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)

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)

References