"

 More on Wiki writers http://rexcurry.net/wikipedia-lies.html 

Many errors have been corrected in Wikipedia's Roman salute article.
http://rexcurry.net/wikipedialies.html  The article had many visits from Dr. Curry in the past - see its talk page- as Dr. Curry attempted to correct the many errors.
http://rexcurry.net/wikipedia-lies.html

However, the wikipedia article on the ""Roman Salute"" is becoming more dishonest by the 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 neo-Nazi has been 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.

The article reverts back to its earlier opening concessions to the work of Dr. Curry, conceding that there is no clear evidence of the salute in the Roman Republic and also conceding that there is no evidence of salutes in the military sense at all in Roman culture.

The wiki 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 and suppress Professor Curry's discoveries.  

The wiki 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 and suppress 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 faill 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 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 wiki writer is misrepresenting the works or reading into them.

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 mos important of these paintings.  That painting shows no use of the salute in pledging or oath-taking or at all and simply shows various people, with various gestures, acclaiming the central figure and grabbing for, and shouting for, the ""Eagle Standards.""  The wiki writer is misrepresenting the works and reading into them.

The wiki writer then claims that other painters during the nineteenth century regularly depicted the straight-arm g