr_kultury_w_czasie_II_wojny_światowej

[LINK4 Translation]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_looting_of_Poland

Bekieark (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

One if not the most important reason for not disclsing the list is the protection of the personality rights of Cornelius Gurlitt. Since most of the art is likely his legal und rightful posession (the article lemma is of course grossly inappropriate), this information is nobody's business, if he chooses to not disclose it. --Asdf01 (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus needed for title change

Before changing the title of the article please discuss here first and achieve consensus, Thanks...Modernist (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In the discussion above, six editors (including myself) have expressed concern about the current non-neutral title, with only four (one being you) claiming it should stand. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That's too close to call, especially given the recent articles in the NY Times...Modernist (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it was seven in favour of a more neutral title, as I omitted Asdf01, who expressed that position outside of the "Wrong lemma" section. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel there are two separate issues here: the first is the term 'looted art', the second is whether that term is fitting in this case. On the first issue: looted art should not be considered POV since it is a translation of the German term 'Raubkunst [de]': works of art that were either stolen or confiscated by the Nazis between '33 and '45, including pieces that were removed by the authorities from public collections. It is clear that an important part of the discovered works of art are covered by the term: about 380 works have been identified as seized and another 590 or so are suspect according to the German authorities (see the official Lost Art website). In the case of these works the title of the article is neutral. Another important part of the discovered works is not suspected of being looted art though, and the German authorities have called it the Munich Art Trove or Schwabing Art Trove. However, several reputable sources (such as the NY Times) are referring to the case as 'looted art' so people will look for this lemma on wikipedia. Considering this, I would rather not rename the page. Even if there is a consensus to change the title, we should include something on the 'looted art' headlines in the media. -- (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that none of the art was stolen/appropriated, but it is a question of degree. If 380 are confirmed in that category, then that's 27%, while the 590 "suspect" pieces are another 42% - 69% in all. It would seem very unlikely, though, that all 590 are going to move from the latter to the former category, so it could still be that around half of the collection is entirely legitimate. In that context using "loot" as an over-arching description is inappropriate and misleading, and it would remain that even if it could actually be ground down to only 31% being legit. It would surely be better to have a neutral overall description, and then to properly explain what we actually know the collection to be composed of, e.g. 27% misappropriated, 42% uncertain, and 31% legitimate. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I could support moving the page if something like this were added to the lede (with appropriate references and discussed further in the article):

While initial press reports described the find as "Nazi loot", German authorities have determined that out of 1400 artworks, about 380 pieces were looted or confiscated by the Nazis and another 590 are of suspect provenance. The German government has set up a task force of experts to investigate the provenance, in parallel to the criminal investigation.

Would that be an acceptable compromise? -- (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Title should stay as is:

Title should be changed:

  • Support problemmatic in various ways, uninformative and too informal. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support change to more neutral title, as previously explained, and most recent comment above. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support change to more neutral title; see for instance the French or Geman titles for the same pageAel 2 (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The verdict is still out how much of this art was actually looted by the Nazis. Without reservation concerning a future move back to the current title, I say move it to a more neutral one for now. --bender235 (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support change to more neutral title. 'Nazi loot' belongs in an attention-grabbing media headline not in the title of this article. The works found may to be composed of (a) the legitimate estate of an art dealer who invested early in some artists, hoarded by his unworldly son (b) 'degenerate' art removed by the Nazi government from German public collections for sale to the arts market, (c) possibly assets of Jewish Germans who were under pressure to sell, (d) possibly art looted from German-occupied countries. Only category (d) and possibly (c) would be covered by the term 'Nazi loot' (the sales of items from category (b) are considered legal today according to reporting I read on the Gurlitt case). Tschild (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. From what is currently known, every category listed by Tschild is represented by at least one piece. --Lukati (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; Bender235 puts it well. Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Modernist is insistent on the inclusion of a link to the New York Timess Holocaust and the Nazi Era link feed. Although this inevitably includes links to stories directly relating to this page, since it is a general index, it also includes other articles that have no connection whatsoever, such as the one from 8 November. In time it is certain that all the stories relating to this subject will actually fall off the top-level page. We can link to individual specific pages (where not already cited in the main text), by all means, but to link to this catch-all collection of articles is inappropriate. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the NY Times? Do you have a problem with the Nazi link to this article? Do you have a problem recognizing the disgusting history delineated and underscored by what happened in the 1930s to the artists and art collectors in Germany? I think the New York Times link is informative and valuable to our readers. Wikipedia is not censored, the NY Times is a valid source and the links are both relevant and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
There is relevant information to this article. The "Chronology" section is exceptionally thorough. Why shouldn't the reader be apprised of this resource? The entries under the "Chronology" section link to extended New York Times articles such as this one. I have restored this link. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not an "article" but rather a collection of links to all Nazi-related stories on the site. Before long the ones relating to this specific issue will be lost amongst the rest. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a "problem" with the NYT, just that fact that this link is not what you are purporting it to be. It's not restricted to articles about this particular subject, but rather anything relating to Nazism. It does seem remarkable, though, that an American newspaper can rack-up 150 such articles since January this year. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The "article" I was referring to was our Wikipedia article. The links at the NY Times page contains a "Chronology" of events in the rediscovery of works of art, many of which were confiscated improperly. Do you know of a good replacement for the resource we are discussing? Each of the entries in the "Chronology" can be expanded by clicking on the word "MORE" at the end of that entry. Here are just three of the "expanded" entries

There are many more. I don't think we should be dogmatically rejecting this link simply because unrelated material can also be found at that NY Times page. The generally good quality of the source should be taken into consideration. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, it's not even "a "Chronology" of events in the rediscovery of works of art" as you describe it. What has the burial of Erich Priebke - which appear in the chronology - got to do with the art find? The plain fact is that the linked page is merely a collection of the most recent links relating to the Nazi era, which will inevitably change over time. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
We need not deprive the reader of ready access to that NY Times page at this time based on a notion that it will become less useful at some future point. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Alternative link: all articles on Cornelius Gurlitt from November 1, 2013 to January 1, 2015. Includes everything relevant to this article, excludes Priebke et al.
Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided: "9. Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." If the NYT articles are worth linking to, then they should be directly, preferably as cited sources for article text. The fact that in so many cases we already do is sufficient, but may actually be bordering on favouratism. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Nick Cooper—our external link is not a link to "...individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The NY Times is an important source for news regarding this subject and the link provides valid and encyclopedic content for this article. As stated wikipedia is not censored - See WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Touched a raw nerve, did I? If content is worthwhile, then link to it directly. WP policy is clearly against linking to transitory search results or a broad-category link-collection page. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In fact you've actually deleted the link 3 times in one day - whose nerves are we talking about?..Modernist (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I deleted it because it's a transitory link-collection page. Just why you seem to think that a link of that sort - contrary to WP policy - somehow gets a pass on this particular subject is your own problem. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I see you have now added a link to a subscription-only report. Need I remind you that that is also contrary to WP policy, specifically Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided - Sites requiring registration?
"Outside of citations, external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers... A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article or the link is part of an inline reference."
I am therefore delting the link. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
That is called edit warring :)...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I call it you thinking that accepted policies on links somehow don't apply to you/this page. That and you trying to conflate addressing multiple breaches on your part as a single issue. Why do you think a fragmented opening paragraph on a registration-requiring page merits inclusion here? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It breaches WP:ELREG. Then again, Modernist has already established that the rules don't apply to them. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You were asked to restore this link as well by the way - [1]...Modernist (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You mean to the NYT's general catch-all collection of Holocaust/Nazi-related links - of which the subject of this page is only a small sub-set - which we therefore shouldn't be linking to in the first place? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for the month of November 2013 I find all of the following articles at the external link that we are discussing:

  • Nov. 18, 2013: "Cornelius Gurlitt of Munich, reclusive son of Nazi-era art dealer, gives his first interview..."
  • Nov. 15, 2013: "German authorities, trying to speed identification of some 1,400 works apparently lost during Nazi era, say they will begin posting information on 590 of those with questionable provenances..."
  • Nov. 12, 2013: "German government announces it will establish task force to investigate 'as quickly and transparently as possible' provenance of more than 1,400 artworks suspected of being traded or looted during Nazis' reign..."
  • Nov. 11, 2013: "Calls mount for authorities to do more to return lost artworks to rightful owners as more reports emerge about German art dealer’s business dealings with Nazis..."
  • Nov. 7, 2013: "Documents found in National Archives in College Park, Md, give clues to how German art dealer Hildebrand Gurlitt obtained some of the artworks that were looted by Nazis..."
  • Nov. 6, 2013: "Michael Kimmelman Critic's Notebook contends horde of art that surfaced in Germany and missing since the Nazi era..."
  • Nov. 6, 2013: "German authorities describe for first time how trove of missing 20th-century European art, probably confiscated by Nazis, was found during routine tax investigation…"
  • Nov. 5, 2013: "Discovery in Munich apartment of what are said to be about 1,500 artworks worth $1.4 billion that were confiscated or banned by Nazis …"
  • Nov. 4, 2013: "Works by Matisse, Picasso and Chagall are said to be among collection of 1,500 pieces of art found in Munich, reportedly confiscated by Nazis during 1930s and 1940s…"

Why would we not avail ourselves of this NY Times web page as an "external link" from our article? Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, only the articles dating back to 11 November appear on the first page - the rest you have to go looking for. Even now, five of the 15 main links are totally unrelated to the find, with a sixth only tangentially-related. As I have said repeatedly, if the NYT stories are of value, then they should be linked to directly as citations; we shouldn't be linking to what is simply a dump-bin of general links. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a button labeled "Show More" at the article we are discussing. One clicks on that button to go further back in time. This section of the NY Times page is called a "Holocaust and the Nazi Era Chronology". You are saying "No, only the articles dating back to 11 November appear on the first page - the rest you have to go looking for." Yes, but this Wikipedia article is titled 2012 Nazi loot discovery. A reader could understandably be interested in looking through the many months from about March of 2012 up until the present. My contention would be that this is a valuable resource. Another part of your argument is that there are unrelated topics at this web site. I am not sure we should be concerned with that. The NY Times is among the most reliable resources. Why should we be concerned that the reader will encounter "unrelated" articles? And how unrelated are such articles going to be? There is a "relatedness" of all such articles. The "2012 Nazi loot discovery" is not a topic without a context. The NY Times articles that are not specifically focussed on our Wikipedia article are nevertheless closely related and so should not cause us a great deal of concern. The reader can sort through the "chronology" and easily pick an article that matches what they are looking for. Bus stop (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you want to move those goalposts any further? Are you now suggesting that we have to provide external "background" to the whole subject of Nazism? And what exactly would be point be of anyone searching back to March 2012, as you suggest, since this story only broke recently? Such a search would be a wild goose chase. It is also disingenuous to claim that articles not related to the art find are somehow "nevertheless closely related." Really? How are the reports on the situation regarding the post-War sale of the Klimt work, or the deaths of Erich Priebke and Rommel's son, or Jewish aid to the Philippines relevant, except by the most desperate stretch? Nick Cooper (talk)
Are you taking into consideration that The New York Times is a good quality source when you express concern that the external link that we are discussing also contains "reports on the situation regarding the post-War sale of the Klimt work, or the deaths of Erich Priebke and Rommel's son, or Jewish aid to the Philippines"? Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I literally have no idea what you're trying to suggest there. The bottom line is that a link to a dump-bin of links with a scope far wider than this page's subject is not appropriate, regardless of the quality of the actually-relevant links. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Just because you don't like the argument doesn't mean I haven't made one. Please can you give appropriate examples of WP pages where such a links to dump-bins of non-specific links is deemed acceptable? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
This is advantageous to the reader. What you are calling a "dump-bin" happens to be a good quality source. This is a rich lode of on-topic material with the availability too of some off-topic but nevertheless in most cases fairly related material. The particular art theft which is the subject of this article is closely related to the general topic of the Holocaust and the Nazi regime. I am going to ask you again if you can please present whatever argument you may have by way of objection to the material that the reader may access at the particular link that we are discussing which may not be exactly on the topic that this article focusses upon. What harm results from the reader accessing "reports on the situation regarding the post-War sale of the Klimt work, or the deaths of Erich Priebke and Rommel's son, or Jewish aid to the Philippines". Those are the examples you have given. If you have better examples please give them. I don't think that we have to dogmatically remove an external link just because some material at that link may not be 100% on topic. I think we can rely on the integrity of The New York Times to continue to maintain this link at the high-quality level we see it at now. We can revisit this question in the future if as I think you suggest in one of your posts above, this site drifts off-topic. At present it is very much on-topic. I think it is an excellent source of material that a reader of this article should be apprised of. The quantity and quality of material is the best argument for keeping this as an external link in our article and I don't think I've heard a good argument involving concrete objections to material that you are deeming too off-topic. Bus stop (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to not to link to this page. It is The New York Times, which is a good quality source. Even the presence of unrelated material is not a reason not to link to that page, and even the "unrelated" material is somewhat related. The "chronology" section at the "The New York Times" link is prefaced by the words: "News about Holocaust and the Nazi Era, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times." We are not talking about an art theft that took place outside of "the Nazi Era". I will concede that some of the material found at the web site is not strictly on the topic of this article. But I don't think this straying from the topic of this article disqualifies the link. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
There is every reason not to link to such a wide-net link collection page. I'm actually surprised that you persist in the idea that it is somehow acceptable here, as if the subject of this page is somehow synonymous with Nazism as a whole. I certainly can't think of any other page where such linking would be deemed appropriate. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
You say there is "every reason not to link" to the page. Can you give any reason not to link to the page? You are not presenting an argument. Why should we be concerned with the presence of material not specifically on the topic of this article? What drawbacks are there to the presence of material not specifically on the topic of this article? Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I've given you a reason. You're just failing to acknowledge or address it. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You are concerned that there is off-topic material also found at the link. I think that is your primary concern. My response is that it is not as off-topic as you contend and that the quality of the site—The New York Times—should also be taken into consideration. The theft of art did not occur in a vacuum. The backdrop were the war years in Nazi-occupied lands. The New York Times, at this web site, appears to be doing a good quality job of addressing the art thefts which are the subject of this article, along with providing additional material that may be of peripheral interest to a person reading this article. I think there is a consensus of the editors that have weighed in at this thread that the link should be re-added to the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute rules vs. content. I agree that the content is very valuable and that the NYT is an outstanding source. But rules are rules. The content should be worked into the article and the link removed. My two cents. --Lukati (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We're talking guidelines interpretation. The content is valuable, the NY Times is an outstanding source - the issue is open to interpretation - and the link stays. My 2 cents...Modernist (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I clicked the link and learned something immediately: the 1938 law allowing Nazis to confiscate "degenerate" art remains in force! This is a valuable link and it should stay. This is a rapidly evolving topic and the link provides updates for those who are interested. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I clicked the linked and learned nothing immediately. Just kidding. Seriously, a link to a search result including over 5,000 articles should not be linked per EL, still. --Malerooster (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
What language are you finding at WP:EL that you feel argues against the inclusion of this link? Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Nick Cooper pointed it out above, but read links to be avoided, #9. --Malerooster (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the connection is apt. The connection between the language in policy and the external link under consideration is a tenuous connection. At "Searching for URLs in external links" I find:
"Special:Linksearch is a tool to search for URLs in external links. For example, one might search for all Wikipedia pages linking to yahoo.com at Special:Linksearch/*.yahoo.com."
Our link is to The New York Times. It is a web page largely on topic put together by other human beings who are aware of the relevancy of the various pieces of material they are collecting there. The language in policy is cautioning us against linking to a collection of links returned by a search engine. An algorithm is not discriminating in the way that human beings can be discriminating. We have the reputability of The New York Times suggesting that the material is on topic and of good quality. Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't, it is a dump-bin of links about a broad subject, of which the subject of this page is a very small subset. I am therefore removing this link - which is in clear breach of policy - yet again. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy and guidelines is incorrect - stop edit warring!...Modernist (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't. Why do you insist that a collection of links about the Nazi era as a whole is appropriate for this page about a very small part of it? Perhaps you would like to indicate other Nazi-related pages where the same page is linked to? The page you keep linking to is not about the subject of this page - it only happenes to include some related links at this transitory moment in time, some of which are starting to fall off the top-level page already. If you think those links - at least the ones that aren't linked to directly already - should be linked to, then do it properly and directly. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Modernist, your attempt to enlist support from others directly rather than address the issue here is duly noted. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You misread guidelines and policy - please discuss content not editors - rather than address the actual issue - in addition to edit warring you are in violation of both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and I urge you to read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Heavy irony. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere and that is a shame, since all of you have contributed so much to this article. Isn't it time to ask for help at WP:DRN? -- (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Nick Cooper—please tell me in your own words what harm you feel the discussed source is causing. Please tell me what objections there might be to material found at the site that we are discussing. We know that there is a great deal of material relating directly to this article at The New York Times page that we are discussing. Yes, there is also material on related subjects. I'm asking you to articulate in your own words what objections you might have to the related material found at that New York Times web site. You have raised objections to the presence of unrelated material at that web cite but you have not specifically articulated any of your objections. It is within the "Nazi era" that many of these modern artworks changed hands, probably in ways involving theft and intimidation in an atmosphere of war and societal breakdown. Are we concerned with the "Nazi era" in general? I would argue "yes". Inexplicably you are objecting to a link that includes material about the "Nazi era" in general. You are not articulating any reason that we should want to shield the reader from such material. Your argument that policy supports you is incorrect. We don't find anywhere in policy or guidelines that sites containing related material should not be used as "External links". In this case the material is closely related. In this case there is much material that is incontrovertibly on topic. And the quality of the web site is a factor not to be overlooked. I am puzzled by what seems to be an argument that the reader is somehow harmed by reading material put together by a source of the stature of the New York Times. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed it until there is consensus to include it. --Malerooster (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Malerooster—you are removing it "until there is consensus to include it"[2] but we already have another editor, Jehochman, saying "Please restore the article to its state before the disputed action, Nick. Then start a discussion here about whether to include the link. Thank you."[3] Which course of action do you think is preferable and why? Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Bus stop, if there is clear consensus for inclusion, then re-add it. If there is no consensus, either way, then is should not be added. --Malerooster (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Bus Stop, I have repeatedly explained my objections in clear and unambiguous terms. It's not my problem if you and others refuse to acknowledge or address them. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Nick Cooper—policy does not require removing this external link from the article. If you find language in policy that you think would support the removal of that link, please cut and paste that policy language here. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
one should generally avoid providing external links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Our external link is not a link to an "individual website search". The link is only to the website. The reader can avail themselves of the contents of the website in any way they wish. The website that we are talking about does not even have search capacity for just that one page. The basic search capability that they provide is restricted to searching the entire site of "NYTimes.com", and our external link is not a link to a search of "NYTimes.com". Can you please look again at what we are linking to? We are not linking to a search of a website. This is what a link to a search of the New York Times website for "Iraq war" would look like. Do you see the distinction? The particular page that we are linking to is one of the many "Times Topics". For instance "Vietnam War" is a "Times Topic". It has a "Vietnam War Chronology".[4] For a "Times Topic" named "Afghanistan" we find an "Afghanistan Chronology".[5] And for a "Times Topic" called "Sept. 11, 2001" we find a "Sept. 11, 2001 Chronology".[6] Not all "Times Topics" have "Chronologies" associated with them. We don't have to have an absolutely perfect-in-every-way website for us to consider it good enough to alert a reader to. A reason has to be articulated disqualifying this site as an external link. Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
We don't link to "topics" in the EL section for good reason. Does anybody else besides Bus Stop have a reason to go against guidelines for inclusion? --Malerooster (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not rocket science. Yes, we have policy. But our policy has nothing to do with the website in question. We are restricted from linking to "searches" of websites. For instance this is a search of the New York Times website for "Iraq war". But we are not linking to a "search" at all. You are speaking of going against guidelines. We are not going against guidelines. Here is a link to a search of the New York Times website for "nazi looted art". This would not be an acceptable external link per WP:EL. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
It links to over 5,000 topical articles, so it goes against the spirit of EL. Agreed that this isn't rocket science and hopefully we are done here, unless a clear consensus forms. --Malerooster (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I am in favor of keeping this link active because it includes articles regarding stolen art by the Nazis; as well as other related articles which have direct and specific relevance to this article. It is well within the guidelines to include the external link; and excluding it - looks like censorship...Modernist (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
No one is required to read 5,000 articles - just 5 or so relevant articles, this link has relevant information regarding Nazis stealing art from Jewish people during the period of the Holocaust; among other pertinent information regarding the 1938 laws passed in Germany that still stands today - why not link it?...Modernist (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
So link to those five directly (assuming they're not already). Readers shouldn't have to go hunting for what is or isn't relavant. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Readers can make their own decisions, as I said the link is well within guidelines and wikipedia is not censored...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
No, readers don't decide anything. Editors here follow guidelines. And please stop with the bullshit censorship, that makes you look like an idiot. --Malerooster (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The link is well within the guidelines; and right back at you in looking like an idiot...Modernist (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Modernist, couldn't we use the NYT topics articles regarding Nazis stealing art from Jewish people to improve the Nazi plunder article? This one could have a section describing the discovery in its context, while pointing to the article on Nazi plunder for a more expansive view. -- (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, good idea to add it there; and this article can use some more information as it arises...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the discussed link. We have policy language which cautions us against using: "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." (That is found at WP:EL) The discussed link pertains to a "website" but it is not a "website search". We would not for instance be permitted to use this as an external link. That is because we should not use "links to individual website searches". That is the language found at WP:EL. In this instance I searched the website "nytimes.com" for "Nazi+art+looted". But we are not talking about such a link. This is the link under discussion. Policy language does not object to that sort of link. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not claiming that that link is right or wrong. But I think we could improve the article with a section describing how these particular pieces were collected by one particular dealer during the Nazi era. Then we can point the reader to the Nazi plunder article, which describes the larger context of systematic looting by the Nazi regime. The link we are talking about provides very interesting background reading to that article, and nothing stops us from using one or more specific NYT articles to describe Hildebrand Gurlitt's actions in this article. -- (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You say you are "not claiming that that link is right or wrong." It is my contention that this link belongs in this article. The art thefts did not occur in a vacuum. There is a context to the misappropriation that is the heart of this article. This occurred during a period of a serious breakdown in societal norms. The link that we are discussing is updated by The New York Times as new material becomes available. The link that we are discussing shows a demonstrated track record of covering material pertaining to art thefts during the Nazi era. It is also containing material pertaining to the Nazi era in general. Should we disqualify this link because it is not sharply focussed on the art thefts which are at the heart of this article? I don't think so. I fail to see the harm the peripherally covered material poses to the reader. There is an obvious connection between the lawlessness of the period and the misappropriation of art. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Should we disqualify this link because it is not sharply focussed on the art thefts which are at the heart of this article? Absolutely, that's the whole point. --Malerooster (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Malerooster—you are saying that you object to material not on topic. Can you articulate an objection to specific material? I do not see any material that could be considered objectionable. The art thefts did not occur separate from the Nazi regime that was in power. You cannot argue that the topic at the intended link strays so far from the topic of this article that there is a disconnect that somehow renders it problematic. We are talking about a brutal era during which inhumane acts took place. Many of the people—both Jews and non-Jews—who lost their art collections also faced losing their lives. If their artwork was not stolen then it was in many cases sold under duress. You would have to argue that this article is about a phenomenon that took place without context, and I don't think such an argument can be sustained. You certainly have made no attempt to articulate an objection to any material that you find at the web site. And we know full well that this web site as an External link is in no way in violation of any policy or guideline. Your objection to the website was based on a reading of policy that has now been shown to be an incorrect reading of policy. You pointed to reason number 9 at WP:EL. It cautions us against using: "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." Your concern was with "individual website searches". The link is not an individual website search. One most certainly can search "nytimes.com". That is not what we are doing. We are simply linking to a page that "nytimes.com" provides that is highly on the topic of our article. Were we to search for "Nazi+art+looted" it would yield this result. That is the sort of link that our policy language is cautioning us against. But this is our link. It contains at present the following articles:

"Enduring Nazi Law Impedes Recovery of Art"

"For Son of a Nazi-Era Dealer, a Private Life Amid a Tainted Trove of Art"

"Information on Art Trove to Start Going Online"

Those New York Times articles are both on topic and recent. This is a resource the reader should be apprised of. We can reasonably anticipate that the NY Times will add new material as it becomes available. I am not seeing any drawbacks to the inclusion of this website as an external link at this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Old Homosexuality Laws Still Hang Over Many in Germany This is of course related, since most Jewish art collectors were gay, right? --Malerooster (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Malerooster—I find nothing objectionable about the material that you link to and once again you are not articulating anything objectionable pertaining to the material you are bringing to our attention. Perhaps I am overlooking the objectionable quality that you are seeing so can you please shed some light on why we should consider such material problematic? Also I am simply not seeing that material at the link that we are discussing. Please tell me where at our External link you are finding the material on homosexuality laws in Germany. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing "objectionable" per say about that article except that it isn't directly related to the topic of this article, which is the whole point. To find this article, just drill down into the 5,000+ articles you want to link to and its there. Happy drilling. --Malerooster (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Malerooster—the presence of closely-related or not-so-closely-related material simply doesn't matter. This link is of good quality and it is updated regularly. A reader will avail themselves of material at that site as they see fit. I know of no reason for blocking the inclusion of such an external link at this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It does matter, and I can't help you if you don't get it. --Malerooster (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter and who are you? You are misreading policy and common sense and your previous link was ludicrous and basically absurd...Modernist (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I am not the one who wants to link to that article, its right from the link you want to include. So yes, ludicrous and absurd apply. --Malerooster (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey - you went digging deep to find it (your own words) that's ludicrous and absurd (and I'm being polite)...Modernist (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
To be clear - it's the link that I added to the article; it was reverted against guidelines...Modernist (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As concerns the argument that less-than-tightly focussed material disqualifies the link, that is an argument I fail to appreciate. I think that the NY Times has isolated a usable area of information at the web site we are discussing. There is the argument that some material found at the link "isn't directly related to the topic of this article" (Malerooster, 17:28, 1 December 2013). I would question this. I think that much of that material bears relevance even if not direct, and that the reader is in any case not in the least bit harmed by the presence of such tangentially related material. This is in large part due to the editorial work of the NY Times. They have put together on one web page related material. In my opinion they have made the wise decision to group together related articles from their publications. In my opinion there is a rationality to the way the NY Times has organized material together on the web site that we wish to link to. I think the reader is harmed by depriving them of this potentially valuable resource. I think the hypothetical reader reads the articles that seem promising and bypasses others. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(←) TL;DR but the link is of absolutely no value for this article. There are articles on Wikipedia that offer a better chronology of WWII events than the automatic tagging facility of the NY Times archive. I agree that it should not be added. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

JFW—this article contains these links and many more:
"Enduring Nazi Law Impedes Recovery of Art"
"For Son of a Nazi-Era Dealer, a Private Life Amid a Tainted Trove of Art"
"Information on Art Trove to Start Going Online"
Why wouldn't we link to it? Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Gurlitt does deal on art hoard

Latest update on this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And this too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurlitt_Collection/Archive_1&oldid=1083514467"