Talk:1972 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts robbery/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 19:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 02:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Article versions:

• Nomination
• First pass: referencing, some layout, breadth/focus, and media

Initial comments

I'm starting to work through the references. It'll be several days before I'm ready to post a review. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I did a little light copyediting, added some citation parameters and changed to metric as the primary measurement unit. Feel free to revert if you don't like any of that (and we can discuss as part of the review). The review is a long series of bulleted lists, so I'll be using a lot of little markup graphics (e.g.: , N, ?) to help spot what needs attention. Please let me know if you have issues with any of that.

Thanks for naming references and using page numbers! I've gone through all of the citations and left notes where I found them lacking. In some instances it may be better to remove details that go off-topic rather than trying to source them. I also have some suggestions regarding the layout and images. I'll leave the prose until my second pass, after the content is settled.

I'm confident that there is a good article here and that it can meet the GA criteria with a little work. If you have any questions or comments, please place under the relative bullets in the review or under General discussion at the end. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some work needed, but let's take care of referencing and layout first

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Meeting the GA criteria is achievable. Let's get it there!

Review comments

Referencing & verifiability

First looking at Sezgin2010 Good source, used 52 times (the author is used another 20+ times from other publishings). I've checked against the linked online PDF version and some of the cited page numbers seem off. Any chance that you were working from a different version?

• Cited to Sezgin2010 page 61 (9)
  • Fearing the consequences should that movement succeed the Anglophones began leaving the city over the course of the 1960s. and in the following paragraph The Anglophone exodus Not spotting this in either of the cited sources.

    Took that out and joined the grafs. In retrospect 1970 is too late to have had the effect on the museum's support that was attributed. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

    grafs = paragraphs.

  • Roughly two weeks before the theft, someone reported encountering two men sitting on chairs on the roof, wearing sunglasses and smoking. When questioned by the person who reported the incident, they claimed to be museum employees. The chairs on the roof were not found after the theft. Found this on page 63.
  • that is one of Canada's oldest and strongest criminal organizations Didn't see this in the source. Could possibly be removed. removed
  • "[They] were interested in prostitution and drugs" exclusively at the time, he says This quote in the source seems to be talking about the Italian mafia, not the West End Irish gang. The beginning of page 61 refers to the French-Canadian mob, the Irish West End gang, and the Italian Mafia as separate entities. specified Italian mafia

    Addressed all of these. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Cited to Sezgin2010 page 60 (12)
  • Three citations to completely cover s. Previous thefts and attempts. 14 paintings, mostly by Canadian artists This source does not have the 'mostly'.

    Took that word out. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Cited to Sezgin2010 page 62 (13) eight times
  • On the night of Friday, September 1, four intoxicated men who had been refused entry to a downtown country-and-western bar retaliated by setting the club's steps afire; the ensuing blaze killed 37, the deadliest fire in the city in 45 years. Not seeing the underlined part in the source. There may be a source in the linked article. However, consider if all that information is needed before going through the work of looking for additional sources.
    • Found in "CBC 50th anniversary story": three men who were refused entry to Montreal's Wagon Wheel, a country and western bar, set fire to a rear staircase. The blaze ultimately consumed the entire building, killing 37 people.

      Put that source in. Good catch! Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

    • NStill need a source for the second underlined part (or remove it). I checked about 10 news sources on the 20th, 40th and 50th anniversary of the fire, and none of them mentioned it was the deadliest fire in 45 years/since 1927. I did find one which called it the biggest multiple murder (as the arsonists pleaded guilty to murder and manslaughter): Hustak, Alan (31 Aug 1992). "A night of horror; 20 years ago, 37 people died in the Blue Bird fire". Montreal Gazette. p. A3. ProQuest 432314049. Another "one of the worst crimes" in Montreal Cherry, Paul (30 August 2012). "Lifting the veil on the Blue Bird fire; 40 years after 37 people died tragically, Montreal will finally commemorate one of the worst crimes in the city's history". Montreal Gazette. p. A3. ProQuest 1037549142.

OK. I took that out and replaced it with the Hustak source. The "45 years" thing probably refers back to the Laurier Palace Theatre fire, which did have a higher fatality count. But that's really not relevant to an art theft, even if it's very likely true (And I found out about some other interesting fires in Montreal's history that we should probably have articles on, like this apartment-house explosion in 1965 that killed more people than the Blue Bird fire and this 1901 downtown fire that did $2.5 million worth of damage). Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• • The thieves also took 38 pieces of jewellery and figurines. The source says "39 pieces of jewelry and silver". Checked and it's consistently 39 pieces in sources.

    Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Later that morning, Bantey, who had covered the crime beat in Montreal as a journalist prior to his tenure at the museum, held a news conference. He identified all the stolen works and described how the robbers had entered the museum and taken them. "They did show quite discriminating taste," he told reporters, "though as far as the objects are concerned, they could do with more art and historical training." In their haste to leave, he noted, the thieves had left behind another Rembrandt as well as works by El Greco, Picasso and Tintoretto that they could as easily have taken. Did not spot the underlined parts on that page. The first underlined part is on page 61. Most of the second and third underlined parts are on page 59. Did not spot Bantey describing the manner of the robbery at that press conference.

    OK. I expanded the page range in the Sezgin cite and added two other sources. Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

    • New source: named reference "NYT story". New York Times "Canada Presses Search for Art" 6 Sep 1972. Covers Bantey describing the robbery to the press.

  • However, further publicity that might have drawn attention to the theft and perhaps helped solve it was stymied by news events of September 5. At that year's Summer Olympics in Munich, Palestinian terrorists with the Black September Organization took 11 Israeli athletes hostage, eventually killing them along with a German police officer, the following day. Those events were of particular interest in Montreal since the city was preparing to host the next Olympics, and as a result further news about the art theft got less priority in the media. The investigation continued despite the lack of media attention. Did not spot the underlined part. It may be more detail than is needed for context in this article.

    Took that out. I do remember one source mentioning how Montreal's media gave a lot more attention to the Munich events than other cities, for the obvious reason, but it's not worth looking for at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    • The second underlined passage was removed, but the first underlined (unsourced) part is still there.N

I trimmed the wording down to what Sezgin uses ... just Palestinian terrorists. No mention of Black September. No real need for it here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• • Some art dealers in the Montreal area refused to discuss their business with police absent a legal order. Did not spot this.

    Changed the wording and expanded the source page range to reflect what's on page 60. I still remember seeing this somewhere. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

    • Okay, "absent a legal order" was removed and the page range changed. Page 60 has "not everyone in the art market wants to give information to police".

  • Around Christmas 1972, a Montreal Gazette columnist reported that, in fact, most of the paintings had been delivered to the homes of wealthy collectors in Mount Royal, with a small portion diverted to the U.S. This led police to interrogate two unnamed individuals, but no new leads developed as a result. Found this on page 61.

    Per above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Major auction houses like Sotheby's and Christie's would not routinely check for whether art offered for sale through them was on lists of stolen works until 1985. "[We hope that] the works become so catalogued and so well-known that it would be unlikely that any collector or museum buyer could innocently purchase them," Bantey told the Gazette. Found the underlined part on page 63. The quotation in the source has "that the items become".

    Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Cited to Sezgin2010 page 59 (16) eight times
  • the board president, director, and director of security were all on vacation in either the United States or Mexico for the holiday weekend. Did not spot the underlined part.

    Fixed It's on page 2 of her blog posts. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  • They chose to exit through one of the museum's side entrances, setting off an alarm. Leaving half their take behind found this at the very bottom of page 58.

    Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• • Collectively they estimated the value of the stolen work at US$2 million, Did not see US in the source.

    Fixed It's in the New York Times story Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

    • Hmmm. "NYT story" doesn't specifically say it's US$; it is a US publication printing a story from a British news agency. Looking around, the named reference "BBC story" from 2025 describes it as $2m (£1.5m), which is the approximate conversion from US$ in 2025 (in 1972, it'd be over $3MUS). Which implies that source is talking about $2M US. However, the story also used "$2m (£1.5m)" 5 paragraphs earlier when speaking of the 1972 Worcester Art Museum robbery, so there is some sort of confusion (the stolen paintings from Worcester were only valued at $1M). There are also numerous Canadian sources like "CTV 50th anniversary story" which use 2 million dollars, implying CA$. Likewise, I'd assume any mention of official figures from police reports or insurers would use CA$ unless specified otherwise.
    • In cases like this, maybe the best we can do is to report it as plain dollars/$, note which source reported it, and leave it to the reader to decide. Or, if we consider this a disagreement in sources, footnote everything we have on it. The latter may be the better way of handling it for GA.? Reidgreg (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, although we need to see what the exchange rate was at the time ... the difference may have too small for the news to care about. My other point would be that the international art market, now certainly but perhaps as much then, at least in the Western Hemisphere, uses/used the US dollar as its preferred currency. To me it's logical to assume that the museum followed that convention. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• • should anyone attempt to take them to New York City, 530 kilometres (330 mi) farther south Not in source; extraneous detail?

    Took it out. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Police kept five of these students under 24-hour surveillance for two weeks but found no evidence linking them to the case. Alain Lacoursière, an SPVM art-theft specialist who investigated the cold case in later years, believes the students were not involved. "This crime was organized with a guy in charge who was 35 to 40 years old," well past his student years, he said in 2010. Did not see Lacoursière's position with the police on that page. There is some on page 63, though it doesn't specifically mention him working on the robbery as a cold case.

    It's in the CBC story: "But long-time art crime investigator and retired Montreal police detective Alain Lacoursière ..." Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

    • Citation added to "CBC 50th anniversary story"

  • A man with a gravelly voice Source says "a nasally voice", which I believe are different things. Compare hoarse voice and nasal voice.

    Changed. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Inside, he found the Brueghel Landscape with Buildings and Wagon, the only one of the stolen paintings yet recovered. Not specifically in source. "CBC 50th anniversary story" can cover that, qualified with an 'as of 2022'. However, perhaps that this was the only painting recovered best belongs in the Works stolen section?

    Added that one. I don't think it's fair to the reader to make them look back up to the stolen works section, although we could certainly note there that it was recovered. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

    • Ummm... I see there's an as of 2022 not there but at the end of the third paragraph of Later developments. It's okay to have it in this second location, but we can't say "as of 2022" when the source for that paragraph is only from 2010.N

  • The recovered Brueghel was kept in storage at the museum by Ruth Jackson for 10 years until a new frame could be purchased, after which it was returned to its prior location. However, it was later determined that it was not by Brueghel but a student of his; Lacoursière believes the thieves may have chosen to return it due to doubts about its authenticity. It nevertheless remains on exhibit. Found the opinion by Lacoursière on page 60. Page 59 has that it was put on display in the museum, not that it was specifically displayed at its prior location.

    Combined the two sources and reworded. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Cited to Sezgin2010 page 58 (17) six times
  • Shortly after midnight on September 4, police believe, a group of three men gathered out in front of the museum on Sherbrooke Street. They went to the museum's west wall, between it and the Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul. This page of the source mentions the street and west wall, but doesn't actually say where the men gathered or the location of the tree they climbed. Found in Hampton that the tree was between the museum and the church.

    Added that source and took out the "gathering" part. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  • It had taken them almost an hour and a half to gain entry. Shortly after they did, around 1:30 a.m., one of the three guards on duty was walking to the kitchen to get some tea Not seeing the underlined part; could that be an assumption?

    Since it is only an unstated, albeit reasonable, assumption that the robbers took that time period to get in, I have just taken that out and left it as an inference for the reader. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  • One fired both barrels of a pump action shotgun into the ceiling to get the guard's attention and made him lie down on the floor. The noise brought the other two guards, who were unable to overpower the thieves. Source says that the intruder fired two shots, not both barrels. I don't think I've ever heard of a pump-action shotgun with two barrels. Source does not say that the other two guards went to investigate the shots or that they attempted to overpower the thieves.

    Sezgin uses "12-pump" ... does that mean anything to the knowledgeable? Unless it does, I'm taking it out ... really, now that I think of it, there's no need to say any more than "Shotgun". Took out the other two guards running in and failing to be action-movie heroes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

    • The immediate thought is that "12" would refer to the gauge a.k.a. bore, and "pump" to the action. "Observer story" says [a guard] "was greeted with two warning shotgun blasts" while "CTV 50th anniversary story" states that "one shotgun blast was enough to subdue the guards." Sezgin p58 and "Canadian Encyclopedia" both state it was a sawed-off shotgun, which is a type preferred for close-quarters and conceal-ability.
    • The article text still says fired both barrels of a shotgun which means a double-barreled shotgun, which I did not spot in any of the sources. It wouldn't really make sense; a double-barreled shotgun only holds two cartridges, so if the robber fired both of them, he would be holding an unloaded weapon which would present no threat to the guards aside from clubbing them with it. (A pump-action shotgun usually holds three cartridges in a tube magazine and possibly a fourth in the chamber.) I agree that the specifics are unnecessary, but we should remove "both barrels" and probably simplify it as "fired a shotgun into the ceiling". I would tend to include some of the details (and source divergence) in a footnote.? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

       Done I'll just leave it at "shotgun" (My experience with shotguns is rather limited, but all of them were double-barreled weapons that held two cartridges. Then again you don't expect the clays to be returning fire) Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Cited to Sezgin2010 pages 65–66 (19) once for list of works stolen
  • Landscape with Vehicles and Cattle, attributed at the time to Jan Brueghel the Elder but later reattributed to his students (subsequently recovered) The underlined part needs to be sourced, you can use "Canadian Encyclopedia". This is especially important because there is confusion amongst sources between which of the 'Brueghel' pieces was recovered (which caused me quite a bit of confusion). I would definitely use a footnote to state the difference in sources and why it was decided to state it this way in the article.
    • Sezgin2010 p.59 says Buildings was recovered.
    • Noakes and Hampton say Cattle was recovered. Hampton further notes there were conflicting reports about which of the pair was recovered, but museum staff assured me that this is the work currently in their holdings, so I would go with this.
    • Proposed footnote (name it and place it both in the Works stolen list and where it is mentioned in the prose at Ransom and recovery): There is disagreement in sources as to which of the Brueghel paintings was recovered. Sezgin states that it was Landscape with Buildings and Wagon{{sfn|Sezgin|2010|p=59}} while Noakes(cite "Canadian Encyclopedia") and Hampton state that it was Landscape with Vehicles and Cattle. Hampton explains, "there were conflicting reports about which of the pair was recovered, but museum staff assured me that this is the work currently in their holdings".(cite "Canadian Arts story")

      Added as written. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC) Thanks!

• • attributed to Thomas Gainsborough but possibly by Joshua Reynolds Found this in "Sezgin site page 8".

    Added source Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Cited to Sezgin2010 pages 60–61 (21) once:
  • On August 30, another group of three thieves Not specifically in source, and it undermines the suggestion that this may have been the same three thieves. Also, if they are known to be different people, then it may not be relevant to the article.
  • Witnesses said that while they wore hoods to prevent identification, two spoke French and the other, English. The source doesn't mention witnesses... it's unlikely that they would have video surveillance with audio in 1972, but probably best just to state the information about the thieves and let the reader make the assumption that this information came from witnesses.

     Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

    Both of these, I should be clear. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Cited to Sezgin2010 page 63 (23) eleven times:
  • He implied in 2010 it might have been from selling the stolen work. I think make clear that this implication is from Lacoursière and not Smith.

    Reworded. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  • DeQuoy did, and an hour later the caller said the police had been taken care of. Again he was sent back and forth across the island of Montreal to 11 phone booths, until at 4 a.m. he was told he could leave the envelope at the base of a sign in a vacant lot on St. Martin Boulevard, then return to the Henri-Bourassa phone booth where the caller would contact him again with the location of the paintings. While DeQuoy waited for the call, he let the police know where he had been all night. Found this on page 62

    Expanded cite. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  • The $10,000 was not recovered. Is this somewhere else?

    Fixed I had not mentioned what Sezgin does ... that DeQuoy had left the money in the envelope where he was instructed to, then gone back to the original phone booth. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

    • I see the rephrasing, but the passage is still there at the end of the paragraph.N Suggest removing it, the reader can make the assumption that it was not recovered. Note that there was $10k involved in a ransom for the 1933 theft and also in the 1973 recovery attempt.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• • "For years we thought our chances of recovery were better keeping everything quiet," said one police detective The source attributes this quote to "one police officer". (Though, I suppose this could be a mistranslation... Not sure.)

    Aligned with source. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Police were able to confirm what they have described as "certain facts" as a result. Quote not in source.

    Changed to "Certain information", which is, and clarified that it has nevertheless not been useful. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

    • ? As written the quote is presented as coming from the police but it is actually from Sezgin. Also, I'm a little confused about as a result – as a result of what? I would tend to rewrite it:
    • Possible rewrite: The efforts at ransom negotiations were revealed by the museum and investigators in 1982, when hopes of recovery had diminished. One police officer explained that their press release might "stimulate interest and produce something." Some information was confirmed, but this did not provide any new leads.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• • After a group of 20 insurers paid out nearly $2 million, they posted a $50,000 reward for the return of the paintings, which under the terms of the policies they now legally owned Found on page 60.

    That does seem to be the cited source. Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  • reducing its value and interest to museumgoers. Not in source.

    Took it out. Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Cited to Sezgin2010 page 64 (29) four times
  • Some promising leads over the years have yielded nothing. Lacoursière, now retired Found on page 63. Might be nice to replace 'now' with the year he retired if this can be sourced.

    I found nothing online that gives an exact year. But Sezgin does imply that he had retired by the time she wrote her article in 2011. Could we say something along those lines? Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

    • Yeah, it looks like the 2000s. "Canadian Arts Story" (and perhaps others) state he was working on the case from 1993 and "through the 1990s" and later "In 2007, while filming the Radio-Canada documentary, the detective offered Smith a $2-million cheque..." Might footnote the editorial choice and what can be found in sources.?

  • One drug dealer he interviewed in Vancouver Source says it was a "junkie", which I would formalize as 'drug addict'. Found in Hampton the person is described by Lacoursiere as a "drug dealer".

    Added Hampton as a cite. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  • It is possible the paintings may have been destroyed Also page 63.

    Expanded page range in cite. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  • He also notes that criminal organizations have found stolen art useful in other ways. During the 1994–2002 Quebec Biker War, he recalls, he learned that one member of the Montreal-area Hells Angels served as a fence for art thieves, selling stolen art to the Italian Mafia at 10% of its price, who in turn used the names of dead residents of the affluent suburb of Westmount on faked provenance forms. Found on page 63. The biker claimed to have sold paintings to the mafia, so that might need a qualifier. The "other way" the stolen art is useful (i.e.: laundering money) should be specified. The Quebec Biker War is not in source but readily verifiable.

    OK. I found another source in which Lacoursiére speaks more clearly about this. I have taken the Biker War out as there he doesn't describe the man, Joseph Ghaleb (whose name we can use since he was murdered in 2004 and BLP no longer applies, obviously) as an Angel per se but rather as a loanshark who had ties to both the Angels and the Montreal mob. Granted, the art was found in his home in 2000, during the Biker War, but the time isn't sufficient to establish a connection, and his murder came two years after the end of the Biker War. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

    •  Verified new reference and content changes, good find!

  • investigators believe the art has been moved to Latin America This was qualified in the source that it was likely in Latin America if the mafia was involved.

    Duly amended. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Next, looking at Sezgin's 2011 series on the ARCA blog:

• Part One (30) and Part Two (31) each used once in the same paragraph.
  • possibly intended to tease the then-retired detective I don't feel it's our place to speculate on Smith's intention; the reader can come to that conclusion easily enough.

    Maybe attribute it to Sezgin? For now I've taken it out. Daniel Case (talk)

  • I feel that this could give some more information from the ad's voiceover: The Paris National Art Collection was handed over a long-lost masterpiece by Leonardo Da Vinci today. The Da Vinci piece was being hidden for years by backers of the mafia in a safe deposit box. The FBI estimates the value of the Madonna of the Yarnwinder at approximately 70 million euros.

    Unfortunately YouTube now says the video is private. I can't verify this. Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

    • The transcript is included in the ARCA blog, Part Two, second paragraph (inset italic).
    • I feel that the relevant information was left out.? Suggest: The following year Smith emailed Lacoursière a link to a video. It was an advertisement in which a long-lost masterpiece was found in a bank deposit box connected to the mafia.

Fixed Daniel Case (talk)

Sezgin's 2014 series for ARCA:

• "Cathy Sezgin's site" Unsolved '72 Theft of Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (14) A home/contents page for the series. Used 3 times:
  • On the following evening, [2 Sept] the Soviet national hockey team defeated their Canadian counterparts 7–3 in the first game of the Summit Series at the Montreal Forum. Okay, except for the link to Canada men's national ice hockey team. While the team playing the 1972 Summit Series was called Team Canada, it was an all-star team of professionals and not the national team. (The name was so well publicized that it was passed on as a nickname to the national teams thereafter.)

    Clarified. Daniel Case (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Fans in Montreal were eagerly looking ahead to the next game in the series, to be held Monday evening [4 Sept] in Toronto.
  • In the lecture hall, one robber stood guard with a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun Source is good for the handgun model, but not that thief armed with this weapon watched over the guards while the others gathered loot.

    Took that part out. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Cathy Sezgin's site page 2" Part II: The Skylight Caper (8) used 4 times:
  • The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA) was established in 1860 as the Art Association of Montreal, to encourage art appreciation in the city. It did not start to exhibit works until the late 1870s and 1880s, when wealthy patrons who had prospered from Canada's industrialization began to donate both cash and works, and it was soon able to build Canada's first space explicitly intended for art exhibition. In 1913 it built its current main building, now the Michal and Renata Hornstein Pavilion, on Sherbrooke Street. The neighborhood is known today as the Golden Square Mile, because it was home to many of Canada's wealthiest and most successful families Did not find the underlined parts in source. Consider whether the article needs that much history for context. Did find a new source (below, under Breadth and focus) if you want to use it for this.
    • Note to self: most of the underlined passage was removed but the 1860 establishment and Michal and Renata Hornstein Pavilion were retained (without a source in that edit). Pass that as readily verifiable. The rest can be handled in the prose check.
  • Fearing the consequences should that [separatist] movement succeed the Anglophones began leaving the city over the course of the 1960s. These departures grew after the terrorist attacks of the Front de libération du Québec which led to a 1970 declaration of martial law in the city. Not found in either source.
    • Removed.
  • The Anglophone exodus deprived the museum of much of its traditional financial support. In 1957, Bill Bantey, a former journalist who was appointed the museum's head of public relations, began reaching out for the first time in its history to Francophones. But the contributions from newer philanthropists in the city did not yet equal their predecessors, and provincial funds only covered 40% of the museum's annual budget. Did not spot the underlined parts. Found Bantey's crime journalism background in part V.
    • Some parts removed, others covered by new sources (below)
  • The museum needed to expand, and to renovate the 1913 William Sutherland Maxwell Beaux-Arts building on Sherbrooke Street. Its many cramped rooms and corridors were unsuitable for a late-20th century art museum. Underlined parts not in source. Source says that museum officials 'planned' to expand.

    Took out everything not in sources from all these above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

    • Will address some word choices with the prose.

• "Cathy Sezgin's site page 5" Part V: Comparable Crimes and the Masterpieces from Montreal (20) used once:
  • Most of the paintings taken were small works around a foot (31 cm) along their longest dimension; the three smallest (the Brueghels and Millet's La barrateuse) were less than 80 square inches (520 cm²), smaller than a standard letter-size piece of paper. The largest was the Courbet, at 287⁄8 by 361⁄8 inches (73.34 by 91.76 cm), with the Gainsborough and Corot's Dreamer close behind. It was possible that when the thieves ran away each of them held a batch of smaller paintings in one hand and a larger one in the other Basic math: 3+5+5=13 is most of the paintings at no more than 155 square inches, about a foot square.

    So that's OK? Do you think I should say "a foot square" in that first sentence rather than the way it's currently worded? Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

    • No, I like that "along their longest dimension". (Though I did change to metric as the primary measurement system.)

• "Cathy Sezgin's site page 6" Part VI: Closing the museum and another ransom demand (11) used once:
  • The museum planned to close the Maxwell building in 1973 for three years. I feel this could use a rephrase. Source says that the museum did close for three years of renovation and expansion starting in May 1973. It could be assumed that this was planned, but not that it was planned to take three years and succeeded in this timeline.

    Rephrased to this: "The museum planned to close the Maxwell building in 1973 for renovations" How long they actually took really isn't relevant to the theft. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Sezgin site page 8" Part VIII: The theft today (27) used once:
  • Even the attribution of some of the stolen work has been questioned. When the de Heems were being prepared for their inclusion in Masterpieces from Montreal, a Parisian art historian the museum contacted suggested that they were in fact the work of another Dutch master, Evert Collier. The Rembrandt landscape, while indeed signed and dated by the artist, is one that both he and his students frequently returned to as a subject. Some historians are not entirely confident the painting was his even with the signature. The Gainsborough portrait, too, may in fact be the work of Gainsborough's rival Joshua Reynolds, since its subject, Thomas Fletcher, is shown wearing a Madras regimental uniform, which he only started wearing in 1771, three years before Reynolds painted his portrait. This is basically in the source, but the phrasing is a bit odd in places. The underlined passage, for example, identifies the painting as Rembrandt's and indicates that it definitely passed through his hands, but then casts doubt upon what was just presented as facts. For the last sentence about the portrait, the source additionally states that the subject left England in 1775 and died in 1776.

    Reworded and I added the extra detail that is, I guess, intended to suggest that there was a very short period of time in which another portraitist besides Reynolds could have painted Fletcher. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Sezgin for Lacours Society magazine, undated c.2015 or earlier, seems to have been written before the series for the art crime journal was published

• "Sezgin guest blog post" "Part One: Alain Lacoursière's biographer Sylvain Larocque Dedicates Sixth Chapter to The Theft of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts." (26) The url didn't work but I found it at Wayback Machine and updated the citation (linked). Used three times:

  I'm AGFing it on the source because I'm having problems getting through to archive.org at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC) Update: Good now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Lacoursière began investigating the case in 1984, by his account taking it over just before the files were slated to be shredded. Source says that he reviewed the file from the department's archives. Not sure if "review" is strong enough to justify "began investigating". Perhaps "took an interest in"? There's also a contradiction in sources as Hampton states of Lacoursiere "he first picked up the 20-year-old file in 1993". Sezgin2010 p63 notes that Lacoursiere officially became an investigator of art crimes in 1994.

    Reworded, and the different dates noted in an endnote. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • which it promoted as the largest Rubens exhibited in Canada. But like the Brueghel, it was later reattributed to the painter's assistants, after a conservationist determined that its red pigments had been mixed four decades after Rubens' death, The source states that the museum hoped it would be the largest, which implies that the museum promoted it as such. Might need a qualifier. Though maybe this is a detail that doesn't need to be included. I feel maybe more important is that this discovery was made in the 1990s, a couple decades after the purchase (according to this source).

    Took that size detail out since, you are right, it really isn't relevant (I mean, I'm sure the museum had to feel it had gotten some sort of adequate compensation for the theft and wanted to show how it had come back ... only to be embarrassed in a totally different way. But without a source actually making that connection, we should let it go). I added the time qualifier. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • In 2010, Quebec journalist Sylvain Larocque interviewed Smith by telephone. While Smith again denied any role in the theft himself, he claimed that professors and porters at the Université du Québec à Montréal, which the École des beaux-arts had merged with in 1969, were behind the robbery. They were possibly, he claimed, the same people behind a robbery at the university a few weeks earlier. Source uses "employees ... possibly professors and porters" to describe the suspects of the university robbery. The paraphrasing is also a bit close (will address later).

    Used the direct quote for the first, and reworded the second. Daniel Case (talk)

Now the non-Sezgin sources:

• "CBC 50th anniversary story" "50 years after major Montreal art theft, trail has gone cold and nobody's talking" (2) Noakes used 3 times – twice in the lead, as one of the more recent sources.
  • (the initial police report had valued the stolen works at closer to $5 million with the Rembrandt accounting for $1.75 million) This source only has $2 million (and "nearly 14 million" in 2022). Did find this in the second cited source, Hampton, see below.

    Added that cite there. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Canadian Arts story" Chris Hampton Canadian Art 2019 (3) used 18 times:
  • Jackson believed that the works left behind showed that the thieves had planned "a general clear-out of the museum." verified quotation.
  • However, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ), the provincial police force, soon excluded any possibility the two thefts were related. Source says this of the police, but not specifically the provincial police. ... Ah, found it much later in the source, Lacoursière notes the SQ handled the Oka case.
  • Once there, another call told him to pick up a discarded cigarette pack on the ground, which contained a stolen pendant. Should probably specify that this pendant was stolen in the MMFA theft.

     Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    • ?Slight problem: In context from the preceding sentence, the "him" makes it sound like Carter recovered the pendant, but this source indicates it was the unnamed museum security director (the same man who recovered the Brueghel) who did so.

Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• • (the initial police report had valued the stolen works at closer to $5 million with the Rembrandt accounting for $1.75 million) Okay, this source says the information is from a highly redacted incident report. An incident report records observable information at the scene as well as accounts from known witnesses (while the incident is fresh in their minds). To my understanding, it does not include a lot of analysis and so these evaluations could be rough estimations made on the morning of the robbery. Near the top of this same source, it says the Rembrandt was "then valued at $1 million", which is also in Sezgin2010 p 59. This page of Sezgin also says that the entire MMFA collection was insured for under 8 million, suggesting the 5 million figure was high. The incident report figures may be like "breaking news" which is published early when the facts of the event are not clear, and which quickly becomes outdated. I would suggest moving this to a footnote, and possibly grouping the evaluations together in one part of the article.

    For now I have moved these to an endnote.

  • As a result of these negotiations, approximately a month later the museum's insurance companies (primarily Lloyd's of London) and the SPVM set up a sting operation. An undercover detective posed as an insurance adjustor and agreed to meet the thieves or their representative in an empty field in Longueuil, Source doesn't mention the insurance companies or SPVM being involved. It says the "cop" went undercover as a middleman, which in this context I guess could be an adjuster.

    Reworded to just that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    • Confirmed change to "middleman" The SVPM seems to be the primary law enforcement agency involved, so that's okay. One other issue I'm noticing now is the involvement of the insurance companies in planning the operation.? This source (paragraph beginning "Shortly after") says that Carter arranged the exchange and doesn't mention the insurance companies until the following paragraph. I didn't spot anything in the other sources. (I checked sources and it seems the insurance companies were involved in the 1973 recovery attempt but did not play a major role in the earlier ones; this could be because the museum closed for renovation or because the settlement made the paintings the insurers' property.)

Took "insurance companies" out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• • Two statements were lost. He also faults the lack of followup. When he asked if it was possible to reinterview the security guards, he was told that two were dead and one was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The records themselves had been transferred to microfilm, and by the late 2010s, with no one at the SPVM actively investigating the case to his knowledge, he believed the film was in danger of deteriorating. The guards is interesting. This source says that he learned of their deaths/Alzheimer's diagnosis "three or four years ago" which would be c.2015. But Lacoursière had already retired by 2010. If this source is somehow quoting the Sezgin interviews, that moves it back a decade to c.2005, at which point he'd have been investigating the case for a decade. So why didn't he try to interview them earlier?

    Now this is a question I can't answer, and neither can Wikipedia. Only Lacoursiére can, if anyone ever asks him (I assume he's still alive). Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Lacoursière considers one lead valid. At a 1998 vernissage, a dealer he had gotten to know introduced him to a man who has been identified as "Smith". The man impressed Lacoursière as an art aficionado, familiar with every major painter and particularly knowledgeable about the history of art in Quebec. He collected classic cars, with a fondness for Bugattis, and memorabilia associated with them. The underlined part is not here but can be found in Sezgin2010 p 63.

    Added that source.

  • Lacoursière visited Smith at his home in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu 40 km (25 mi) south of Montreal. This source says his home was near Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Perhaps too much detail in any case.

    Since "Smith" is dead now, I see no problem with this detail. It is to me not outside probability that someone reading this article might land on a detail which jogs their memory about something and might lead to a break in the case. It's the only place online where the whole story is in one place. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    • Hmmm. I hadn't considered that perspective. Okay. Easily confirmed via Google Maps. Keep in mind that it's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

  • Smith died in the late 2010s, never having told Lacoursière anything he had suggested he knew. The detective believes that while Smith neither masterminded the robbery nor had the paintings in his possession, he was likely one of the robbers. Not sure what to make of the first underlined passage. For the second underlined passage, the source says Lacoursière said it is "possible", not likely. In other words, he had not eliminated Smith as a suspect.

The first passage calls back "According to Lacoursière, Smith told him that he would at some point in the future tell him something about the robbery", a little earlier. But yes, it suggests too much, so I will reword. I will also reword the second. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Canadian Encyclopedia" Noakes, 2022. (4) Used twice.
  • This and the earlier Noakes reference are both used to cite the lead sentence. I feel like you could trim one of those since they're from the same author, same year.

     Done I had the four refs in there because some people like to see as many refs as possible for an ALTNAME. But in this case, yes, you're right. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• "CTV 50th anniversary story" "Largest art heist in Canadian history still a mystery after 50 years" Paul Haber 2022 CTV News. (5) Used 5 times.
  • It is not only the largest art theft in Canada This only appears in the source's title, which may not be reliable and should not be used (see WP:HEADLINES). The first Noakes covers it and there are probably others, so fine to remove the citation.

     Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

    I have also found a BBC story that provides additional support for "largest theft in Canadian history" and "Skylight Caper". So I have added it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

    •  Verified new source named "BBC story". It has a one-sentence summary of the MMFA robbery, so a passing mention but demonstrates the points that stand out along other major art thefts of the period. Good for these two citations.

    I have further added the Hampton story to support "largest art theft in Canadian history" since it says that right out: "The Skylight Caper is regarded as the largest art theft in Canadian history." Since these are, as superlatives, extraordinary claims, I feel they are not only necessary to cite in the intro even if they are repeated with the same citations in the body, and having more than one good source helps too. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  • CTV News reporter Bob Benedetti, who was granted unrestricted access to the crime scene when he covered it, to the point of doing one of his standups while on the ladder, told W5 a half-century later that he believes the thieves were local to Montreal and benefited from the subdued coverage due to the other events dominating the news. Source says that he had access to the ladder, a single piece of evidence, not the entire crime scene. It doesn't indicate that he entered the museum, for example.

    Took that out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC) MOS:INTERWIKI says that Wiktionary links (for "standup") in the article body text are alright.

  • Key files, some concerning tips, were mishandled, according to Lacoursière. This source doesn't mention Lacoursiere, tips, or mishandling of the investigation. This was probably supposed to be a citation to the similarly named "CBC 50th anniversary story" which has Lacoursiere's criticisms with "files were mishandled". It doesn't specifically mention "tips" or similar.

    Changed the source and took "tips" out (though I swear I remember reading that somewhere in another source ... maybe not a reliable one.

    • Found in "Canadian Arts story" (Hampton) Lacoursière said ... "Tips were investigated but improperly filed; information had been trashed as a result."

  • Beneditti, the TV reporter who covered the story, agrees that the police were ill-equipped to investigate an art theft since they did not occur much. "There weren't professional art thieves roaming around", he recalls. "[P]eople didn't rob museums. They robbed banks. We were the bank robbery capital of Canada." Confirmed quotes. I feel what Beneditti was saying was that police didn't have a rogues' gallery of art thieves as potential suspects to look at. I'm a little concerned that "ill-equipped" sounds too much like "incompetent".

    Reworded. I sort of read that whole passage as the SVPM at the time not knowing much about art theft, but to be fair it seems they were in good company among large police/LE organizations. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  • In contrast, Beneditti, the CTV reporter who covered the robbery when it happened, thinks the paintings are still somewhere in Montreal, as the thieves would likely have been unable to sell them. Not in source.

    Took this out. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "CBC digital archives story" "1972: Art heist at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts" CBC, 1972. (6) The url seems to be dead. I tried searching and found https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/audio/1.3626050 with an 2m25 audio file of reportage from the day of the theft. The title does not have "1972:" Used once:
  • the largest theft in Canadian history. The audio notes $2 million of stolen art with the Rembrandt at $1 million. There's a basic description of what was known at the time and then discusses the likelihood of the stolen art being ransomed back. There is nothing about it being the largest art theft or the largest theft in Canadian history.

    Removed since we have better sources on that and this one is used only this once. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• unnamed reference "Today in Canadian Art History: The Largest Art Theft in Canadian History Occurred at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts" Canada Arts Connect (archived) (7). Used once:
  • the largest theft in Canadian history. Okay, so, problem. The source has The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts / Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal was the location of the “largest art theft in Canadian history” when armed thieves stole $2 million... The source itself puts quotes around "largest art theft in Canadian history", which could indicate some skepticism. If taken as a literal quote, it doesn't indicate whose quote it is. Also, one of the sources of the piece is Wikipedia itself. So we absolutely cannot use this as a source.N

    Since it only supports this it's gone. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Museum history page" History of MMFA 1860–2016 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. (10) Primary source. Used once:
  • As a result, the museum cut back financially in the early 1970s, going from a strictly private institution to a semi-public nonprofit organization. It doesn't mention the organization's financial setbacks, as one might expect.

    Took that out. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Summit Series game 1" Montreal Gazette Summit Series Game 1: Canada reels at shocking loss (15), Dead url, found archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20120915082003/https://montrealgazette.com/sports/summit%2Bseries%2Bgame%2Bcanada%2Breels%2Bshocking%2Bloss/7176790/story.html Used once:
  • Canadians consider hockey their national sport, whereas the Soviets had only begun competing in international ice hockey a quarter-century earlier. They had expected their team of National Hockey League stars to overwhelmingly defeat the Soviets. Source says that Montrealers consider hockey part of their national identity, which is perhaps more relevant to the article. I'd leave out the second clause of the underlined passage.
    • If you want a high quality source on hockey and Canadian identity, I used this for another article: Robidoux, Michael A. (Spring 2002). "Imagining a Canadian Identity through Sport: A Historical Interpretation of Lacrosse and Hockey". Journal of American Folklore. 115 (456, Folklore in Canada). American Folklore Society: 209–225. JSTOR 4129220. which has on p.220 "The distinction hockey receives as being a rough sport also served as a means for Canadians to display their proficiency in the clearly demarcated context of a sporting event, making hockey a valuable vehicle for expressing national identity." and "The 1972 Summit series ... is considered by many to be the greatest Canadian story ever told. Advertised as an expression of goodwill between nations, the event turned sour when the favoured Canadians were defeated in the initial games and obviously outclassed in terms of skill and sportsmanship. Canadian players were ... humiliated both on the ice by the Soviets, and off the ice by an unforgiving Canadian public"

    OK ... thanks for the source! I added it, along with two of the sources I found at the relevant deeplink I found (the other two need some work, as they do not give page numbers and nothing at the link supports the claim ... maybe they should just be taken out?) I also minimized the reference to the Soviets' minimal hockey history at that time and used one of the new sources to support the length and importance of hockey to Montreal in particular. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

    •  Verified two new sources. Unnamed ref "Ethnicity, Sport, Identity: Struggles for Status" I modified the citation template to include the page number and the author of that chapter of the book, Gilliam Poulter. For a quote, "ice hockey was a perfect expression of Canadian identity." Poulter also wrote the second added source, "Gillian Poulter book", added page 18. Quote: "Ice hockey took over from lacrosse and snowshoeing as the modern home-grown sport, becoming emblematic of Canada in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. It was a perfect expression of "native Canadian" identity."

• Citation to Measuring Worth generated by {{inflation-fn}} (inflation footnote), to go along with figures generated by the inflation template. (18) Used once.
  • Collectively they estimated the value of the stolen work at US$2 million, ($11.3 million in 2024) I feel that the biggest issue here is to be clear that 11.3 million is the 2024 equivalent of $2 million in 1972, and not a 2024 estimation of the value of the stolen artwork. I suggest adding to the parenthetic "a figure equivalent to". Also, as noted for citation 16, I'm not at all convinced that the initial figure is US$. (If changed to Canadian dollars, the index parameter of the inflation template should probably be changed US-GDP → CA.)

    I added your wording. As for the currency, as I noted above the New York Times source I found and added gives the $2 million figure. I tend to think that, then as now, any value reported by the Times is in US$ unless it states otherwise (and at the time, that would have been an easy conversion to make). Especially in the international art market, where the US dollar had (as in so many other fields) become the default currency. It probably doesn't make much difference—the St. Louis Fed's historic exchange rate tracker shows that the US and Canadian dollars were at near par at the time, so a CDN$2M estimate would have worked out to US$1.98M ... I don't think the Times would have insisted on an exact conversion. Maybe we should add some endnote about this? Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

    • Checked change. I didn't realize the exchange rate was so close at the time. Yes, I'd prefer an endnote and to report in Canadian dollars throughout the article on a Canadian topic. (If all figures are Canadian, only have to say Canadian dollars the first time and then $ afterwards.)

• "Observer story" "Why Isn't Anyone Searching for Montreal's Stolen Masterpieces?" New York Observer. Anthony Amore 2017 [22]. Used four times.
  • In 2017, art-crimes investigator Anthony Amore said there was a 90% chance the crime was an inside job. Source says that "upwards of 90 percent of museum thefts involve some sort of inside information." which is a general statement. Specifically for the MMFA heist, he says it "screams 'inside job'." but then notes the lack of preparation regarding their escape.

    Reworded Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  • In the 21st century the director of the SQ's art-crime unit was transferred to terrorism investigations, mirroring a common trend, Amore also notes. Source says the unit's leader was transferred to the "radicalization unit", and that it was in Great Britain where art crimes were redeployed to counter-terrorism. It also says that the SQ art-crimes unit no longer exists. Suggest: According to Amore, the SQ's art crime unit was disbanded in the 21st century, its personnel redeployed.

     Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• unnamed reference "Brink's heist saga: How do you fence stolen gems worth millions?" Miller LA Times 2022 (25) Used once in footnote [d]:
  • Stones can be rendered untraceable and metal melted down very quickly. Suggest: If jewelry is too identifiable, it can be rendered into component gemstones and precious metals which are less traceable.

     Done Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• "Le crime parfait" Radio Canada 1992 [28] used once.
  • In 1992, on the 20th anniversary of the theft, a Radio-Canada story reported that the insurance companies now valued the paintings at $20 million. The source says they were then valued at $12 million.

    Corrected. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Layout

There are a few aspects of the topic which are spread out in different places (arranged chronologically) and could be grouped together (arranged by subject/sub-topic) to make for an easier read.

• News stories are mentioned in a few different places. What would you think of having a section like Media coverage or Media response (right after Works stolen), and move the reports from the Labour Day weekend there along with the initial paragraphs of Investigation? Bantey's circular could also go there, along with opinions of how media coverage (or lack thereof) helped or hampered the investigation. Then follow with the investigation.

  I don't know ... Nothing in what I've read suggests the media coverage or lack thereof itself played a significant role in the early investigation; it was more a function of all the contemporaneous news events, something no one had any control over. The article doesn't really mention any specific news outlet or story; I largely used them as sources for reported facts and nothing else. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  • [the theft] as well as lists of the stolen paintings, were reported as front-page news in many major newspapers across the U.S. and Canada the next morning
  • further publicity that might have drawn attention to the theft and perhaps helped solve it was stymied by news events of September 5.
  • As a result further news about the art theft got less priority in the media. The investigation continued despite the lack of media attention.
  • reporter Bob Benedetti ... [believes the thieves] ... benefited from the subdued coverage due to the other events dominating the news
  • Due to the minimal news coverage, in January 1973 Bill Bantey put together a circular [...] a practice not common in art thefts at the time as most museums did not publicize thefts.
  • a Montreal Gazette columnist reported that most of the paintings had been delivered to the homes of wealthy collectors in Mount Royal [...] This led police to interrogate two unnamed individuals
  • "For years we thought our chances of recovery were better keeping everything quiet," said one police officer, explaining the decision. "But now our hopes are small. Maybe this will stimulate interest and produce something."
  • Also, from "CTV 50th anniversary story": “There was a certain trust and camaraderie that we were doing the same kind of job. We were trying to find out who did what and they were trying to find out who did what,” he said. This is opinion by someone involved at the time, which could be used to tie together some of the above bullet points scattered through the article. Then leave it for the reader to ask themselves: could investigative journalists have advanced the case if they were better informed and if there weren't these other stories to follow? Anyways, this is what I was trying to suggest; it might not be the best approach.

@Reidgreg: OK, I have done this now too. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Information about the sizes of the paintings and their evaluated cost could probably all be grouped under Works stolen. A lot of the information from Selection of works could go there as well, and maybe the questions about their provenance (whether they were by the masters as claimed or by students or other artists).

  Mmm, I could see that, but I feel that the selection of works stolen is integral to understanding the crime and what the robbers' goals/intent might have been, and it helps readers' understanding to have it there. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  • The whole article is about the crime; my question is whether this is logically part of the investigation or if it better belongs elsewhere in the article (e.g: Works stolen, Background)? There are only two parts which reference the investigation: The robbers, and any dealer working with them, might, investigators have speculated, have been looking to sell to private collectors who display their paintings in their homes. and Around Christmas 1972, a Montreal Gazette columnist reported that, in fact, most of the paintings had been delivered to the homes of wealthy collectors in Mount Royal, with a small portion diverted to the U.S. This led police to interrogate two unnamed individuals, but no new leads developed as a result. The rest is talking about stuff that happened before the investigation and does not reference the investigation. I feel that it would be easier and more natural to put those two parts along with most of the rest into Works stolen; other parts could also go into Background, like the trend of rising art prices and art theft, which was going on well before the robbery.

 Done OK, as I did it I came to understand why it was a good idea. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Prose

On hold pending referencing & layout improvements.

Breadth & focus

Found a few high-quality sources through the Wikipedia Library:

• Sloan, Johanne. "Montréal plus ou moins, 1972: Urban Knowledge Meets Conceptual Attitude". Journal of Curatorial Studies. 7 (1). Intellect Ltd.: 32–57. doi:10.1386/jcs.7.1.32_1. ISSN 2045-5836. EBSCOhost 130119138. Less than three months before the robbery, in June 1972, the MMFA hosted a politicized exhibition by activist groups and social collectives, protest-art for various causes of the day. It was unusual for its time and may have led to some of the police suspects, and certainly a broad group was given access to the museum and may have learned information used in the robbery. Perhaps worth a footnote.

  Added this. Is this speculation about the connection to the robbery in the source? I couldn't read it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  • I think you have to be logged in through the Wikipedia Library before using the link. The speculation is mine; it mentioned some collaboration with UQAM professors and students, but not the École des beaux-arts. The timing is very close and police Red Squads were always suspicious of activists.

• Poisson-de Haro, Serge; Normandin, François; Coblence, Emmanuel (Fall 2013). "Company Profile: The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts: Balancing International Reach and Strong Local Roots". International Journal of Arts Management. 16 (1). Montréal: Higher Education Commission: 62–75. ISSN 1480-8986. JSTOR 24587101. EBSCOhost 90027606. This may be a little better for the museum history. Pages 63–64: Founded by "a handful of wealthy, essentially English-speaking Montrealers [who] were looking for a way to stimulate the development and appreciation of art in the heart of the largest British city in North America". "The museum was not given an official French name until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, a period of national affirmation for the French-speaking majority in Quebec." And "financial support [was] received from the governments of Canada, Quebec, and the City of Montreal, beginning in the 1950s and increasing substantially in the 1970s."

  This one is good, too ... these facts are right on point. Added. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Another, Finkel, Kenneth (29 January 1989). "The Art Thieves Also Steal From You And Me". Philadelphia Inquirer. p. F7. ProQuest 1834332546. Newspaper piece, but Finkel is an art historian, professor emeritus (public history) at Temple University, and used as a source in at least three other articles. The piece notes The 1972 heist of 18 paintings (including a Rembrandt) from the Montreal Museum of Fine Art is considered the beginning of a trend that experts now liken to a rash of air hijackings. and lists a string of major art thefts that increased in frequency, reaching a peak in 1984, and notes the correlation with rapidly rising auction prices of works by the early modern masters.

• Noticed that "CBC 50th anniversary story" says that the guards were "Blindfolded, gagged and bound". None of the other sources mention they were blindfolded, which seems a bit odd.
• Sezgin, page 60, has "more than 20 insurance companies, led by Marine Office of America, paid $1,945,300 to settle the museum’s claim arising from the theft." Does this contradict the earlier statement that Lloyd's of London was the primary insurer?

Neutrality

No NPOV issues detected.

Stability

Quite stable. Only reverting was of some vandalism 2.5 years ago.

Media

• Four images, each is either PD or has a CCSA license.
  • File:Vanitas still life with books, a globe, a skull, a violin and a pocket watch.jpg Not sure this is the best choice for the infobox. Is this a black and white photograph of a colour oil painting? Was it perhaps taken from one of the museum's exhibition catalogues?
    • I would simplify the caption as: Still Life: Vanitas, one of the stolen works

This was one of the only ones I could find on Commons, or indeed online at all, when I created the article. Someone years ago said this is actually not the painting in question but a copy, hence the caption. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: See here for why this image is here ... apparently the actual Van Heemz is in a Dutch museum. Daniel Case (talk)

• • File:New Art Gallery Building, Montreal 06.jpg
    • The caption The Hornstein Pavilion, the original museum building, in 2013 is a little tricky. This was the first building called the "Montreal Museum of Fine Arts", and had that name from 1948 until the 1973–76 renovation and expansion, when it and an adjacent building were designated as two pavilions. Prior to 1948, the organization was known as the Art Association of Montreal, and it had an earlier museum building at Phillips Square, operating c.1877–1912. That, I believe, would have been the original museum building. Suggest something like: The 1972 MMFA robbery took place at this exhibition building, pictured in 2013, and now known as the Hornstein Pavilion.

       Done Sentence restructured a bit for flow, though. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  • File:Rembrandt- landscape with cottages - stolen.jpg but see below
    • I like the caption on this one; it's well structured with the more important information coming first. Rembrandt's Landscape with Cottages, the most valuable of the stolen works, seen here in a black-and-white image from the artist's 1968 catalogue raisonné. My only note is whether it should be "held to be the most valuable" since the article later casts doubt on whether it is a true Rembrandt.

      Noted in cutline. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  • File:Montreal Central Station.JPG
    • Caption Montreal Central Station, where one of the stolen paintings was found, in 2008 might make it sound like the panting was found in 2008. Suggest something like "One of the stolen paintings was found in Montreal Central Station, pictured in 2008."

       Done With rephrasing for flow, again. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedians seem to like more art images where available. Here are some that might be added:

• The Canadian Encyclopedia article has a couple pictures credited to Wikimedia Commons. A search turned up the following:
  • File:Delacroix - Lioness and Lion in a Cave, 1856.jpg
  • File:Corot - The Dreamer at the Fountain, 1855–63.jpg
  • File:Vanitas Still life with Books, a Globe, a Skull, a Violin and a Fan by Unknown Painter (formerly attributed to Jan Davidsz. de Heem) - c. 1650.jpg (colour)
• The second of the above files lists the Canadian Art article as the source (which in turn credits the MMFA). Presumably these pictures of paintings in the Canadian Art article are okay to upload to Commons (The paintings themselves are so old to be public domain, and straight photographs of a 2D work do not have enough originality to give the photographer any creative rights WP:NONCREATIVE). Further, it benefits the insurers (who own the paintings) to publicize them which could aid in their recovery. I believe you would use {{PD-Art-100-1923}} as the license on Commons. The images include a colour version of the Rembrandt landscape; also, the Brueghel landscape and Rubens Head of a Young Man.

I've uploaded an image of Landscape with Cattle and Wagons which I thought was encyclopedically relevant as this was the only one of the stolen paintings which was recovered (I hope I have that right!). I suggest placing it alongside the relevant prose in the Ransom and recovery section.

• File:Landscape with Cattle and Wagons.png The only place I could readily find a colour version of this online was in a Historica Canada video on YouTube. I took a screenshot, cropped and uploaded it. The video credits MMFA as its source for the image, but I didn't find anything on their website.

  I will see what I can do with all of these ... yes, having some more images in the article would help, I agree. I didn't realize until this review that someone else had started a Commons category Ideally one day images of all the stolen artworks can be there (Although given that they couldn't have been digitized, ever, since they were stolen before that became possible, we will probably have to settle for low quality small images). I'll put them in the stolen works section, maybe as a small gallery. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Update: I have added a small gallery of the other four images not used elsewhere in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  Even better. This source, which I decided not to use since it seems not to meet RS standards, nevertheless has the most complete collection of images of the stolen works. I will be adding what I can from there to Commmons and thence the article. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Other areas to improve

• I'd like to see the origin of the name "Skylight Caper" somewhere in the body if it can be sourced, but that'd be more for FAC.

I'd love to know too ... I mean, it's obvious why, but who and when, that's something that could be researched. Probably a deep dive into newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com focusing on Canadian and Montreal papers might find the earliest usage. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

General discussion

Whew! I hope my comments are understandable. I think I've given you enough to work on for a while. Please leave any specific questions or comments under the relevant bullet point(s) above. I am open to discussion if you disagree with me. General comments and discussion can go in this section.

When you've finished addressing the issues I've raised, please {{ping|Reidgreg}} here and I'll read your comments, review your changes to the article, and hopefully review the prose with more comments to come on that. You can also ping me if you need my immediate attention with something.

So, I'll let you get to it. BTW, great to see you've stuck with this article since creating it! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I am about to begin working on your punch list ...

Thank you once again for reviewing this ... it was about a year ago that I began working on this following peer review in preparation for this nomination, and I was beginning to wonder if it would take over a year for it to be reviewed. Glad it didn't!

As luck would have it, I just got notified today that my other pending GAN is now being reviewed as well. I had been considering starting an FAC on an article I think is ready ... I held off when I saw that you were going to be reviewing this, and now I'm glad I did. It would be insane IMO to be working on one GAN at the same time as an FAC, let alone two. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: OK, it has taken nearly two months, but I'm done with everything you listed above, and the article now has a gallery with images of all (or almost all) the stolen paintings. Whenever you're ready ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: FYI, I anticipate having the time to get back to this review at the beginning of May, a little swamped right now. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! This way I can work on some other things for a while ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• @Reidgreg: Reminder ping. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Update: I'm about halfway through your changes, FYI. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: How's it going? Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Just about finished the second pass on referencing. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Alright, finished checking your changes. (I made one edit to the article with some cleanup of citations and endnotes.) Thanks very much for making edits to the review page as you were editing the article, it made it a painless experience to check through the diffs of the two pages in order. Also, please keep indenting your additions here with colons :::: I'll change it as I go (to avoid list breaks) and it makes it easy for me to see where I stopped when I have to take a break. There are a few places marked with N or ? that need some attention. Hopefully not too much and then we can jump into the prose. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case and Reidgreg: Where does this review stand? Is this ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am going to concentrate the descriptions of the stolen images and the effect of the news coverage into single sections per his suggestions above later this week. After that it's back to him. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I see you're back to editing again regularly with the referencing drive. You haven't made any comments here in two months. Any chance you could come back and continue what has been a very productive review? Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Been a while, I forgot about this. The next-to-last thing you said here was that you anticipated finishing your changes in one week... I probably assumed you were still working on those changes since you hadn't posted anything further.

I would like to continue with this. I'll try to find some time. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about that ... I finished the changes and then it was time to go to France. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)