[WikiEN-l] More work needed on wiki's Roman Salute article etc

Wed Dec 28 18:52:52 UTC 2005

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.