Talk:Elgin Marbles/Archive 5

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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/20090513053304/http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8 to http://ww2.jhu.edu/foundations/?p=8
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.culture.gr/h/3/eh351.jsp?obj_id=2384
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/parthenon/article/0%2C%2C195563%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://odysseus.culture.gr/a/1/12/ea121.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://stosacucine.pk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929162206/http://www.editions-bartillat.fr/fiche-livre.asp?Clef=281 to http://www.editions-bartillat.fr/fiche-livre.asp?Clef=281

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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/20090410044502/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/92096 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/92096/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040814225306/http://prometheus.cc.emory.edu/panels/5E/G.Wood.html to http://prometheus.cc.emory.edu/panels/5E/G.Wood.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011232836/http://marbles.apokrisi.net/ to http://marbles.apokrisi.net/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130421055206/http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc089.htm to http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc089.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20141231192906/http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2014/12/05/loan-of-a-parthenon-sculpture-to-the-hermitage-a-marble-ambassador-of-a-european-ideal/ to http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2014/12/05/loan-of-a-parthenon-sculpture-to-the-hermitage-a-marble-ambassador-of-a-european-ideal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

discuss points here please
Dropping of legal claim: The source is correct, valid and recent and very pertinent to this article. I have changed it to what the actual Government official said, there is no confusion then:  In 2015, Nikos Xydakis, Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim. But Greece continues to urge the return of the marbles to Greece for their unification by diplomatic and political means.Simply-the-truth (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed legal to official, as they were the rulers at the time and their decisions are upheld by law to this day. If you can think of a better word please let me know? Also removed the British historians quote and will add lower down in the articleSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The "looting" claim, we need a source that actually states this, then it can be added. But if one is found and this is in the lead, then for balance I will a similar claim from a supporter of the action takenSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * readded the UNESCO point and expanded it. Still think not needed in the lead at all as not that important a pointSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

2016 update
I want to add this to the lead as it is the most recent development. It is very well sourced and relevant. I can see any objection to this, but just wanted others input first please? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/elgin-marbles-return-greece-legal-bid-thrown-out-eu-court-human-rights-a7145216.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply-the-truth (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Although after Brexit it might not mean anything, I guess. However, the current last two sentences in the lede are not supported by the article main body:
 * "In 2015, Nikos Xydakis, Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim. But Greece continues to urge the return of the marbles to Greece for their unification by diplomatic and political means"
 * So I think that should be addressed first. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree Martin. First, Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim. is just WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. Second, the culture minister never said such a thing. That's the POV interpretation of an opinion piece by Dominic Shellwood in the Telegraph. Third, a comment by the culture minister to TV channel Mega during an interview, does not amount to an official position by the Greek government. There has been no such announcement by the Greek government. Even the false and POV statement that Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim. is a WP:CRYSTAL statement from which it does not follow that "Greece has dropped its legal claim".
 * This is what the BBC reports about what the culture minister of Greece said: But Greece's culture minister Nikos Xydakis told the country's Mega TV: "One cannot go to court over whatever issue. Besides, in international courts the outcome is uncertain". He said he believed attitudes to the future of the Marbles were slowly changing and would favour Greece in a diplomatic approach. This looks to me simply like the opinion of the culture minister of Greece and nothing more. There is no way that these idle musings during an interview can be interpreted as the official position of the Greek government.  Dr.   K.  21:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome Martin and thank you also for your comments. I hope you will continue providing your opinion here. Best regards. Dr.   K.  21:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Blanking, copyvio, POV/SYNTH-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries
Tendentious rapid-fire edit-warring POV and SYNTH-push, using false edit summaries has been undertaken by a POV/SYNTH-pushing account. The examples of the SYNTH/POV-push are as follows: This tendentious disruption has to stop and will be reverted. Dr.  K.  20:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Blanking using false edit-summary implying that s/he is restoring text: sourced and relevant point, please dont remove items such as this for no reason? This was blanking vandalism of the well-sourced fact that UNESCO offered to mediate in the dispute, an important and well-sourced fact that should not be removed from the article.
 * Removal of sourced fact about "looting" using irrelevant and flippant edit summary: Even if one exists I can dd 2 that say it wasnt and what happened was legal)
 * Restoration of unattributed POV, in Wikipedia's voice, that "Greece acknowledged that the British Museum is the lawful owner of the “Elgin Marbles in 2015," even though Greece never made that statement and this is just the opinion of the newspaper only. This is also SYNTH because "Greece acknowledged that the British Museum is the lawful owner of the “Elgin Marbles in 2015," is interjected into a pre-existing sentence about Greece continuing to seek the repatriation of the marbles. This interjection is used to negate the effect of the existing sentence. Combining the facts from two different sources this way is classic WP:SYNTH.
 * Adding redundant and POV description of the Ottomans as "legal rulers" instead of the commonly-used "rulers" of Greece just as to push the POV that everything was legal at the time.
 * Restoration of unattributed POV, in Wikipedia's voice, that "Many historians consider them relics of an Athenian civilisation rather than the modern Greek state" even though the source specifies "British historians". By the way this sentence is a direct copyvio from the source. Check Google search of the copyvio string.
 * Then please stop with your edit war, stop reverting sourced facts and stop pushing your npov. Just use what the sources say please. Oh, and stop acting like you have powers to ban other ediditors please?Simply-the-truth (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1 - it was an offer years ago with no legal basis, should be in the article, not the lead. 2 - The source does NOT say looting anywhere, please find the one you think that does state this and then we can add it back.BUT, then for balance I will add ones that say the opposite point of view to be fair. 3 - It was a statement from the Greece source as you can see, it doesnt matter what country the paper was printed in, the statement is the statement, it is relevant, important and sourced, so please don't remove to push your own npov. 4 - They were the legal rulers, so cant see the problem with this? If you have sources that say they werent then please post them here and we can discuss? 5 - Sorry, this has been changedSimply-the-truth (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understood any of the points I explained to you above. Do not restore your copyvio to the article or you will be blocked. Also do not blank well-sourced information. Dr.   K.  11:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You cant block me, please stop saying you can. Please discuss the points and we can get a consensus on this? I understand every point you stated, please remain civil re this. I replied to every point you made, please read my replies and respond, lets discuss this? Firstly, the quote re UNESCO is not needed in the lead. This is you trying to imply your npov. It is fine in the aricle, but not needed in the lead? Discuss please?
 * The legal rulers bit, they were so what is the problem with that? Please discuss here?
 * The Source re the dropping of the legal claim to the Marbles, I will re-write that and see if that is better for you? But it is sourced and is the Greece statment, so it belongs in the lead?
 * I have added the word British as you wanted. Lets discuss please?Simply-the-truth (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your large edit includes spelling errors, POV, SYNTH, WP:LEAD violations, and inaccurate statements which are unacceptable. After your unblock, I will propose this way forward: First, no large changes. We have to do this in steps, to avoid confusion and edit-warring. Second, propose your edit on the talkpage so that we can discuss it and after we agree on how the text is supposed to be written, then one of us can add it to the article. No unilateral changes please. After we deal with an issue and agree on the proposed text, then you introduce the next proposal on the talkpage for discussion and amendment, and so on. This will prevent the chaotic edit-warring which introduced copyvios, POV, SYNTH and, eventually, led to your block. How does this proposal sound to you? Dr.   K.  22:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The legal rulers bit, they were so what is the problem with that? Please discuss here? Again, please drop this nonsense. This term was invented by you to enhance, in your mind, how legal everything was when Elgin was in Greece. There is no such term. No serious historical document calls the Ottomans using the adjective "legal". They are just called "rulers". Using "official" instead of "legal", or any other adjective for that matter, doesn't make it any better. Don't try to inflict this POV on this article any longer. Dr.  K.  22:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

And no more stunts like the one you attempted with the UNESCO piece. The stable version was short and neutral: But you didn't like that. So you attempted to completely remove it multiple times. After you got reverted, you expanded it to a grotesque POV version as follows: The neutral stable wording ...although this was later turned down by the British Museum... was changed to the blatantly POV wording The British Museum had to decline the offer... But that was not enough POV for you. You had to dump in the lead verbatim quotes from Ed Vaizey presenting a lengthy apologia for Elgin just in case your POV was not strong enough. Verbatim quotes are almost never added to the lead of articles. The POV quote you added from Vaizey acting as an apologist for Elgin destroyed any semblance of balance for the UNESCO piece, and the lead. If you want to keep editing this article, I advise you to stop trying so hard to advertise the position of the British government every chance you get. Dr.  K.  05:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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/20070928051614/http://www.arcspace.com/architects/Tschumi/ to http://www.arcspace.com/architects/Tschumi/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409021725/http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=1053 to http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=1053
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506011222/http://www.apollo-magazine.com/june-2007/63335/casts-and-connoisseurs.thtml to http://www.apollo-magazine.com/june-2007/63335/casts-and-connoisseurs.thtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050321014535/http://www.museum-security.org/elginmarbles.html to http://www.museum-security.org/elginmarbles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Title of the article should change
Before anything lets get one thing clear of which there is not one word.Virtually ALL statuary and important buildings like the Parthenon etc were PAINTED in to us, outrageously garish colours. The Parthenon and its contents would have looked like a fairground horrific peepshow compared to the beautiful pure stone structure it is today. There is absolutely NO WAY the Parthenon marbles looked anything like their original condition nor did the parthenon It is time this idea of returning them to where they belonged is put to rest.Even if they were not painted like most Greek statuary the Parthenon was and so were most of its other sculptures Phidias whose team created them would look at the marbles scrubbed white appearance and scream with rage^What have you done to my beautiful sculptures ^he would say ..you have turned them back to lumps of bare rock!! The image of the Classical world presented today is essentially created because the pure whiteness of the scrubbed clean marble gives Greek statuary a link to the spirituality and purity of Christianity .Indeed the whole world of Classical studies has in fact nothing to do with the real Classical world at all but is a strange fantasy creation connected with Christianity. Anyone transported back to ancient Greece or Rome would after a few hours suffer a complete irrecoverable nervous collapse from the appalling horror and cruelty they saw.Stop this absurd nonsense. The sculptures or marbles of Parthenon formed a structural part of the Parthenon, one of the most important buildings ever built. Considering: a. the global significance and symbolism of the monument (and its sculptures), which surpass the legacy of Lord Elgin, b. the controversy surrounding Lord Elgin and the name 'Elgin marbles' within and mainly outside the United Kingdom, c. the recent clear stance of UNESCO on the highly debated issue of the return of the 2,500-year-old marble sculptures which were illegally removed and sold by Lord Elgin from the Parthenon in 1817. UNESCO consistently refers to the sculptures as 'Parthenon sculptures' (see example- UNESCO Recommendation 19com8: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Report_Secreteriat.pdf)

In light of the above, I am proposing that the article is renamed to 'Parthenon sculptures' or 'Parthenon marbles' i am looking forward to hearing from other wiki editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipodamos (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The above writer needs to take a pill. Painted statuary is not a big deal. I guarantee you, no  one would "collapse" because they saw a painted statue. Personally, I think they would look pretty neat, and in no way would their sublime aesthetic be compromised. Whether they were painted or not is of monumental irrelevance in the repatriation debate.98.162.136.248 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, the name Elgin marbles suggests that Elgin made them. Parthenon sculptures is more accurate Αχρήστης (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or that they are in Elgin perhaps? But "Parthenon sculptures" suggests rather more strongly that they are still part of that building, which they are not. Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't really see that "the name Elgin marbles suggests that Elgin made them." I would guess WP:COMMONNAME means we have to keep the current title. The proposal, although technically accurate, suggests WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a disgrace that wikipedia calls the Parthenon Marbles 'Elgin Marbles'. the ones that are in England are wrongly called that, so 'Elgin Marbles' should redirect to the Parthenon Marbles, but it's at least outrageous to not have an actual 'Parthenon Marbles' page. Onoufrios d (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that WP:COMMONNAME now confirms "Elgin", but any suggestion for change needs to argue the case based on that, with ngrams etc etc, not what's above. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Change the name, they have been the Parthenon marbles for more than two thousand years, an Anglo Saxon steals and vandalises them and suddenly they bare his name? That's just bald faced racism. Bacondrum (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh. You guys will want to change the name of the Millenium Wheel to the London Eye next! -Roxy, the dog . wooF 07:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this article someone's opinion or is Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia? They are the Parthenon Marbles. That is an undeniable FACT. Onoufrios d (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * People should check the many previous discussions on this in the archives. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A Google news search today turned up 3x as many hits for "Parthenon Marbles" as for "Elgin Marbles." Users of "Parthenon Marbles" included CNN, the New York Times, the Smithsonian, and the Guardian. The Washington Post and the Economist both favored "Elgin Marbles." What is the procedure for officially calling for a name change? Mr Underhill (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You could open a WP:RfC here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. On reading, though, WP:RfC specifies not to use an RFC for renaming.  But following links from there, I discovered Requested moves.  I read through the process, checked ngrams and pageviews, and even though "Parthenon Marbles" seems to now be the generally preferred term in the field of art history, "Elgin Marbles" is still in far more common usage.  (Even more than could be accounted for by the fact that pretty much every article that calls them the "Parthenon Marbles" also includes the phrase "also known as the Elgin Marbles".)  In light of that, I'm not going to request a move at this point, as a move would seem to be in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. Mr Underhill (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the clarification. I must admit I've seen many proposed name changes discussed under RfCs. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where we're supposed to look for previous discussions or what Google and the Economist hehe to say about what the ancient Greeks made 2,500 years ago but the name of this article has to change. As simple as that. Onoufrios d (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please provide a discussion reasoning for why it needs to change other than just saying it needs to change. Along with references showing it's not the common name. I also advise you to read the previous discussions in the talk archives. Canterbury Tail talk 19:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Elgin marbles? Absolutely not! Those are the Parthenon Marbles stolen by lord Elgin. It's just a shame to recall the name of this looter. So, please, change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C6C:D1B0:848C:32D0:EF6F:1522 (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the British Museum refers to them as the 'Parthenon Sculptures' in their catalogue and on their website I think there's a good reason to reconsider this article's title. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (The last discussion on this is still going, so I've removed the new header). See Talk:Elgin_Marbles/Archive_4. One issue is that the "Elgin Marbles" are all in London, while the "Parthenon Marbles" are in Athens, London, and some in various other places. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a surmountable issue, I'm sure it would be possible to include that distinction under whatever title the article ends up with. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. If they are considered to be the current "owner", "Parthenon Sculptures" would seem to be more accurate. Their webpage starts with this: "By the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had been the governing authority in Athens for 350 years. Lord Elgin was the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and successfully petitioned the authorities to be able to draw, measure and remove figures." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

They are the Parthenon Marbles, that should be reason enough to change the name. They aren't owned by Elgin and we know they were stolen. GraveyTrain2124 (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The Elgin Marbles are in the British Museum as they were rescued by Lord Elgin. Calling them the parthenon marbles would be an affront to history and a sad, revisionist take. The page is called the Elgin Marbles because that is what they are. 2601:182:4381:E60:FD11:E03E:217A:4964 (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The British Museum refers to them as the Parthenon sculptures so 🤷‍♂️ Richard Nevell (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Form what did Lord Elgin rescue them, exactly? One might argue that Black Lives Matter is also an "affront to history" - a history of colonial enslavement. Is that movement equally "a sad, revisionist take"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Rationale != racism
Some of the reasons for the marbles to stay in the UK are desperate, but the following one takes the cake: "The assertion that Modern Greeks have "no claim to the stones because you could see from their physiognomy that they were not descended from the men who had carved them," a quote attributed to Auberon Waugh.[103] In nineteenth century Western Europe, Greeks of the Classical period were widely imagined to have been light skinned and blond.[104]" Do we really want to have this 'rationale' dripping from racism in this article? Curlybracket (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

George Osborne returning them
I quickly saw a headline that they would be repatriated to Greece. Anything in that? -- Cimon Avaro&#59; on a pogostick. (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Essentially, no. At this time. You may have noticed GO isn't even an MP these days. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wwll, According to his wikipedia article, he is chairman of the British Museum. -- Cimon Avaro&#59; on a pogostick. (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The wider issue and implications are obviosity larger than the BM. It looks like Kyriakos Mitsotakis is prematurely briefing for wins at home. Don't hold your breath. Ceoil (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes sense. Politics. -- Cimon Avaro&#59; on a pogostick. (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Its more international precedent . I doubt Osborn can make any decision without prior agreement from The Metropolitan Museum of Art for eg. Conceding here would open the door for many other major claims. Ceoil (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that - the Benin Bronzes will go first I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits and NPOV
Hello all

I have reverted some recent edits by an unregisted user because they used non-neutral language and did not indicate a neutral POV. The statements also were not an accurate summary of the sources I checked. Happy to discuss and restore anything if a consensus is reached. The article has issues of balance and neutrality throughout and I would be happy to work with others to get it in better shape. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just edit the things you don't think are POV. 94.66.57.204 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to discuss this with you if you
 * 1) Seek consensus
 * 2) Read wikipedia policy on neutral point of view and try to comply with it.
 * 3) Write accurate edit summaries.
 * 4) Stop adding new material to the lead which isn't in the body of the article. (The lead is meant to be an accurate summary of the article.)
 * It would also help if you register, or use your registered name. We could then discuss our differences on our Talk pages. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to seek concensus. If there's something specific you don't think is NPOV, delete it and I won't change it. The article in its previous form was very problematic and I think in general it is much more accurate now. 94.66.57.204 (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whenever specific things have been changed by me or other editors you immediately revert them. If you rewrite your contributions taking account of my points 2), 3) and 4) above I'm sure the editors who have concerns with your contributions will consider them. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What specific thing did I revert which was change by you? 94.66.57.204 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

British press
I have renamed this section and added information to make it a little more representative of recent press. The old heading and wording was full of editorialising. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead
Hello all

I have made substantial edits to the lead which previously read like a separate mini-article with unique information and citations, rather than a concise summary of the body of the article. I have moved some detailed information to the relevant section of the article and summarised it in the lead MOS:INTRO. I have used more neutral language. I have removed over sourcing of uncontentious material which is sourced in the body of the article MOS:LEADCITE. I have made the distinction between Elgin marbles and Parthenon sculptures early in the lead, because I found the article pretty confusing otherwise. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For the most part, I actually don't think your edits are completely unreasonable and in general the article reads better. I do have some comments though. You say in the lead that "A parliamentary inquiry concluded that Elgin had acquired the marbles legally". First of all, I would add the date of that and the word British so it's clear that this this concerns the British Parliament of that period (a period when slavery for instance was still "legal" in the British Empire, but obviously you don't have to mention that...). More importantly however, this definitive statement is not properly counterbalanced by the definitive statement "The Greek government considers Elgin's actions to have been illegal and does not recognise the British Museum's ownership of these sculptures". There is only the much less definitive statement "The Greek government and supporters of the return of the marbles to Greece have argued that the marbles were obtained illegally or unethically". Obviously, there are two arguments, the legal argument and the ethical argument and some people give more weight to one, the other, or both, but the position of the Greek government is well attested in sources and should certainly appear clearly in the lead. Finally, the last sentence I think is misleading, giving the impression that negotiations have been "ongoing" for some time, nothing is changing, etc. There is a clear direction of travel on this issue which is extremely well attested in sources, whether one thinks the direction of travel is good or bad. Not properly reflecting that is POV in favour of the current status quo. 94.66.58.52 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your very constructive comments. I have changed the lead to make it clear that it was a UK parliamentary inquiry in 1816. I think the lead makes it clear that the Greek government disputes the UK's title to the marbles and I see no need to change the wording. I think the last sentence is neutral whereas the idea that the negotiations are heading in a particular direction is your interpretation. Let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with saying in know uncertain terms that as far as the Greek government is concerned, as a matter of legal point, these sculptures are not owned by the British Museum. This article now has a section on "a psychoological view" and other nonsense like that, and doesn't state clearly the legal position of a major government concerning antiquities taken from Greece. And as far as the last sentence, I do think that the impression that they are heading somewhere is certainly objective if one has been following this issue closely over the years, and the few articles in the British press supporting retention are now from more and more fringe figures and now are more and more centred on the "fear" that they will return and less on the smug certainty that that will never happen. I think the fact that one doesn't get this impression at all from this article means it far less informative as it could be. But you see, let's see what others think! 94.66.58.52 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)