Talk:Dresden Green Vault burglary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2019 Dresden heist)

Article move?[edit]

Should this article be moved to Grünes Gewölbe heist?HAL333 20:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Green Vault heist?HAL333 20:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be a "heist", and not a robbery? Ingratis (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because heist refers to a high-end theft of valuable items, such as this one, while robbery is a broder term which includes bank robberies, cash, etc. You may request a renaming, if you wish, anyway. Brandmeistertalk 15:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This crime was a theft rather than a robbery. Jim Michael (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but I don't think "heist" is great – to me it sounds too populist and informal for an encyclopaedia: more like a film or novel title ... The Dresden Caper or whatever. I'm not sure I can be bothered to pursue a name change, though I might support one. I just wanted to mention that this title has <100% support. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind moving to "theft", something like 2019 Grünes Gewölbe theft. It's just that the article was originally created under current name. Brandmeistertalk 22:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as above that "heist" sounds a bit gimmicky (admittedly it's used in most of the press sources but just because it's journalese doesn't make it the best word). I'd support "theft". Ingratis (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all! I would certainly support "theft" but depending on timing I might not be around to do so as I need a little break. I'll have a look when I am back. It's not urgent after all, and we aren't doing news! good luck and thanks for all the hard work. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, because this is English Wikipedia, the Grünes Gewölbe name is officially translated to as the "Green Vault" which can also be seen on the museum's chief website. Hence, if moved, it would have to be the Green Vault robbery or the Green Vault heist. The current name is appropriate if no major robbery occurred in Dresden that can be defined as a 'heist'. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or - as mentioned above - maybe "Green Vault theft" or something similar. Bsoyka✉ 04:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like Green Vault theft. I'm not sure if specifying the year is necessary considering that there haven't be any other thefts at the Green Vault.HAL333 04:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word theft should not be used, because it refers to the object that was stolen. The Green Vault obviously was not stolen or taken away. Robbery and heist, on the other hand, can be used for the place where the crime took place. Thus there ought to be no article move. Alandeus (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced - "Green Vault theft" can equally well be read as "theft at the Green Vault" instead of "theft of the Green Vault". As above, "robbery" includes violence, which was absent here, and "heist" has register problems, i.e., too journalese. Perhaps the most accurate title is "Green Vault burglary". Ingratis (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could go with "Green Vault burglary". Alandeus (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Gardner Museum (Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum) stolen paintings are named as a theft, not a heist.Dkspartan1835 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox date[edit]

Why does the infobox show the date as January 11? It shows it as being correctly written as 11 25 when trying to edit it, but in reading mode it doesn't. Weird. Maybe its just beacuse I am on mobile. Can someone fix this. Thanks HAL333 01:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, the month and date spots were flipped so it should have been year|month|day and I had it backwards so it defaulted to the first month. Sorry. Leaky.Solar (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do the same kind of stuff all the time. Infoboxes can ne a pain. HAL333 03:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the missing jewels[edit]

I'm a very visual person and find that its better to identify things with images, the Saxony Police department have released images of some of the stolen jewels through their Twitter. Can the image or the image and tweet be uploaded or will it run into issues?[1] Leaky.Solar (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/PolizeiSachsen/status/1199049807064682497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1199049807064682497&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.com%2Fcrime%2Fcastle-treasure-vault-heist-manhunt-dresden-germany%2F
@Leaky.Solar: Do the stolen jewels have Wikipedia articles? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ: I'm not User:Leaky.Solar, but I will say that at least the Dresden White Diamond has a page. It doesn't have a photo of the diamond itself though. I've looked for a free-use image, but couldn't find one. Bsoyka✉ 04:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Events[edit]

the power outage seems to have occured after the actual heist, it's currently speculative whether that's related. 04:59 CET - burglary reported by security on site 05:05 CET - police arrives (in large scale) 05:09 CET - power outage 05:21 CET - reportedly burning transformer maybe include more German resources ;) https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/was-wir-ueber-den-kunstraub-im-gruene-gewoelbe-wissen-100.html

  • The current statement is sourced to Daily Beast. Perhaps the dust should settle to see the correct sequence of events. Brandmeistertalk 15:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Local time[edit]

Why does this article twice specify "local time"? What is being disambiguated here? I wasn't going to guess that it otherwise meant GMT or Newfoundland time ... it just seems odd, and a bit journalese, to specify something which seems so obvious and unnecessary. DBaK (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No response. I've taken it that no-one cares. Thanks DBaK (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the largest such theft since World War II"[edit]

I'm not sure I like how that is stated. There was no single incident of theft during WWII that came close to matching this value. I believe sources may be comparing the overall value of Nazi plunder which is not a fair comparison because that was taken during wartime and was not a single incident. It's the largest-value isolated incident of theft in history, overshadowing the 1990 Gardner robbery. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Amber Room or various other priceless artifacts that the Nazi's stole?HAL333 20:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps compare with 'similar thefts from German or European museums' - eg the Cellini Salt Cellar o [1]? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Hi, going though the history of this article, I was wondering why the spelling of for example jewelry and Jewellery or artifacts and artefacts keeps changing. Isn't there a way to indicate spelling suggestions/request on top of the page? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly American and British English spelling differences. Some cited sources are British, to they use British spelling. Brandmeistertalk 10:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and if you read WP:ENGVAR there is a whole lot of procedural stuff, which as I read it means that it should stay in BrE spelling, that is, there is no powerful reason to change it to AmE as ENGVAR would require. It's not just the sources, it's the spelling first used and the local links etc. I'm happy to see this discussed properly. To return to Lotje's question, yes I think there is a way of tagging it as BrE and I will see if I can find it. I must say that the driveby spelling-correctors I see don't give me confidence that they would respect it, but it must be worth a try. If you know how to do this, and beat me to it, please be my guest! :) 82.39.96.55 (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – thanks Filelakeshoe for the BrE notice. 82.39.96.55 (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: @Filelakeshoe: thank you ever so much for looking into this. :-) Lotje (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awkwardness over pricelessness[edit]

Hello. I am not saying that this is terrible writing or someone has done something wrong, but there is a bit of awkwardness in the lead where we say The missing items were of great cultural value to the State of Saxony and were described as priceless, with price estimates of around €1 billion. Obviously both of these things can be right, but juxtaposing them so closely gives it an awkward feel ... they were priceless, but actually here's the price, sort of thing. Is it possible to rewrite/restructure to work around this somehow, without wrecking the meaning? ... as I say, I can see how both bits can be legit but their rubbing shoulders like that is a tricky read. Any thoughts please? 82.39.96.55 (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly rephrased the sentence with "other sources estimate the total value at about €1 billion". Brandmeistertalk 11:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a brilliant redo, Brandmeister, thanks – it nails it, loses nothing, and allows the mild contradiction without it sounding daft! I love it, well done 82.39.96.55 (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am very late but I would still like to call the veracity of the claim as a whole that the stolen jewelery had a value of upwards 1 billion euro as a whole into question. The claim was made by the german "newspaper" Bild, a tabloid somewhat comparable to the sun in britain, that is considered generally unreliable. Sausius (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response of Saxony's Minister-President Michael Kretschmer[edit]

You can't link the Saxons, as today's Free State of Saxony is associated with the name "Saxony" only by marriage. The historical Saxons started in what is today Lower Saxony. Those were the ones that went to England, and this makes sense geographically. --2001:16B8:31C5:1800:311F:B75A:D517:C224 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – good point, removed the link, thanks! DBaK (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some jewels recovered[edit]

Some of the jewels have been recovered - [2] is sufficiently reliable, and there is more information elsewhere. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism?[edit]

In the heist section, I think there is a large block of text plagiarized from the cited source. Should this be removed? 108.54.173.69 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dresden_Green_Vault_burglary&oldid=1212404106"