Talk:2011 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts theft

A fact from 2011 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts theft appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that an Edmonton man who unknowingly bought a $1.2 million artwork stolen six years ago today, kept it in his bedroom next to Star Wars figures and stuffed animals?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts theft.

Wikipedia

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Quebec / Montreal Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Montreal (assessed as Low-importance).

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Picture error/caption error

As this article is target for a DYK (at time of posting), might be a good idea to fix the blatant caption error/photo error ASAP. I'd do it myself, if I could find the appropriate picture in Commons (the still-missing head of a Roman soldier, which I presume to be the most content-appropriate image)... but I can't! Haploidavey (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "wanted" poster, dated 2011 (available at this blogspot, fwiw, describes the current pic as:

Roman Empire

Head of a man. Egypto-archaizing style

1st c. AD

Yellow Numidian Marble.

The stolen sandstone relief, showing an Achaemenid soldier in profile, is to the right on the same page (linked above). Haploidavey (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I discussed this at your talk page, too. The text sources described it as "the head of a Roman soldier." Based on that reward poster (thanks for finding it), it appears we might want to modify it slightly. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your modification seems accurate, and clears up any potential misunderstanding. Haploidavey (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Haploidavey: Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which was stolen first??

The introduction claims the Roman marble head was taken first, on September 3, whilst the body clearly states the sandstone Achaemenid relief was the first taken. Which is it? I can't believe this is a DYK article with such an obvious discrepancy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:8e57:3800:a78a:90e:ed25:490b (talk • contribs)

I'd be more comfortable making this response if you had signed your post, but this resulted from finding later sources that put the date of the relief theft at September 3; the first ones weren't so specific (which I bet has something to do with the museum itself not being forthcoming about the theft for a few months afterwards). I will amend the text to be consistent. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I realized I had corrected the text to be consistent with the Gazette story but not the intro. They are consistent now. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]