Talk:Elgin Marbles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 July 2009

Elgin Marbles → Parthenon Marbles — More google hits.

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.

--Xenovatis (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose as political correctness, based on raw google scores. The Economist article cited begins with the late Melina Mercouri... decided to make her mark in politics by campaigning for the return of the Elgin marbles from the British Museum because that way ordinary monoglot anglophones will understand them. So does their editorial (to which they link). I believe that the expression cited was intended to mean that "Parthenon marbles", however inaccurate, is more common than it used to be (which is clearly the case), not more common than the established expression.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are second guessing the Economist. I reposrted on what they specifically and directly wrote. That is just flimsy. Now look again at the number of google hits.--Xenovatis (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this

• Oppose. "Elgin Marbles" is the common name IMHO. Aubergine (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As you can see it most certainly isn't.--Xenovatis (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the closing "IMHO", thank you for informing me what my opinion isn't. Aubergine (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You will not be surprised to know that no-one particularly cares about your opinion unless there are facts and arguments to back it up.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC) But then again you might be.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. I honestly do not understand what Sept means by political correctness which is based on raw google scores! "Parthenon marbles" is not politically correct; it is simply a) more common; b) more accurate. The marbles do not belong to Elgin! Neither are they made by him! Centuries ago they belonged to Parthenon, being a part of it. Therefore, google research is indeed just a tool; we do not jugde based solely on google(-web, -book, -scholar) researches, but we do have the right to use it. Now, in terms of google book research the results are too close to call (2,759 vs 2,850) and one has to go through each book to check if this first figure is indeed accurate, or if the combinations are random and do not absolutely reflect reality (Parthenon or Elgin mentioned at the top of the page, and "marbles" somewhere at the end).
  In any case, even if we can discuss about common use (although I think nobody can deny that "Parthenon marbles" is starting to prevail), I insist that in terms of accuracy "Elgin marbles" is encyclopedically wrong, echoing perceptions and ideas of the last century about ownership of cultural goods—the marbles do not belong to Elgin; they are a cultural heritage belonging to humanity etc. Wherever these marbles are (and I do not get to the substance of the Greek-British conflict, where I have no proble to admit that legally UK has the right on its side [but maybe not culturally]), their connection is a) culturally, b) historically, c) encyclopedically first and foremost with Parthenon; and definitely not with Elgin. Thus "Parthenon marbles" is the only title which does not serve POVs, political interests, and political correctness.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The present name does not assert Elgin's title, any more than any conventional name. The proposed name was expressly devised to serve a political purpose; as it happens, I tend to agree that it is a just political purpose, which the effort to change has served badly. The effort to rename has been even less successful in getting them back to Greece than in complicating English usage. Surely it would be more useful to keep the image of a minor Scotch peer bribing and bluffing Turkish bureaucrats front and center in these discussions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The effort (if there was ever such a systematic effort, which I seriously doubt [especially after Merkouri's death], but this is not our issue here) to bring the marbles to Greece was not influenced IMO by the success or not of the "renaming". I don't know if Merkouri did it for political reasons or because she sincerely believed "Elgin marbles" is wrong, and it is not my interest to judge, but the term she promoted, "Parthenon marbles", is (again IMO) more accurate, and I am happy it prevails; so wherever she did for the wrong or the right reasons, she promoted something more accurate in terms of history and culture. I see no reason to have the name of a "minor Scotch peer bribing and bluffing" next to the marbles, and I do not want people reading the article to make primarily the connection between Elgin and the marbles; I want them primarily to make the connection between Parthenon and the marbles; which is after all consistent with the cultural and historical reality: these marbles belonged for many centuries to the Parthenon, and as a cultural heritage they will always belong to it (despite the results of commercial transactions, diplomatic manoeuvres, or state propagandas); they briefly belonged to Elgin as a result of a commercial transaction. In any case, it is clear that we "strongly" disagree. Therefore, let's wait for more input by other users, who will judge our arguments!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. If one runs a Google search ignoring wikipedia and mirror sites (-wiki) the results are even more glaring. Elgin at 250K and Perthenon at 1,500K hits.
2. In addition I would point readers to the above linked WP page on Naming Conflicts where the No. of google hits is cited as the first of possible means of determining popularity. Thanks.
3. Incidentally the marbles are know in Greek as "Τα Ελγίνεια" though of course this is not the Greek WP.--Xenovatis (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The effort to reunite still continues according to this link, which I copy from above. Note that the BBC does not use, or mention, the proposed name, although they have a perfect context to do so if they believed it communicated with anyone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No reason to change. I think this argument is always likely to be split along nationalistic lines, Greek-influenced editors supporting "Pathenon" and British-influenced supporting "Elgin". Where everyone else stands, I don't know, but Britannica uses "Elgin Marbles" as does CNN and the New York Times in the articles I've read. Interestingly, other Wikipedias use "Elgin". Hippo (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The NYTimes uses both equally 1, 2. CNN does use EM more (10 hits) but also uses PM (3 hits).--Anothroskon (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose: In the English-speaking world (and this is En Wikipedia don't forget) they are known as the Elgin Marbles, period, end of story. – ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It should be pointed out that as a search string "parthenon marbles" doesn't distinguish between "Parthenon Marbles", "parthenon, marbles", "Parthenon/marbles", "parthenon. Marbles" and "parthenon - marbles". None of which necessarily mean the same thing. Also, since when did google encompass the totality of human discourse? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Good point but it also applies to "Elgin Marbles" so the end result is the same.
2. It doesn't but that is not the point. It is listed as one of the ways in which to decide naming conflitcs and as the first one at that. The name Parthenon Marbles has also been used by the CNN, NYTimes and Economist among others. --Anothroskon (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Just reading the Britannica article more fully, not all the "Marbles" were from the Parthenon, so "Parthenon Marbles" may be inaccurate as a description:

Elgin Marbles (Greek sculpture): collection of ancient Greek sculptures and architectural details in the British Museum, London, where they are now called the Parthenon Sculptures. The objects were removed from the Parthenon at Athens and from other ancient buildings and shipped to England by arrangement of Thomas Bruce, 7th Lord Elgin, who was British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (1799–1803).

(emphasis added) I see the British Museum uses "Parthenon Sculptures", but that doesn't mean we should be inaccurate too. Hippo (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title and content

The article is basically dedicated to the debate over the Marbles and contains just about nothing about their religious, narrative, historical and art historical value. That is a valid topic and therefore the article is about 'Elgin Marbles debate'. Hence, could we consider... 1/ chaging the title to that effect. 2/ Starting up an article for 'Parthenon Marbles' where their art historical aspect is explained, also that is the name under which the British Museum refers to them. Politis (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a fine idea, but it's important to remember that the Elgin Marbles are only a subset of the sculptures that adorned the Parthenon, and discussion of the sculptures as a whole should be at Parthenon and subarticles like Metopes of the Parthenon. The art history, etc. of the Elgin Marbles can be discussed in this article, of course, keeping in mind that they're only part of what was once a greater whole. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably know this, the Elgin Marbles refer to all the pieces in the BM from the Acropolis site, not just from the Parthenon. Please find below a some thoughts on a proposal, I will leave for a while for suggestions, responses and feedback.

Elgin Marbles (debate): will be the title of this article.

Parthenon: existing article on the art and history of the building itself and its component elements, including its 'Marbles' in Athens, London, Paris, Rome.

Parthenon Marbles: article on the art and thematology of the items at the British Museum from the Parthenon itself; the article will include a paragraph on the debate with a link to Elgin Marbles (debate).Politis (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I could only see the rational of using 'Elgin Marbles(debate)' if there was a main Elgin marbles page that was starting to get too long, then taking the debate over the ownership to a separate page would make sense . BUT this is not the case. 'Parthenon Marbles' is factually incorrect for the reasons that have been specified in this talk page before, the collection consists of more than just marbles from the Parthenon. I do support adding more information about each of the statues and frescos so that the article is not dominated by the arguement over ownership.Discojim (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

While currently listed as disputed, it would seem that a more accurate listing would be The British Museum. While a return is demanded, it is acknowledged that the current owner, whether legally or illegally, is The British Museum.

If someone else own it, then it is essentially a private individual who probaply is Greek. Ofcourse, I am not suggesting it would be the King (Pretender) of Greece.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Elgin Marbles

Although Elgin Marbles might be a really controversial name, Parthenon Marbles is no way more accurate, as the marbles in question kept in the B.M. and brought by Lord Elgin, include, among others, a Caryatid from the Erehtheion, a temple close to the Parthenon, and fragments from the temple of Athina Niki. Not all "Parthenon" Marbles originally decorated the Parthenon!!! This cannot be a suitable name for theses sculptures! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username entered not in use (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that not all of the Greek artefacts that were removed (without any permission from the Greeks of course who were under occupation at the time) were from Parthenon. So what? Were they not Greek? The most accurate name would obviously be simply "Greek Marbles". Stealing does not magically become legal just because a couple of centuries have passed. The marbles have to be returned. An apology would not hurt the British pride either. Not just because some British "Lord" stole them centuries ago. But because British authorities are still doing the best they can to keep them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interupt but one thing should be made clear.There is a great deal of information about cleaning the marbles -and the damage done -by the British of course...but people should understand that the original marbles -as with all Ancient Greek sculpture were all painted in bright hideous colours making them look like fairground waxworks and completely hideous to our eyes. When found a thousand years after their creation the paint had flked off and the whiteness of the stone reflected ideals of Christianity that revealed the divine pure nature of the human spirit The creators of all Greek sculpture would be horrified if they saw them unpainted today regarding them as unfiished lumps of rock It can therefore be said that the Elgin marbles and other Greek statuary has absolutely No connection with ancient Greece and itis irrelevant where they are kept -though the misty calmness and quiet of the British Museum brings out their spirituality a thousand times more than that dreadful airport terminal building the Greeks have built for them and to which hopefully they will never be returned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston1911 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's as if I am to expect a double or a triple meaning with this. If someone is going ga ga, in English we say that the person has lost his marbles. Is there a joke that has gone in to oblivion?--82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV warning

Hello. I just chanced upon this page. I noticed some obvious examples of POV statements in the section on the British Museum damage, evidently inserted by Greek partisans. I fixed one clear case (the text used to say they were "irrevocably damaged", citing the Guardian, when the Guardian in fact said no more than that some Greek conservationists made this claim). But there appears to be more left. Someone needs to go through all possibly POV-looking statements and check whether (a) they are sourced; (b) the source is reliable; (c) the source is evidently biased, and if so, make sure the WP text notes the source of the claim (and possible bias, if not obvious); (d) the source itself (rather than, e.g., someone quoted in the source) actually says what it is claimed to say. BTW I'm neither British nor Greek, and not an archaelogist, and have no particular viewpoint on who's right vs. wrong here. Benwing (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add another example of suspect text is the following:

While the levels of nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter pollution in Athens are average compared to other European cites...

This seems clearly added to discredit the statement directly following it, that pollution in Athens may have damaged the Parthenon. But in fact it's problematic for many reasons:

1. The pollution level of other cities vs. Athens is irrelevant to whether the pollution in Athens (or any other city) is enough to cause damage to something sitting outside.
2. Furthermore, the quoted source only refers to pollution in 2005, whereas the reputed damage would have been suffered over a long period of time, and pollution levels in Athens may be much different now than previously.
3. Also, placing critical text before the text it's referring to is bad style and comes across as trying to prejudge the reader.
4. But most basically, this is original research (specifically, original synthesis), which is verboten in WP. To refute the assertion about pollution damage, you need to find a reliable source that asserts that pollution damage to not occur, and source it, indicating who made the statement. Benwing (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

$

Interesting how the motive for profit from tourism is not counted in as a rationale for keeping or sending off the ancient artifacts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.143 (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it more strange how Mona Lisa is not mentioned. As she is of such a low value, The Italians should not request her return. She is only 2 or 3 times as much worth as the British Museum. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Monna Lisa was personally brought to France by its author Leonardo as a gift. The story of it being stolen by Napoleon from Italy and therefore the belief it should be returned are popular even among Italians, but wrong.--Sligrone (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for retaining in London, citation needed: May 2011.

No reliable sources confirming London is Europe's most visited city. Wikipedia appears to state that Moscow is Europe's largest city. No reliable sources confirming the Parthenon museum prices. Benson85 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Done...probably in less time than it took you to put in the citation notices and add to the Talk page...--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a body of major works of art, the majority of which were produced by the workshop of one of the greatest sculptors who has ever lived. Their re-introduction to the Western World by Lord Elgin was one of the most important events in the history of art and of art scholarship. Am I the only one who is bothered by the preponderance here of information only about the controversy of the sculptures's ownership, etc.? 68.173.228.173 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "re-introduction to the Western World". I thought they were first introduced to the Western World by the ancient Greeks in their native country Greece which has always been a part of the western world. According to your logic Parthenon and perhaps the Acropolis should have been moved to Great Britain in order to be properly introduced to the Western World. I am not even counting the Egyptian antiquities, even though the pyramids would have been a bit of a challenge to relocate to the UK, pending their proper introduction to the Western World. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I mean that Greece had been conquered by the Ottoman Turks, and had thus become, unwillingly, of course, a part of the Islamic world. Its native culture was suppressed, and the Parthenon had been made first into a mosque, and then into a powder magazine. It was to rectify this state of subjugation that the Greeks fought an heroic War of Independence. So, it is in this sense that I mean that, in about 1800, Greece was not part of the Western World. Do citizens of the Hellenic Republic really feel otherwise?

Please, I am not interested here in engaging in the debate that has gone on elsewhere about the repatriation of antiquities. It is not for me to decide where these magnificent sculptures find their next home, so I really have no opinion on the matter. I only wanted to call attention to the possibility that speaking of the Parthenon Sculptures only in a contemporary political context may have limited validity. Maybe Wikipedia needs a separate article under the heading: Elgin Marbles Repatriation Controversy. I really think this might be a good idea. 68.173.228.173 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry if I came in a bit too strong, but this is a controversial and perhaps universal issue involving the removal of antiquities from many countries, not only Greece. Your point about the controversy is a good one. Perhaps it merits a separate article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, no offense taken! The more I think about it, the idea of a separate article on the controversy seems like a good idea, given that any search for "Parthenon Sculptures" or "Parthenon Marbles" is directed to the "Elgin Marbles" Article. Don't these works of art deserve an article that is primarily devoted to: 1. Their authorship, origin, and meaning; 2. Their place in the history of art, and; 3. Their influence on art and culture? Such an article could encompass objects presently located in Athens, London, Paris and elsewhere, and would be extremely useful to have available, should the sculptures all return to Athens someday. 68.173.228.173 (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Elgin/Parthenon Marbles

It is clear to me that this article needs to be re-edited to establish neutrality. It is also clear to me that straightforward and concise mention be made of the controversy surrounding the location of the marbles, however, that is all. I don't believe that Wikipedia is the forum for a discussion on issues that may be highly emotionally charged; where there is a possibility that an article may inspire heightened feelings, particularly hostile opposing ones, great care must be taken to present a neutral article - this requires the good judgment of a final arbiter acting in the best interests of a true encyclopedia which has academic knowledge as its foundation. As a side note, I last visited the Acropolis in 2008, and was again aware that portions of the Acropolis, most notably, but not restricted to the Parthenon group, were elsewhere, and I did have thoughts that it would be very special to have those creations originating from the Acropolis located on or near the Acropolis. I believe that almost anyone visiting that wonderful spot would likely have similar thoughts were they aware of the issues, and I have no legal or familial affiliation with either Britain or Greece. I believe the Acropolis occupies a special place in the world's history, and therefore should be preserved in its most complete possible form at or near its location, with the full support of all countries, and with easy access granted to it for all, and encouragement from and acknowledgment by the Greek government for international support and participation in this wondrous site which transcends all modern national cultures.

Haloedwiki (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Parthenon or Elgin?

The Elgin Marbles are the antiquities brought to Britain by Lord Elgin and housed in the British Museum. The Parthenon Marbles are all the marble antiquities brought from the Acropolis in Ottoman Athens and housed in the British Museum, including the Elgin Marbles. The British Museum in all its publications and communications uses 'Parthenon Marbles'. Politis (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They use 'Parthenon' to draw away attention from Lord Elgin whose deeds damage the legitimacy of their ownership, nothing more. They are known as the Elgin Marbles by the majority. Reaper7 (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wrote before that when a thief stoles something, it does not takes its name from him. filippos 109.242.88.96 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Except they were not stolen: permission was given form the then legal 'owners'. It is only with hindsight that the situation was brought into question and the debate we have today.--hydeblake (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The attitude expressed here by Filippos is the very reason why the negotiations keep breaking down. As long as the Greeks continue to attempt to win the philosophic argument of whether the marbles were or were not stolen, they will never achieve a practical win/win arrangement in which the marbles are returned to Athens. What is needed is common-sense and good will rather than dialectics. If the Greeks continually insult the Brits with accusationss, then at the end of the day, the Brits still have the marbles. The Greeks seem to be incapable of meeting the British even a quarter of the way. Amandajm (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Marbles were obtained by Lord Elgin with the permission of the then-current government of Greece, albeit an Ottoman one. At the time Greece was ruled by the Ottomans and so whether the Greeks of today like it or not, they were not stolen. If the Greeks wished to have any legal claim to them then they should have fought harder against the invading Turks - and they should have taken better care of the Marbles themselves, as before Elgin arrived few if any Greeks cared one jot about them which is why the Marbles were in the dilapidated state they were then in.

Send the Greeks good copies of the originals and then if after a few years they can be seen to have taken good care of them, perhaps let them have the real ones back in exchange for the British Museum then keeping the copies.

Elgin obtained the Marbles to save them for posterity at a time when the average Greek didn't give a s**t about them, and if various Greek Governments of recent years want to get arsey about the Marbles then let them have them back - but charge them for their upkeep the past hundred or so years. And while we're at it, charge the buggers for the cost of our troops during the Battle of Greece and subsequent liberation, and then civil war which British troops were then embroiled in, and which from their point of view, was an unnecessary, completely pointless and useless, waste of British soldier's lives. But then again, the average Greek MP or Minister currently complaining about the Marbles probably wasn't alive then.

BTW, during the German Occupation of Greece the Marbles would have almost certainly have been removed by them and transported to Berlin. So the Greeks would then have had a similar problem, only this time getting them back from Germany - that's if they had survived the bombing. So perhaps the Greeks have more reasons to be thankful to Lord Elgin than they realise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Title of Article

Why is the title of the article italicised? A buried comment in the article states that the article title is by concensus, but I can find no concensus for an italic title. Nor can I find any other article with an italicised title. 86.181.48.171 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador Robert Adair appears nowhere in the article

A key person, British Ambassador Sir Robert Adair appears nowhere in the article. Here is a site dedicated to a letter from Adair to lord Elgin, of much interest as to the legality of his removal of the marbles: www.adairtoelgin.com Robert137 (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition

Elgin Marbles refers to a collection of sculptured part of the classical Greek temple known as Parthenon (slabs and part of the roof) and a caryatid (sculptured colon) not "marble sculptures" (statues) why would be a controversy be about works of art? The problem rises because: they are parts of still standing building and its separation results in leaving it incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.94.233 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Rationale for returning to Athens

Why is the Rationale for returning to Athens twice as long as the "Rationale for retaining in London"? Does that seem NPOV?Oxr033 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, I just copied the text of the Rationale for returning to Athens into MS-Word and did a word count, which was 333 words. I did the same for the "Rationale for retaining in London" and it was 595 words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.201.215 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevant expertise or flippant (at best) nationalism?

"Other voices, this time in the House of Lords, have raised more acute concerns about the fate of the Elgin Marbles if they were to be returned to Greece. In an exchange on 19 May 1997, Lord Wyatt, asked:

"'My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be dangerous to return the marbles to Athens because they were under attack by Turkish and Greek fire in the Parthenon when they were rescued and the volatile Greeks might easily start hurling bombs around again?[67]'"

Lord Wyatt's expertise on matters of conservatorship and repatriation is unknown to me. Considered as a career politician and journalist, he undermines the relevance of his question by his not seeming to have noticed the volatility of Londoners—who have made rioting an annual or near-annual occurrence for a good three decades of the postwar period, including a couple of decades prior to this question being raised in the House of Lords.

The question seems less part of any serious national debate than an attempt at a bon mot, and to score cheap (and chauvinistic and xenophobic, not to say racist) political and social points. Its inclusion, let alone its sensationalistic highlighting, cheapens Wikipedia in my eyes. Michael (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose he has a point. After all, riots, bombings, and museum thefts are unheard of in London. But be that as it may, I don't see much usefulness in including a random opinion like this representing only the personal feeling of nobody special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.216.57 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, riots and bombings are far from unheard of in London, including at the time Lord Wyatt made his pronouncement. Michael (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Recently a reference to two polls in the Guardian has been added to the article. Newspapers often do "polls" like this, and the results are effectively meaningless. Rather than being a representative sample of the public the participants were a self-selecting group of people who read the newspaper, saw the poll and decided to register an opinion. It is not even true to say, as the article does now, that the results of the poll reflect the views of the newspaper's readers, because the participants were not chosen in such a way as to be representative of that group. As an indication of public opinion on the subject the polls are useless and it is particularly misleading to include them alongside scientific opinion polls that are a lot more accurate. This material should be removed. Hut 8.5 21:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that the newspaper Polls are not scientific, and therefore, not as accurate and reliable as other polls and shouldn't be added to the article. But the reason the polls are mentioned in the article, has to do with the fact that the renewed Greek Government's 2014 campaign for the return of the Parthenon Marbles, begins right after the Polls and the George Clooney's support on the cause. The Polls and Clooney's remarks, re-ignited the debate in London regarding the return of the marbles to Greece or stay in British Museum. As you see, the Polls themselves are not significant or worthy adding to the article, as they are not reliable. But they are part of the 2014 developments regarding the Marbles Campaign. The whole thing started with George Clooney's statements, as part of the promotion of the Monuments Men (2014 film), and the Guardian polls were carried in response to Clooney's remarks. The UNESCO 2014 Spring Mediation followed, and the recent visit of Geoffrey Robertson with Norman Palmer and Amal Alamuddin, two of the United Kingdom's most renewed lawyers, to Athens in October 2014, are all part of the reignited dispute regarding the legal status of the marbles. --SilentResident (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)