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
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.
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"
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
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.
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 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,
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
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.
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
"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.
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
Is Wikimedia suddenly allowing unsollicited mail or is there something
I'm unaware of? How did they get my name?
> (*warning, objectionable link*)
(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'.
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!
According to a thread at the Wikipedia Review forum (
Daniel Brandt is wishing to name every Wikipedia admin, expanding the
Hivemind page (http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html) to include all
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
I think this is starting to go too far now.