Pointer Institute for Media Studies wrote:
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
[3-page screen elided]
This entire line of argument makes some sense, but there seems to be a
blind reliance on "the historian Rex Curry" as whose work we ought to
treat as the Bible of The Roman Salute. Is this warranted? Is he the
only scholar who has written on the subject? If not, what do other
historians who have written on the subject have to say? Have Dr.
Curry's conclusions been commented on by others in the field, either
positively or negatively? These are all things that must be known for
the article to be an accurate representation of modern consensus
opinion on the subject, rather than merely a summary of one
historian's book.
Never mind. In light of the fact that the email I'm responding to was
dishonestly written by Rex Curry himself, I retract my suggestion that
his work should be evaluated and included in the article; he's almost
certainly a crank.
-Mark