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:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Picture error/caption error
editAs 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)
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)
- 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)
- Your modification seems accurate, and clears up any potential misunderstanding. Haploidavey (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Haploidavey: Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Your modification seems accurate, and clears up any potential misunderstanding. Haploidavey (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Which was stolen first??
editThe 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)
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)
