Talk:2025 Louvre robbery: Difference between revisions

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

This page has been nominated to be posted on the page page in the section In the News. Interested editors are invited to discuss the nomination here while continuing to improve the article. –Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Louvre robbery –> 2025 Louvre heist JaxsonR (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still early for coverage. Some sources are using both terms “heist” and “robbery”. Since there was a threat of harm (to the guards), the term “robbery” may be more technically correct here. That said, I can see the argument for “heist” as news sources seem to favor it presently, but that could change over time as the story is still developing. ASUKITE 02:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Louvre robbery → 2025 Louvre heist2025 Louvre heist – see the news sources. ArionStar (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It sounds better mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose “Robbery” is a more professional word than “Heist” when it comes to encyclopedic material In-a-mellow-tone (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support “Heist” is a more specific and more applicable term for this theft. According to the Cambridge dictionary definition, a heist is a “crime in which valuable things are taken illegally and often violently from a place or person”^[1] and robbery is defined as “the crime of stealing from somewhere or someone”.^[2] Since according to BBC News, the thieves “threatened the guards, who evacuated the premises, and cut through the glass of two display cases containing jewels”,^[3] it is fair to say that the Cambridge dictionary definition for ‘heist’ applies perfectly here. Since many news outlets have used the term ‘heist’ and the high value of the pieces stolen, I see no issue with renaming this a ‘heist.’ Kala7992 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But “robbery” from the same source works even more easily. —ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but ‘heist’ is still not an incorrect term to use and does apply to the situation. However, I agree with people’s suggestion to name it ‘jewelry heist’ Kala7992 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – “heist” is less encylopedic when unqualified. I’d be open to 2025 Louvre jewelery heist as this appears to be the commonname and is more precise.–estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that title you suggested is much better Kala7992 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – we’re not a newspaper trying to be clever or attract clicks. “robbery” is much more neutral, understandable to non-native speakers, and encyclopedic. —ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as being less encyclopedic than the current title. Would be open to estar8806’s suggestion of jewelry heist, which is emerging as the common name (NY Times, WIRED, CNN, Entrepreneur) and is more specific than just heist. mdm.bla 20:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree ‘jewelry heist’ should be the title Kala7992 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support change 2025 Louvre jewelry heist because it is more specific.

PlateOfToast (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a disagreement between sources on the amount of stolen pieces in WP:RS that reflected on editing so I’d like to get a few more opinions about this. I suspect that the disagreement stems from the different interpretations of what to count as stolen and what to call an item, not the actual amount of jewelry stolen (this is my theory trying to unite the sources, so take that with a grain of salt). As far as I know there are two points of contention. First there is the crown that was just found outside of the Museum, is it considered stolen and already recovered or lost during theft and not really “stolen” and secondly, it is unclear whether a pair of earrings are one or two pieces. So if I count the list that we got from the ministry together with the crown stolen and recovered, and the pair of earrings as two different pieces, I get 9 total stolen pieces. What are your thoughts, am I totally off and we just need to wait a bit longer or will this never be quite clear and we need to determine a consensus here? And if the latter, what number should we use? Squawk7700 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]