Talk:Pickpocketing

Untitled

Pickpocketing or Pocketpicking? --Abdull 23:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's pickpocketing, "illogical" as that may seem, I'm afraid..! -- Picapica 10:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's "Picking Pockets"! Pickpocketing is not a real word but you can see why it sometimes gets written. A Pickpocket picks pockets. A pickpocket's skill is "picking pockets" NOT pickpocketing.

I would like to edit the occupation section and elaborate on how pickpocketing artist use misdirection to pickpocket

Short Round

Pick Pocketed Indiana Jones Pocket —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazyhors (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Reverse Pickpocketing

Is there a term for when a ne'er-do-well plants one of his own objects in your pocket without you noticing? My dad was once at a Minnesota Twins baseball game in St. Paul when someone inserted an advertisement brochure for a "gentleman's club" into his pants pocket. He didn't even notice it until he came home, and was horrified because if there are people whose fingers are nimble enough to do that without him feeling it, they could just as easily have stolen his wallet.

"Reverse pickpocketing" is the closest term I can think of, although it's not an exact reverse because advertising materials, rather than money, are being exchanged. I couldn't find any reference to this practice on the Internet, but I know it exists! It seems like a method of advertising that pimps and drug dealers would use often, because it's relatively anonymous and so it is harder for police to catch them.

Stonemason89 (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are people who surreptitiously slip cash to strangers, along with a happy note.. It's a strange world!

Mousetraps?

Really? Has anyone outside of a Three Stooges film done this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Style of Dress"

The article states that "Since pickpockets usually have no way to gauge the contents of a wallet, save by the style of dress of the victim, they must take what they find."

Is this really the case? There could be no other determining factors than clothing?

Verisimilarity (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing 'See Also' column

The page in the column didn't exist anyway. 220.255.1.61 (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

University student- addition of a paragraph

Hello to every person who has contributed and is planning on contributing to this article. I am a student at the University Ca'Foscari in Venice (Italy), and I am working on a Wikipedia project for one of my classes. My assignment is to add a historical paragraph about pick-pocketing in the 17th and 18th century in England. I just wanted to let you know ! If you have questions please don't hesitate to ask. ClaraC12 ClaraC12 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Gender section

In the "Gender" section, there are the following sentences:

"The prosecutions against pickpockets at the Old Bailey between 1780 and 1808 show that male pickpockets were somewhat younger than female ones: 72% of men pickpockets convicted at the time were aged from under 20 to 30, while 72% of women convicted of picking pockets were aged between 20 and 40.[13] One reason that may explain why women pickpockets were older is that most of women pickpockets were prostitutes (this would explain why very few women under 20 years old were convicted for picking pockets)."

Question 1: What does the fact that the women pickpockets were prostitutes have to do with them being older?

Question 2: Is the writer above suggesting that there were no (or very few) prostitutes under the age of 20 in late 18th century London? This seems incredibly unlikely.

Does anyone have access to the source cited for this section, who can clarify what is meant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4101:5C95:94C2:AA89:2A0D:47DA (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pickpocketing. 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/20090903142245/http://www.davidavadon.com/pickpocket.html to http://www.davidavadon.com/pickpocket.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Modern gipsy pick pockets

The history of pick pocketing contained within this article is interesting but the current state of this 'business' should also be discussed. For example, this article gives no mention of the gangs of gipsy pick pockets that are the bane of tourists across Europe. I am not qualified to edit on this topic but encourage others to to provide such modern context to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.23.46.49 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly Repetitve Repetition of Repeated Repetitions

How many times does this article need to talk about women who were prostitutes not being prosecuted or punished in the same manner as men who pickpocketed on the street? I'm not going to go back and count, but I remember reading it at least 3 times throughout this article. This is a great example of the failure of Wikipedia to present cogent articles: editors look at only one section and don't bother to read the rest of the article to ensure they aren't adding material that is mentioned before or after the section they edit. And it's annoying as a reader! To read the same fucking information 3 times: in the general overview, then later on in 2 different sections. I'm not sure how this is solved, other than editors paying attention to more than just the one fucking section they're working on. It really shows the weakness of Wikipedia and the open editing style, because editors are not forced to ensure they aren't repeating material. Have I said it enough times? Do you get the point? Editors, pay attention to the entire article, and if you see an article that has this kind of repetitive bullshit in it, either fix it, or add a tag, or something, but it's completely unprofessional to keep reading the same facts over and over and over and over and nobody seems to care. Fuck this. 174.232.129.91 (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)