Talk:Elgin Marbles/Archive 4

Violence
The lead has recently been altered to characterise the removal of the statues as "violent". Rather than meaning that people were injured during the removal this has been added because Elgin used a saw, meaning that cutting down a tree would be perceived as "violent" by this standard. Two sources have been provided, but one is obviously unreliable and neither uses the term "violent" at all. This really does look like an attempt at POV-pushing.  Hut 8.5  16:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm removing that language from the lead. It very clearly doesn't belong there since 1) it is polemical and POV.  2) It is not properly sourced.  One source seems to be an essay from pre-fab term-paper  site, a source no more authoritative than it is literate (example-  "In a society like Brittains where the people utltimatly rule, the government will have to follow suit sooner or later."   The other source is from a respectable publication which does basically argue for the restoration of the sculptures but doesn't use any polemical language; 3) the statement that "the Greek position is that the violent cutting and removal of the marbles from the monument, with the use of saw tools,[12][13] is an illegal and blatant act of vandalism against a monument of significant historical value, and regards the marbles to be stolen intellectual property" is unsourced and also unintelligible.  What does the "the Greek position" mean?  The official policy of the Greek government?  Statements by the Greek Ministry of Culture? Opinion polls?  If this is "the position" of any of those, then whose position it is should be specified and it should be properly sourced (for instance, by a reference to official publications of the Greek government,) and language like "blatantly illegal" and "violent" should be used only if it is in the source.  Incidentally, I'm in the "send 'em back" camp, but those who also are on my side should be aware that putting what should be an objective argument into strident polemical language makes our case weaker, not stronger. Littlewindow (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "Violent" is not a POV but a fact, acknowledged by both the Greek Government and the British Museum. I am presenting, here, for you, the link to the official documents of the Greek Government regarding the violent nature of the removal of the Elgin Marbles from the building: The document is titled "Memorandum" and was conducted by the Greek Ministry of Culture, which then was sent to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the British Parliament. The word violent is not a POV as you claim, but proven: the statues were part of the structural integrity of the building (meaning that you could only remove them using saws or other stone-cutting tools). In the Chapter 3.1 of the Memorandum, says: "The stripping and cutting of the Parthenon of its marbles, destroyed irreparably the structural integrity of the monument." which highlights the undisputed fact regarding the Parthenon: these masterpieces of art and culture, were removed by force from their places on the monument, using violent means. And the British Museum has recorded the removal of the statues with the use of tools. So, the British Museum acknowledges the violent removal of the statues (although it justifies it as being an act of protection of the statues). So you can't dispute a fact that is accepted/admitted by both sides (Greek Government and British Museum), Now that I explained why "Violent" is not POV but a FACT.
 * About the Memorandum, it was conducted by the Greek Ministry of Culture and was mailed to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the British Parliament, and I added it to the article, for the best information of the readers possible, regarding the disputed status of the Parthenon Marbles between the Greek Authorities and the British Authorities. It took me only 1 minute to find the official Memorandum of the Greek Government, which is hosted on the official site of the Greek Ministry of Culture. I shall note that the Cultural branch of the United Nations, UNESCO, agreed based on the Greek Memorandum to mediate between the 2 opposing sides. You can find the Official Memorandum of the Greek Ministry of Culture here (you may have to translate if it you do not know Greek language): http://www.yppo.gr/4/marm/memorandum-gr.pdf --SilentResident (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I shall add that the words "monument" and "violent" are the two keywords at which Greece emphasizes its campaign for the repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles back to their home country. As you may know already, the violent cutting of the marbles from the building, goes against UNESCO's resolutions for the protection of the world's monuments of significant historical value (such as the Parthenon, the Big Ben, and the Colosseum of Rome). All these 3 buildings are examples of protected monuments, meaning that cutting part of a building's decors, is a act of vandalism against that monument. This act is violent especially if it requires the use of tools to remove the decor from the monument. Both the Greek Government and the British Museum recognize that Elgin removed the Parthenon marbles from the building with the use of tools such as saws, picks and hammers. If that's not a forced, a violent could be best to say, action against the monument's integrity, then, what is it?
 * Unlike most other arts hosted in the British Museum, the Marbles are a special case, as they are not just pieces of art, but part of a monument. The fact that the marbles are not an art themselves, but "part of monument", is what influenced greatly UNESCO in its decision to assist the Greek Government in its request for UNESCO's mediation with the British Government for the return of the Marbles. The Parthenon is declared by UNESCO as being a world monument of great importance, as it symbolizes the cradle of the Western Civilization. As reflected in UNESCO's resolutions, the Monuments and the Arts are two completely different cases, and cannot be treated as being the same thing from a legal point of view. It is different to go to the United Kingdom, remove the stones of the Stonehenge (monument) and display them in Athens Museum, than to take a clay pot or a sarcophagus from Egypt or Syria and display it on the British Museum. It is two completely different cases, as the one is Monument, when the other are items of art. --SilentResident (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * To call something "violent" and then support that characterization by reference to a source which doesn't use the word "violent" is a textbook example of OR in support of POV. I think the reversion of my deletion is unjustified since here in talk we have two opinions that the language should go and one that it shouldn't, so the deletion should not have been reverted without further discussion.  But I'll leave that to others: I don't have time for further arguing. (And incidentally the reference to that ludicrous term paper mill is still there.) Littlewindow (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The source I presented above, describes the violence carried out by Lord Elgin against the monument itself. But if the word violence is a POV or needs a very specific source, then, I am afraid, I do not have scientific sources for that right now at my hands. I will need conduct a further research. However, I have sources from English newspapers such as the Telegraph, foundations, and historical documentaries (video) from the New Acropolis Museum, if you are interested:
 * - "The British diplomat “proceeded to violently remove and carry off much of the sculpture,” the documentary explains."
 * - "Lord Elgin managed to violently remove some of the sculptures with the use of saws, hammers and crowbars."
 * - "...were violently torn from the temple’s frieze by workers of Lord Elgin in 1802 when Greece was under Turkish occupation.".
 * are just some examples, I can get more, but this doesn't change the fact that Lord Elgin had to remove the statues with force (if not violent) from their building. Whatever you may call it, it is not just a "normal removal of statues from the building" because the marbles are not removable from their building under normal means - and therefore, tools are required for the removal, which accounts to a violent removal, if nothing more than that. Just it is weird that you are considering the word Violent to be a POV here, when it is clearly not a POV but a historical fact, the word just describes the then actions of the British Diplomat, at 1802. --SilentResident (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Greece condemned"
I've reverted the edit which delete the section beginning "Greece condemned Elgin's actions to remove the Marbles," by an editor who explained, "Citation of contemporary document needed stating Greek position at the time. Why was there no similar statement made when the other three sides of the freezes were removed by the inhabitants to be destroyed and made into lime ?"

Um, the reason there was no statement of position from Greece at that time is because there was no Greece at that time. I've added a bit to the original language to make clear what shouldn't really need explanation, that "Greece" only started issuing statements on the issue after "Greece" came into existence. I'm usually very reluctant to revert edits without discussion, but this one seemed clearly to be an appropriate reversion. As far as the maltreatment of the monument by others previous to Elgin, that may be relevant if it can be verified by reference to valid sources. Littlewindow (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that the section discussed (being the last paragraph of the article lead) is overlong and possibly contravenes NPOV guidance. The points the Greek government make are all raised in the article proper - I think this entire paragraph should be replaced with a couple of sentences saying that Greece have requested the return of the marbles since (??) and that they cite both cultural and for artefact protection reasons for their return. The lead isn't the place for this level of advocacy. Mdb23b (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would agree with the above. I propose eliminating from the lead the whole paragraph: "After the establishment of the Greek state, Greece condemned Elgin's  ... the United Kingdom in resolving the dispute of the Elgin Marbles.[20][21]" and instead putting this information, minus the polemical language, later in the article if it isn't there already.  Maybe I should repeat that I'm on the side of returning the sculptures, which is exactly why I think discussion of the issue should be calm, rational, and balanced. Littlewindow (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Littlewindow, the Greek position wasn't published during Ottoman times, as there was no Greek government during these times. The Greek stance, therefore, is declared by the Greek Government, which means it came, not during Elgin's time, but much later, after Greece's independence from the Ottoman Empire. I updated now the leading paragraph with info on Greece's Independence, to clear the possible confusion.
 * As for the word "Condemn Elgin's action", I suggest changing it into something like Complete Disapproval, which the Greek government expressed for the fake/invalid documents Elgin based his permissions on the removal of the marbles. You can find some info here: |Greek Ministry of Culture: The background of the removal of the Marbles.--SilentResident (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed approximately a sentence in the lead that appears to violate NPOV and now the discussed paragraph simply addresses the facts rather than wading into contentious detail. I think that this is a fair compromise and does not show bias toward either party. Wikipedia is not a tool for political advocacy. Mdb23b (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems good now! However, you removed sources which could have stayed and be moved on other paragraphs (down, in the article proper) instead. Couldn't it be better to keep and move the sources rather than completely remove them from the article. Removing source of or silencing the European Parliament's resolution calling for the return of the marbles, seems politically biased, so better you don't remove these sources. --SilentResident (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)?


 * Yep, I agree that's a sensible solution - looks like you've done it too. I'd just query the position for the citations "European Parliament Resolution" and "Debate of the Elgin Marbles" - unless I'm mistaken neither citation implies that the marbles were removed illegally, so would fit better under the first 'rationale' about simply reuniting the marbles. The debate one could perhaps even be removed entirely as it has two writers arguing the case and is certainly interesting, but I don't think raises any new arguments. Mdb23b (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The name again
I know there has been a lot of discussion about accepting the name Elgin Marbles as the title of the article, and a move to change it a few years ago failed. I originally thought (though personally I intensely dislike the name) that "Elgin marbles" should be used since that is what they are commonly called. But I've changed my mind a little since reading the British Museum web site. There, the term "Elgin marbles" is relegated to a minor page called What are the 'Elgin Marbles'? which says, "The 'Elgin Marbles' is a popular term that in its widest use may refer to the collection of stone objects - sculptures, inscriptions and architectural features - acquired by Lord Elgin ..." and then gives links to two other pages on its site, which it calls "More information about the Parthenon Sculptures" and "Watch a video about the Parthenon Sculptures," and on those pages and everywhere else on the British Museum site that I've seen, the term Parthenon Sculptures is used. In other words, it's pretty clear from the web site that the British Museum considers the appropriate name "Parthenon Sculptures," relegating the term "Elgin Marbles" to what is basically a footnote mentioning that that is a commonly used term for them. Also, the web site gives as the British Museum's basic current catalog publication for these objects the book "The Parthenon Sculptures in the British Museum" by Ian Jenkins (though admittedly there is an earlier book published by the Museum called The Elgin Marbles -- maybe the museum changed its policy on what to call them at some point?) Littlewindow (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This was argued at length on the talk page, but no consensus could be reached - the arguments either way are above in the green box. There hasn't actually been any changes other than the interest caused by a lawyer married to a famous guy got involved. Briefly: the 'Parthenon marbles' include the 'Elgin marbles' but also includes any other marbles that were removed by others or are still there. This article is clearly only about the marbles removed directly by Elgin and so, for better or worse, they are generally referred to as the Elgin marbles. If there is a significant change in this in the English speaking world (because English language version of the article) it would be plausible to change it. For now, no change is reasonable. Mdb23b (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What the official British Museum site says is, "The 'Elgin Marbles' is a popular term that in its widest use may refer to the collection of stone objects - sculptures, inscriptions and architectural features - acquired by Lord Elgin during his time as ambassador to the Ottoman court of the Sultan in Istanbul. More specifically, and more usually, it is used to refer to those sculptures, inscriptions and architectural features that he acquired in Athens between 1801 and 1805. ... Material from the Parthenon was dispersed both before and after Elgin's time. The remainder of the surviving sculptures that are not in Athens are in museums in various locations across Europe. The British Museum also has other fragments from the Parthenon acquired from collections that have no connection with Lord Elgin."  So that confirms that "Elgin Marbles" is a subset of "Parthenon Marbles."  But currently a WP search on Parthenon Marbles gets redirected to Elgin Marbles, which seems inaccurate.  Maybe the current Elgin Marbles should be replaced by a Parthenon Marbles page which incorporates the present Elgin Marbles page materials.  It could still present all the Elgin Marbles page information, but in the wider context of all the Parthenon Sculptures in the Britism Museum and elsewhere.  In any case, it seems to me that just redirecting Parthenon Sculptures to Elgin Marbles is misleading if not  covertly POV. Littlewindow (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Addendum after further thought: The more I think of it, the more it makes sense to replace this Elgin Marbles article with an article on The Parthenon Sculptures.  The official British Museum site says in so many words that "Elgin Marbles" is a subset of "Parthenon Sculptures," and at least two Wikipedia editors (myself and one other, above) have also said that in so many words.  So if the "Elgin Marbles" are a subset of the "Parthenon Sculptures," it makes sense to have WP material on the Elgin Marbles as a subsection of a Wikipedia article on "Parthenon Sculptures," with a redirect from Elgin Marbles to Parthenon Sculptures. If someone objects that "Parthenon Sculptures" means a lot more than "Elgin Marbles," my response would be that that is the point:  since the Elgin Marbles are an integral part of the wider range of Parthenon Sculptures, WP material on the Elgin Marbles should be an integral part of a WP article on the Parthenon Sculptures. Littlewindow (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And please note that my proposal is not the same as the proposal referred to above which failed to pass. That proposal was to rename this article "Parthenon Sculptures."  My proposal is to create a new article "Parthenon Sculptures" which would include the current Elgin Marbles article as part of it.  Littlewindow (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is a wall of text. I don't care what the British Museum calls the marbles, that isn't relevant - the British Museum does not define vernacular for the English-speaking world.

Sure, the Elgin Marbles are a subset of the Parthenon Marbles. If you want to write a separate article about the Parthenon Marbles, fine. As long as it maintains a NPOV and has sufficient detail and interest to be a valid wikipedia page. I suspect it won't be an easy article to write as a lot of the rest was far more heavily damaged, but that is just a personal opinion. But. There is no reason to have the Elgin Marbles removed as a stand-alone article. They have been separated for so long and are known in the worldwide public consciousness as a separate entity (not picking a side here, just stating a perceived fact). The Elgin Marbles clearly have valid interest in their own right that justifies their own page. Your proposal is simply a method of changing the name by stealth - it would include this entire article plus a few sentences mentioning that the other marbles are in other museums around the world and any that were left on the acropolis were destroyed by weather or stolen for building materials. This isn't a debate. Mdb23b (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Your proposal [for an article on The Parthenon Scuptures] is simply a method of changing the name by stealth - it would include this entire article plus a few sentences mentioning that the other marbles are in other museums around the world and any that were left on the acropolis were destroyed by weather or stolen for building materials." The implication that "The Parthenon Sculptures" simply means "The Elgin Marbles" plus a few assorted other fragments is certainly untrue. If you look at any full description of the Parthenon by scholars or art historians, you'll see that typically it has a section on "The Parthenon Sculptures" (and it's significant that this is assumed to be a single topic) which include (I'm not an expert on this but I think I can remember more or less what's involved): 1) the Eastern Pediment, largely lost but described by Pausanias, with fragments of the original or copies in various museums, 2)the Western pediment, now lost but recorded in 17th century drawings, 3) the 92 Metopes, 41 in situ but damaged, 15 in the British Museum, and fragments in other museums, 4) the outer Ionic Frieze, partly destroyed, partly recorded in drawings, 53 meters of it in Athens and 75 meters of it in the British Museum, and 5) other completely lost sculptures, like the statue of Athena.   So from this it's clear that the "Elgin Marbles" is an important part, but only and clearly a part, of "The Parthenon Sculptures." Littlewindow (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And to raise another point, given the above description of what the "Parthenon Sculptures" means to classical scholars, art historians, and archeologists, is it appropriate to have the WP heading for "Parthenon Sculptures" merely be a redirect to "Elgin Marbles?" Littlewindow (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being dismissive - but I won't change the point. The Elgin marbles are a subset of the Parthenon marbles. Nobody would deny that. But, due to their own, now unique, separate history and the fuss that surrounds them, the Elgin marbles are clearly worthy of a discrete article. I certainly agree that the Parthenon Marbles are also deserving of an article. Write it. Have a section that redirects to this article. In time, it might be that they're reunited both in reality and on Wikipedia - that would have a lovely symmetry. I think two articles is a fair compromise. Mdb23b (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As I look at it - I think more and more that two articles makes sense. Currently this is a hodgepodge of history, non-prose facts and propaganda. Two articles would allow a good representation of the Parthenon Marbles as a historical and artistic item and then also a separate page that notes the sides of the dispute as well as the (really pretty interesting) separate history of the marbles than Elgin removed. Mdb23b (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with this. The article in its present state is certainly a bad one.  It's an example of the worst sort of Wikipedia article, the kind that is not so much an article as an arena. Nine out of ten editors are clearly more interested in scoring rhetorical points and special pleading than in giving a balanced and calm account of the subject -- and as usual, those who do try to create a balanced and calm account are attacked by both sides as being unfair.  I think a Parthenon Sculptures article is justified also because if you read art historians on the Parthenon, the tend to include a unified section on the sculptures, indicating that they are considered overall an integral work of art.  And, as I've discussed above, the term "Parthenon sculptures" certainly does not equal "the Elgin Marbles plus a few other things."  I may eventually get around to starting such an article, but if someone else wants to start it now, go ahead. Littlewindow (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting unsourced statement
Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC) I've reverted the edit that added "The issue of Firmans of this nature, along with universally required bribes, was not unusual at this time: In 1801 for example, Edward Clarke and his assistant Cripps, obtained an authorisastion from the local Pasha for removal of a statue of Demeter which was at Eleusis." This statement should be confirmed by a citation to a book or other material saying that this is so. A link simply to the Wikipedia article on the person involved is not a proper source; we need a verifieable citation to a passage in Clarke's writings or in writings by historians about him where this is specifically said to be so. Littlewindow (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That passage was put back in without discussion here (which it would have been good practice to have first,) and I've taken it out again, since it is still clearly unsourced. The re-inserted passage had a reference to Patrick Leigh Fermor's book Mani without a page number (I assume the vague "-2" means second edition, not a page), supposedly verifying the statement about CLarke's removal of the Demeter statue.  If the person who reinserted this passage still wants to put it back, please verify it with a citation giving the exact page number where the verification can be found; "somewhere in this book" is not a properly verifiable citation. (If the "2" is supposed to be a page number, I can report that nothing about this is on page 2 of the copy of the book that I have.)  Littlewindow (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is because it is on page 180. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hitchens Book Disambiguation
A disambiguation page will at some point need to be created for "Parthenon Marbles," as there is a Christopher Hitchens book called The Parthenon Marbles. Currently the search "Parthenon Marbles" automatically reroutes to this "Elgin Marbles" page, which doesn't work in the case where someone is searching for the Hitchens book. Chillowack (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wyatt quote
I agree with the deletion of the Wyatt quote. Not every public statement on the issue, not even by politicians, belongs in the article: there must be dozens if not hundreds of such statements to be found, and there's no point in including any randomly selected statement in the WP article just because it's there. The statement in question doesn't seem very relevant to either the facts or the controversyLittlewindow (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

Comment moved from user talk
The comments below by were moved from my talkpage:
 * Elgin Marbles: Edit and Conversation

I am sorry that I have attempted to edit your article on the Elgin Marbles without your permission but you already mention Edward Daniel Clarke in the very paragraph before the one I wish to edit. Wouldn't it be more prudent to simply reference Edward Clarke and then refer to their page so that people may attempt to learn more on that particular subject? I know it seems rather presumptuous of me but I think it would be better if you give a slight description of the wrongs by Clarke and then the reader could become more intrigued to go to that other page. I did not mean any harm by editing your page. I just wanted to make your page sound more viable. Not that it needs to considering all of the references but I felt it could be better. And about the other edits on your page from previously, those were actually grammatical changes. Sorry, a bit of a grammar nazi. I apologize again for any trouble I may have caused you, but would it be possible to take my changes to the Clarke portion of your article into consideration?

Thank you for your time, Micmiccheck32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micmiccheck32 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * First this is not my article. It belongs to the comunity as does every other article. but you already mention Edward Daniel Clarke in the very paragraph before the one I wish to edit. That does not matter. Clarke is mentioned in regards to a different subject than the paragraph you are trying to completely remove. After your wholesale removal of the paragraph there is no information remaining about the Demeter incident in this article. but I think it would be better if you give a slight description of the wrongs by Clarke and then the reader could become more intrigued to go to that other page. The paragraph is short enough to not need further reduction. In any case the Demeter incident is not mentioned in Clarke's own article so your removal here made it disappear altogether from Wikipedia. But even if it gets added to Clarke's article there is no rule that says that it cannot stay here. I think it is relevant to this article and it should stay in its present form. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the whole section about Clarke and the Demeter statue is irrelevant and its presence confusing. This article is supposed to be about the Elgin Marbles.  There were many other cases of antiquities being spirited out of Greece in the 19th century; I don't see why this one is more relevant to the Elgin Marbles than any others.  Arguments by a WP editor that it is relevant are POV and OR; if a scholar of the subject can be cited as discussing it in connection with the Elgin Marbles, that would be different. As it is, I'm not deleting the material, but I would support its deletion. Littlewindow (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090618114315/http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov:80/projects/SW_corrosion/teachers-pupils/index.html to http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/SW_corrosion/teachers-pupils/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070527154618/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/story/2006/09/05/parthenon-marbles.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/09/05/parthenon-marbles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wording that should be avoided
Wikipedia's Manual of Style advises against a lot of words and phrases that Dr.K wants to use.

Such as

Weasel: "researchers have so far failed to locate any traces of it"; it should just be - "it has yet to be found".

Puffery: "Ottoman archives still hold an outstanding number of similar documents". it should just be "Ottoman archives still hold an number of similar documents"

Expressions of doubt: "He allegedly obtained"; "the Italian copy of the alleged firman"; "the Italian translation purportedly in his possession";

Synonyms for said: "The report claimed"; "claimed to possess"

Editorializing: "failed to locate any traces of it" - it is a discreet object, a document, so it has either been found or has not been found, one cannot find "traces" of a document unless "traces" is used in the sense of referring to mentions of that document in other documents (in which case we do have traces of it); The wording "Moreover, the parliamentary record " and "In addition, the committee report" makes an unsupported connection between two things.

Unspecified places or events: "the Ottoman archives". I think this is a sly little ommission, since the firman was left in Athens, not Istanbul. The text should be "the Ottoman archives in Istanbul". Now that much of the inappropriate wording has been individually pointed out, I hope Dr.K will not revert my edit again. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Byron and Elgin Marbles
Does Heffernan provide any additional evidence to Byron having an aesthetic dislike for the sculpture? If the only source is "misshappen monuments", it's taken way out of context. It's from English Bards and Scotch Critics, lines 1026-1030: Let Aberdeen and Elgin still pursue

The shade of fame through regions of virtù;

Waste useless thousands on their Phidian freaks,

Misshapen monuments and maim'd antiques;

And make their grand saloons a general mart

For all the mutilated blocks of art; "Phidian freaks" refers to a disbelief in the attribution of the works to Phidias that Byron and contemporaries like R. Payne Knight (Specimens of Ancient Sculpture, 1809) had. In the original footnote after "Elgin" Byron says, "Lord Elgin would fain persuade us that all the figures, with and without noses, in his stone-shop are the work of Phidias! 'Credeat Judæus!'" He's clearly outraged that Elgin, to relieve his debt, is selling what Byron believes to be falsely attributed works out of his home ("stone-shope") to the museum. How then can "misshapen monuments"  be interpreted as an aesthetic judgement when "maim'd antiques" and "mutilated blocks of art" are clearly not? --Goodpoints (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Heading
Why is there such a clutter of titles at the top? If the second appearance of "Elgin Marbles" is the picture's description, shouldn't it be underneath(and more informative, I.e. location of marbles in the picture) the picture? Cgschmidt3169 (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131515541200/http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/greeceandrome/collectors/clarke.html to http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/greeceandrome/collectors/clarke.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314025855/http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/Archaeopaedia/198 to http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/Archaeopaedia/198
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203021650/http://www.culture.gr:80/h/3/eh351.jsp?obj_id=2384 to http://www.culture.gr/h/3/eh351.jsp?obj_id=2384
 * Added tag to https://www.culture.gr/war/NMA%20FINAL1t.ppt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017204203/http://odysseus.culture.gr:80/a/1/12/ea121.html to http://odysseus.culture.gr/a/1/12/ea121.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304230217/http://odysseus.culture.gr/a/1/12/ga123_3.html to http://odysseus.culture.gr/a/1/12/ga123_3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090615202701/http://greekembassy.org:80/Embassy/Content/en/Article.aspx?office=3&folder=274&article=3326 to http://greekembassy.org/Embassy/Content/en/Article.aspx?office=3&folder=274&article=3326

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)