Talk:Elgin Marbles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Older discussion

I've changed 'giants' to 'lapiths' and noted that it's not so much Keats's the Grecian Urn but the sonnets that were most influenced by the marbles. The urn's mainly occasioned by the Portland Vase. Also some stuff on the reception in 1803-16

Perhaps the stuff on the reception could be quoted and sourced. People nowadays like to say that there was criticism of the removal of the marbles in 1803. Because there ought to have been. In the general British chorus of approval, where was even one critical voice? The Greeks were silent under the Turkish occupation. The Turks didn't care. Does anyone realize the population of Athens in 1803? It was a village. Does anyone realize the significance of the year 1803? (hint: Peace of Amiens). Wetman 02:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Three quotes critical of bringing the marbles to England and none approving? I can't believe that there wasn't someone in England other than Lord Elgin who was glad to have them there. Omccreary 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Are there any links to any sites in favour of the marbles staying in Britain?

Not "back"

I have removed "back" from "...when the marbles were shipped back to England" as it's pretty clear that they had never been to England before (though it might have been "back home" to Lord Elgin). I also reworded a phrase relating to making wax casts. Sharkford 18:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh suffering jaysas, not only were they "brought" to Britain but they were "brought back". Hang on while I bring the pyramids back to Europe. 193.1.172.138 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1803 the Greeks couldn't say anything to Turks because Turks did anything they wanted and Greeks weren't so educated as were English wealthy people.I have to say that an old man had told when the workers ruined Parthenon :Please take care of them and when we will rise our nation again we take them back.You have to learn also that we stayed 400 years under the Turkish occupation and we managed to keep our national identity. These marbles are our history so please think of a nation with the majority of his history stolen!There is a site about the catastrophes on greek statues and other ancient woks of art (eg. the statue of Afrodity(Venus) of Milos) but it is in greek, unfortunately. NIKH (or victory ;I'm agreek girl) {{subst:unsigned:62.74.52.69}}

Elgin was the thief not the sculptor

They should be called Greek marbles of Parthenon. Someone gives his name to something because he made it. Imagine any thief, like Elgin, can give his name to the stolen goods or any killer to his victims!

This page should be renamed to "Akropolis metope and other Greek marbles stolen from Elgin"

Filippos (Filippos2 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.61.226 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 February 2006.

Actually your dispute is probably with the Ottoman Empire. It was the local Ottoman governor who sold the marbles to Elgin. Of course there are still disputes as to the legality of the sale. -- Solipsist 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are not just marbles (the raw material), but sections of a frieze and other architerctural structures. At the very least they should be called by their British Museum appelation: Parthenon Marbles. Politis

No, they should be known by their most common name in English, as per Wikipedia naming conventions. Google searches suggest 2:1 in favour of 'Elgin Marbles' compared to 'Parthenon Marbles'. More importantly internal wiki linking via 'What links here' suggests 60:1 in favour 'Elgin Marbles'. -- Solipsist 23:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To Solipsist : How do you think this sounds if Jack the Ripper assassinated your grandma and all the people call you "Jack the Ripper"? Statistics are not people links are not gods. Thieves must pay for their actions but in this case they take a decoration.

These marbles are not just stolen marbles they are a piece of Parthenon made by Greek sculptors not Elgin.

OK this page should be renamed to "Akropolis metope and other Greek marbles bought(?) from Elgin". Links will be pleased and google too.

The marbles should be returned to where they belong and stop this dispute. In EU, England is allied with Ellas (Greece) not an enemy empire that was before.

Filippos (Filippos2 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.59.238 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 March 2006.

Wikipedia doesn't try and set the world to rights, we just reflect they way things are. When placing an article at a specific title, the most important thing is to use the name that most people would expect. This is largely so that if a future editor is writing another article and wants to link here, they guess the right article title first time without needing to check the link or insert a disambiguation pipe.

In this case, political considerations aside, it is quite clear that 'Elgin Marbles' is the common English usage. In other languages it is different. There doesn't appear to be an equivalent article on the Greek Wikipedia, but the French and Swedish pedias use 'Parthenon Marbles', which is fine if that is the common usage in those languages.

For more, please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and more generally Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- Solipsist 07:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the marbles should not take their name from Elgin, the use of the term Elgin Marbles, rather than Parthenon Marbles does cearly differentiate them from the other remaining Parthenon Sculptures in Athens which are not the topic of this article.

Naming

Wikipedia policy is pretty clear, things should take on the name they are commonly known by. By that policy, this article is definitely the Elgin Marbles. A name like "parthenon marble statues purchased by lord elgin" would be unclear (but we can still make that artcile and redirect).

All that said, in wikiland majority rules. There is nothing preventing millions of Greeks from coming here and moving this article to another name Justforasecond 03:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By naming this article Elgin Marbles Wikipedia does not adhere to the policy of naming things as the are commonly known by, but contributing to the British propaganda moto. The name clearly plays a role in the whole argument of stolen artefacts from their place of their origin.

The British Museum's official name is 'the Parthenon Sculptures'; of course, they are more than simply marbles (the raw material) but, in the UK they are commonly knows as Elgin Marbles. Candidate for re-direction: Parthenon Marbles (British Museum), or re-naming this article as, Elgin Marbles / Parthenon Sculptures. Politis 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are free to make a redirect from Parthenon...->Elgin Marbles, but the common name is "Elgin Marbles" so that is the correct title for this artcle Justforasecond 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

---

WRT naming, I think one should be very clear what the article is about. Elgin Marbles is the name by which the sculptures transported to Britain are most commonly known & despite whatever connotations the name carries, is IMHO the best name for the actual article. The thought that occurs to me though, is whether any mention of the aesthetics etc should be made in this piece or if it should purely be about the history / politics of the removal of the sculptures & their continued retention in the British Museum. One possible scenario is that it would make sense for there to be a separate entry _Parthenon Sculptures_ which would then describe the sculptures as a whole, discussing the aesthetics, interpretation etc as well as any history prior to 1800 & history of those remaining in Athens, with a link to the Elgin Marbles article. My reason for sugesting this approach is that items such as interpretation in the curent article are not specific to the half of the surviving sculptures in the British Museum, but should apply to all to the sculptures in their entirity - eg. those in the BM, those in Athens, those elsewhere & those that have ben destroyed. In the same way, there are many books that treat them as a piece of art without discusion of the politics, or vice versa. Mat8iou 12:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

---

In my opinion the titled should be Parthenon marblesand not Elgin marbles because the pieces of this great monumentbelong to Greeks and to the whole world but not to that dreamfull man Thomas Elgin (he had been dreaming to build up the PARTHENON OF ENGLAND!!!)NIKH (or victory,I'm a Greek girl) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.74.52.69 (talk • contribs) .

---

The marbles must return to Greece where they belong! Elecktra 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) By all standards of proper reference, these marbles should indeed be known as the "Parthenon Marbles, also referred to as the Elgin Collection". I have to agree with the topic bellow, he was NOT the sculptor, nor did he commission the sculpting, he was merely the Ambassador of England to Constantinople. By which standards is he known as the "owner" of the marbles? The naming should change. It is deceptive to continue the incorrect term of the marbles just to please certain people rather than as they are officially known as. Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please someone, write an article about the Marbles

This whole tendentious article is about the tiresome political claim to remove the Marbles, with only a cursory paragraph about these splendid sculptures.

This article is definitely lacking in art historical content. Can you even tell when the sculptures were made from this article? terrible

The case for retention is summarised by the British Museum website. Now could we delete most of the other links all making the opposite case?

Better still, replace them with links about the beautiful marbles?

(I'm half Greek!) Jezza 00:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Could someone please describe or categorize the different pieces? Justforasecond 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Someone has suggested that this article be merged with Metopes of the Parthenon. Not a good idea. The Elgin Marbles are only a portion of the Parthenon sculpture, and are not identical with the metopes. The sculpture of the Parthenon comes in 4 major categories: pediments, frieze, metopes, and statue of Athena Parthenos. The Elgin marbles are parts of the pediments, frieze, and metopes.

The history of the Elgin Marbles and the controversy over whether they should be returned is notable enough and complex enough to deserve an article. The metopes perhaps deserve their own article, in which case the pediments, frieze, and Parthenos statue should also have their own articles. I prefer the suggestion above that there should be a single article devoted to the Parthenon sculpture. Unfortunately, "Parthenon Sculptures" is a bad title because that's a term used for the Elgin Marbles. Something like "Sculptural program of the Parthenon" or "Sculptural decoration of the Parthenon" would match scholarly usage, but neither is a particularly compelling title. Maybe just "sculpture of the Parthenon"? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this problem would be best served by two articles - Parthenon Sculptures & Elgin Marbles. As long as there is a clear link to the other article at the top of each, this should limit any confusion which may arise. At present there is a lot of confusio anyway, due to arguments over the choice of name & political connotations thereof etc.

Parthenon Sculptures would describe all sculptural decoration of the Parthenon. Elgin Marbles would describe the historic circumstances & arguments behind the sculptures which curently reside in the British Museumm. In this, reference to the sculptures theselves only needs to be made where it is relevant to this particular issue - eg, describing which sculptures are there etc.

Mat8iou 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fairly self-evidently there is a huge amount of controversy over the relocation of the marbles; perhaps what we really need is a separate page on the "return" issue and on the marbles themselves. In the meantime, no sense in the proposed merger. MarkThomas 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to try & split the articles in the way detailed above - I think that this would make the most sense logically & hopefully separate the tow relatively unrelated issues from dominating one another. I probably won't have a chance to do it for a while though, as am fairly budy at the moment. Mat8iou 12:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which way of splitting things up is Mat8iou endorsing? Several ideas were proposed above. I gave my opinion of how the articles should be organized up there. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I searched the Parthenon Marbles and was redirected to this site. There should be more on the marbles themselves and less on Elgin. Or at least split the topics. Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Brought" to Britain, were they now?

Congrats, lads. Only the Brits could be so wonderfully euphemistic about their robbing. 193.1.172.138 03:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its my understanding they were sold to Elgin. Whether thats legal or not is another matter, but either way its many years in the past. EAi 23:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NEW NAME = stolen from Elgin Marbles

This is the right name.

The problem is NOT the occupation of marbles. It is NOT a political issue. The problem is not the right name. It doesn't matter if we named Metope or plain Parthenon marbles. The marbles ARE and always be ELLINIKA. BUT the problem IS : Does anyone has the right to name his stolen goods after HIS name? If you think so, then be it. Hail to wikipedia. (although I should say that changing "The Parthenon Marbles, often called the stolen from Elgin Marbles" is a step ahead. Filippos

Please review previous discussion and Wikipedia's policy on article names. -- Solipsist 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WP's policy is to use the most common name in English. How do we decide whether "Parthenon marbles" or "Elgin marbles" is the most common name? Google gives about 730,000 results for a search on the exact phrase "parthenon marbles", but about 225,000 for a search on the exact phrase "elgin marbles". I myself prefer the title "Elgin marbles", because the term "Parthenon marbles" is ambiguous--it can refer either to all of the sculpture of the Parthenon, or those particular pieces that are in the British Museum. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well for one thing, you are doing the wrong search (missing the quotes from the first one). For another, just about every link on the first few pages of the "parthenon marbles" search are to Greek web sites so don't necessarily reflect common English usage. Most UK and other web sites which discuss the Elgin Marbles tend to be even handed so will also mention the alternative name of "Parthenon Marbles". Hence they show up in both searches, whereas the Greek websites exclusively use the term "Parthenon Marbles" and only show up in one. More surprisingly, even when you include the quotes, Google returns pages that use the combination of words but not the exact phrase. I get this BBC link on the 3rd page of the "Parthenon marbles" search, but although the Parthenon is mentioned several times as are the marbles, they only actually use the phrase "Elgin Marbles".

The lesson here (as with so many similar disputes) is to not put blind trust in Google searches, they can be informative, but you have to be careful with the interpretation. A better approach is to pick up some other reference books and newspapers and see what they use - try another encyclopedia or dictionary. For example, I've got the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors here and that only lists 'Elgin Marbles'.

But this is all old ground. I'm getting a bit tired of going over this issue again and again. -- Solipsist 07:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. The google search for parthenon marbles, with quotes, gives about 671,000 results. I take your points on why this search has to be handled with caution, but it at least suggests that many English-speakers use "Parthenon marbles" to refer to the Elgin marbles.

This article from the Discovery Channel quotes the director of the British Museum: "'The Parthenon Marbles have been central to the museum's collections, and to its purpose, for almost two hundred years. Only here can the worldwide significance of the sculptures be fully grasped,' Neil MacGregor, the museum's director, said in a statement." Of course, the article also uses Elgin Marbles in its title and in the body of the article, so this isn't evidence that Parthenon Marbles is more common. But it shows that the Museum's director is happy to use the term, and it's also used in academic articles (such as this article in Archaeology, which uses both "Parthenon Marbles" and "Elgin Marbles"), and newspaper articles (e.g., this article in the Guardian).

Just to be clear, I don't see any reason to change the article's title--I prefer Elgin Marbles because it's the most precise name we've got. Elgin Marbles seems like the most common name in English, but Parthenon Marbles is hardly uncommon. Furthermore, it seems like Parthenon Marbles is becoming a more common way to refer to the sculptures as the dispute over their proper location gains more prominence. It might be good if the article had a section on the different names people use for the sculptures (Elgin Marbles, Parthenon Marbles, Parthenon sculptures), and the reasons behind each one. For instance, Parthenon Marbles seems more common among those who feel strongly that the sculptures should go back to Athens (and this isn't just Greeks). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with everything you say there. Given time, the common name will probably become the Parthenon Marbles - its translated equivalent is already the more common name in some other European countries. But in English we are not there yet, and Wikipedia shouldn't lead the way.

A section discussing naming sensitivities would also be a good idea. It might be a good idea to check some older versions of this article so see whether such a section hasn't already been written. This article seems to attract random POV pushers, and I've noticed a number of sections being deleted or twisted to suit different agendas. -- Solipsist 09:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this article about?

There should be differentiation between the parthenon marbles and the elgin marbles, two different things, whichever way one looks at it. The term "parthenon marbles" can be taken to mean either: those sculptures from the parthenon, amongst the elgin marbles; or: generally, sculptures from the parthenon (not necessarily collected by elgin). There are parthenon marbles in Athens, Paris, London and elsewhere. The term "Elgin Marbles" must, by necessity, encompass marbles not coming from the parthenon - including the Caryatid and the column from the Erechtheion. It's all very well to sit and shout he stole, you stole, give it back etc. but if we don't know what exactly we are talking about it makes us all look a little silly, doesn't it? For example, what of the sculptures from Mycenae collected by Elgin? --5telios 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the sculptures from the Parthenon that are displayed in the British Museum, the history of how those sculptures got to the Museum and how they fared in the Museum, including the "cleaning" of the 1930s, and the dispute about the sculptures' proper location. We should point out that in the strictest sense the term "Elgin Marbles" includes:

from the Parthenon: 247ft of the original 524ft of frieze; 15 of the 92 metopes; 17 pedimental figures; various pieces of architecture

from the Erechtheion: a Caryatid, a column and other architectural members

from the Propylaia: Architectural members

from the Temple of Athena Nike: 4 slabs of the frieze and architectural members

This info comes straight out of the British Museum pamphlet. However, "Elgin Marbles" usually just means the stuff from the Parthenon, and people are probably not thinking of the architectural fragments, but the frieze, metopes, and pedimental sculptures. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is my point exactly - given that this is an encyclopaedia, should the article be about what the Elgin Marbles are rather than what most people think they are? - It should cover all the Erechtheion, Propylaea and Athena Nike fragments, which are so often cast aside in the parthenonocentric rhetoric of the fight for / against return. --5telios 07:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to quote President Clinton, and say it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. "Elgin Marbles" usually denotes the figured sculpture from the Parthenon that's in the British Museum. If that's the way the phrase usually occurs, doesn't that mean that's what the Elgin Marbles are?

Ontology aside, this article should definitely include the strict sense of "Elgin Marbles" (the list of sculpture above)--but WP's mission isn't to educate people about their misuse of a term, especially when, as with the Elgin Marbles, it's disputed whether we should even use the term at all. Rather, WP reports what reliable sources say about a topic. Our sources generally use "Elgin Marbles" or "Parthenon Marbles" to refer to the Parthenon sculpture in England (some of which wasn't even brought there by Elgin). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Damage to marbles: NPOV

This section contains some peacock terms, especially the second paragraph. Also, many sentences have awkward wording due to extra phrases being tacked on after creation.--Digitalblue 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the recent change purely because that bit quotes the British Museum position, which any check on their (cited) site quickly reveals. However, there has also long been discussion of the pollution threat in Athens, which is widely agreed and which has been part of the need to build the new gallery next to the Parthenon; also there was considerable vandalism on the Parthenon since Elgin and this is considered a pro-BM position fact by some. MarkThomas 10:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Damage to marbles: Strange image

The image in this section does not belong to the Parthenon frieze on stylistic and thematic grounds. I have no idea where it is from, but it looks more recent. --5telios 13:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one has commented in almost three weeks - I am removing the strange photograph. --5telios 22:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

bunch of text removed from head of article

--88.104.82.198 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)link titleElgin Marbles]</ref> The latter was tested in the British High Court in May 2005 in relation to Nazi-looted Old Master artworks held at the museum; it was ruled that these could not be returned. The judge, Sir Andrew Morritt, ruled that the British Museum Act – which protects the collections for posterity – cannot be overridden by a "moral obligation" to return works known to have been plundered. It has been argued however, that connections between the legal ruling and the Elgin Marbles were more tenuous than implied by the Attorney General.

"Parthenon Marbles" vs. "Elgin marbles"

Clearly there has been a significant amount of chat on this, but most of it seems to be grounded in sentiments of nationalism. I'd like to bring up a point which I don't believe has been mentioned. The Elgin Marbles comprise approximately half of the reliefs and statuary that adorned the friezes, metopes and pediments of the Parthenon. Specifically, they are the half that were transported from Greece to England by Thomas Bruce, aka Lord Elgin. The vast majority of the other half is in the possession of the Greeks. I raise the issue because I question the legitimacy of having "Parthenon Marbles" redirect to "Elgin Marbles." Indeed, the Elgin Marbles are a specific subset of the Parthenon Marbles, but they are not the only Parthenon Marbles. Thoughts? Ejectgoose 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article is basically about their ownership and disposition, with respect to which the Elgin marbles are the most contentious part. The purely architectural and sculptural discussion is elsewhere, at The Parthenon#Sculptural decoration. I do agree it's a bit tricky, since there are a few other controversies about disposition of Parthenon marbles other than the Elgin marbles; for example, Heidelberg university had some small pieces of the Parthenon's marbles, which it recently returned. That's not really worth its own article, but maybe should go in this one. Perhaps we should go the other way: Have a more general Parthenon Marbles article to which Elgin Marbles redirects? The Elgin marbles would still form the bulk of that article's discussion. --Delirium 08:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Parthenon Marbles" is a phrase used to refer to the Elgin Marbles. Just do a Google search. The British Museum seems to prefer the term "Parthenon sculptures". Logically, "Parthenon Marbles" and "Parthenon Sculptures" ought to mean all of the sculpture that originally belonged to the Parthenon, but logic doesn't always determine the way words are used. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there have been some edits relating to this issue today, so I want to provide a little more data here. First of all, a Google search for "Parthenon Marbles" ([1]) gives us results that are all about the Elgin Marbles. A search for "Parthenon Sculptures" ([2]) also gives results that are largely concerned with the Elgin marbles, although I saw one result that was about the return of one fragment from Heidelberg, and other results that are about sculptures that are still in Athens. Nevertheless, it seems very clear that the phrase "Parthenon Marbles" often means the sculptures from the Parthenon that are in the British Museum: even the Greek Ministry of Culture uses the phrase this way ([3]). "Parthenon Sculptures" is more ambiguous, but it's still clear that the phrase often means the sculptures in the British Museum. For these reasons, I think the best way to phrase the opening sentence is

The Elgin Marbles (IPA: /'ɛl gən/), also known as the Parthenon Marbles or Parthenon Sculptures,...

Of course, we can and should say that the Elgin Marbles are not all of the sculptures from the Parthenon, and that (confusingly enough), some of the things that are technically "Elgin Marbles" are from buildings besides the Parthenon. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

although I cannot now find it, I have positioned myself on this in the past. I believe that if Wikipedia is to have value it should not be a repository of what people think or what people say, but of what actually is. The "Parthenon marbles" includes marbles not in the collection of Elgin. The "Elgin marbles" includes pieces not from the parthenon, indeed not from the acropolis, and possibly not made of "marble" at all. This should be clear in the article. --5telios 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"it is no longer feasible or advisable to reposition them onto the Parthenon"?

My apologies if this is obvious, but could someone elaborate? Pgr94 10:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic issue would be pollution. Additionally, the structure is still being restored/rebuilt right now, and you wouldn't want the sculptures to be damaged by construction. It's safer for the sculptures to be inside a museum. Of couse, many people argue that museum should be in Greece... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not Right!

Hello, I am a Korean girl who is writing my opinion. My english skills aren't that superior, so I hope that you can ignore my grammer mistakes. After finishing my homework for finding out what an elgin Marble is, I began to wonder whether the British government to give the marble back, there are many different ways to walk towards this issue, but I believe that the British government must return the marbles. The main reason why I believe so I because the british government bought the marbles with both their money and their agreement, and i believe that ever since then, the British government has the responsibility of the elgin marbles. I know that I am a bad writer, but I hope to receive many serious replies about this issue! Please and Thank you!

• • My email address is <email address removed to protect from spambots>

 No junk mail, please!
--Cjkim724724 07:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello User Cjkim724724 and welcome. I have reverted your post which was vandalized by User:220.76.66.170. Obviously your reasonable and sensible questions irritate some. --Odysses (☜) 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly were they taken from?

The article doesn't seem to indicate exactly where they were taken from. Did Elgin climb up onto the Parthenon and hack them off? If not where were they? Lying around the ground? If the latter then perhaps Elgin's actions could be seen in a more favourable light because if they were just a pile of neglected stones they would probably have disappeared totally by now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.133.86.86 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm just going off the top of my head here, but I believe the majority of the sculptures and friezes that Elgin bought from the Turks were scattered about the ground around the Parthenon. In the seventeenth century, the Parthenon was used as a munitions dump. During one particular battle (I believe it was in 1687), it suffered a direct hit from naval artillery (I believe the ship was Dutch) and the structure more or less blew up. Indeed, had Elgin not purchased the marbles, it's very likely they would be in much worse condition then they are today. Ejectgoose 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure this is incorrect, & most were removed (with some difficulty one would imagine) from their original locations on the Parthenon. Johnbod 12:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically incorrect. Some of the sculptures were on the ground, but the majority were in place on the Parthenon and were removed, causing some damage to the sculptures and the building in the process. "Purchased" isn't an accurate description either--Elgin had, or at least said he had, authorization from the Turkish authorities to remove sculpture from the Acropolis; no payment was involved. Whether Elgin exceeded the permission he was given by the Sultan is an open question.

In 1687, the Parthenon was hit by a Venetian cannon on the Hill of Philopappus. No naval bombardment involved. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, well, I was way off! Looks like I should have perused the Parthenon wiki before I answered, rather than going off what I remembered (or thought I remembered) from class. However, I think there was money exchanged somewhere in Elgin obtaining the firman. Although not orthodox, if this was the case I suppose it was a "purchase" of sorts. Or perhaps it was Stuart or Revett that slipped the Turkish government some money. At any rate, I'm fairly certain that there was some sort of dodgy bribery involved somewhere. Does anyone know for sure? Ejectgoose 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is something on the story of the Elusive Firman here. The article says that "Lord Elgin was given permission to copy, draw, mould and dig around the Parthenon but not to saw sculptures off the monument" and "the original firman was never produced by Elgin in the House of Commons Parliamentary Select Committee in 1816. Only a copy written from memory was produced".

I understand however that the majority of the English people are in favour to return the marbles. Is this correct? Odysses (☜) 13:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a MORI poll that suggests there is a slim majority in favour of returning them if the BM retains legal title, here. There are other polls that give higher figures, but they all seem suspect. Twospoonfuls 14:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

citation needed

Far too many, this is not the Israel page. Everything about the marbles is correct. However, every possible sentence from the Greek side of the arguement, some clever fool has put citation needed and I am not really sure it is. If something is not on the net in a website, does it still need a citation? I mean it says the over cleaning lost detail that will never be recovered. Does that really require a citation? We all know it is true, even if it does damage the British Museum protectorate argument pretty badly. Reaper7 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Balance

Some reference ought to be made John Henry Merryman's arguments in favour of the British Museum's good title. In particular his paper "Thinking about the Elgin Marbles" and contribution to "Imperialism, Art and Restitution". As the article stands one could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that the moral case for repatriation was unassailable, yet it is far from obvious that "cultural property" trumps private property under any circumstances. Twospoonfuls 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the case is that strong simply because it is. There were two polls taken in the uk - both showed that even most English believe they should be returned and were unlawfully removed. I think the article reflects that and the fact that the EU and other organisations favour their return. Reaper7 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is almost beyond parody. Firstly "because it is" isn't an argument. Secondly, your point about majority opinion neatly demonstrates the problem with this article. It is not a piece of propaganda or a canvas of popular opinion, it's an encyclopedia article, and as such there is a requirement to represent the major schools of thought on the subject (see wp:neutrality). As I've said the moral case for restitution is in dispute as well as their legal status, let's allow the readers to draw their own conclusions shall we?Twospoonfuls 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have tagged this article as failing to adhere to WP:NPOV, there are numerous missing citations to claims made in the article, all of which are clearly designed to bolster the Greek government's position on the disputed carvings.

• Against One pro British museum member 'ventures' it is bias and it gets tagged. The kinda action that makes wiki shit. This is a very fair arcticle, just read it. He could not even better it, just complain and wait for a tag, pathetic. Reaper7 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. This kind of drive-by tagging is no way to improve an article. If the anon who tagged the article wishes to return and explain specifically what citations are missing and what points of view are not represented, please do so, but vague allegations of bias aren't helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is not well balanced - there is not study of the conditions by which the firman was never produced yet accepted as legally binding (?) in the court - as the case was presented to the British council on the acquisition of the collection from Elgin. Nor is there any reference to how the interpretation of the firman did not include sawing off the metopes from the building, yet this was involved in actually attaining the pieces by Elgin's team to begin with.
The council's original agreement to return the collection on a formal request by a future Greek government - was never actioned - also not referenced.
One of the biggest reasons or arguments for their return is the lack of context by which they are displayed in the current British museum - which is an important argument often brought up by accademia and the greek government - also not discussed at a proper depth in the article. Well, maybe I missed them? Applesnpeaches (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Public opinion polls and how they're characterized (and mis-characterized)

I have revised the description of the poll results in "The British Museum Position" section so that it accurately characterizes the poll. The original text was based on a statement by the British Committee for the Restoration of the Parthenon Marbles (http://www.parthenonuk.com/article.php?id=79), which referred to a 1998 poll by the MORI institute. This site described the results as saying "a MORI Institute opinion poll conducted in the UK this autumn found that a substantial majority of the population is in favour of returning the Elgin Marbles to Greecea MORI Institute opinion poll conducted in the UK this autumn found that a substantial majority of the population is in favour of returning the Elgin Marbles to Greece". (This was the reference originally cited in the Wikipedia article.)

However, I checked the poll at the MORI website (now Ipsos MORI) (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/1998/elgin.shtml) and discovered that in fact, only 38% would vote in favor of the return if a referendum were held. (15% said they should remain in the British Museum, 18% would not vote, and 28% did not know how they would vote.) This does not support the original Wikipedia statement "Despite the British Museum remaining in ardent refusal, a substantial majority of the population is in favor of returning the Elgin Marbles to Greece" from the Wikipedia article, which is based on the characterization of the poll on the British Committee for the Restoration website, and not on the original poll results.

My revision is based on the original poll, as described on the Ipsos MORI website, and is expressed in neutral language.

Omccreary 15:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Update 10/6/07 - I'm embarrassed. I made a careful edit on Aug 26, but apparently failed to save it properly. (I'm a relative newcomer to editing on Wikipedia, and I remember struggling over the mechanics of the editing, the syntax for the footnotes and references, etc.) Thanks to D666D for returning to this section and fleshing it out.

I've expanded this section, and added references to a more recent MORI poll in 2002.

I have now split this section in two. The discussion of the polls began as a small portion of the section titled "The British Museum position". However, it has been expanded to discuss multiple polls and their (mis)characterization. This is no longer related to the original section title, so I have separated this discussion into a new section titled "Public Opinion Polls".

Omccreary 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But you've introduced some POV by treating absurd mischaracterizations of poll statistics on an equal footing with sensible interpretations. Such as this nonsense:

"Of course, the same results can be differently characterized; for example, the 1998 poll can be described as showing that a significant majority of respondents (61%) do not support the return of the marbles"

If you want to argue for the 'silent majority', and lump those who don't express an opinion into the side you support, then proponents of the return could argue, with an absolutely equivalent argument to this one, that 85% of the respondents don't support the retention of the marbles. I took these sorts of arguments out of the article.

You've also studiously avoided mentioning the part of the MORI poll which can't be given the silent majority treatment, although a quick google search for '"Elgin Marbles" MORI poll 2002' seems to show that that part has received more comment from independent secondary sources. Therefore I put a mention of that in.--Aim Here 07:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Actual Inventory

In a perfect Wiki-World this article should contain that which I am vastly unqualified to contribute, and that which I sought when I came to this article: a rigorous inventory of the collection with as many photos as possible, all as thoroughly captioned as possible with detailed maps of the Parthenon depicting the original placement of the pieces. Even if it is redundant to the main Parthenon article, these pieces should eventually be placed back into a Virtual-Wiki-Parthenon because the whole of the Parthenon has been disassembled by the ravages of time, but more by the ravages of human ignorance, indifference and greed. Ultimately and of course, virtual recreations of the detailed original placements of these pieces also belong in the Parthenon Wiki, and (i might add) as a Wikipedia sponsored computer display in the new Acropolis Museum in Athens. Yes, the (super-complicated and arduous) goal should be to rebuild the Parthenon - virtually. Wikipedia is absolutely the place for it.

IMHO: (realizing this may be a dubious place for these statements,) the sculptures belong in Greece and I can not imagine anyone believing otherwise. (I am an (overly idealistic) Anglophile from New Orleans, Louisiana by 4th generation.) The "Parthenon Marbles taken by Elgin" seems, though certainly not ideal, a better choice to name this article, with a redirect from an otherwise empty page: " Elgin Marbles." To perpetually name these timeless pieces for the looter seems a large historical injustice, even if it is so far their most recognizable name. At the time they were looted, I'm sure there were great altruistic reasons to do so, to protect them etc.) yet it remains the height of imperialistic egocentrism to view the marbles as anything but looted. Very best regards and thank-you to all who have worked so hard to build this Wiki. sgsmith, nola Sgsmith, nola 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have to name things as they are named, not as some people would like them to be named. An imperialist egocentric might like to name the United States article "Rebel British colonies in North America", but that's not the name they are known by. Myopic Bookworm 11:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased article

D666D 17:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I find this whole article very biased toward the view that Greece has been hard-done-by. Maybe the article could be retitles as "campaign for return of the Elgin Marbles"? Many of the points of arguments are left unreferenced also, which does not help with maintaining unbias. In particular the section titles "Damage within the UK". The first paragraph is about damage within Greece, where possibly Greece was also involved in the removal of the marbles. The second paragraph contains no references... Also the section about other articles missing from the parthenon really has little to do with the actual Elgin Marbles.

Unreferenced material can be deleted from any Wikipedia article at any time. Badgerpatrol 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Britain did officially declare that they would return the marbles on the request of a liberated Greek government, but this too is not referenced in the article. I don't see why you think it's pro-Greek.
There is really not much on the "missing" document - firman.
Also, Elgin had no original intent on offering these marbles to the British government. Rumours and proof of bribing Turks were also investigated (William St Clair) also not mentioned.
Greeks were not officially represented by the Turks in accordance to their own request. They were an occupied nation that was struggling with their priority of freedom - it's not intended to appear pro-Greek - but it is the truth.
Furthermore, whole sections of the metopes were sawed off and brought down off the building, whereas the "missing firman" was rumoured to only provide him with authorised casting, copying and collecting fragments off the ground.
Greeks were reknown for offering the Turks bullets so that the Turks wouldn't melt down the iron connetions in the building - during their squirmishes and struggles with the Turks - thus proving that they were very protective of their national heritage - also not mentioned in the article. Yes, it seems this article leans to the British sensibilites on this topic.
Not to mention the failed arguments of the British museum - since it's been argued that the marbles still on the Parthenon were in better condition than those in the British museum. - Anthony Snodgrass, Laurence Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, presented a lecture titled "The Parthenon Divided" sponsored by the John W. Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. Applesnpeaches (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure you read the article, they were sold by a turk to a brit. Greeks were then slaves to the Turks, maybe they helped tear them down, maybe they didn't, it wasn't their choice, either way, if you find a reference, add it, if you can't, so what? It does not make the article bias, LOL. The para you said has no references? They are all famous and I found them in two seconds, hope you can swallow them without too mch pain. Other missing things from the parthenon? Sorry I do not see how this effects the bias of the article? Just teaches the reader about where the rest of the temple is. Reaper7 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha- I don't mean to be be rude, but did you by any chance scroll down to the bottom of that page [4]...had you done, you might have noticed this fairly striking statement: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a reliable source for its own content...;-) I strongly suspect that better sources can be found, and I'm not necessarily doubting the claims made- but they do need to be referenced by proper sources! Badgerpatrol 11:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Slaves? Nil Einne 09:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reaper7, your comment "if you can swallow them..." just reinforces the fact that (you) and this article is biased. If the references are so easy to find, then they should be referenced. I am not necessarily disputing the fact that some of these damages should and could have been avoided- but they should referenced PROPERLY. "If you can't [find a reference] so what"?? Then the statements are useless and just as valid as me making up a fact, for example saying that the Elgin Marbles are made of cheese. The Other displaced Parthenon art section should be moved to the article on the Parthenon- where it would indeed be fully appropriate. I still think that the main thrust of this article should be a description of the marbles (where ever they may be) and the fact that they are displaced around the world should play a much lesser part- albeit an important one- within the article. Wikipedia is not a campaign ground. D666D 18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Bias, the British museum point of view and the Greek view are both posted. So two people think it is bias, and two don't. That means you can tag the article? Reaper7 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC) D666D 05:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC) read this talk page- there are far more than two people saying that this article is biased.

This discussion isn't helpful. What would be helpful is flagging particular sentences/arguments you think are biased. I tried to fix some problems I saw in the intro, but there may be other issues. Unreferenced statements are a problem, but the lack of references doesn't indicate bias--it shows that the editors who've worked on this article haven't done enough research. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) D666D 05:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Would it be helpful to have all the points that need a reference marked so that they can be filled in?

D666D 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I have added the unbiased poll results from MORI in 1998 (including the reference!). should we remove the highly biased channel 4 result?

Omccreary 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for fleshing out the reference to the MORI poll, which I tried to do on Aug 26, but apparently messed up because of the mechanics of the editing process. Take a look at my additions to the article today, and also my notes in this discussion page above, under the heading "Public opinion polls...". I hope you like the changes; you and I are in agreement that the article in general seems biased - in both subtle and obvious ways - to support the return.

I would retain the reference to the Channel 4 poll. You and I have now shifted the emphasis of this section so that it is not only about the poll results, but about how they're misrepresented by advocates of return. The Web contains many references to the Channel 4 poll, and typically characterizes it as showing that the British public overwhelmingly support the return, which of course is a misrepresentation of the results. But this in itself is part of the story. If I have time, I'll try to add a reference to one of these misrepresentations of the Channel 4 poll.

D666D 05:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Just re-reading previous posts on this talk page highlights that someone has previously added the very same data as me, but this had obviously been removed and replaced by the 90% again... (UNBIASED USERS? LOL)

D666D 05:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I propose that the inventory for missing parthenon art should be removed from this article. Maybe it should be added to the Parthenon article, but it has nothing to do with the Elgin Marbles. Alternatively, the whole article could be renamed Parthenon Art and encompass details of other pieces from the Parthenon.

Well, you might want to look at the British Museum webpages on the Elgin Marbles, esp. this one. They mention displaced Parthenon sculptures in other European museums, so they think it's relevant to the issue. The list that's in this article is probably excessively detailed, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the list is too extensive to stand here, since it simply appears to be adduced as support for one POV about the status of the Elgin Marbles. It should be be at a general article on the Parthenon. Myopic Bookworm 10:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem in making the list much shorter, but it's worth making the point in this article that Parthenon art is in museums all over Europe. It's easy to get the impression that all of the Frieze is in London (editors have actually tried to make the article say this), and that the British are the only non-Greeks to possess Parthenon Sculptures. Actually, I think the first paragraph in the "Other displaced Parthenon art" is sufficient; rather than dumping the detailed list into another article (lists almost never make for interesting reading), I would incorporate the relevant material into Metopes of the Parthenon, Parthenon Frieze, and so on. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It all comes back to whether this is an article about the Elgin Marbles or Parthenon Art. I know it's being a little pedantic, but as I see it they are not one and the same. The Elgin marbles form part of the Parthenon art work, but not the other way around. (a bit like saying a tree is a living thing but all living things are not trees). The Elgin Marbles are the Marbles that were bought by Lord Elgin and are currently on display in the British Museum and, therefore, the list is far too extensive... (but I agree, there should be a mention that other art is displaced around the world). —Preceding unsigned comment added by D666D (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they weren't bought by Lord Elgin--he removed them from the Acropolis free of charge (unless you count the bribes he likely paid Ottoman officials, and the wages he paid his workmen). But he didn't purchase the marbles.

At any rate, we seem to agree on how the list should appear. The removed material appears in this diff, in case anyone wants to reuse the material in other articles, where it might be more appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

D666D 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)I think the new version is far more balanced in its view and, unless anyone has any further objections, I think we could remove the NPOV tag...

OK, done. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Parts of article have become disorganised

Somewhere along the line the end of this article has become disorganised. I had a quick look to see when and how it happened, but don't have time right now to sort it out. If any one else has the urge to do it before I get chance- please do!!! D666D 00:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sculptures still there

Accprding to three newspaper articles: [5] [6] [7] and I'm sure I could find MANY more, the first of the marbles were moved on Sunday the 14th of October 2007 and that the move of the remaining 4500 or so pieces of art will be moved over the next three months. Therefore, there are still marbles on the Parthenon that are exposed to further decay by pollution. I will, however, rewrite this statement to reflect the moving of the remianing marbles. So, reaper7, mind YOUR shit... D666D 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I find this article biased towards the British. Elgin's team sawed off whole sections of the metopes from the actual building. Caryades were removed - threatening the roof of the other temple close by. They clumsily kept the roof up with the use of BRICKS!!!! Most improtantly, there was no consent from the Greeks regarding their national treasure.
Regardless of the "infamous" firman not actually ever produced in court,the Turks were occupying a nation struggling for their freedom they had no right not to return the goods on the Greek government's request. The Turks were not representing the Greeks but themselves. Elgin only sold the goods on becoming bankrupt after his release from French prison. Therefore, we have no proof that he had any original intentions of saving the items than we have that he intended on keeping them for his own estate. Therefore, he used his position for the acquisition of Greece's national treasure.
The English government did rule that they would be returned on the request of the Greek government, but then went back on their word. (This is documented even by the British)
Greece has made efforts to please the British on the British conditions of their return, but again Britain has not gone ahead with their promises nor their claims of keeping the marbles in good condition. (Mention of the new Museum - built and completed in Athens) Many reknown Brits have conducted research on the topic and found that the museum indeed ordered the "cleaning" of the marbles which resulted in further damage, besides the fact that they are not displayed in their correct context. (Read study/writings by William St Clair)
Also, a recently conducted study was conducted by a British Lecturer of antiquities, where it was proven that the marbles - even on the Parthenon itself - were in better condition than those in the British museum. (I can find the studies and authors) ..need I continue?
There's alot of information missing in this debate than the article admits. So, I fail to see how this is non biased reporting. Applesnpeaches (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced statements

On the presidence recently set by several reverts and re-reverts, I suggest that all unsourced material be removed from the article unless suitable and reliable sources are found for them (which, I believe, would be acceptable under wikipedia rules). I started the process last week by adding quite a few references to several sections. And, before anyone complains or makes the claim that I am trying to only delete pro-return/pro Greece stuff, note that it was references both FOR and AGAINST the return of the marbles to Greece. Anyone else care to add some refs? D666D 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this because you did not get your crazy way with your little statement about how the polls do not take into account those who were not asked? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Just leave the article, or we will get you for vandalism. Reaper7 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, its an attempt to improve the article. Besides, it was not my statement- it was User:Omccreary who added it on the 6th of October 2007. "Get me" for vandalism? Find one piece of vandalism that I have done- there isnt any- AND all my current edits have proper, reliable sources- I have brought up the problem of lack of references before. I will tag all unsourced claims with the {{fact}} tag and try to ref some more of them myself- but if you want the whole article to remain exactly how it is- you need to find some of the proper refs as well. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material for the appropriate rule. particlularly: 1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. I am not proposing to remove whole sections of the article, just statements that have not been ref'd properly after an attempt to provide as many as we can. D666D 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

POV- section: Campaigning Websites

There is a large imbalance in the number of sites expressing views of the restitiution of the Marbles- ie far too many pro-restitution sites. This imbalance is against Wikipedia:External_links guidlines. Some of the links, including (but not limited to) this one: http://odysseus.culture.gr/a/1/12/ea125.html, include inaccurate, false or exagerated claims; again, such a link is against the guidlines. I understand that there are far more websites out there campaigning for the return of the marbles compared to those for keeping them in the UK, but some balance needs to be restored- and this can be done by removing inappropriate ones.

Which of the pro-restitution sites do people think are the most appropriate? I think there should be atleast one from both the Greek and English prorestitutionalists...

Which of the sites should go? (this one: http://odysseus.culture.gr/a/1/12/ea125.html definitly should, as discussed above). http://www.marblesreunited.org.uk/ states it is undergoing an update: In April 2007 we are told to check back in a few weeks- but now in November, it is still not up and running. BUT, it does have a good Flash(?) panel with photos of the Marbles in both London and Athens and is the UK campaign website.

If after reading this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links and considering the external links you have any further suggestions, rants, raves, crying, threats to "get me" for vandalising the article (to quote Reaper7), or any other comments, please add them below...

D666D 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. There are more pro 'Return the Marbles' or 'restitution' sites than 'Keep the marbles in the UK' sites/. In my opinion you are a dangerous member and a very politically correct member. Do you want us to invent some 'keep the marbles in the uk' sites to balance your article or are you just happy to delete as many 'restitution' sites until you feel the article is less bias having sacrificed reality in the process. When you reverted my edit to remove the passage about the Mori polls not taking into account those who didn't vote, (LOL) i realised you were a very dangerous member with a huge pro British Museum agenda. Do what you like until someone with balls bans you for vandalism. Reaper7 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. Where do I suggest creating websites- far from it- I am trying to improve this article by removing stuff that is made up and adding reliable refernces to create an unbiased artcle (which it was far from when it was in its highly pro-restitutionalist version). If you are going to dandy around words like vandalism, I suggest you back them up with examples D666D 20:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you both need to stop accusing each other of bias--it only creates ill will between you, and makes others more reluctant to work on the article. As for http://odysseus.culture.gr, it's an official website of the Greek Ministry of Culture, so whatever our opinion of its content, the link should stay in the article--where better to look for the official Greek position than the website of one of its ministries? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1) There is only one person throwing around defamatory comments here.

2) Thanks for a helpful comment. Okay, so that is the official Greek site- so, even if it has frabricated or exagerated claims, I agree, it should be kept. What about all the others? How can we get some BALANCE here? D666D 21:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Italian language and the contract

Hi all, I am a native Italian speaker and I found a mistake in the page. It states in the "Legality of the removal of the sculptures" that "ghiaja" means grandmother in modern Italian. This is not the case at all - it means gravel.

Can whoever wrote that text post an explanation? Perhaps it's just a misquote. I deleted the reference to the modern Italian meaning of the word from the text in the meantime.

Let's keep up the great work!!

Paolo

Paolo 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

See p261 of The Elgin marbles by Dorothy King and also this website: [8] D666D 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Hmmm, that link seems to require a password if linked directly, but not if opened from google... try this one [9] D666D 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article [10] (see page 2) translates ghiaja/ghiara from Northern Italian to English as Kiess, which I think is a crater on the moon! D666D 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The ancient Italian translation is fine, it is the modern Italian translation that is wrong. I'm a mother-tongue speaker with a classical education, and to make sure I wasn't wrong I checked the Devoto Oli Italian monolingual dictionary (arguably one of the best) -- I found no reference to "grandmother" or anything of the sort, even in the ethymology. It just means and meant "gravel" :-) If this is what Dorothy King states, it's just wrong :-) Paolo (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)ghiaja or yiayia is grandmother in modern greek. Applesnpeaches (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

list of sculpture in opening and description

Are the pieces of the facade of the treasury of Atreus not included because they were taken separately, because they are not classical in age or because they are less well known and not so emotionally charged? --5telios (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess they get over looked- I have added them D666D (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary Debate

I removed the single quote from Lord Wyatt as it does not reflect the full debate- see here: [11] While this statement was made by a member of the House of Lords, it by no means reflects the view of the UK government, either now, nor a decade ago when it was made. D666D (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add more (and more descriptive) opinions of the various British governmental bodies. In the meantime I will be reinstating the Wyatt quote as relevant and sourced in a WP:RS. Further Byron was the most historically notable of the people who condemned this action(Britannica sees it fit to mention his stance) so that should stay as well. Changing looted to removing to NPOV the language is fine although I will be looking for quotes that describe it as looting and adding them in a NPOV manner as follows: removed (some say looted). Please indicate your objections.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Thomas Bruce, 7th earl of Elgin, 2008, O.Ed.

Elgin was denounced as a dishonest and rapacious vandal, notably by the poet Lord Byron

Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not question that Byron said that Elgin was a vandal. My point is that this should not be in the opening statement, but should be in the correct section- i.e. Criticism by Elgin's contemporaries (where it is already discussed). As for the Wyatt quote, that should not be there as it is POV- ie it is not presented in a balance way. Did you read the full transcript? The very next statement is: Lord McIntosh of Haringey: "My Lords, I do not believe that I should be tempted to make comparisons between the political situation in Greece in 1816 and that in 1997." Including this quote along with other quotes where more reasoned arguments were made would make it a balanced (and probably pointless) entry. But that would distract from the article as it would then just be a whole load of quotes from MPs (yawn). I have therefore removed both parts again. Other than that, I think your additions have only improved the article. D666D (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1 Please avoid deleting sourced and cited information in the future. This is a description of a dispute so it will by definition contain sourced statements that you do not agree with (i.e. "Elgin was a vandal").Thanks.
• 2 "this should not be in the opening statement" Please state a reason for that. This article's lead is allready too short (see WP:LEAD) and your removing sourced content is not likely to help remedy that. It should be made clear in the lead that this issue is as much an internal British dispute as it is between Britain and Greece. The reason why this issue is so notable (and still extant) is precisely because the removal of the Marbles has always attracted such censure from (very notable) members of British society.
• 3 I will also be changing the Greek and British positions to "Rational for keeping (in London)" "Rational for returning (to Athens)"
• 4 Wyatt's quote is indicative of a certain rationale and notable exactly because it is not reasoned. Notice however that the text I used does not comment on this, but rather lets the facts speak for themselves. [12] On a personal note I never understood why the Mother of Parliaments puts up with these people since they are pointless and so often prove even more embarasing than Phil the Greek.
• 5 In removing the quote from Hitchens the naming of the reference was also delted leaving it now broken.

Looking forward to your reply. In order to avoid a revert war I will be postponing making the above edits pending a consensus.Xenovatis (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will deal with each of your comments in order.

1. I did not remove your sourced statement about Byron saying Elgin was a vandal- I moved it. It is still there but in the oppropriate section (see point 2).

2. I agree that it should be made more clear in the lead that there is still a dispute within Britain as to whether they should be kept or returned- However the specifics of labelling Elgin as a vandal a century ago (or any other specifics) should be left to the Critism by his Contempories (or other) section(s). As for Byron being labelled a hero by the Greeks- maybe that should be added to the Byron article (if it is not already)- but not in the intoduction of an artcle about the Marbles. I have added a sentence to the lead regarding the current debate over the return of the marbles- is this agreeable to you and others?

3. I think those are better titles- although I would get rid of the brackets.

4. Yes, Wyatt's comment is indicative of a certain (irational) view. But it still remains that it is not reflective of the UK government's stance either over 10 years ago, nor now. (Also, Wyatt died in 1997, so maybe a statement to the same effect from someone within the government in recent years may (only may) be relavent.) It also remains that the way that you presented the statement introduces POV. As I said before, it is not balanced by the many other more constuctive statements made during that session. Again as I said before, to introduce such a structure that would present all these, would not make for a good article. Maybe a link to the parliamentary transcript could be added in the links section. RE the personal note- is the inclusion of the Wyatt quote to just make a point about English politics? If so, an article about the Elgin Marbles is not the place.

5. My humblest appologies for my grave error when I deleted the Wyatt quote and thereby also removed the full title of the link for the other part. I have already flogged myself a dozen times. I hope this will wash away my sins and I will endeavour never to commit such a heinous crime against the Gods Wikipedia and Xenovatis again. (Please take this as the joke it is supposed to be- rather than a personal afront as that follows- why, when you found that the full reference had been removed (clearly unintentionally), did you not simply repair it?) D666D (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1 I propose it should go in the lead for the reasons above. i.e. instead of "heavily criticised" "criticised as a vandal" or "as a vandal among other things". There is no reason to contest this since it is referenced information and Byron need not be referenced explicitly.
• 2 I am fine with removing the hero reference, in fact the whole Byron reference from the lead, but it should be made clear that Byron was English to show that the conflict is not between the British and the Greeks.
• 3 Cool, thanks.
• 4 The way the statement was presented was not at all POV. I simply stated that so and so made such and such statement and cited it. This is leting the facts speak for themselves, no need to label it explicitly as irational . Re the personal note, of course not, I was just making conversation.
• 5 It pointed out a mistake so that it would not be repeated in future. It was not meant as an insult. An insult would read alot more like what you wrote above, although I choose not to take it as such since I am a benevolent God. You still owe me three vestal virgins and a hecatombe of oxen though.
• 6 Another comment on the Marbles case is this which I propose to add. Please indicate any objections and rationale.

Free Life Commentaries, Seann Gabb, Should the Elgin Marbles be returned to Athens?, January, 2003 We, the civilised classes of Western Europe and the English-speaking world, are the true heirs of Greece;

Looking forward to your answer. I hope we can resolve this speedily and amicably. Thanks.

Xenovatis (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1) I would go along with "criticised as a vandal". Along these line, even the looting reference could go back in: "...critisised for looting and vandalising the site"???

2) Maybe refer to Lord Byron as "the English Poet, Lord Byron"

4) I still stand on the statement being POV bacause it does not reflect the debate- and to make it so would mean putting a whole load of different quotes, all of which could be fully sourced, in order to reflect that (and other such) debates. As I said, that would make an uninspired article.

6) I have not read this piece of work, and it would depand on what you intend to add as to whether I would support you or not!

5) (I Know this is out of order, but want to finish on a high note) You are welcome to as many vestal virgins as you require- just leave me with some hot greek hero (I'm thinking ancient Greek heroes, NOT LORD BYRON! LOL)

D666D (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be better if the new titles stated what was staying in London/returning to Greece D666D (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1)Cool. I will only keep the vandal though since I don't have a citation that mentions looting.
• 2)Agreed.Thanks.
• 4)Agreed. Wyatt is out.
• 6)The following: "We, the civilised classes of Western Europe and the English-speaking world, are the true heirs of Greece;". Cited from http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc089.htm
• 7)According to WP guidelines the section titles should avoid repeating the article title (i.e. no need to mention that it is the EM that will remain in London since the article is about the EM to begin with, so it is implied) but I don't have strong feelings about this so please feel free to amend as you wish.Looking forward to your reply.Thanks DXenovatis (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5