Talk:Elgin Marbles/Archive 2

Name

Elgin was the thief not the sculptor. This page must change it's name.It should be called Greek marbles of Parthenon or something like it. Someone gives his name to something because he made it. Imagine any thief, like Elgin, to give his name to the stolen goods or any killer to his victims!--Filippos2 (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I live in Britain myself and could not agree more, it is the PARTHENON MARBLES firstly and then the Elgin marbles named after the person who disassembled them(and destroyed a good bit of them in the process) from their original place and sold them to the British Museum. The Parthenon Marbles existed in their place for over 2000 years and were known as such, just because some renegade decided to grab them does not give justification for these culturally important items to be named after his name. Admins in Wikipedia have to correct this. 82.34.184.231 (talk)

From Colorado, USA: The name should be Parthenon Marbles. Elgin was the one who illegally (Greece was under occupation at that time) transported them to England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.69 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In the British museum they are called the "Parthenon Sculptures" so even from this perspective the name Elgin is a secondary one...Please don't change the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamosr7 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a long discussion below Talk:Elgin_Marbles#Elgin_Marbles:_High_time_it_was_renamed. The current consensus is to follow WP:NAME. "We use the name that's most commonly used in English." This is not a question of what we individually believe to be the most suitable name. Cheers. Enki H. (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all what I believe. The adjective for the word "marbles" should be the closest to the truth. "Parthenon" signifies where they come from. What they are part of..."Elgin" signifies the person who trasported them to England. It is therefore a secondary desription compared to the first one. Please look the terminology that the British museum uses. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamosr7 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And to be more "scientific" here is the link to the British Museum naming: http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/news_and_debate/debate/parthenon_sculptures.aspx Please also provide us with evidence about your argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamosr7 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated earlier, I suggest you go and read WP:NAME. It was already explained to you that we don't use obscure scientific naming conventions in place of what is commonly known.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"It was already explained to you that we don't use obscure scientific naming conventions" -If somebody searches the term "Parthenon Marbles" on yahoo, they come up with 570,000 hits. I think your "explanation" and characterization as "obscure" naming is baseless and totally unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamosr7 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And if that somebody searches for "Elgin Marbles" on Yahoo instead, they come up with 1,230,000 hits and that's basically the only reason - albeit a reasonably objective one - why the name of the article stays the way it is (for now). Cheers Enki H. (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Accepted. I wasn't aware that "popularity" outweighs "scientific accuracy" on namings in Wikipedia. I still think that for issues related to history this is wrong.

Finally, I regret that Daedalus replied offensively to my argument (See "assume good faith", and "be polite") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamosr7 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

May be it is the best that we create a separate entry with the title "Parthenon Marbles" Now, this entry only redirects to "Elgin Marbles" entry. The naming Elgin Marbles is offensive to many, and many have tried to change it but the same people revert this change. Even the British Museum calls them The "Parthenon Sculptures". What people think?

No. When people talk about the Parthenon Marbles, they usually mean the particular sculptures that are the subject of this article; when the British Museum talks about the Parthenon Sculptures, they're also talking about the Elgin Marbles. Creating a separate article is going to mislead readers; someone who wants to read about the Parthenon Marbles probably wants this article. Obviously there's a potential for some confusion, because the Elgin Marbles only contain a fraction of the sculpture that was originally on the Parthenon, and there's a possibility that a reader who searches for "Parthenon Marbles" doesn't care about the British Museum, and just wants to know what the Parthenon looked like. That's why Parthenon is prominently linked in the first sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: there are a number of articles on the topic: Acropolis of Athens for one, Parthenon obviously but don't overlook that some of the "Elgin Marbles" have been taken from the Propylaea and the Erechtheion - and the topical articles of Metopes of the Parthenon and the Parthenon Frieze. None of the articles are in particularly good shape: they have grown by accretion, they are not well referenced, the history is often imprecise, iconographic analysis is usually completely absent, as are references to rites and religious practice etc. etc. These articles are Start-class, or C at best. If you consider what is possible on Wikipedia, then the articles we have here of some of the most important and symbolic works of Western culture are quite embarrassing. For comparison and example, take a look at Vädersolstavlan. Some editors have really got their act together and they have collaborated to write a beautiful article on a single painting of Stockholm that is not even 400 years old: rightfully, this is a "Good Article". Consider this: every single panel of the frieze and every single metope would deserve an article like that. But on these articles, we are light-years away. If you, you, or you have some time to spare and truly understand what these works mean, then go, make one of the articles better, deeper, more interesting, better sourced, more complete. This is what one would do who truly cares about the Acropolis and what it stands for. Enki H. (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Enki, I agree with most of your comment, but I doubt that every single panel of the frieze or every metope warrants an article. However, if we had a good Parthenon Frieze article, I think that would benefit more readers than discussing what the "correct" name of Elgin Marbles is... --Akhilleus (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If we don't have a good Parthenon Frieze article (though I could question whether being labeled a wikipedia good article is axiomatically a good thing) it might be because some people, and I'm not thinking of anyone in particular here Enki H, prefer rhetorical grandstanding to actually contributing or linking to the thing let alone promoting it. Those are tasks almost anyone might do. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Contrary to what was cited by Akhileas the most common usage is the Parthenon marbles not the Elgin Marbles. See the number of google hits. EM scores [700k] whereas PM scores 2500K with all entries refering to the same collection of sculptures.
2. According to this economist article the most common name is Parthenon Marbles, ie the article clearly states that this is the most common name.

Mercouri’s pleas to officials in London were ignored, but she scored two successes. First, the fifth-century-BC sculptures that Lord Elgin, a British diplomat, removed from the Acropolis temples in 1801-05 and later sold to the BM have become more widely known as the Parthenon marbles—the name chosen by Mercouri to highlight where they came from.

Therefore a move should be made.--Xenovatis (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ilissos Temple

Throughout the time that the Acropolis stood in ruins, many local inhabitants (mainly Greek, but also some Turks), used many stones for building new structures. One good example of this is the Illosos (sic!) temple, which in 1751, as documented by James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, was well preserved. By Elgin's time, the temple was destroyed by locals who found the column drums an easy source of stone. The whole sentence is misleading and not devoid of weasle wording (mainly Greek, but also some Turks, where is the source for this claim?). Ancient spolia were indeed reused, but the dismantling of whole monuments was actually disouraged, but I won't get into that right now. If by any chance someone is interested for further reading I would strongly advise him/her to consult J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (Thames&Hudson, 1971), where the history of each ancient athenian monument is amply documented (the book was published under the auspices of the German Archaeological Institute). The Ilissos temple was actually dismantled by order of Hadji Ali Haseki, the Turkish voivoda (administrator) of Athens during the 1780s. I don't want to leave any shadow of doubt so I' ll give a proper citation. Carlos Arturo Picón, "The Ilissos Temple Reconsidered", American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 82, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), p. 48: "The second (I825) edition of Stuart and Revett states that the Turkish Voivode of Athens called for the destruction of the Ilissos Temple around the year I780, in order to use the building as a source of material in the construction of a defense wall to protect the city against an Albanian incursion".--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the wording of this should be changed, but not that the whole part should have been deleted. The only thing that this source adds is that it was not necessarily the Greeks who dismantled buildings to reuse materials. D666D (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a minute here. At the time the Acropolis was a Turkish fortress and Greeks were not even allowed to enter it. And when they did they rarely got out of it, for that matter. Moreover this general statement "Througout the time..." throughout which time exactly? And what does "stones" mean here (rubble, arcitectural members, pieces of sculptutre?)? And why do I constantly get the feeling that this is all about those dispicable "locals", those savage Greeks who probably haven't changed much during the last 200 years. If you want to see what reused material means, you should pay a visit to Rome, where whole ancient buildings were dismantled piecemeal in order to make way for new ones or to be recycled as building material. Why is this so important in the context of Athens, when it was such a common practice throughout Europe at the time. Somebody (King?) tried to substantiate this claim by adding a fabrication about the fate of the Ilissos temple, doesn't that tell you something about the rest of the argument? Reusing ancient material was a common practice of course but what does this actually tell us about the Elgin Marbles?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Giorgos Tzimas for giving us reality in this article, keep up the good work. I think this whole sentance you quoted which has now been proved premeditated and corrupt should be removed. Reaper7 (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

War of Independence & What should be included here

What is this Both historic and more modern-day tourists have also contributed to the decline of the Parthenon and its marbles. Throughout time, visitors have left their names graffitied onto the walls and marbles; chunks of sculptures have either been removed by tourists or broken off by locals to sell to tourists as souvenirs; hands have caressed the marbles and worn down their details doing under the heading War of Independence? Could we please have an exact citation instead of a general reference to Dorothy King's (polemic) book. One can hardly imagine how the Parthenon frieze and metopes standing at a height well above human could have been "caressed" by apparently gargantuan (more than five meters tall) visitors. As for the claim that sculptures were "broken off [...] by locals to sell to tourists as souvenirs", I would like to see some more sources. Other than this general aphorism, would somebody be kind enough as to cite a single source substantiating it?. What does King say exactly? What were her sources for this claim? I propose its deletion, unless further arguments are brought forward.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh... and by the way, the claim that tourists simply "removed", whereas locals were "breaking off" chunks of Parthenon sculptures is to say the least quite illustrative of the author's bias. Those vandal locals did not have the slightest taste for art, as it seems. It's a pity that they could not speak latin either, because then they would probably understand what Lord Byron meant when he said that "Qvod non fecerunt Gotti, fecerunt Scoti".--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A last note. Those (iliterate and probably savage) locals had already formed the Philomousos Etaireia of Athens in 1812 with the expressed purpose to protect, preserve and study the antiquities of the city. Come to think of it, even queen Charlotte gave her mite for their cause. An awful bunch of people these "locals"!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Giorgo uncited information can be removed from WP without consultation so feel free to do so. I agree that King's book is polemic and the relevant passages will need to be brought forward to substantiate the claims made. Information on the Philomousos Etaireia must certainly be included (sourced). I was not aware of its existence and am pleased to hear about it. It should also be mentioned somewhere in the article that the Parthenon only came to its present sad state when Morosini bombed it and that it was used as a church for most of its life untill the 15th century. It was also the third most important pilgrimage in the Eastern Roman Empire and Basileius II made a special point of dedicating his victory over the Bulgarians by detouring and visiting Athens to pray at the Virgin Mary's temple in Parthenon (it is in Kaldelis' book Hellenism in Byzantium). If you have the inclination to work on this article please do. Thanks!Xenovatis (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Giorgos Tzimas, delete all the rubbish you find. Certain members are trying to push their own agendas and becoming a little to creative in the process. Keep up the good work.Reaper7 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree the wording on this part was a bit off, but not that it should be deleted. All this fuss that Xenovartis is making about not deleting sourced statements (even if they are irrelevant ie Gabb's defamation of the Greeks), but he supports this one rather than a rewrite. I'm sure that are other references about damage from tourists- it's inevitable that a tourist attraction sustains damage from its visitors. Were there only marbles and structures metres above ground level? No, there were plenty of parts that people could touch.

I also agree that information about the Philomousos Etaireia should be included. Also with Xenovartis that the damage caused by Morosini should be the most important part of this whole section. It is already mentioned that it was a church but the fact that it was an important pilgrimage is perhaps more relevant to the Parthenon article. D666D (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

...and these are the reasons why I left it standing under the heading Athens and not War of Independence my friend, where it doesn't belong. It still needs sourcing though and this "broken off by locals" in contrast to "tourists" ever so gently "removing" part is still problematic and again a bit "weasly" --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we please have the relevant King text posted in talk so we can see what exactly it supports. D6666D the reference I made was explicitly to unsourced material which can and should be removed from WP. Since it has been called into question Kings material should be presented to see if it supports the wording chosen or if it is pure POV. Even if the wording is supported it should be made clear in the article that this is as per King as in "King says ...".Xenovatis (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can find examples of modern vandalism in the Acropolis if you are so much interested in stating the obvious (it is unfortunately so for every open tourist site in the world) but I really fail to see the connection with the Elgin Marbles again. Michelangelo's David was vandalised in Florence (somebody smashed one of the statue's toe with a hammer!) inside the hall where it is exibited and the same happened with Pieta in the Vatican. Should they also be moved to the British Museum for safe keeping?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am curious to see this text my self actually and it would help a lot--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the Literary Review and the Independent have reviewed King's book. The reviews make interesting reading to say the least.Reviews of King's book In light of that I would propose that statements based on King's work be qualified by "King says etc" and not used as fact since given the standard of scholarship that characterizes the book that would be somewhat misleading. Xenovatis (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• RE Positioning in text. When sections get split up, that person should be careful what he/she moves to what section
• RE the King text- I have access to this book from UCLAs library. I will take it out on loan and read some of the relevant parts. How do you propose we make excerpts available with out me typing them in here? (Which would probably break copyright laws as well as being potentially tedious)
• I do not advocate the moving of anything into, or out of, any Museum. As to whether the tourist bit stays, I think it depends on whether we are talking about solely the Elgin Marbles i.e. those in the BM, or whether the article is also about the Parthenon Marbles (all of them, wherever they may be around the world). If it is about only the Elgin Marbles, then no, it shouldn't be here- as I doubt very much that any significant damage was imparted by tourists visiting the site before their removal. If, on the other hand, we include all the Parthenon sculptures and architecture, then perhaps then it is still relevant, as it is (as you already state) to all such tourist attractions. D666D (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• RE I don't think it was that innocent in the first place
• Short excerpts and King's sources should suffice (no copyright infringement there). And yes it is tedious... The same goes for me and as you have seen I took the time to include whole citations
• According to this line of thinking the article's arguments concerning vandalism etc. should not be included at all since their inclusion is used to highlighten the reasons against returning the marbles. And you are simply against any moving in or moving out. Final point: the article is about the Elgin Marbles, not the Parthenon sculptures in general or the Acropolis. They belong to different topics. Why should they be treated under the Elgin Marbles heading?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that that section was purposely put in the War Of Independence (I don't understand why you think this, or how it is malicious in any way, but you appear to) then perhaps ask the person who split the section up why he/she put it there (it was only changed on the 2nd of April)
• As I said in another thread, the King book is on Order- I should get it Monday. I will do as you did and post short sections- that isn't too tedious, and worth it if it allows us to decide whether to include/exclude stuff
• I didn't mean it to sound quite like that. I more meant that I'm a little more impartial than to simply say all things should stay where it is, or that everything should be returned to its country of origin.
• Also mentioned in another thread- if this IS solely about the Elgin Marbles, then some other sections should be removed. Other Displaced Parthenon Art and Damage imparted during the War of Independence as this was after the removal of the Elgin marbles. D666D (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should this article be solely about the "Elgin" collection? The marbles were meant to be as a whole, right? Therefore, particularly the restitutionalists amongst us, should think that this article should be about them all. Also, if you search for "Parthenon marbles" you get redirected to this articleUnsureofthings (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I now have the King book- I will start hunting out some of the things that have been used here. (RE Unsureofthings, I still think it should be about only the Elgin collection)D666D (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the article being about the Elgin Marbles. But prior to 1801-12 they were part of the Parthenon so some reference to its history is unavoidable. As for the Parthenon marbles search, well the rest of the Parthenon marbles are better known as the Parthenon...Xenovatis (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Or better known as the New Acropolis Museum... D666D (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That was the most constructive comment you made so far. True.Xenovatis (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean Gabb

I will be removing some of the crap added about Gabb- He's not that important and what does his opinion about the Greeks have to do with the marbles????? D666D (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Highly relevant since it also mentions the marbles and the marbles issue involves the Greeks. And I don't think Seannie will appreciate your calling his stuff crap. You didn't have a problem using it as a source when it suited you. Xenovatis (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Xenovartis, I agree (never said otherwise) that parts of the article are relevant. But really, What does Gabb's opinion of the Greek people (I had come to despise the modern Greeks—a shifty, disreputable people, like a beggar in the street holding up their often self-inflicted sores for pity. Their constant whining about the Elgin Marbles...) really have to do with the Marbles? This is basically the same argument as I went through with you with the Wyatt quote. He is one person that makes an irrational statement and suddenly its worth putting here? Also, I couldn't give a damn what "Seannie" (as you seem to call him) thinks if I call such comments like those above, crap or shite.

Also, please stop threatening me with the "Not deleting sourced references". If the content is not relevant, it should be deleted, even if it is sourced correctly. D666D (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the work of Dr Gabb, and I think even he'd agree that he is a marginal figure in British public discourse. Nevertheless that he articulates the not uncommon view that the modern Greeks have no compelling claim of ownership on the classical past then the first quote is probably worth keeping. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think anyone is disputing whether that part should be included or not. BUT what about his comment about the Greeks as a people (I had come to despise the modern Greeks—a shifty, disreputable people, like a beggar in the street holding up their often self-inflicted sores for pity. Their constant whining about the Elgin Marbles...)? D666D (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please either substantiate the charge that I threaten you or else reword it? Saying "please stop threatening me" implies that I, not to put too fine a point to it, have in fact threatened you; which is wrong.
• The not uncommon view that Twospoonfuls mentions, and it is indeed so, is highly relevant to the debate and is usually accompanied by the buggage of the rest of Seannie's statements. Since he has been kind enough to commit them to print, a courtesy most who share his views are too intelligent to extend, I will insist they be included as relevant and highlighting a "not uncommon" attitude. If his opinion on the Marbles is relevant then so is his opinion on Greeks.
• Please realize that this is a conentious issue so views will perforce be included that you don't necessarily agree with. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1) Okay, threaten may have been a little exaggerated, but you have told me several times. But as I said before, when the point in question is not relevant to the topic, it should be deleted, even if it is sourced correctly.
• 2) Again, there ARE parts of Gabbs statements that are relevant (not once have I disputed this), just not all of them. The comment I refer to (about Greeks being shifty and distributable etc) may be relevant (and I stress the MAY BE) in an article about the Greek people, but not one about the Marbles. Maybe if we could find a source from someone who actually has some direct power over the destiny of the Marbles i.e. a current MP, or perhaps someone high up at the British Museum, that has his sentiment and argues that they should not be returned on this basis, then it may just be relevant to the issue. 3rdAlcove agreed on the fact that it should not be included.
• 3) Ditto D666D (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• 2)It is relevant because it contextualizes the previous statements he makes about the Greeks' moral rights to the Marbles.
• 3) I am not the one who requests sourced material from WP:RS be ommited because it does not conform to or advance my POV.Xenovatis (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of this Gabb before, but a brief scan of his on-Wiki biography is enough to convince me that he is probably a fruitloop. The comment about Stonehenge etc may be acceptable, the racist distribe against Greeks is not, and has nothing to do with the marbles- see [{WP:FRINGE]], WP:WEIGHT etc. for guidelines on dealing with extremist viewpoints of this nature. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any sources that describe his as extremist, fringe etc? Because to my knowledge, and I looked, there aren't. So it is misleading ot quote the first part and not the second.Xenovatis (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"I have also spent much of the past thirty years trying as clearly and persuasively as I can to say things that most would regard as not on but considerably beyond the lunatic fringe in politics", Sean Gabb, [1]. I think one can assert the Greeks have no right to the marbles whether they are shifty and disreputable or not, Gabb's liking for polemic tends to run away with him. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 12:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of him and I've never seen any of his articles in print anywhere, so a thorough research will have to wait unfortunately as I don't have time this afternoon. However, can you point me to any serious scholarship he's done on the marbles, or indeed any popular articles he's written in reliable sources principally concerning the marbles? If he hasn't, then what relevance do his racist views of Greeks have? I am sad to report that there are numerous racists active on the fringes of UK politics (although not an overwhelming number). There are numerous racists involved in the politics of other countries also. Gabb describes himself (this is from his largely self-written Wikipedia biography, a cracking read when you get a spare moment) as "...a controversial figure within the British and indeed the general libertarian movement. He is an extreme cultural reactionary..."[2] stating that "Many conservatives believe that his cultural tastes are a cover for an extreme ideological radicalism."; "What makes Gabb somewhat more than a fringe eccentric is that he is a very clear and prolific writer...". His comments have nothing to do with the marbles and his views are certainly nowhere near the mainstream and barely even count as part of the political fringe. I'm struggling to think of a reason to include them. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he is a bit of a banker (cockney) as well but haven't found any WP:RS describing him as such, or even fringe etc, something I wanted to include in his article or better yet get it into AfD. So untill 3rd party sources appear that describe this guy as fringe as far as WP is concerened he isn;t. Also look at the argument above. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

err, so you're essentially saying that if I post an article on the internet that nobody reads saying that the moon is made of cheese, then we can include that claim here on Wikipedia unless someone publishes a rebuttal? No, that's not how it works- have you read WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, etc.? Can you answer: a) What serious research published in a reliable source has he written actually concerning the Parthenon Sculptures? b) Why are his views on Greeks more generally relevant here? c) What evidence is there that his views command any popularity to the level of notability commensurate to be included in this Wikipedia article? The place for an outline of Gabb's views (with reliable sources) is in his own article, or that of his thinktank. I hope the reason for including these comments here is not to pass off extremist viewpoints as mainstream for the purposes of pushing a certain POV, because that is not what we do here on Wikipedia.

I've read the arguments posited above, they're not compelling. In fact, having now studied the articles in a little more depth, both seem to have appeared in a non-peer reviewed internet only fringe journal self-published by Sean Gabb himself...[3]. You could not get further from a reliable source than that. All of Gabb's comments should be excised in full, I was wrong to leave in the Stonehenge comment initially, having not done my research properly. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(a)No I am saying that we most certainly can include the fact that this statement has been made as in so and so (linked to your WP article) has made such and such statement (c)if he is notable enough to have a WP article he is obviously notable enough for his views to be included. Let me close by saying I hope the reason for wishing these comments removed is not to whitewash the racist strain of thought inherent in much of the argumentation of one side that claims Greeks aren't really Greek and hence have no moral right on the Marbles. If some people are upset about their bedfellows they might wish to consider the possibility of changing beds. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I will post on RS/N. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• OK, done (see WP:RS/N. We'll see if a consensus can be reached. I have no political stance on this issue by the way and I can see legitmate points on both sides. But the simple fact is that these are not reliable sources, not mainstream viewpoints, and the latter diatribe in particular is not in any way relevent to the Parthenon Marbles. Wikpedia should not be used as a platform to advertise the dribblings of extremists. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I will abide by the decision, whatever that may be. Hopefully we can resolve this quickly and amicably. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The things that make Gabb's comments relevant or not is whether they are based on fact or are just his opinion. The comments about Modern day Greeks being no more related to the builders of the Acropolis and the current British being unrelated to the builders of stonehenge suggests that claims based on national heritage of individual groups of people are invalid- ie the Greeks do not have a valid claim to the marbles as it was not their ancestors that built them. Whether this is true or not, I do not know- that is just how I interpret that statement- and as such, if it is true, I think is relevant. In contrast- Gabbs person views of the current day Greeks is only a personal opinion of them- which he is entitled to. But they remain that- an opinion of just one person about the Greeks and, as such, are irrelevant to the topic. I think there are far more people saying that those comments should not be here than those saying it should (only one person explicitly defending their place, with four, maybe 5 saying that they shouldn't be here) D666D (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Athens

What exactly is the rational behind this section? According to the proposal for the return, the marbles will be housed in the newly built museum which has state of the art technology to protect them from pollution, natural disasters etc. They will not be reincorporated in the monument. This whole section belongs to a different article about the Acropolis monuments and not to the Elgin Marbles. I propose its deletion--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is supposed to butress the argument that there is pollution hence they can't be returned to the Parthenon, but as you correctly point out this is not an issue since they will be housed in a museum in any event.Xenovatis (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With the new Museum the pollution issue is out of the question. I believe that we should delete it as irrelevant. The arguments about vandalism in an open site hold true for London as well. London is not immune to pollution either and terrorist attacks are a sad reality that can also endanger the marbles. The last phrase "But the hope is to restore the site to some of its former glory, which may take another 20 years and 70 million Euros" is rather tendentious and a bit sarcastic. The reasons for the dismantling of the Athena Nike temple are false (another frabrication) and the scaffolding issue is utter nonsense. As long as conservation works are in progress scaffolding is necessary as with every other monument in the world. Again, I fail to see the connection with the Elgin Marbles--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree Giorgos, remove it. Reaper7 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal as a whole. How can you argue that events in Athens is irrelevant to the marbles? I DO agree that some parts are irrelevant,though. I think some discussion of the moving of the marbles from the site to the new museum is relevant- and could stand for both side of the argument on restitution- now that, if the marbles were returned, they wouldnt be exposed to the elements. The reasoning behind the move to new museum could also be merged into one, eg "to protect from atmospheric damage the marbles have been moved..." etc Unless, of course, we are talking about the Elgin marbles only in the strictest sense. (NB, I have yet to read other discussion points) D666D (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Which parts did you consider relevant and why? What events exactly are you referring to? The so-called marbles (sculpture) were housed in the old museum (built in 1874) on the acropolis (long before the air pollution problem in Athens) and they have now been moved to the newly constructed one. They were never in the open. The caryatids, which used to be exposed in the open (some 35 years ago) were also transported to the old museum and they have since been protected. What remains in the open are the actual buildings, but that can't be helped. The article is again about the Elgin Marbles, which don't include the whole statuary and scuptural decoration from the Acropolis. The relevant topics can be found in "Parthenon Frieze", "Metopes of the Parthenon" and the Acropolis related articles. What is the reasoning in retaining the Athens section? How does it relate to the Elgins Marbles exactly?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of these facts. In fact whether true or not the argument about air pollution in Athens is quite pervasive and for that reason alone the facts you mentioned above should be included in the article. I agree though that since no actual damage was imparted on the Elgin marbles in athens it should not be in the damage section.Xenovatis (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Although belatedly, I have to correct myself. As I just found out the project for moving the Caryatids started in 1972-1973 (it was not completed then). It was finished after several phases in the 80's. To my knowledge the last statuary from the Acropolis to be moved to the old museum was a series of reliefs from the Athena Nike temple in the 90s. I don't think that this changes my argument against the Athens section in any significant way, but I wouldn't want to mislead anybody.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it depends if we are talking about only the Elgin Marbles, which I think it should be. I had to fight to get the Other Displaced Parthenon Art section reduced to what it is as people at the time didn't want it removed- But, if we are going to redirect this article to be just about the Elgin collection, then yes, the Athens section should be removed, along with the Other Displaced Parthenon Art section (as that is NOT about the Elgin Marbles). D666D (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my question, but I was just thinking about some vodka shots and I am a bit confused. How exactly do you define the Elgin Marbles. It is probably me and the imaginary vodkas but what is your argument exactly? The Elgin Marbles are... what?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Elgin Marbles are those taken off the Acropolis by Lord Elgin and are now held at the BM. NOT Those that are still in Greece and were never part of Elgin's collection. Whether we include other Parthenon art or not determines whether the athens section and other's are relevant... D666D (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how other Parthenon art is related to the Elgin Collection. Parthenon art and Elgin Marbles are quite distinct notions. Why should they be mixed and produce unnecessary confusion. Some backgroung as to their past is of course relevant, which means that they will have to be contextualized. The way they have been kept in the British Museum might also be relevant.

But the whole Athens tittle-tattle is of course irrelevant--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ALSO- why was this sectioned removed so quickly? I thought the guidelines were that a consensus had to be reached before things that were under dispute were removed... D666D (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to restore it. But do answer my questions if you don't mind. What exactly do you disagree with? Do you find any of my arguments illegitimate or false? Why don't you give me your reasoning in favour of keeping it?

I have given reasons for both keeping it and getting rid. I will summarise and expand here. If we are talking strictly about the Elgin marbles (which I defined just now), then yes, this sections should be omitted. In contrast, if we are talking about ALL Parthenon art, then environmental damage (either natural or pollution) occurring in Athens is relevant. And, as the Damage section includes historical damage, then environmental damage (or tourist damage) prior to their protection by moving into a museum (old one or new) is relevant. I think the first thing we need to establish is what EXACTLY should be included in the article- all Parthenon art, or just the Elgin collection. D666D (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

These imaginary vodka shots have taken their toll already. The Elgin Marbles only (as stated in the article's title). What other parthenon art are you referring to? If you speak about the vicissitudes of the acropolis prior to their removal, I do find them relevant since they illustrate why they are in their present state--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If it does stay- I agree it needs rewording.D666D (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I already explained why I consider it irrelevant. I am against it--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore last post which I have now deleted!D666D (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my poor English. Hopefully I still make sense, even though I am making it difficult for you to understand me. Thanks for your patience--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't play the poor English game- I have enough of that problem with the American's over here who seem to have issues understanding English D666D (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's just a pity you think so because I was actually sincere. You don't need to question my sincerity now. Do you?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed anything poor about your English what-so-ever. That is why I questioned why you would make such a statement... But lets not dwell on this point- we have enough irrelevances here already!D666D (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But if we include anything that was left behind in Athens, then damage imparted upon them whilst they were exposed to the atmosphere surely has to be relevant.D666D (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

These should not then be included because they do not form part of the Elgin Collection. I can't say it any clearer than that. Do we have an agreement?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you restored it but you didn't answer. If you agree not to include anything other than the Elgin Collection why do yoy restore it? I am at a loss here--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you will also agree that there are many other parts that can be removed- the Damage imparted during the War of Independence (post Elgin), The list of displaced Parthenon art (but I think it should be made clear that there are other peices scattered around the globe- just not listed). Parts of the Damage in Athens section i think should be worked into the rational for retaining in London. Mostly because historically this was used as an argument. BUT it should also be made clear that this is no longer a valid argument.D666D (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, only in this case it is WP:UNDUE in size for making a point (not necessarily WP:POINT) in trying to justify or excuse the removal (as if Elgin anticipated the upcoming pollution and wanted to protect them) or the non-return (in which case we need to rename the section to New Acropolis Museum and put all the specifics there). As Giorgos points out above, the first makes the section pov, and the second makes the section irrelevant (since we're supposed to be talking about the Elgin marbles only). NikoSilver 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I make the point about what is included in this article as I have had this argument before, when people thought that everything should be included. D666D (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RE NikoSilver's comment. By the nature that the article has recently been split up, the individual sections are going to be POV. However, as a whole, they balance out the fact that not all damage to the Parthenon art (which at one time people wanted this article to include) was imparted by Elgin or in England. D666D (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

????Instead of wikipedia jargon, I think it's hightime you dealt with some of the points raised. Other than a general aphorism as to whether all of Parthenon Art or the Elgin Collection solely should be dealt with, you have so far offered no other argument. You said yourself that the Elgin Marbles are a distinct collection. So what exactly is your problem? Try providing some specific answers to my questions please instead of general aphorisms--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. According to WP:NPOV we should either include both sides or none. Simply stating that the bad pollution would do bad things to the well-preserved marbles salvaged by the divine Elgin is POV, unless we also add the catalytic information that nothing of the sort applies anymore. Both, or none, and at the same extent (if not greater the second). NikoSilver 23:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Which sides ρε Νίκο? The Athens section was a sad lot of unsubstantiated claims and generalities. I commented on them but the points I raised remained unanswered--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you mean that the entire section's relevance hasn't been brought up by any reliable source? I hadn't noticed that (too). NikoSilver 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the points were sourced but were mostly about pollution in Athens as if sculptures were ever left in the open. There were generalities about vandalisms etc. And they were actually insenuating that the sculptures were unprotected from pollution prior to their transportation to the New Acropolis Museum. But I insist these have nothing to do with the Elgin collection--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Giorgos Tzimas: Have you not read my posts stating that I have gone though this argument before, and at that time people thought EVERYTHING should be included- hence a lot of the detail that is in the article. At that time I was arguing for Elgin collection only- so I thought a lot of stuff shouldn't have been included then, but was fought down. So I am all for deleteion of some parts- but some of the text should be reworked into other sections.
• What items precisely do you feel I havn't answered? I have defined what I think should be in here (including what I mean by Eglin Marbles and Other Parthenon Art), have stated what parts I think should be deleted (some agreeing with you), and what parts I think should be worked into other sections.D666D (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I just worked out the problem. You think I am opposing your suggestions, when in fact I am agreeing with some of them... D666D (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to get some sleep. Do as you wish with the Athens section. I' ll come back to it on Monday with my recommendations and I will probably ask for others to have a look as well because I feel my judgement may be failing me. Goodnight and enjoy your weekend as well --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is unresolved, I think we should leave the Athens section as it is- although I think mostly it is going to be removed- But I stress, on this basis, other sections not pertaining to the Elgin collection should also be removed. Have good weekend and I look forward to reading anyone else's thoughts on this matter- and the drivellings of Gabb (REMOVE THEM!). D666D (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] [un-indent] D666D, feel free to restore the section if you see it would apply. I may have rushed too, sorry. Just keep in mind that if it serves as an argument for keeping the Marbles in the British Museum, then I think that the info should be included in that particular section, and its relevance should be cited. I would also add Giorgos' remarks (other Marbles already moved 35+ years now, scaffolding/cranes is not an argument, natural disasters -et.al.- happen in Britain too etc). NikoSilver 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I will take a break also and think about what I think should be moved. Right now, I think most of the section should be deleted (as I said, along with other parts of the article not pertaining to the Elgin Marbles). All that I can see being merged into the Rationale for Retaining in London section is the pollution argument- and this something along the lines of:

• Historically, an argument was made for keeping the marbles in the UK on the grounds that the Marbles left in Athens had undergone damage from atmospheric pollutants (REFS HERE). (MAYBE SOME EXAMPLES HERE). However, since the construction of both the old and new Acropolis museums and the beginning of a restoration programme in 1975, the Marbles still in Athens have been protected from such detrimental effects and thus negates this argument for their retention in London.

NB this was written quickly off the top of my head- so feedback appreciated... D666D (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Athens section for me is a useless attempt to blur a clear article through trying to show, 'both sides' simply for the sake of showing 'both sides' aka political correctness. The Athens section should imo either be removed completely - or added to the relevant section where the UK arguments for keeping the marbles are represented. Simple. Lets not make this complicated. I am with Tzimas on this. Sorry to all those who want to 'fairly' debate this point for the next century. Reaper7 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

REPOST OF THE LAST POST TO THIS SECTION- WHICH WAS ADDED WAY UP NEAR THE TOP:

Although belatedly, I have to correct myself. As I just found out the project for moving the Caryatids started in 1972-1973 (it was not completed then). It was finished after several phases in the 80's. To my knowledge the last statuary from the Acropolis to be moved to the old museum was a series of reliefs from the Athena Nike temple in the 90s. I don't think that this changes my argument against the Athens section in any significant way, but I wouldn't want to mislead anybody.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should check out this article- [4] published on 11th Octover 2007. A few highlights:

• On Sunday, Zambas' team will move a 2.3-ton marble block from the Parthenon frieze, a 2,500-year-old sculpted strip depicting a religious procession that ran around the ancient temple just below roof level.

From the BBC report on the same event:[5]

• Thousands of antiquities will be moved, mostly marble sculptures from the fifth and sixth centuries BC.

And from the Associated Press and reposted on www.elginism.com:[6]

• ...moving some 4,500 ancient masterpieces into the new Acropolis Museum

So, I ask, were all the sculptures removed back in the 80s? Unsureofthings (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)(sorry, didn't sign yesterday)

Yes, they were removed from the Parthenon at a previous time. They were housed in the old Acropolis museum (to the east of the Parthenon), but the stories you've linked to are talking about their move to the new Acropolis museum, which is to the south of the Acropolis. Incidentally, I think the climate/pollution control in the old museum was not very good, but the new museum should be using up-to-date technology. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But this passage wouyld suggest that hthings were being removed off of the actual building, rather than the old museum:

• "In three months from now, the new museum will host ... the Acropolis masterpieces, which will be moved for the first time in 2,500 years — at least the first time legally," he said, referring to the removal of large sections of the Parthenon by Scottish diplomat Lord Elgin 200 years ago, when Greece was still an unwilling subject of the Ottoman Empire."Unsureofthings (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just read this article published today in the Tehran Times today:[7]

• "There are still 17 original metopes (sculpted plaques) which must be protected because they can no longer endure atmospheric conditions," Acropolis site supervisor Alexandros Mantis told AFP on Friday.'
• He singled out 14 plaques on the Parthenon's western facade which are in a ""pitiful"" condition, plus two more on the northern side.

Still maintaining that they were ALL removed? Unsureofthings (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then perhaps the discussion of Athenian pollution is still appropriate... (unless we are getting rid of anything unrelated to the Elgin Collection in the BM?)D666D (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently nonsensical sentence caused perhaps by sloppy editing: "The laser technique applied on the 14 slabs that Elgin did not remove revealed a surprising array of original details such as the original chisel marks and the veins on the horses' bellies." (Me emphasis on the apparently bowdlkerised section) Can it be restored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.124.134 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Legality of the removal from Athens

There are a series of inaccuracies in this section as well. This whole qualache (sic) argumentation needs to be further scrutinized. The publication of the relevant firman from Philip Hunt and A. H. Smith, "Lord Elgin and His Collection" in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 36, (1916) p. 191 gives the following reading "qualche pezzi di pietra" and translates it as "any pieces of stone" with no reference to the usage of "medieval italian". Why qualche (meaning "some") is not rendered as some in the English translation is left unexplained. I find this whole story about Ottomans using medieval Italian quite farfetched, but I am willing to wait for the King excerpts as promised by D666D. In the meanwhile I am planning to incorporate the following excerpts from Lusieri's letters (he was the man sent by Elgin to Athens), which illustrate eloquently the destruction brought about by Elgin's agents:

September 16 1802. I have, my Lord, the pleasure of announcing to you the possession of the 8th metope, that one where there is the Centaur carrying off the woman. This piece has caused much trouble in all respects, and I have even been obliged to be a little barbarous

For the same episode Clarke, the well-known traveller, and eyewitness to the whole affair gives the following description:

After a short time spent in examining the several parts of the temple, one of the workmen came to inform Don Battista that they were then going to lower one of the Metopes. We saw this fine piece of sculpture raised from its station between the triglyphs; but the workmen endeavouring to give it a position adapted to the projected line of descent, a part of the adjoining masonry was loosened by the machinery; and down came the fine masses of Pentelican marble, scattering their white fragments with thundering noise among the ruins (Clarke, Travels, ii. 2. p. 483)

In yet another Lusieri letter we are informed that:

October 4 1802 I will also take one [capital] from the Parthenon, but it is necessary to saw it in two. The Propylaea capital is fairly large, but this is enormous. The gates of the citadel are not wide enough to let it pass. The three capitals, one Doric of early style, and two Corinthian, of a different date, and very early, which were in the old chapel near the Stadium, are in the store.

There are unfortunately many more such excerpts and they most certainly belong to the article. I will be incorporating them in the next few days.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the damage imparted by Elgin and his workers should be included/expanded. As for the King excerpts, the book is on order (it is buried in some warehouse for the UCLA library) so we will have to wait until next week... D666D (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for the trouble. This is going to be really interesting. Hopefully, we will be able to see what her sources were exactly. I read the article she published in the Guardian and was utterly disgusted. Feast your eyes: "the Greeks in what is now the modern state of Greece only began to claim descent from the Ancient Greeks when they realised that it would help their cause, winning Western support, during their War of Independence" I am coming to the conclusion that Dr Dorothy King is not so much different from the "infamous" Gabb chap, which actually explains a lot....--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

...and don't get me wrong, I am no direct descendant of any ancient Greek either--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Qualche pezzi di pietra would translate to Some pieces of stone, but the word "qualche" itself is a pleonasm. In normal Italian you would have said Pezzi di pietra period. "Qualche" serves here as a blanket, it can be thought of as a diminutive for their value, size or number. The same, although not as strongly, applies in English. Forgive my WP:OR, and ask a proper Italophone for more if you wish. Just hinting. NikoSilver 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I called yesterday a friend in Piacenza. He is an Italian specializing in medieval Italian dialects. I am waiting actually...--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr Dorothy King - what vicious words! Reaper7 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Although this is perhaps a subjective reading fueled by exhaustive research into the definition of Cultural Property and ownership (there is no consensus, nor does there appear to be any time soon), the fact remains that the marbles were removed from the Parthenon by Lord Elgin. Should the article not be titled, "Parthenon Marbles, often referred to as the Elgin Marbles? By referring to them and labeling the article as the Elgin Marbles, wikipedia is taking a western stance, supporting the continued stewardship of the marbles by the British Museum and ignoring these treasure's origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.252.10 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Philomousos Society

By the way I crosschecked the Philomousos Etaireia citation (see my comment above, under War of Independence heading) the source is John Travlos, "Athens after the Liberation: Planning the New City and Exploring the Old", Hesperia, Vol. 50, No. 4, Greek Towns and Cities: A Symposium (Oct. - Dec., 1981), pp. 391-407 published by the American School of Classical Studies. I also plan to incorporate this piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgos Tzimas (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Verifying Citations

Several citations cannot be properly verified because the contributors did not include any page numbers. As it has been seen in the case of the Ilissos Temple and the several erroneous qualache [sic] (see earlier discussions in this talk page) some of the citations may have been misquoted or manipulated and have to be properly verified. Please add the missing information or I will remove them according to WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I believe a month should suffice--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Elgin Marbles: High time it was renamed

I am still trying to figure out what exactly the Athens section has to do with the British collection of the Elgin Marbles and their history. For now, the insenuation seems to be that the marbles in Athens are also part of the Elgin Collection. Is this an article about the Elgin Marbles or the Acropolis in general? If it is about the Elgin Collection it should be restricted to it. If not this article must be most certainly renamed. This loose definition of the Elgin Collection which seems to take into account everything ranging from the monuments on the Acropolis, the current restoration activities, the 1981 earthquake, tourists ever so gently "removing" in contrast to locals savagely "breaking off" parts of unspecified "marbles" in Athens (and this last without even a proper citation as I already repeatedly stated) etc. etc. is quite misleading and off topic. Instead of focusing on the Elgin Marbles and documenting in detail the history of collection per se earlier contributors seemed more preoccupied with exonerating Elgin and justifying his controversial (to say the least) actions, as well as presenting a "rosy" picture for the vicissitudes of the Marbles in the British Museum. For what is worth it, not even the British Museum refers to the Elgin Marbles as such any more and the official name has been changed to Parthenon Marbles (see footnote 1)--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Athens" section isn't well integrated into the rest of the article, but what it should be doing is reproducing some common arguments that people advance to justify keeping the Elgin Marbles in England, namely, that pollution in Athens would damage the marbles if they were restored to the Parthenon, and that, if the Marbles had remained in Greece, they would have suffered damage from souvenir hunters (before modern antiquities laws, travelers would often pick up archaeological remains and take them home), as well as more organized attempts to remove material from the Parthenon. It's pretty certain that if Lord Elgin had not taken the marbles, someone else would have taken material from the Parthenon--a metope had been removed by a French nobleman in the 1780s, and I've read about French attempts to get more marbles at the same time as Elgin, but I don't have specifics right now. These arguments don't seem to me to be good reasons not to return the marbles at the present time--the new museum should have good climate control, and damage that the marbles could have suffered in the 19th century has nothing to do with where they should be in 2008--but since they are arguments that people have made, they should be included in the article.

As for the name "Elgin Marbles", it may be helpful to review Wikipedia's policy on article names, which is WP:NAME. We use the name that's most commonly used in English. This has been discussed before, and it appears that the collection in the British Museum is still most commonly called the Elgin Marbles. In addition, the name "Parthenon Marbles" is ambiguous--the most natural interpretation is that "Parthenon Marbles" means all of the sculpture that was on the Parthenon. "Elgin Marbles" clearly denotes a different collection of sculpture (which, as the article says, includes material from other buildings). --Akhilleus (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to retain an entry called "Elgin Marbles", as the place to discuss the history of Elgin's acquisition (not the rest of the Acropolis) under the name by which it has long been known. The only relevance of Athens is as a factor in the debate as to whether the Marbles might have been (or still be) better off in London: this debate is controversial and seems devoid of neutral factual content. Unless specifically alluding to referenced debate on the Elgin marbles, most of this information about recent and ongoing conditions in Athens should be in the section on restoration in the article on the Athenian Acropolis.

It might be worth having an entry for "Parthenon Marbles" which simply states that this is an accepted official term for the "Elgin" Marbles, as well as cross-referring to the specific articles on Metopes, Frieze, etc., currently mentioned in the "Sculptural" section of the Parthenon entry. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you both. I appreciate your interest and have to admit that I mostly agree. I was trying to attract some attention I am very happy to see that you are interested. The point I was trying to make is that since we are keeping the Elgin Marbles title than the article should focus on the collection. Arguments concerning dangers they may face in case they are returned should be relevant to the present situation. Since no reintegration of the scultprues is planed and the new museum is particularly designed to protect them from pollution and natural disasters, than the counter arguments to their return would have to be updated to reflect the present situation. Otherwise they would belong to section called the history of the controversy or something of the sort. Since you have already showed you interest, would you be kind enough to have a look at the whole article and revise or propose any revisions you find appropriate. I have been editing during the last few days but nobody reacted and I am not at all satisfied with the general outcome--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Akchilleus very interesting points about the metope (please find the relevant citation). As for what might have happened in case the marbles had not been removed I would have to disagree. We should present facts not conjectures. Amongst the first laws enacted by the newly established Greek state back in the 1830s was the archaeological law for the protection of antiquities and in the case of the Acropolis it was enforced with special vigour. It is true that the French were also planning to take antiquities from the Parthenon but not to this scale and I can think of mo traveller who would be able to sow and dismember metopes, friezes and columns that easily. So even if vandals and travellers were sworming around the parthenon no destruction like the one caused by Elgin would ever come about.Let's stick to real facts instead of conjectures "ifs" and "mabys". It is unencyclopedic to include such claims. Or should we start a whole different series of articles entitled "what if..." No wonder this is called Alternate History--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just found out what may have confused you: "The first ambassador to seek sculptures from the Parthenon was a French nobleman, the Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier. He had met the Frenchantiquary Louis-François-Sébastien Fauvel on a tour of Greece in 1780. They carved their names on the Monument ofPhilopappos in Athens. The British ambassador protested at their activities. The Turkish authorities refused to let the French remove any sculpture from the building itself". Sorry... no metop there as it turns out--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am probably going through a στραβωμάρα phase or something... thanks for the "space". Πάλι ρόμπα έγινα--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, not "confused." Here's Mary Beard (The Parthenon, Harvard University Press, 2002, p. 86): "For very few travellers reached the Acropolis without casting a predatory eye on the sculpture lying about or built into the 'miserable cottages'. Some of these were grand-scale collectors, such as the Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier, the French equivalent of Lord Elgin, ambassador to the sultan's court and a single-minded connoisseur. In the 1780s, through the good Turkish connections of his agent and a combination of persistence and bribery, he got hold of his metope and frieze-slab, now in the Louvre. The agent even managed to acquire a second metope (which had reputedly fallen from the temple during a storm), but this was stowed on a ship captured by Lord Nelson and was later bought by Elgin. Others were relatively modest souvenir hunters, content with an elegant head or foot fallen from, or (more realistically) chiselled off, the frieze or metopes...It was in the pockets of such gentlemen that many of the smaller pieces, now scattered through the museums of Europe, originally left the Acropolis." Beard goes on to note that that enterprising locals probably removed sculptures from the Acropolis buildings to sell to such travellers--despite the Philomousos Etaireia, I'm sure there were some people around who were willing to profit from their cultural patrimony, as there are today in any region rich in artifacts. Anyway, I'd bet the removal of the Marbles was one of the factors that inspired the creation of the Philomousos Etaireia, since Elgin was gone by the time the society formed in 1812. Perhaps people were determined not to let it happen again...

We might also look at John Boardman, "The Elgin Marbles: Matters of Fact and Opinion," International Journal of Cultural Property 8 (2005) pp. 238-9, who compares some plaster casts of slab 6 of the East Frieze taken by Fauvel in 1786-1792 and the same piece now in London. The figures in the cast were mostly intact, whereas they're mostly gone from the slab. In their place, we have deep gouges and chisel marks--Boardman's conclusion is that the figures had been chiseled away in the ten-year gap between Fauvel's casts and Elgin's removal. Boardman says: "This was part of the continuing destruction that Elgin’s removal halted. One result is that fragments of the Parthenon sculptures are to be found in various museums other than Athens and London, notably a pediment head, a metope, and a slab from the east frieze in the Louvre."

Boardman also says on pp. 239-40: "In answer to a question from a Greek student at the London conference, I said that in my view he [Elgin] should not have taken them, but that if he had not, the destruction which I described at the end of the last section would have gone on unabated, and we would probably have been obliged to base our study of the Parthenon’s sculptures largely upon eighteenth-century drawings."

As for the French, a good place to look is John Merryman, "Thinking about the Elgin Marbles," Michigan Law Review 83 (1985) p. 1905: "First of all, it is important that the French were at the time aggressively acquiring great works for the Musée Napoleon (now the Louvre). Napoleon had looted Italy and other parts of Europe of much of their greatest art to fill his museum in Paris. The French, rivals of the British for influence in the Ottoman Empire, sought to acquire Greek antiquities for their own museums and to prevent Elgin from acquiring them for England. If Elgin had not removed the Marbles, someone else (probably the French, but some Germans were also interested) would certainly have tried to do so." Merryman isn't alone on this point, this is something I've read in other articles about the Marbles. Obviously, this is not an argument that would excuse Elgin, but it is a good reminder that Europe's (and America's, for that matter) museums are filled with stuff acquired under somewhat dubious circumstances. Elgin was perhaps more successful than many other collectors, but he was hardly alone in trying to gather antiquities.

I'm sorry I don't have much time at the moment to edit the article, but something that must be kept in mind is that Wikipedia articles report what other people have said; they are not supposed to make cases for one side or the other. Our job isn't to evaluate the arguments for keeping or returning the marbles, but to report what the arguments are--so even if some of the reasons the British Museum has put forward for keeping the Marbles in London seem ridiculous, or if the reasons the Greek government gives for bringing the marbles back seem unconvincing, we have to report them anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the citation on the Metope. As far as what wikipedia should report I probably didn't make my self clear earlier: such "what if" arguments must be reported as opinions and not as facts--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I was always wondered whether the name Parthenon Marbles could be used. If anything it could stay that way it is, since not all the marbles are from the Parthenon. Or you could argue for call the article, "Acropolis Marbles". But Elgin marbles is just fine, since it immediately goes to the correct understanding of what marbles of the Acropolis site are being discussed. _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Contrary to what was cited by Akhileas the most common usage is the Parthenon marbles not the Elgin Marbles. See the number of google hits. EM scores [700k] whereas PM scores 2500K with all entries refering to the same collection of sculptures.

1. According to this economist article the most common name is Parthenon Marbles, ie the article clearly states that this is the most common name.

Mercouri’s pleas to officials in London were ignored, but she scored two successes. First, the fifth-century-BC sculptures that Lord Elgin, a British diplomat, removed from the Acropolis temples in 1801-05 and later sold to the BM have become more widely known as the Parthenon marbles—the name chosen by Mercouri to highlight where they came from.

Therefore a move should be made. --Xenovatis (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

lead

As I said, I don't have a lot of time to edit this article, but I just changed a few things in the lead. Here's why:

• The Elgin Marbles/Parthenon Marbles aren't all from the Parthenon--some pieces are from the Propylaia and Erechtheion. We need to avoid giving the impression that the Elgin Marbles only came from the Parthenon; at the same time, we need to avoid giving the impression that the Elgin Marbles constitute all of the surviving Parthenon sculpture.
• No citation is needed for the fact that these are called the Elgin Marbles and the Parthenon Marbles--this is an easily verifiable fact and falls in the domain of "common knowledge".
• Nothing was lost at sea. One ship sank with a slab of the Parthenon Frieze, but the piece was recovered (at Elgin's expense).
• Elgin was criticized in England for taking the marbles, but I'm not sure "heavily" is a good way to characterize it--it sounds judgmental, and, after all, Parliament concluded Elgin had legal title and purchased the marbles from him, so there must have been quite a bit of public opinion in his favor as well.

The lead still needs work; in particular, it should be clearer about the issues with Elgin's firman. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful points, do continue with your edits, they can only make the article better--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

relative?

Stelios in bid to reunite Elgin Marbles

If it is relative can someone add it otherwise ignore this... A.Cython (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This move has already spawned a good deal of controversy (you should read the reaction from the Times and their sarcastic pun about the Easy Marbles). Since this is not an officially sponsored move by the Greek or the English Government or any of the involved parties [British Museum, Greek Ministry of Culture and the associated institutions and organisations], but rather a private initiative I don't feel that it should be included. I am afraid that we might open the pandora's box for the inclusion of every controversial action undertaken by individuals and we might end up with a monster of an article... On the other hand I would welcome some feedback from other editors as well--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right, but if this private move manages to place the officials on the table or succeeds in its goals then we might add it. A.Cython (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

... it will be necessary to add it then (although I don't feel that much is going to come about from this move) but for the time being I think that we'll just have to wait and see--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ok.. Enjoy Life! A.Cython (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Legality again

The current text contains the following:

"Vassilis Demetriades, Professor of Turkish Studies in the Department of History and Archaeology of the University of Crete has argued that "any expert in Ottoman diplomatic language can easily ascertain that the original of the document which has survived was not a firman", whereas its actual authenticity has been seriously challenged. "

It seems to me that there is a problem with this. If both authorities argue against authenticity, the word "whereas" is wrong and should perhaps be "and". Maybe the Rudenstein ref should be "has not been seriously challenged" or the Demetriades ref should be "was a firman". I have no idea which of these is right, although I suspect it's the Rudenstein. Could someone who knows the topic take a look? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well both statements are true. Demetriadis does not argue against the authenticity of the document per se (he is in no position to do anything of the sort), he simply says that the original could in no way have been a firman (firmans have a completely different structure and use completely different language and formulas). Rudenstine, on the other hand strongly suggests that the surviving italian copy was a simple forgery (probably by Hunt) devised to butress Elgin's bid to sell his collection to the British government. Just read the rest of the "Legality section" and you will see for yourself.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Greece urges return of sculptures

Greek President Karolos Papoulias has renewed his country's call for Britain to return sculptures removed from the Parthenon in Athens 200 years ago.... Read here:[8]--89.160.136.166 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection requested (June 2009)

What a travesty today. I have requested semi-protection. Thanks to all good faith editors. Enki H. (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The current wording of the lead implies that all of Britain was against Elgin's bringing the marbles. I am pretty sure that's not true at all. Seems pretty misleading.--Gloriamarie (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added more NPOV to the article throughout as well as the intro. Some parts of the article were written in a way that did not correspond with facts.--Gloriamarie (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference to the slabs being 'hacked' from the building by Elgin's representatives is unnecessarily pejorative - whatever else they think, surely everyone agrees that Elgin wanted to preserve and not to harm the marbles. In 1975, the current government 'removed surviving artwork', a much kinder way of putting it. ^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredibus (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We are told to use common names in naming the Parthenon Marble:

WP own policy states that the " given name must be neutrally worded." (see below)

how can the use of the name Elgin be considered more neutral then 'Parthenon'

Or is this a case of the victors rewriting history.

Consider me a vandel damn it...l will change the name to what everyone bar the english parliament and the british museum, who is right and just...

In case u r confused as to who l am...Kon Tsementzis-Floudas [Australia]

---

Use common names of persons and things Policy shortcuts: WP:NCCN WP:COMMONNAME Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article (making the title unique when necessary as described in the following section and in the disambiguation guideline). The naming conflict guideline may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded.

Rationale and specifics: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)