Talk:Elgin Marbles

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 That article says: "The whole act was repealed by section 13(5) of, and schedule 4 to, the British Museum Act 1963."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)