Talk:Elgin Marbles

The return of Parthenon Sculptures?

well, i saw an ekathimerini news post saying that konstantinos tasoulas is a leading advocate of bringing home the parthenon sculptures.

rn im currently praying for this to happen. the link in question: https://www.ekathimerini.com/culture/1261483/greeces-new-president-is-a-leading-advocate-of-bringing-home-the-parthenon-sculptures/ the date in which the link was posted: Feb 12, 2025 2A02:85F:E882:9E00:C0EA:FF58:8C63:A9AE (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. It's also not a crystal ball—if they get returned, we'll write about it. Remsense ‥ 论 12:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Your edits to Elgin Marbles

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

Hello there

I can't see any issue of synthesis here and primary sources can be used to establish facts. WP:RELIABLE. Please do not remove sourced content. WP:PRESERVE. If you think there is a synthesis issue please raise it on the talk page where it can be discussed.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin, WP:SYNTH says, Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Which one of those sources cited supports the summary that "A number of British and international celebrities such as comedian Stephen Fry and actor George Clooney have expressed their support for the return of the marbles"? We need a reliable source which supports exactly that, and not draw that from a number of separate cherry-picked sources.

WP:BALANCE says, Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Where are the sources giving weight to the viewpoints of the "British press" which are only supported by their self-published sources? We need independent secondary sources that say "British newspapers say...".

WP:PRESERVE asys, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't. I couldn't fix them as I couldn't find adequate reliable secondary sources, so, following that policy, I 'excised' them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@DeFacto

1) You are using an extreme and pedantic interpretation of policy that no article on Wikipedia could possibly meet. Here is the sentence you removed: " A number of British and international celebrities such as comedian Stephen Fry and actor George Clooney have expressed their support for the return of the marbles." There is no synthesis here. This is a factual statement writing in a neutral tone and supported by reliable sources. Now, do you agree that it is a fact that Fry and Clooney have expressed support for the return of the marbles? Do you agree that the cited sources The Times and The Art Newspaper are reliable secondary sources that are reporting these facts? Now the only thing the sentence says that isn't actually sourced is that Fry and Clooney are celebrities. Don't you agree that Fry is a British celebrity and Clooney is an international celebrity? Do you really want a source for the sky is blue?

2) As for the newspaper editorials, primary sources can be used to establish facts. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The positions the cited newspapers take on the return of the Elgin Marbles are statements of fact. No synthesis is involved because no conclusion is drawn from them other than the editorial position that each newspaper takes. If you think that this particular section is unbalanced because other newspapers might take different positions than the ones cited then it is up to you as an editor to add balancing facts. WP:BALANCE Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

1) If that were the case, there would be nothing to stop you trawling through the web and finding many more 'celebrities' who want them returned. We might find non-celebrities too - our original research would be unabated. That's why WP:SYNTH exists, to ensure that editors don't just cherry-pick sources to build a specific conclusion of their own making. Why not do it the encyclopaedic way and find reliable secondary sources comment on what celebrities think?

2) The second problem is one of due weight (as per WP:BALANCE), not one of synthesis. Again we need a secondary sources, this time to establish due weight, otherwise what's to stop us listing the views of every single published source that offers their own opinion? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

What if one particular notable public figure has spoken out very strongly and has been reported by multiple sources, like Fry here, here, here and here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Then we might have due weight to include that of him, but we should probably have to satisfy ourselves that there were no equally worthy views to the contrary, for the sake of WP:NPOV, before we added it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

By all means, if you can find reports of "equally worthy views" from other notable figures, provide them here and we can assess if they could also be added. As long as the list doesn't get huge, I don't see any issue with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@DeFactoYour argument doesn't hold water. 1) For a start, no one "trawled the net" to find examples of celebrities who support the campaign to return the marbles. Reliable sources such as The Times and other major newspapers reported the issue and various editors added the information. It is relevant because the section is about the public campaign for the return of the marbles and it is noteworthy precisely because reliable newspapers reported it as the people involved are well known public figures. There might well be other celebrities and other people out there who support the return of the marbles but there is no need to add every one because the article is only citing these two as examples of the general point. As for balance, if there was a major public campaign for the retention of the marbles and major newspapers reported celebrities who publicly backed the campaign then this would be relevant and notable and should be added to the article. And as I have already explained (and you didn't address) there is no synthesis involved because the article does not draw any conclusions except for the obvious The Sky is Blue one: that several celebrities have called for the return of the marbles. If the article had said: "Celebrities overwhelmingly support the return of the Elgin marbles" that would be synth.

2) There is no due weight problem here either. We are dealing with all major British newspapers which wikipedia regards as reliable sources and which have published recent editorials on the matter. If the article misses one, then it is an easy matter to add it. And it's not a matter of me "adding" information that wasn't there. You deleted properly sourced information on the spurious grounds that somewhere out there their might be a major British newspaper that has recently published an editorial arguing for the retention of the marbles. Well if there is, you can find it and add it. You don't delete sourced information that is already there. WP:PRESERVE. What your argument boils down to is: "I can't find a counter example, so I will delete the sourced examples I don't like." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin, let's not go around those loops again. I've addressed the issues above, please carefully read my replies there, and the Wiki policies. Also, please avoid misquoting me ("trawled the net"?) and misrepresenting my argument ("What your argument boils down to is: 'I can't find a counter example, so I will delete the sourced examples I don't like.'"?). -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have carefully read you arguments and have carefully rebutted them with reference to policy. Please read my answers and reread policy. Where have I misquoted you? Didn't you write above, "If that were the case, there would be nothing to stop you trawling through the web and finding many more 'celebrities' who want them returned." I simply responded to this by pointing out that the existing text was written by several editors and was based on reliable secondary sources and did not involve my "trawling the net". Didn't you say, "I couldn't fix them as I couldn't find adequate reliable secondary sources, so, following that policy, I 'excised' them." I responded to this by saying that the content is based on reliable sources and if you can't find reliable sources which contradict this information the correct response is to preserve what's there; not to delete it. Given that you are the only person objecting to the content you deleted, and that two editors believe your deletion of this content was not in accordance with policy, I will restore it. Of course I would be happy to discuss any constructive suggestions you might make regarding rewording the content and would be happy to follow any consensus established on this talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I can see nothing wrong with these additions. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure? Based on any particular policy, or particular reason to ignore the reasons I gave for removing them? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

They report simple factual statements from reliable sources. Who are the other notable critics who have been omitted? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the content because at this stage there is only a minority of one supporting its deletion. Given that there were two passages that DeFacto is opposed to and that DeFacto has raised different arguments for each deletion I think it would be best if we discussed the two passages separately. I am happy to adhere to any consensus that emerges. I am happy to consider compromise wording. In the meantime the content should remain under the preserve principle.

1) Prominent supporters. I have added another secondary source to the passage on celebrities who are backing the campaign for the restoration of the marbles. Given that this passage is in the context of a section entitled Public campaigns for return it is entirely reasonable to state that there are a number of celebrities who are prominent in the campaign for the return of the marbles. I also think we need to strike a balance between citing a few of the most prominent celebrities involved and avoiding a long list of prominent public figures--dead and alive--who have ever expressed support for the campaign. I have thus restricted it to three: Stephen Fry, George Clooney and Liam Neeson because they are all alive and active in the campaign and have attracted the most attention. The legal academic Alexander Herman, writing in 2023 also cites Tom Hanks, Judi Dench, Vanessa Redgrave, Ian McKellen, and Joanna Lumley. I have included them in a footnote simply to indicate that I am not "cherry picking". However, I would be happy to just cite Fry in the text and put all the others in a footnote. An unregistered editor has repeatedly tried to include British quiz-show host William G. Stewart. I am opposed to this because it gives him undue weight. He stopped broadcasting in 2005, died in 2017, and obviously is not involved in the current campaign. He is not mentioned as a prominent supporter by Herman. I am also conscious of DeFacto's concern that the section could turn into a shopping list of people who have ever expressed support for the return campaign. I think the best way to avoid this is to take any proposed additions on a case by case basis based on recent reliable sources.

2) British newspaper editorials. I can understand where DeFacto is coming from on this but can only reiterate my argument that policy does not forbid the use of primary sources as long as it is used to present factual and relevant information. The editorial stance of major British newspapers of record is obviously relevant to the public debate over the return of the marbles. The article is simply recording facts: the recent editorial opinions of major British newspapers. No synthesis is involved because no conclusion is drawn about these beyond an accurate and concise summary of these opinions which readers can easily check. If DeFacto or any other editor can find a recent editorial from a major British newspaper of record that declares a position on the issue then they are welcome to add it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I entirely agree on both points. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

1) How do you justify contravening WP:SYNTH by combining material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?

2) How do you justify ignoring WP:BALASP by not using secondary sources to give it weight? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure there'll be any progress here, just reiterating the same thing over and over. I would recommend an RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to raise one then. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article as it is, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin, restored the content? While this discussion is still ongoing? That's bad form really, but I'm not here to edit war, so I'll leave it to you to revert until we get a consensus here. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

You could always open an RfC. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin, re your point 1; it sounds like the new source would, unlike either of the older two, support that sentence. Can you provide an online link to the source, or quote the relevant parts of it here please, so we can check that? If it's good, the sentence would then be fully sourced and I would drop my objection to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The article contains this link to the source: Herman, Alexander (2023). The Parthenon Marbles Dispute. London: Bloomsbury. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-1509967179.

The relevant passages are: "The British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles...began recruiting prominent figures to the cause including professors, actors, broadcasters and writers." p4 "When he [Christopher Hitchens] died in 20111 the torch was passed to his friend, the actor and writer Stephen Fry, who for many years has served as the public face of the campaign." p 4.

"It [The British Committee for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles] has found support among the likes of Tom Hanks, Judi Dench, Vanessa Redgrave, Ian McKellen, Joanna Lumley, Stephen Fry and Liam Neeson." p 78

The names of other prominent people who have supported the return of the marbles, are scattered throughout the book. The support of Anna and George Clooney in 2014 is covered on p 80.   Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the cite, but wondered if you found the text online anywhere. So with a subtle re-wording to increase value and add necessary context, the sentence (maybe a short passage) could be perfectly supported by that source, and we could discard the two sources that do not support it. Is Herman's book one-sided, or does it cover arguments for, and supporters of, not returning the marbles too? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin, re your point 2; the problem there wasn't synthesis, that was for the point 1 edit, it was notability and due weight. The opinion of a newspaper on a topic, especially one that they are not notable experts on, doesn't become notable or due just because they have published it themselves. It needs to be picked up and published by secondary sources for that to happen. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources anyway for such things. Surely if their opinions on this topic are notable, it won't be difficult to find secondary sources that have covered them. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you are confusing policy on whether a topic is sufficiently notable to have its own article and policy on whether a particular addition improves an existing article. My understanding is that the question of whether reliably sourced content improves an article is (subject to other policy) a matter of consensus. For example, editors might agree that certain reliably sourced content is trivia or so unimportant and tangential to the topic that it doesn't warrant inclusion. I agree that widespread coverage of such content in reliable secondary sources would be a strong indicator that it should be included, but that doesn't mean that widespread coverage in secondary sources is necessary for inclusion. It's a matter of consensus on a case by case basis. In this case the content is reliable sourced and we have two editors who think that the information is relevant to the section on Return controversy and sufficiently important to be included. As I argued above, in an encyclopaedic article on a matter of public controversy in Britain, the editorial position of major British newspapers of record on the matter is worth recording in concise summary form and I think that the space devoted to it isn't excessive. However, I would say that we currently only have a weak consensus for inclusion and that the opinion of other editors would be useful. You have a right to start a RfC but I suggest that it might be quicker and less burdensome if you raised the issue on one of the dispute resolution forums/noticeboards first. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

No objection to use of one of the dispute resolution forums/noticeboards first. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't confusing article topic and article content, although it is difficult in some places to distinguish which is the object of which policy or guideline, and very difficult to find the appropriate 'rules' for content. I'm disappointed that we seem complacent enough to accept the unqualified and subjective opinion of editors, that self-published opinions of potentially partisan news media are inherently notable enough to include without having the extra weight of being covered by secondary sources behind them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Which source(s), currently used, would you identify as "potentially partisan" with regard this topic, or even categorically partisan? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Potentially? All of them, I think, and most, if not all, other newspapers too. Do you agree? Or do you think any of them maintain neutrality, covering both pro- and anti-returning perspectives equally and without editorialisation or by not consistently publishing editorials supporting the same side of the dispute? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

We could await an answer from AA on your earlier question on Herman (2023). I'm really not sure that the suspicion that "most newspapers" might be partisan is a valid reason for excluding them as sources here. Who decides that a source is partisan? You'd like us to now examine all of the 141 sources here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say they should be excluded because they are partisan, I said they should be excluded because they are primary and self-published sources being used to give weight to their own potentially partisan view.

How many of the rest of the 141 sources are primary self-published sources used to support their own side in a two-way dispute? They would be the ones that I would suggest we should examine. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so having a "potentially partisan view" is irrelevant? But re-examination of all 141 sources for this article is probably beyond the scope of this particular topic. Perhaps you could start a new discussion thread for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Why? Yes. Why? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Alas, I think we've now reached the imaginary ferret disappearing down it's own invented rabbit hole. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

References