OK, I know this is an encylopaedia, not a human rights portal, BUT... !

edit

How did something found in modern Turkey end up in the Baltimore Museum of Art? Was the transaction a swindle? Was the local Ottoman bureaucrat who sold this in the position to sell? Did he (it is most likely a he, not she at the time of this find) have the authority to do so? I think this deserves an answer even in a fairly short encyclopaedic article. GoddessWrath (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

this isn't even on topic of the article?? 12alin0 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is in the article alright, in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opora_(mythology)#Iconography section. GoddessWrath (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
What would this information, if added, tell us about Opora, the subject of the article? Information in an article should enrich and add to the reader's understanding of its subject; while the means by which the mosaic ended up in the Baltimore Museum of Art might help in understanding, say, the art trade at the time, or what was happening to Turkish artefacts artefacts discovered in Turkey in a certain period, it provides no useful information about Opora herself. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Turkish artefacts"??!!
One cannot expect to be taken seriously when claiming something so nonsensical as that this looted piece of art has anything to do with "Turkish artefacts". GoddessWrath (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@GoddessWrath: Sure, if want me to be precise in my language, I can rephrase it to "artefacts discovered in Turkey"; I think my meaning was pretty clear. Regardless, my point remains, and the information isn't relevant to the article's subject. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply