This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Dropping of legal claim: The source is correct, valid and recent and very pertinent to this article. I have changed it to what the actual Government official said, there is no confusion then: In 2015, Nikos Xydakis, Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim. But Greece continues to urge the return of the marbles to Greece for their unification by diplomatic and political means. Simply-the-truth ( talk) 15:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I want to add this to the lead as it is the most recent development. It is very well sourced and relevant. I can see any objection to this, but just wanted others input first please? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/elgin-marbles-return-greece-legal-bid-thrown-out-eu-court-human-rights-a7145216.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply-the-truth ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim.is just WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. Second, the culture minister never said such a thing. That's the POV interpretation of an opinion piece by Dominic Shellwood in the Telegraph. Third, a comment by the culture minister to TV channel Mega during an interview, does not amount to an official position by the Greek government. There has been no such announcement by the Greek government. Even the false and POV statement that
Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim.is a WP:CRYSTAL statement from which it does not follow that "Greece has dropped its legal claim".
Tendentious rapid-fire edit-warring POV and SYNTH-push, using false edit summaries has been undertaken by a POV/SYNTH-pushing account. The examples of the SYNTH/POV-push are as follows:
sourced and relevant point, please dont remove items such as this for no reason?This was blanking vandalism of the well-sourced fact that UNESCO offered to mediate in the dispute, an important and well-sourced fact that should not be removed from the article.
Even if one exists I can dd 2 that say it wasnt and what happened was legal)
This tendentious disruption has to stop and will be reverted. Dr. K. 20:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The legal rulers bit, they were so what is the problem with that? Please discuss here?
Again, please drop this nonsense. This term was invented by you to enhance, in your mind, how legal everything was when Elgin was in Greece. There is no such term. No serious historical document calls the Ottomans using the adjective "legal". They are just called "rulers". Using "official" instead of "legal", or any other adjective for that matter, doesn't make it any better. Don't try to inflict this POV on this article any longer.
Dr.
K. 22:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
And no more stunts like the one you attempted with the UNESCO piece. The stable version was short and neutral:
In 2014, UNESCO had offered to mediate between Greece and the United Kingdom in resolving the dispute of the Elgin Marbles, although this was later turned down by the British Museum as UNESCO works with government bodies, not trustees of museums.
But you didn't like that. So you attempted to completely remove it multiple times. After you got reverted, you expanded it to a grotesque POV version as follows:
In 2014, UNESCO had offered to mediate between Greece and the United Kingdom in resolving the dispute of the Elgin Marbles. The British Museum had to decline the offer as UNESCO works with government bodies, not trustees of museums. Culture Minister Ed Vaizey also stated "that the sculptures were legally acquired by UK ambassador Lord Elgin "under the laws pertaining at the time and the trustees of the British Museum have had clear legal title to the sculptures since 1816".
The neutral stable wording ...although this was later turned down by the British Museum...
was changed to the blatantly POV wording The British Museum had to decline the offer...
But that was not enough POV for you. You had to dump in the lead verbatim quotes from Ed Vaizey presenting a lengthy apologia for Elgin just in case your POV was not strong enough. Verbatim quotes are almost never added to the lead of articles. The POV quote you added from Vaizey acting as an apologist for Elgin destroyed any semblance of balance for the UNESCO piece, and the lead. If you want to keep editing this article, I advise you to stop trying so hard to advertise the position of the British government every chance you get.
Dr.
K. 05:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Before anything lets get one thing clear of which there is not one word.Virtually ALL statuary and important buildings like the Parthenon etc were PAINTED in to us, outrageously garish colours. The Parthenon and its contents would have looked like a fairground horrific peepshow compared to the beautiful pure stone structure it is today. There is absolutely NO WAY the Parthenon marbles looked anything like their original condition nor did the parthenon It is time this idea of returning them to where they belonged is put to rest.Even if they were not painted like most Greek statuary the Parthenon was and so were most of its other sculptures Phidias whose team created them would look at the marbles scrubbed white appearance and scream with rage^What have you done to my beautiful sculptures ^he would say ..you have turned them back to lumps of bare rock!! The image of the Classical world presented today is essentially created because the pure whiteness of the scrubbed clean marble gives Greek statuary a link to the spirituality and purity of Christianity .Indeed the whole world of Classical studies has in fact nothing to do with the real Classical world at all but is a strange fantasy creation connected with Christianity. Anyone transported back to ancient Greece or Rome would after a few hours suffer a complete irrecoverable nervous collapse from the appalling horror and cruelty they saw.Stop this absurd nonsense. The sculptures or marbles of Parthenon formed a structural part of the Parthenon, one of the most important buildings ever built. Considering: a. the global significance and symbolism of the monument (and its sculptures), which surpass the legacy of Lord Elgin, b. the controversy surrounding Lord Elgin and the name 'Elgin marbles' within and mainly outside the United Kingdom, c. the recent clear stance of UNESCO on the highly debated issue of the return of the 2,500-year-old marble sculptures which were illegally removed and sold by Lord Elgin from the Parthenon in 1817. UNESCO consistently refers to the sculptures as 'Parthenon sculptures' (see example- UNESCO Recommendation 19com8: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Report_Secreteriat.pdf)
In light of the above, I am proposing that the article is renamed to 'Parthenon sculptures' or 'Parthenon marbles' i am looking forward to hearing from other wiki editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipodamos ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The above writer needs to take a pill. Painted statuary is not a big deal. I guarantee you, no one would "collapse" because they saw a painted statue. Personally, I think they would look pretty neat, and in no way would their sublime aesthetic be compromised. Whether they were painted or not is of monumental irrelevance in the repatriation debate. 98.162.136.248 ( talk) 03:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a disgrace that wikipedia calls the Parthenon Marbles 'Elgin Marbles'. the ones that are in England are wrongly called that, so 'Elgin Marbles' should redirect to the Parthenon Marbles, but it's at least outrageous to not have an actual 'Parthenon Marbles' page. Onoufrios d ( talk) 21:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this article someone's opinion or is Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia? They are the Parthenon Marbles. That is an undeniable FACT. Onoufrios d ( talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
A Google news search today turned up 3x as many hits for "Parthenon Marbles" as for "Elgin Marbles." Users of "Parthenon Marbles" included CNN, the New York Times, the Smithsonian, and the Guardian. The Washington Post and the Economist both favored "Elgin Marbles." What is the procedure for officially calling for a name change? Mr Underhill ( talk) 16:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know where we're supposed to look for previous discussions or what Google and the Economist hehe to say about what the ancient Greeks made 2,500 years ago but the name of this article has to change. As simple as that. Onoufrios d ( talk) 19:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Elgin marbles? Absolutely not! Those are the Parthenon Marbles stolen by lord Elgin. It's just a shame to recall the name of this looter. So, please, change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C6C:D1B0:848C:32D0:EF6F:1522 ( talk) 10:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
By the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had been the governing authority in Athens for 350 years. Lord Elgin was the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and successfully petitioned the authorities to be able to draw, measure and remove figures." Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
They are the Parthenon Marbles, that should be reason enough to change the name. They aren't owned by Elgin and we know they were stolen. GraveyTrain2124 ( talk) 05:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The Elgin Marbles are in the British Museum as they were rescued by Lord Elgin. Calling them the parthenon marbles would be an affront to history and a sad, revisionist take. The page is called the Elgin Marbles because that is what they are. 2601:182:4381:E60:FD11:E03E:217A:4964 ( talk) 13:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Some of the reasons for the marbles to stay in the UK are desperate, but the following one takes the cake: "The assertion that Modern Greeks have "no claim to the stones because you could see from their physiognomy that they were not descended from the men who had carved them," a quote attributed to Auberon Waugh.[103] In nineteenth century Western Europe, Greeks of the Classical period were widely imagined to have been light skinned and blond.[104]" Do we really want to have this 'rationale' dripping from racism in this article? Curlybracket ( talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I quickly saw a headline that they would be repatriated to Greece. Anything in that? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 03:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello all
I have reverted some recent edits by an unregisted user because they used non-neutral language and did not indicate a neutral POV. The statements also were not an accurate summary of the sources I checked. Happy to discuss and restore anything if a consensus is reached. The article has issues of balance and neutrality throughout and I would be happy to work with others to get it in better shape. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 05:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I have renamed this section and added information to make it a little more representative of recent press. The old heading and wording was full of editorialising. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 10:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
I have made substantial edits to the lead which previously read like a separate mini-article with unique information and citations, rather than a concise summary of the body of the article. I have moved some detailed information to the relevant section of the article and summarised it in the lead MOS:INTRO. I have used more neutral language. I have removed over sourcing of uncontentious material which is sourced in the body of the article MOS:LEADCITE. I have made the distinction between Elgin marbles and Parthenon sculptures early in the lead, because I found the article pretty confusing otherwise. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 10:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Dropping of legal claim: The source is correct, valid and recent and very pertinent to this article. I have changed it to what the actual Government official said, there is no confusion then: In 2015, Nikos Xydakis, Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim. But Greece continues to urge the return of the marbles to Greece for their unification by diplomatic and political means. Simply-the-truth ( talk) 15:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I want to add this to the lead as it is the most recent development. It is very well sourced and relevant. I can see any objection to this, but just wanted others input first please? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/elgin-marbles-return-greece-legal-bid-thrown-out-eu-court-human-rights-a7145216.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply-the-truth ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim.is just WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. Second, the culture minister never said such a thing. That's the POV interpretation of an opinion piece by Dominic Shellwood in the Telegraph. Third, a comment by the culture minister to TV channel Mega during an interview, does not amount to an official position by the Greek government. There has been no such announcement by the Greek government. Even the false and POV statement that
Greece's culture minister, announced that Greece will drop its legal claim.is a WP:CRYSTAL statement from which it does not follow that "Greece has dropped its legal claim".
Tendentious rapid-fire edit-warring POV and SYNTH-push, using false edit summaries has been undertaken by a POV/SYNTH-pushing account. The examples of the SYNTH/POV-push are as follows:
sourced and relevant point, please dont remove items such as this for no reason?This was blanking vandalism of the well-sourced fact that UNESCO offered to mediate in the dispute, an important and well-sourced fact that should not be removed from the article.
Even if one exists I can dd 2 that say it wasnt and what happened was legal)
This tendentious disruption has to stop and will be reverted. Dr. K. 20:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The legal rulers bit, they were so what is the problem with that? Please discuss here?
Again, please drop this nonsense. This term was invented by you to enhance, in your mind, how legal everything was when Elgin was in Greece. There is no such term. No serious historical document calls the Ottomans using the adjective "legal". They are just called "rulers". Using "official" instead of "legal", or any other adjective for that matter, doesn't make it any better. Don't try to inflict this POV on this article any longer.
Dr.
K. 22:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
And no more stunts like the one you attempted with the UNESCO piece. The stable version was short and neutral:
In 2014, UNESCO had offered to mediate between Greece and the United Kingdom in resolving the dispute of the Elgin Marbles, although this was later turned down by the British Museum as UNESCO works with government bodies, not trustees of museums.
But you didn't like that. So you attempted to completely remove it multiple times. After you got reverted, you expanded it to a grotesque POV version as follows:
In 2014, UNESCO had offered to mediate between Greece and the United Kingdom in resolving the dispute of the Elgin Marbles. The British Museum had to decline the offer as UNESCO works with government bodies, not trustees of museums. Culture Minister Ed Vaizey also stated "that the sculptures were legally acquired by UK ambassador Lord Elgin "under the laws pertaining at the time and the trustees of the British Museum have had clear legal title to the sculptures since 1816".
The neutral stable wording ...although this was later turned down by the British Museum...
was changed to the blatantly POV wording The British Museum had to decline the offer...
But that was not enough POV for you. You had to dump in the lead verbatim quotes from Ed Vaizey presenting a lengthy apologia for Elgin just in case your POV was not strong enough. Verbatim quotes are almost never added to the lead of articles. The POV quote you added from Vaizey acting as an apologist for Elgin destroyed any semblance of balance for the UNESCO piece, and the lead. If you want to keep editing this article, I advise you to stop trying so hard to advertise the position of the British government every chance you get.
Dr.
K. 05:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Elgin Marbles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Before anything lets get one thing clear of which there is not one word.Virtually ALL statuary and important buildings like the Parthenon etc were PAINTED in to us, outrageously garish colours. The Parthenon and its contents would have looked like a fairground horrific peepshow compared to the beautiful pure stone structure it is today. There is absolutely NO WAY the Parthenon marbles looked anything like their original condition nor did the parthenon It is time this idea of returning them to where they belonged is put to rest.Even if they were not painted like most Greek statuary the Parthenon was and so were most of its other sculptures Phidias whose team created them would look at the marbles scrubbed white appearance and scream with rage^What have you done to my beautiful sculptures ^he would say ..you have turned them back to lumps of bare rock!! The image of the Classical world presented today is essentially created because the pure whiteness of the scrubbed clean marble gives Greek statuary a link to the spirituality and purity of Christianity .Indeed the whole world of Classical studies has in fact nothing to do with the real Classical world at all but is a strange fantasy creation connected with Christianity. Anyone transported back to ancient Greece or Rome would after a few hours suffer a complete irrecoverable nervous collapse from the appalling horror and cruelty they saw.Stop this absurd nonsense. The sculptures or marbles of Parthenon formed a structural part of the Parthenon, one of the most important buildings ever built. Considering: a. the global significance and symbolism of the monument (and its sculptures), which surpass the legacy of Lord Elgin, b. the controversy surrounding Lord Elgin and the name 'Elgin marbles' within and mainly outside the United Kingdom, c. the recent clear stance of UNESCO on the highly debated issue of the return of the 2,500-year-old marble sculptures which were illegally removed and sold by Lord Elgin from the Parthenon in 1817. UNESCO consistently refers to the sculptures as 'Parthenon sculptures' (see example- UNESCO Recommendation 19com8: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Report_Secreteriat.pdf)
In light of the above, I am proposing that the article is renamed to 'Parthenon sculptures' or 'Parthenon marbles' i am looking forward to hearing from other wiki editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipodamos ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The above writer needs to take a pill. Painted statuary is not a big deal. I guarantee you, no one would "collapse" because they saw a painted statue. Personally, I think they would look pretty neat, and in no way would their sublime aesthetic be compromised. Whether they were painted or not is of monumental irrelevance in the repatriation debate. 98.162.136.248 ( talk) 03:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a disgrace that wikipedia calls the Parthenon Marbles 'Elgin Marbles'. the ones that are in England are wrongly called that, so 'Elgin Marbles' should redirect to the Parthenon Marbles, but it's at least outrageous to not have an actual 'Parthenon Marbles' page. Onoufrios d ( talk) 21:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this article someone's opinion or is Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia? They are the Parthenon Marbles. That is an undeniable FACT. Onoufrios d ( talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
A Google news search today turned up 3x as many hits for "Parthenon Marbles" as for "Elgin Marbles." Users of "Parthenon Marbles" included CNN, the New York Times, the Smithsonian, and the Guardian. The Washington Post and the Economist both favored "Elgin Marbles." What is the procedure for officially calling for a name change? Mr Underhill ( talk) 16:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know where we're supposed to look for previous discussions or what Google and the Economist hehe to say about what the ancient Greeks made 2,500 years ago but the name of this article has to change. As simple as that. Onoufrios d ( talk) 19:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Elgin marbles? Absolutely not! Those are the Parthenon Marbles stolen by lord Elgin. It's just a shame to recall the name of this looter. So, please, change the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C6C:D1B0:848C:32D0:EF6F:1522 ( talk) 10:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
By the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had been the governing authority in Athens for 350 years. Lord Elgin was the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and successfully petitioned the authorities to be able to draw, measure and remove figures." Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
They are the Parthenon Marbles, that should be reason enough to change the name. They aren't owned by Elgin and we know they were stolen. GraveyTrain2124 ( talk) 05:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The Elgin Marbles are in the British Museum as they were rescued by Lord Elgin. Calling them the parthenon marbles would be an affront to history and a sad, revisionist take. The page is called the Elgin Marbles because that is what they are. 2601:182:4381:E60:FD11:E03E:217A:4964 ( talk) 13:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Some of the reasons for the marbles to stay in the UK are desperate, but the following one takes the cake: "The assertion that Modern Greeks have "no claim to the stones because you could see from their physiognomy that they were not descended from the men who had carved them," a quote attributed to Auberon Waugh.[103] In nineteenth century Western Europe, Greeks of the Classical period were widely imagined to have been light skinned and blond.[104]" Do we really want to have this 'rationale' dripping from racism in this article? Curlybracket ( talk) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I quickly saw a headline that they would be repatriated to Greece. Anything in that? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 03:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello all
I have reverted some recent edits by an unregisted user because they used non-neutral language and did not indicate a neutral POV. The statements also were not an accurate summary of the sources I checked. Happy to discuss and restore anything if a consensus is reached. The article has issues of balance and neutrality throughout and I would be happy to work with others to get it in better shape. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 05:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I have renamed this section and added information to make it a little more representative of recent press. The old heading and wording was full of editorialising. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 10:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello all
I have made substantial edits to the lead which previously read like a separate mini-article with unique information and citations, rather than a concise summary of the body of the article. I have moved some detailed information to the relevant section of the article and summarised it in the lead MOS:INTRO. I have used more neutral language. I have removed over sourcing of uncontentious material which is sourced in the body of the article MOS:LEADCITE. I have made the distinction between Elgin marbles and Parthenon sculptures early in the lead, because I found the article pretty confusing otherwise. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 10:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)