::::I pretty much agree with this.  The article in its present state is certainly a bad one.  It's an example of the worst sort of Wikipedia article, the kind that is not so much an article as an arena. Nine out of ten editors are clearly more interested in scoring rhetorical points and special pleading than in giving a balanced and calm account of the subject  and as usual, those who do try to create a balanced and calm account are attacked by both sides as being unfair.  I think a Parthenon Sculptures article is justified also because if you read art historians on the Parthenon, the tend to include a unified section on the sculptures, indicating that they are considered overall an integral work of art.  And, as I've discussed above, the term "Parthenon sculptures" certainly does not equal "the Elgin Marbles plus a few other things."  I may eventually get around to starting such an article, but if someone else wants to start it now, go ahead.