Talk:Soviet plunder

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by History6042 talk 14:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Soviet trophy brigades systematically looted art and even moved entire factories from Central and Eastern Europe during and after World War II? Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-cultural-property/article/abs/stalins-decrees-and-soviet-trophy-brigades-compensation-restitution-in-kind-or-trophies-of-war/B25E3F28D47558EE022591FFA0231EB5 (And other sources cited in the article)
  • ALT1: ... that many Soviet-looted cultural treasures still remain hidden or uncatalogued in Russian museums and other institutions? Source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-cultural-property/article/abs/stalins-decrees-and-soviet-trophy-brigades-compensation-restitution-in-kind-or-trophies-of-war/B25E3F28D47558EE022591FFA0231EB5 (And other sources cited in the article)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Fuck Tree

Created by Piotrus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 560 past nominations.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Nominator needs one more QPQ

Overall: I prefer AT1, as this is more interesting for DYK Munfarid1 (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

2nd QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Pseudo-Evodius. Tnx! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

After the second QPQ has just been done, the article is ready to be promoted. Munfarid1 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Liberated or occupied

"However, Polish authorities were generally not allowed to assume control over a town for several days after it was liberated." I suggest the last word should be changed to "occupied". METRANGOLO1 (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Good point; I'll NPOV it to captured from the Germans. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Title

The current title fairly obviously fails WP:NDESC and specifically the requirement for neutrality. The word "plunder" has clear moral connotations in addition to its (relevant) legal ones. I'd suggest "Looting by Soviet forces in World War II" or something similar. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, using your linked definition's examples, the term 'plunder' appears to very accurately describe the article's subject. This institutionalized 'looting' was pervasive and systemic, having continued over a wide number of years well past the end of WWII, and so disqualifies the suggested title immediately.

Furthermore, your linked guideline starts with:

"In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title[....]"

Which makes the 'obviously fails' part a specious argument because it acknowledges itself as a rule of thumb, not an absolute.

But continuing further it states:

> "These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions"

Which would be a merit to your argument before it then goes on to clarify:

> "However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources."

Perusing the literature on file for the bibliography, the translated equivalent of 'plunder' is a feature of several book titles and articles, which substantiates this usage of plunder well. The linked guideline above even goes on to highlight an example of a morally charged title which would be considered acceptable:

> "Example: Because "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable."

I wouldn't change it, given the above. 71.205.3.224 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misreading the guidance. There are some terms which are POV but which have gained descriptive use through scholarly use. Liberation of Belgium, say, is a perfectly acceptable NDESC title to refer to the Allied reconquest of German-occupied Belgium.

I don't pretend to be an expert on this topic but it is clear that "plunder" hasn't achieved remotely this status in regard to this or any other episode of modern European history. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As the guideline is quite clear on being a critical component, the word plunder is commonly occurring both in titles and the language that notable sources used pervasively to describe it, I can appreciate the odd Belgian example but it's odd to request the article title change, while accepting lack of awareness, while also going on to discredit anyItalic text Polish, Baltic, Eastern Euro viewpoint/consensus, backed with sources which fairly consistently label it as plunder because of a problematic feeling that it is not on the same magnitude of events in some other not particularly relevant place(a joke right?). 07:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC) 71.205.3.224 (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. There's a reason we don't even have a redirect for liberation of Poland :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you need to re-read the guidance, IP. Aside from the fact that only English language usage is relevant, it's not a question of "discrediting" Eastern European viewpoints which are abundantly discussed in the article and elsewhere. It's simply one small aspect of maintaining the critical distance and encyclopedic impartiality needed to preserve WP:NEUTRALITY. The question is simple. Has "plunder" become so ubiquitously used in this specific context in Anglophone sources that, in spite of its POV connotations, it has become neutral? We aren't remotely at this standard here, in my view, based on the sources you've presented. There are simply a number of sources who describe the events as a form of "plunder". And fair enough. But that's not the issue. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron I am fine with Looting by Soviet forces (no need for just WWII; the main topic is broader). I chose the title based on Nazi plunder. Do you think that should be moved too? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, thanks for this. Looting by Soviet forces is definitely an improvement, but I do think it's not specific enough. Can you refine it by period or place? This may touch on the article's wider scope and perhaps some splitting might be justifiable. Hypothetically, would looting by Soviet forces in Russia during the Civil War belong in the same article as looting by Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s, say? What about looting by organs of the Soviet state other than the military? For the record, I would definitely also support the move of Nazi plunder - the case is actually stronger since "Nazi" is not the appropriate adjective unless we are referring specifically to the Nazi Party rather than Nazi Germany.—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron I see the current article as the parent article, with subarticles like Looting by Soviet forces during World War II and others (trophy brigades, Soviet looting of art, Soviet industrial looting, etc.) eventually likely existing separately. Out of these WWII seems to be most widely covered by sources (and the article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd personally suggest splitting in that case. I don't think shared nationality of perpetrators is enough of a common thread to tie together, say, thefts of artworks during the Russian Civil War, looting in Soviet-occupied Poland in the 1940s, and Atrocity crimes in the Soviet–Afghan War#Looting. Do sources discuss these various phenomena together? "Nazi plunder" would be "Looting in German-occupied Europe" which is at least time, place, and nationality specific. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I don't mind if someone splits a subarticle. And yes, the sources connect this - for example by tracing more modern behavior of Soviet soldiers (ex. in Afghanistan) to their cultural experience/traditions from WWII (). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)