WikiEN-l December 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

192 participants
299 discussions

More work needed on wiki's Roman Salute article etc
by Pointer Institute for Media Studies 30 Dec '05

30 Dec '05

Wikipedia's Roman salute article has gained many improvements thanks to the work of the historian Rex Curry. But more work remains to be done and everyone can assist. http://rexcurry.net/wikipedialies.html Also see http://rexcurry.net/wikipedia-lies.html It is unfortunate that, due to some wikiling writers, the "Roman Salute" becomes more dishonest each week. An earlier version referenced the work of Professor Rex Curry and started thusly: "The Roman salute is a gesture in which the arm is held out forward straight, with palms down. Sometimes the arm is raised upward at an angle, sometimes it is held out parallel to the ground. The salute was supposed to have been used in the Roman republic, but there is no clear evidence of this. Indeed it is not known whether salutes in the military sense existed at all in Roman culture" (by Paul Barlow). A more recent version of the same article is written as if a wikiling writer is a neo-Nazi covering-up again. A big initial problem is that no wiki writer will even attempt to discover the first use of the phrase "Roman salute" and thus the writers remain stuck in intellectually dishonest confusion about dates and origins. Eventually, the wiki article reverts back to its earlier opening concessions to the work of Dr. Curry, and the article concedes that there is no clear evidence of the salute in the Roman Republic and it concedes that there is no evidence of salutes in the military sense at all in Roman culture. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html The wikiling writer then engages in speculation that people today misunderstood some images from ancient Rome. There is no support for the idea that the "Roman Salute" concept arose long ago from misinterpretations of Roman images. There is as much evidence that, after Dr. Curry's shocking discoveries about the salute's origin with the Pledge of Allegiance, modern writers (including wiki writers) deliberately looked for other explanations and then those writers misinterpreted Roman images in order to cover-up Professor Curry's discoveries. The wikiling writer then engages in speculation that neoclassical artists misunderstood some images from ancient Rome. There is no support for the idea that the "Roman Salute" concept arose among neoclassical artists from misinterpretations of Roman images. There is as much evidence that, after Dr. Curry's shocking discoveries about the salute's origin with the Pledge of Allegiance, modern writers (including wiki writers) deliberately looked for other explanations and then those writers seized upon neoclassical artists in order to cover-up Professor Curry's discoveries. For example, there is no evidence that Jacques-Louis David actually thought that his painting "The Oath of the Horatii" represented an actual historical Roman salute. All of the evidence indicates that David created the scene out of whole cloth for drama. All of the speculating otherwise is actually the machinations of wiki writers and people of their ilk. The intellectual dishonesty is all the more evident in that the wiki writers deliberately fail to address those very points already made by Dr. Curry http://rexcurry.net/pledgehoratii.html Further, the Horatii painting depicts three people reaching for weapons. The Tennis Court Oath was painted by David later, and repeats David's use of the dramatic gesture that David concocted, but in a more modern setting. There is no evidence that it accurately depicts the event protrayed. David was not there. Further, the oath was written on paper (the paper being read by the central figure?) and the "oath was taken" by signing the document. There is no evidence that anyone is taking an oath in the painting (the central figure might be swearing, or he might be reading his document) while those people about him waive hats, talk, holler, point, etc. Three figures on the left seem to be an inside reference to the Horatii painting. The Distribution of the Eagle Standards was painted by David even later, and repeats David's use of the dramatic gesture that David concocted, but in another modern setting. There is no evidence that it accurately depicts the event protrayed and there is no evidence that anyone is taking an oath in the painting at all. The wiki writer claims that this is the most important of these paintings. That painting shows no use of the salute in pledging or oath-taking at all and simply shows various people, with various gestures, grabbing for, and shouting for, the "Eagle Standards." Some gestures are toward the front, some gestures are toward the crowd. The wiki writer misrepresents the paintings and reads into them. The wiki writer shows that he does not understand the historical events that actually occurred before the paintings. The wiki writer then claims that other painters during the nineteenth century regularly depicted the straight-arm gesture in scenes of Roman imperial history. The writer cites no support because there is no support. There is no support for the idea that the "Roman Salute" concept arose among neoclassical artists from misinterpretations of Roman images. There is as much evidence that, after Dr. Curry's shocking discoveries about the salute's origin with the Pledge of Allegiance, modern writers (including wikilings) deliberately looked for other explanations and then those writers misrepresented neoclassical art to cover-up Professor Curry's discoveries. The cover-up is also supported by the fact that wiki writers know (or should know) that Francis Bellamy explained the origin of his salute and that it had nothing to do with imitating any painting, nor imitating any "Roman" salute myth. At this paragraph the intellectual dishonesty doubles. The writer is attempting to imply that there is a relationship between the original Pledge salute and the myth of the "Roman salute." No support is cited because there is no support. The writer is not honest enough to clearly state that the supposed Roman myth was not an influence upon Francis Bellamy or Bellamy's cohorts. The writer will not reference Dr. Curry's clear explanation of how the Pledge salute was selected by Bellamy and Bellamy's cohorts, which is known because Bellamy explained its creation. The writer knows that it does not support the myth that the writer is trying to perpetuate. The writer will not mention Professor Curry's voluminous dissection of Bellamy's love of the military, national socialism, and the Bellamy term "military socialism." The writer is still covering-up for socialism. The writer is also completely evading the fact that the use of the military salute in the Pledge evolved into the classic hard stylized salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). The writer is evading the point that the Nazi salute is an extended military salute, via the Pledge of Allegiance. All of those are discoveries by Professor Curry. The writer is unclear because the writer has knowingly refused to acknowledge Dr. Curry's discovery that the use of the military salute by Bellamy, caused the extended arm salute to change in use. Wikipedia articles are so intellectually dishonest that they are comical. It had nothing to do with the "Roman salute" myth, but the writer cannot bear to give up his distortions. The Wikipedia writer implies that the Olympic salute came from a classical painting, but the wiki writer knows that he has no support to cite. The wiki writer is aware of Dr. Curry's voluminous and ground-breaking work exposing the Olympic salute, but the writer is too intellectually dishonest to even mention it. http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter1a1c.html The writer evades Professor Curry's explanation that the Olympic salute also derived ultimately from the Pledge of Allegiance. The wiki writer references how Dr. Curry exposed the work of Martin Winkler regarding the use of the Roman salute in films. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html Professor Curry pointed out that Martin Winkler did not realize at the time of Winkler's article that the films were all pre-dated by the use of the salute in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. Martin Winkler, while discussing the old films, was unaware that the salute had been the original salute of the Pledge of Allegiance. Dr. Curry long ago challenged Martin Winkler to debate these issues in public and Dr. Curry has maintained that standing debate challenge, which has been met with complete silence. http://rexcurry.net/pledge-professor-martin-winkler.html The wiki writer adopts Martin Winkler's intellectually dishonest use of the term "fascist" to further aid the wiki writer in covering-up for the National Socialist German Workers' Party and for the National Socialism of the Bellamys. The wiki writer also mentions a chest variation of the salute but the writer is too intellectually dishonest to mention Dr. Curry's photographs and explanation that the same variation was used earlier in the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not institute the hand-over-the-heart, and the writer acknowledges the error in the next sentence when referencing the act by Congress. The writer fails to mention that through most of Roosevelt's time in office the straight arm salute was used and Professor Curry possesses photographic examples of Roosevelt himself being saluted with the notorious salute. It is interesting to note that Congress did not inject itself into the mess until after the U.S. entered World War II, December 7, 1941. The article uses four (or more) forms of the word "Nazi" and never gives the actual correct name of the horrid party: the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It is a classic example of the usual cover-up for socialism, and the cover-up of the philosophical relationship between the German National Socialists and U.S. National Socialists (e.g. the Bellamys). The wiki writer's behavior is comparable to that of neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers (and Wholecaust deniers). It reinforces the hackneyed use of the shorthand "Nazi" and the myth that members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party referred to themselves as "Nazis" (they did not refer to themselves as "Nazis"). There are many people who use the word "Nazi" to avoid ever stating the actual name of the party. Technically speaking, there was no "Nazi Party" as that is simply shorthand slang that has been spread by people like the wiki writer. The writer makes constant use of the shorthand "Nazi" even when discussing the very topic at hand. Wiki writers evade the topic that Professor Curry has raised, which is that Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy were self-proclaimed National Socialists in the USA three decades before the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and Edward's book was an international bestseller, translated into every major language (including German, which Edward spoke and wrote, and where Edward had studied as a young man) and that Edward's dogma inspired "Nationalism" clubs worldwide, including in Germany. The Bellamy salute was not originally the same as the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, as noted by Professor Curry. However, as anyone who looks at Dr. Curry's historic photographs of the salute can see, it developed into the same salute as that of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Even the writer above concedes Dr. Curry's point that the flag was saluted with a normal military-style salute and then the arm was straightened out toward the flag during the oath. The writer above tellingly evades the point that the use of the military salute led to the change in the salute to the U.S. flag. It is as if the writer above is conceding the point made by Professor Curry. The writers are thanked for conceding that the "Roman salute" page has contained inaccuracies, and for correcting some of those errors. The writers have "become wiser," by incorporating some of Professor Curry's discoveries.

7 7

Re: ideological cliques
by Rob Smith 30 Dec '05

30 Dec '05

Jimbo wrote, I have concern about people massing together in groups based on political affiliations at Wikipedia. This is exactly what was alleged in the case of Nobs01 and orthers acting in concert; Mr. Bauder stated four times there was no grounds to allege political affiliations inspired the actions of respondents, yet no finding of fact was ever made. It was a blatant abuse of prescribed dispute resolution processes by tarring five users with guilt by political association smears -- and worked very effectively to obscure evidence. And the clique that engineered this purge and show trial has a free license to continue the same against whoever their imagined enemies are. nobs

3 3

I seem to have been blocked by accident or bug--no notice on my Talk, and my edits are still on top
by Fix Beforeigo 30 Dec '05

30 Dec '05

Also, the block was made Dec. 25 even tho' I had no edits since the 18th. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=500&ip… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fixbeforeigo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fixbeforeigo I emailed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard but his User page indicates he's on extended break, and won't be back for more than a week. Help? --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping

2 1

Merry Christmas from Daniel Brandt
by Rob 29 Dec '05

29 Dec '05

Brandt dug up an old webpage of mine, one which I assumed had been deleted by my alma mater. I remembered the password and removed the pictures of myself and any personal information, and added a link to Google-Watch-Watch. I guess that pissed him off, so now instead of linking to the page, Brandt has posted a copy of my page (prior to alterations) and the pictures on his own website. Advice on how to handle this would be much appreciated. Obviously this is a blantant copyright violation but I'm not sure what to do about this. It doesn't bother me that Brandt knows my name or my face, as I've never been particularly careful about protecting my identity. My concern is: where does it end? What's next? My address? My place of employment? Google maps and satellite pics of my house? My credit report? He's already got the names of the *children* of another Wikipedian on his hitlist. "Ignore him" and "do nothing" are not options. While the "No, I'm Spartacus!" volunteering of personal information to Brandt is a heartening display of solidarity, it's not a sufficient response. I understand that there is a limit to what WP can do outside its own cyberborders, and I understand that I bear some responsibility for pissing off the wrong internet nutcase, but we as a community must come up with some sort of response to this type of harrassment or we're going to lose good people whose only "crime" is to edit an encyclopedia article in good faith. __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com

10 11

List archives?
by Andrew Gray 29 Dec '05

29 Dec '05

I'm not sure who to point this out to, so may as well list it here. There's a six-day hole in the August archives for wikien-l, between http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027229.html (Mon Aug 8 04:14:26 UTC 2005) and http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027237.html (Sun Aug 14 05:46:43 UTC 2005). Any idea why, and if it's salvageable? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

2 2

Timeouts
by Theresa Knott 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

Is Wikipedia down at the moment? I'm getting connection times out errors. Theresa --

2 1

Spam from Wikimedia?
by MacGyverMagic/Mgm 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

I just received a message from Francesca(a)textappeal.com about some job opportunity in translation and my Gmail claims it's been sent through Wikimedia.org Is Wikimedia suddenly allowing unsollicited mail or is there something I'm unaware of? How did they get my name? Mgm

1 0

Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 29, Issue 231
by Ben Hallert 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

> (*warning, objectionable link*) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deeceevoice (Bunch of people saying this is WP:POINT) Out of curiousity, could someone specify how this is a WP:POINT situation? All of the objectionable content was put there by vandals, not the user. Also, it's in user space, and I'm not certain I see how it actively disrupts Wikipedia. By definition, can anything in user space disrupt Wikipedia? Please forgive me if I'm missing something, but I've seen (and been guilty before receiving some education of) throwing around WP:POINT casually without actually reading the specifics of what it is. It's more than 'making a point', it's 'disrupting wikipedia to make a point'. Thanks! Chairboy

1 0

off on holiday next Wed
by David Gerard 28 Dec '05

28 Dec '05

For New Year, I'm off to a seaside resort in North Yorkshire in the middle of the bloody winter, because I am obviously insane. I'm leaving Wednesday morning and return the following Wednesday evening. In the meantime, I won't be at the wikien-l mod queue, I won't be checkusering and I won't be beating trolls about the head or advocating such (except as a general principle, but you know that). wikien-l mods, be sure someone checks the queue daily! - d.

6 11

Brandt wishes to release personal details of all Wikipedia admins
by Violet/Riga 27 Dec '05

27 Dec '05

According to a thread at the Wikipedia Review forum ( http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=displ…) Daniel Brandt is wishing to name every Wikipedia admin, expanding the Hivemind page (http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html) to include all such details. To quote that post: *I've identified about four or five new ones in just the last couple of days. There are 613 active admins on Wikipedia's current list. I'd like to do them all. But it would take a long time. To do a reasonably thorough search can require an hour or so. Maybe what's needed is a description of how to do it -- a flow chart. For example, besides Google, Yahoo, and MSN, you cannot forget Google Groups. One guy I identified was found using his real name on Usenet back in 1994, but ever since 1995 was only using his screen name. Many old-timers have left a trail of breadcrumbs on the Internet, and that probably includes about half of the current admins. Putting together a project like this would be a very strong statement against letting anonymous Wikipedian admins play games with biographies of living persons. It would even make the newbies reluctant to wikifiddle with biographies.* I think this is starting to go too far now. ~~~~ Violet/Riga

16 20

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l December 2005