Talk:Elgin Marbles/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

UK vs British

Note: this section has arisen from a discussion over this edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

In my (basic English grammar) book, "UK" is the abbreviation of a noun and "British" is an adjective. Am I missing something here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, that all sounds correct to me. What leads you to think that you might be missing something? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The article uses a mixture of "British government" and "UK government", where only the former is really correct (I actually suspect that many articles do). Do you know why that might be? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, both are correct. "UK" can be an adjective too when used before a noun such as "government". -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So can "UK" be used as an adjective in all cases? Or is one word more correct than the other, in some or all cases? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) p.s. would you use the construction "the Greece government"?

If I remember rightly (which is dubious), UK (or United Kingdom) is used for political reasons, British is the geographical area.

This could have changed though so, pinch of salt and all that. Knitsey (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder what Fowler might say on the subject. Or even WP:MoS: we never use "American government" do we, only "US government"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If it helps, there is this from Britanica...Great Britain, therefore, is a geographic term referring to the island also known simply as Britain. It’s also a political term for the part of the United Kingdom made up of England, Scotland, and Wales (including the outlying islands that they administer, such as the Isle of Wight). United Kingdom, on the other hand, is purely a political term: it’s the independent country that encompasses all of Great Britain and the region now called Northern Ireland. [1] Knitsey (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, Great Britain refers to England, Scotland and Wales, not Northern Ireland, who don't sit in the British Parliament. Knitsey (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Either way, to avoid confusion, the article needs to stick to the same use in an article to avoid confusion. Knitsey (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless a different meaning is required in different contexts? But DeFacto seem to be suggesting they are wholly interchangeable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Knitsey, Northern Ireland MPs do sit in the UK Parliament because Northern Ireland is just as much a part of the UK as England, Scotland, and Wales are. The UK = The United Kingdom = The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies DeFacto, some do, some don't on the basis they don't recognise British rule. I should have been more specific. Knitsey (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Knitsey, no probs. But regardless of the decision of some of them not to attend the UK parliament, Northern Ireland is not in Great Britain (it is in Ireland), but it is part of the United Kingdom (but not part of Ireland), and it is British, and its citizens are British citizens as much as the citizens of England, Scotland and Wales are (and the citizens of Northern Ireland are entitled to hold Irish passports too). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thats kind of what I said a few messages up, there is a geographical region and a political region. Personally I would go with UK Government for the article. Knitsey (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

As per DeFacto's revert we also have: "UK parliamentary inquiry", "UK and Greek officials", "the UK parliament", "UK authorities" and "UK Parliamentary Select Committee". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, that revert was to restore the stable version which existed before this change which I first reverted here. We still have 4 cases of "British government" though along with the 8 cases of "UK government". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I won't disagree. Is one form to be preferred in all cases? And if so why? I'm not wholly convinced by Knitsey's "geographical region vs political region" argument. Do you see the two forms as synonymous? Perhaps I'm old-fashioned to prefer the adjective British. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps or hinders but there was a change to the government in 1800, it changed from Parliament of Great Britain to Parliament of the United Kingdom.

If you take the date of 1801 when the marbles started to be moved then from 1800 it has been the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This might be where some confusion has occurred? 1802 first election under the new parliament which included the Union of Great Britain and Ireland (as it was at that time). Knitsey (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I had not thought of that one. That seems quite pertinent. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Knitsey, that is a good point. Before the union with Ireland it was the government of just Great Britain. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The situation started on the cusp of the change, but if you take it from the date, after the cast making, then it was just after the change of Parliament to include Ireland (later changed of course). It really depends on what you would count as the beginning of the 'incident' for want of a better word. Knitsey (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, I see the two forms as synonymous and can't see a problem mixing them for writing style where repetition makes tedious reading. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, I might have guessed. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeFacto: my edit was motivated, I confess, by personal preference. I dislike the use of acronyms and initalisms when plain-English equivalents exist. Formulations like "UK government" and "UK official" are not wrong as such, but they are somewhat inelegant, in the same way that it would be inelegant to refer to Gorbachev as a "USSR politician" instead of a Soviet one. The proper adjective pertaining to the United Kingdom is "British", and there is no reason not to use it. Zacwill (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless we all subscribe to some kind of "US = UK" equivalence, of course? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So what are the options here? To keep all as "UK"? To change some to "British"? To open an RfC here to decide? I see that the edit summary here was "British" is more encyclopedic than the relatively informal "UK". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

And the edit summary here was "UK" is not "informal", it is the standard and common abbreviation for "United Kingdom". It's a matter of opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It may be a matter of opinion, but I think we should certainly check if WP:MoS says anything about this. If there is sufficient consensus to change from "UK" to "British" (in some or all cases) here, then that's perfectly possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found anything in the WP:MoS (that doesn't mean it isn't in there somewhere) - but I did find this in the UK Government Digital Service style guide (www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style): Use UK and United Kingdom in preference to Britain and British (UK business, UK foreign policy, ambassador and high commissioner). But British embassy, not UK embassy. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The article for Government of the United Kingdom gives no clear preference. It opens with: "His Majesty's Government (or, when the reigning monarch is female, Her Majesty's Government; abbreviated to HM Government, and commonly known as the Government of the United Kingdom, British Government or UK Government) is ..." Although it does list British before UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

A baffling policy which Wikipedia has no obligation to imitate. Zacwill (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

They're in the British Museum, not the UK Museum... More seriously, Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that British (g/G)overnment, not UK (g/G)overnment, is the majority usage; ditto for business, foreign policy and the rest. Ham II (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That is irrelevant though, even if you selected 'British English' for the Ngram to match the variant used in the article. We don't insist that articles limit their vocabulary the the most commonly used phrases for any given scenario. "UK" and "British" are synonymous adjectives in these cases. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"UK" and "British" may be synonymous adjectives in some of the cases in this article. But you said earlier that it's a matter of opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which one you favour is. Isn't it? Or did you manage to find something in the MoS saying otherwise?

Of the English Wikipedia articles mentioning "UK government" or "British government", I found that 2,440 of them contained both "UK government" and "British government", 17,200 of them contained just "UK government", and 27,800 contained just "British government". What does that tell us? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless we know why they used those forms it tells us nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"UK government" vs "British government"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "British" is the standard adjective for the United KIngdom. It should be "British government". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That is false, "British" is one of the standard adjectives, another is "UK". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree that all the events recounted in this article occurred after the Acts of Union 1800, which came into force on 1 January 1801, and that "the merged Parliament of the United Kingdom had its first meeting on 22 January 1801." But I suspect the government wasn't called (and didn't call itself) the "UK government" until many years later. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It was used straight away [2] with the election in 1802 called the United Kingdom general election. Knitsey (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I should probably say, whether it was in common usage considering the restrictions on eligibility to vote is another thing. I suspect common usage did come many years later. Knitsey (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course it was called the "United Kingdom". But I see no instances in that document of "UK" or, much more relevantly, "UK government". Do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Why would what it was called then be relevant? There was a government and it was the government of the United Kingdom. When we talk about what it did then, shouldn't we use today's language and vocabulary? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm think it should be consistent across the article. British government or UK government. I'm away to bed. I've a long few days ahead of me (surgery) so I will only be using my alt account (open network). Good luck sorting it out! Knitsey (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

All the very best, Knitsey. I hope all goes well for you. Kindest regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If we agree it should be consistent across the article, then we need to choose which of the wordings to use. How would we do that? Use whichever is most common in the article? The wording which was used first in the article? Have a vote? Or what. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be "consistent across the article". Because the United Kingdom in 1801 was not the same United Kingdom it is now. It might be more accurate to call it the "British government" in 1801. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In 1801 it was not the same government it is today. Just like Ottoman Greece is not the same thing as Greece today. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I was replying to your Yes, of course it was called the "United Kingdom". But I see no instances in that document of "UK" or, much more relevantly, "UK government". Do you? post. The assumption there was that it was the UK by then, and you were wondering what they called themselves. Why? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if the government called itself the "UK government". As far as I can see, it didn't. The assumption that the United Kingdom in 1801 was the same thing it is now seems to me to be a mistaken one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

But why would what it called itself then be relevant? If we found out that the United Kingdom government then called themselves "Ye group of people who officially control ye esteemed state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" do you think we should use that wording in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Errrm no, I don't think that would be appropriate. I'm just saying that in 1801 there was nothing called "the UK government". Just like Greece didn't exist in the same way then: it was Ottoman Greece. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The UK existed then and it had a government, so why shouldn't we refer to it as we would to today's government? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The initialism "UK" was not widely used until after World War II (you can verify this using Google's Ngram Viewer). Before that, the country was generally known as "Great Britain" or (in informal use) "England". Again, it is not necessarily wrong to talk about a "UK government" existing in 1801, but "British government" sounds a lot better. Zacwill (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the point I was trying to make. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

But that is illogical though. Neither "UK government" or "British government" are proper nouns or direct quotes, they are simple descriptive prose, and there's no necessity to use period language for that. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Period language"? So would you say C. S. Lewis was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland? In 1898 Belfast was just in Ireland. In that period the modern United Kingdom did not exist. I'd agree that the sentence "A UK parliamentary inquiry in 1816 concluded that Elgin had acquired the marbles legally" isn't a direct quote, because the source here is a "Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Earl of Elgin's Collection of Sculptured Marbles; &c Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on the Earl of Elgin's Collection of Sculptured Marbles". No mention of United Kingdom or "UK" at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldn't use period language in the descriptive prose. That doesn't mean we ignore the facts though, just that we should use current language when describing those facts. We are talking about how we describe the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as it was then), not the pre-union government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, aren't we?

You asked, but then deleted, why are "the UK government" or "the British government" not proper nouns? Proper nouns are the formal names of people, places, organisations, etc., and are capitalised. Neither "the UK government" or "the British government" are proper nouns, they are prose describing which government is meant, like "the UK coast", "the British people", "the UK weather", etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I deleted so that you wouldn't have to answer it. I changed my mind. I purposely removed it from the conversation. Since you've taken it upon yourself to unremove it, and provide the answer I was expecting, perhaps I can now ask you instead if you consider the phrase "His Majesty's government" to be a proper noun. Or would it have to be "His Majesty's Government" with a capital G? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd already written the reply before you'd deleted the question, and got an edit conflict trying to save it. As I thought it was a valuable question, for my second attempt to reply I kept my answer to the question in it and mentioned what the question was.

On your other question, I'd say (BICBW) that "His Majesty's Government" is capitalised correctly, and the other form is incorrect. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I was asking if "His Majesty's Government" was a proper noun. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that SMcCandlish has given some advice, on use in this article, here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

And now here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The Elgin Marbles (sic)

Sorry, but why is no one mentioning the major issure hear? For while the real name is the Parthenon Sculptures or Marbles, the article continues to call them by the false British name. Given the Wikipedia is world-wide, should it not change the article title, from the "Elgin Marbles", to The Parthenon Sculptures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.201 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Elgin Marbles (ie those collected by Elgin from the Parthenon and other buildings and now held in the British Museum) and the Parthenon Sculptures (ie sculptures from the Parthenon wherever they now be situated). The article explains the difference. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The British Museum Act 1816, aka the Elgin Marbles Act, set the name legally as "The Elgin Collection"? So that's another possibility. That article says: "The whole act was repealed by section 13(5) of, and schedule 4 to, the British Museum Act 1963." but I'm not sure if the 1963 Act changed the legal name or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The British Museum Act lacks the legal authority to formally rename sculptures predating the UK's history. The contested ownership of the collection is a subject of disagreement among British scholars and international art forums, including UNESCO, as evidenced by their documentation (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379856_fre?posInSet=1&queryId=N-EXPLORE-759ded17-35e6-4894-84b8-6082e04164b5).

Referring to the collection as the 'Elgin collection' is considered highly offensive by those who vehemently argue, with supporting evidence, that Elgin was essentially a thief. Wikipedia, as a platform committed to neutrality, currently appears to adopt a pro-British stance in this highly disputed matter, which is not in line with the principles of objectivity and impartiality. This bias needs to be rectified to ensure a fair and balanced representation of the historical and legal perspectives surrounding the issue.@ Ipodamos (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Name

But does not the article explain/indicate that there is and remains a fair degree of confusion as to the correct name and that the use of the term Elgin Marbles is questionable to say the least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.242 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion. The Elgin Marbles refer to the marbles collected by Lord Elgin from the Parthenon and other buildings and which are currently held by the British Museum. Parthenon Marbles or Parthenon Sculptures refer specifically to sculptures from the Parthenon wherever they may be. The "correct" name for these objects, as far as the English Language wikipedia is concerned, is the most commonly used name in English. This is Elgin marbles. This has been thoroughly discussed before here: Talk:Elgin Marbles/Archive 6#Title should be changed to Parthenon sculptures Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the collection as the 'Elgin collection' is considered highly offensive by those who vehemently argue, with supporting evidence, that Elgin was essentially a thief. Wikipedia, as a platform committed to neutrality, currently appears to adopt a pro-British stance in this highly disputed matter, which is not in line with the principles of objectivity and impartiality. This bias needs to be rectified to ensure a fair and balanced representation of the historical and legal perspectives surrounding the issue. I am also sorry but common use in Britain (and related countries) mainly does not legitimise the term Elginism. I reiterate that the article 'The Elgin Marbles' is scandalous as it is. Ipodamos (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the discussion of the name in the article does not actually accurately reflect contemporary English language usage, but rather, the opinions of a particular book on what the terms "Elgin Marbles" and "Parthenon Marbles/Sculptures" should mean. (The book, reference 2 of the article, is called "Keeping their Marbles, how the treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should they there". It doesn't sound like a very reliable or unbiased source.)

It is clear to anyone following the issue over the last decade that the terms "Parthenon Marbles" and "Parthenon Sculptures" have become already the default terms used in the mainstream press to specifically refer to the disputed collection currently held in the British museum, sometimes with a reference to Elgin in quotes. The term "Elgin Marbles" is now mainly used in more partisan newspapers, like the "Daily Mail".

I certainly agree that like any conventional term, the terms "Parthenon Marbles" and "Parthenon Sculptures" in reference to the collection of the British Museum are not literally accurate. I don't think our job is to do etymology but to reflect and explain actual usage, whether one likes that usage or not.

In any case, if the sculptures are indeed permanently returned to Greece, which appears to be the direction of travel, then most of this will be a moot point: A wikipedia page titled "Elgin Marbles" will be wholly appropriate as a historical article, while the term "Parthenon Sculptures" will unambiguously refer to a unitary collection entirely held in the Acropolis Museum of Athens.

Until that time, however, wikipedia readers should not be kept in the dark about what is generally meant when the press, public officials, etc. talk about the "Parthenon Marbles/Sculptures". 193.92.24.113 (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

And did the Talk page agree on the correct name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.238 (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not completely, though the consensus was clear and the OP there accepted the difference noted above (ie the two expressions are not synonymous), while still favouring "sculptures" over "marbles". It is a familiar concept in English to name collections of things of fine materials by incorporating that material, where there is an appropriate plural noun - for example the Benin Bronzes or Nimrud ivories. Davidships (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There was no clear consensus - and several arguments against 'mables' have been erased. Referring to these sculptures as "marbles" oversimplifies their complex history and legal disputes, diminishing their cultural and historical significance. This colloquialism perpetuates a British perspective, neglecting the sentiments of the countries of origin and downplaying the ethical concerns surrounding their acquisition. The use of such terminology hinders a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted issues at play and contributes to a biased narrative. Ipodamos (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest naming it "The British Museum Collection of Acropolis Sculptures (commonly known as the Elgin Marbles). This proposal aims to strike a fair balance by incorporating both the acknowledgment of Elgin's association, as desired by Aemillius Adolphin and Daviships, and promoting broader acceptance of the article. Ipodamos (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but while it is common in England to use the name of a material in the title of an household item - such as Bone China - is it not more of problem using it on an object of international importantance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.151 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I can see there is no (clear) consensus on the name of the article as Davidships suggests above. Ipodamos (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent statement by Turkey

Hello all,

I have removed the recent statement by Turkey from the lead as it is not sufficiently important and Wikipedia is not news. The statement appears in a summary form under the "Legality of removal from Athens" section, where it is probably worth mentioning as a tangential fact. Please note that Turkey is not a party to the dispute between Greece and the UK, and the article already states that no one has found the original firman in the Turkish archives. Therefore the Turkish statement says nothing new except that Turkey supports the return of the marbles to Greece. There are certified copies of the firmans in Italian and English translation in the archives and the issue among scholars is the interpretation of them. Wikipedia is not the place to record every statement by every country on the issue.

Also please note that Turkey should be given its common name in English WP:Commonname There is no need the call it "The Republic of Turkiye", just as we don't call Germany "The Federal Republic of Germany" every time we refer to it in an article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: You actually forgot to remove the aforementioned recently added content from the lead. I went ahead and removed it myself; per your reasoning above, as well as per Andreas Mastronikolis' comment in User talk:SilentResident § Your edit to Elgin Marbles page, who introduced it in the lead. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Just my two cents on the statement by Aemilius Adolphin: There are certified copies of the firmans in Italian and English translation in the archives and the issue among scholars is the interpretation of them.: The Italian translation of the Sultan's firman was not certified and is unsigned, thus making its authenticity questionable among scholars and experts on the matter. Editors are welcome to expand on and add these details about the translation missing any signatures and other means of certification to the article if they deem them to be noteworthy, always with the necessary sources explicitly mentioning that the document was unsigned. I myself was unaware of this detail until after a british scholar brought it up, here. [3]. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reputable scholars who state that the two firmans are definitely forgeries. There aren't signed because they are Italian translations of the original which was given to the Voivode of Athens, but the copies indicate where the seal and the signature appear (all copies were obviously handwritten in those days). The original was given to the Voivode of Athens by the Sultan's official courrier, Mehemmed Raschid Aga. There are several eyewitnesses, including some hostile to Elgin, who confirm that the Sultan's courrier handed over the firman to the Voivode and stayed in Athens to ensure that the order was obeyed. So are we to believe that Elgin somehow forged all the correspondence between the British embassy and the Porte regarding the negotiations over the firmans and somehow induced the Sultan's courrier to deliver the forgeries, but decided to give the forgeries ambiguous wording which scholars still debate today rather than simply making it a clear order to allow Elgin to do what he wants with the marbles? All this is explained in Lord Elgin’s firman by Dyfri Williams (which is cited in the article.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting. Good to know. Thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin

Turkey is a party of the dispute given it is a state which inherited the legacy of the Ottoman Empire whose uthorities allegedly allowed Elgin Marbles to be moved. If the country's senior official declares there is no evidence of that, it is significant.

It may be essential to include the sources below:

Smith, Helena. "Turkey rejects claim Lord Elgin had permission to take Parthenon marbles". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 September 2024.

"Zeynep Boz: "If the English have a firman, show it"". Athens News. Retrieved 5 September 2024. 51.155.213.25 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Acquisition and contemporary reaction

Hello all

I have summarised repeated information about the acquisition of the marbles and moved it to the Acquisitions section.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)