Talk:Elgin Marbles

Blanking, copyvio, POV/SYNTH-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries

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:

• Blanking using false edit-summary implying that s/he is restoring text: 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.
• Removal of sourced fact about "looting" using irrelevant and flippant edit summary: Even if one exists I can dd 2 that say it wasnt and what happened was legal)
• Restoration of unattributed POV, in Wikipedia's voice, that "Greece acknowledged that the British Museum is the lawful owner of the “Elgin Marbles in 2015," even though Greece never made that statement and this is just the opinion of the newspaper only. This is also SYNTH because "Greece acknowledged that the British Museum is the lawful owner of the “Elgin Marbles in 2015," is interjected into a pre-existing sentence about Greece continuing to seek the repatriation of the marbles. This interjection is used to negate the effect of the existing sentence. Combining the facts from two different sources this way is classic WP:SYNTH.
• Adding redundant and POV description of the Ottomans as "legal rulers" instead of the commonly-used "rulers" of Greece just as to push the POV that everything was legal at the time.
• Restoration of unattributed POV, in Wikipedia's voice, that "Many historians consider them relics of an Athenian civilisation rather than the modern Greek state" even though the source specifies "British historians". By the way this sentence is a direct copyvio from the source. Check Google search of the copyvio string.

This tendentious disruption has to stop and will be reverted. Dr. K. 20:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Then please stop with your edit war, stop reverting sourced facts and stop pushing your npov. Just use what the sources say please. Oh, and stop acting like you have powers to ban other ediditors please?Simply-the-truth (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

1 - it was an offer years ago with no legal basis, should be in the article, not the lead. 2 - The source does NOT say looting anywhere, please find the one you think that does state this and then we can add it back.BUT, then for balance I will add ones that say the opposite point of view to be fair. 3 - It was a statement from the Greece source as you can see, it doesnt matter what country the paper was printed in, the statement is the statement, it is relevant, important and sourced, so please don't remove to push your own npov. 4 - They were the legal rulers, so cant see the problem with this? If you have sources that say they werent then please post them here and we can discuss? 5 - Sorry, this has been changedSimply-the-truth (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understood any of the points I explained to you above. Do not restore your copyvio to the article or you will be blocked. Also do not blank well-sourced information. Dr. K. 11:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You cant block me, please stop saying you can. Please discuss the points and we can get a consensus on this? I understand every point you stated, please remain civil re this. I replied to every point you made, please read my replies and respond, lets discuss this? Firstly, the quote re UNESCO is not needed in the lead. This is you trying to imply your npov. It is fine in the aricle, but not needed in the lead? Discuss please?

The legal rulers bit, they were so what is the problem with that? Please discuss here?

The Source re the dropping of the legal claim to the Marbles, I will re-write that and see if that is better for you? But it is sourced and is the Greece statment, so it belongs in the lead?

I have added the word British as you wanted. Lets discuss please?Simply-the-truth (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

discuss points here please

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)

Changed legal to official, as they were the rulers at the time and their decisions are upheld by law to this day. If you can think of a better word please let me know? Also removed the British historians quote and will add lower down in the articleSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The "looting" claim, we need a source that actually states this, then it can be added. But if one is found and this is in the lead, then for balance I will a similar claim from a supporter of the action takenSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

readded the UNESCO point and expanded it. Still think not needed in the lead at all as not that important a pointSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

2016 update

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