Jump to content

Talk:Roman salute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 7, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed

Reference/content modifications

[edit]

The claims made by Tamir Bar-On in his book "Where are all the fascists gone?" with regards to football teams from Rome are devoid of any substantial evidence, in fact, they are probably entirely fictitious. No study has ever been conducted to prove that one team has a larger Jewish fan base than the other, and Mussolini tried to have Lazio dissolved and merged into AS Roma, so he definitely was not a Lazio fan. This has lead me to remove Bar-On's source as its references are fictitious. This resulted in some changes in the "Post World War II" section, specifically the third paragraph in the 'Italy' subsection.

Mention of the hand gesture in old sources

[edit]

Saying some kind of right hand gesture is not mentioned in any source is a bit of a stretch. I think that segment should be rewritten. I know of at least one mention of right hand gesture in "Judean War" written by Josephus. Here's what he says when describing rituals of Roman soldiers upon going to campaign and breaking camp:...Then does the crier stand at the general’s right hand, and asks them thrice, in their own tongue, whether they be now ready to go out to war or not. To which they reply as often, with a loud and cheerful voice, saying, “We are ready.” And this they do almost before the question is asked them: they do this as filled with a kind of martial fury, and at the same time that they so cry out, they lift up their right hands also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.0.110 (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the early hand gesture, about ancient Rome, talking about the most recent use of the hand gesture. Obviously anyone reaching this page knows the gesture and its use. But then here they are having the most modern use, in the tab that talk is suppose to talk about its first use. 108.183.194.218 (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another Description in Josephus

[edit]

Josephus states in The Wars of the Jews, Book VII Chapter V "when they saw him coming up to them they stood on both sides of the way, and stretched out their right hands, saluting him..." (Whiston translation.) Although Flavius Josephus was Jewish, his history was written after he defected to the Romans, so this could be considered Roman literature.

Although Josephus doesn't give a precise description of the salute, it is nitpicking to say that "this description is unknown in Roman literature and is never mentioned by ancient historians of Rome." The Roman people stretched out their right hands in a salute. Was the arm angle 135° with the palm down and the fingers together? Josephus doesn't say. But even if he doesn't give all of the details, the gesture was clearly identical or very similar to that under discussion. This reference should be included in the article.Bikejeff (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the gesture was clearly identical or very similar to that under discussion: I personally would disagree that that's clearly identical; there are a lot of ways to stretch out a right hand. But it doesn't matter what you or I think; neither of us, nor any other Wikipedia editor, gets to make that call. Doing so is original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Simply citing Josephus isn't enough; you need a secondary, reliable, scholarly source that talks about that passage in Josephus being evidence for the modern "Roman salute" in antiquity. Josephus is a primary source; we need a secondary source. As the NOR policy says: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. You are interpreting that the passage in Josephus is relevant to the subject of the modern Roman salute; thus, you need a reliable secondary source to back that up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After studying Wikipedia's policy on original research I believe that it would be acceptable to add the Josephus quote without comment. It is a description of a Roman salute so it should be included in the article entitled "Roman salute." I have been unable to find a secondary source but Wikipedia does allow primary sources to be quoted as long as I don't include analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Does that sound reasonable? Bikejeff (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the subject of this article is the specific gesture that is referred to, mostly incorrectly, as a "Roman salute". It is not an article about the general practice of saluting in Ancient Rome; such practices are discussed only in a small part of the article to provide background knowledge about the modern gesture. So, including the Josephus quote at all is implicitly performing analysis and interpretation, since by discussing the Josephus quote in this article, you're interpreting the gesture to be the same as that which is discussed by the article, since after all, if the Josephus quote doesn't refer to the specific gesture, then it is irrelevant to the article. Writ Keeper ⚇
♔ 20:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Marcus Aurelius

[edit]

In the famous bronze equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, the figure's right hand is extended in a gesture of (apparent) salutation. We can quibble over the precise angle of that gesture; but to say there is no reference to a gesture of salute in Roman literature or culture is obviously not true. It need not be interpreted as a strictly miltary greeting, a simple wave of hello is also a salute. Nuttyskin (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say that there is no reference to any gesture of salute in Roman literature or culture; on the contrary, it goes into some detail about that subject in the first section and indeed provides this statue as an example. What it does say is that there is no reference to this specific gesture in Roman literature. Assuming you're talking about this statue of Marcus Aurelius, that is not obviously the "Roman salute" as discussed by this article, and regardless, we'd need a reliable source that connects the two anyway, not just our own analysis. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is referencing the first part of the article comparing the described salute to the painting. The article mentions that there is little to no resemblance, even though it is almost, if not identical. PrIsMaTiSmX (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "Fascist salute" in the lede

[edit]

Since an anonymous editor has objected to calling this gesture the "fascist salute" in the lede, despite the inclusion of multiple sources that refer to it as such, I would like to seek editors' consensus: should the lede state that the "Roman salute" is also known as the "Fascist salute," as in this revision, or not? Let's hear your reasoning. Huntthetroll (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the IP editor's argument holds no water whatsoever; the article goes to great lengths to point out that this gesture is *not* of Roman origin. I certainly see plenty of "fascist salute" in the sources; examples include Winkler (2003), and various news articles as well. There are a few other phrases in the sources, such as "Hitler salute" and "nazi salute", but those don't seem to be as well attested. I'd say there's plenty of source support for "Fascist salute". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to contribute. Huntthetroll (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: "...the article goes to great lengths to point out that this gesture is *not* of Roman origin." Exactly. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't even an argument against it. This is overwhelmingly also known as Fascist salute and Fascist salute already redirects here. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:95D2:6EF5:50D6:9BA8 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding to the discussion. Huntthetroll (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I solved it: [1]. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first line in the lede is an editorial. In the U.S. the salute was called the Bellamy Salute, and was regularly used in the U.S. during the Pledge of Allegiance. As for the the argument in the lead that it is better known as the "Fascist Salute," is based upon absolutely nothing. There is no citation, and I've never heard the it called "the Fascist Salute."

IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect. It is connected to a facist salute as stated which led to the flag act of the 40’s. If you have never of the connections then perhaps more research was needed on your part. 2601:644:9181:ED10:935:8ACB:4CAD:454B (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we start an ancient nazis page?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_the_Horatii 2601:2C1:9100:50B0:8132:6B33:5506:3A8B (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "Roman Salute" to "Fascist Salute"?

[edit]

The article makes quite clear that "Roman Salute" is effectively a misnomer, so it seems misleading to leave the article titled as-is, and redirecting "Fascist Salute" here. Given this, should the page be renamed and the redirection reversed? PatriziaDE (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth opening a formally structured WP:RM#CM with at least three the two usual options: oppose RM, or support to either fascist salute or Nazi salute: In the academic literature on the top pages with a SearXNG instance, I see:
which makes "Nazi salute" as the preferred term, though see the warning about WP:HITS. What we really need are history-of-fascism and genocide research peer-reviewed sources, which currently seem to be less findable than medical research. GAFAM search results likely differ. Boud (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC) (modified, see next comment Boud (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
However... there's a separate article Nazi salute. So the question is whether the overall info documented in this article is better known as the "roman salute" or "fascist salute", per WP:TITLE criteria. An WP:RM#CM oppose/support a change to "fascist salute" would probably be useful. Boud (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Roman Salute is appropriate and is a name that I'm pretty sure has been used as the title for the page since this article was created. Its the academic name for the salute and especially because of recent events it is being used commonly. I don't see a reason to change or reopen this. Zyxrq (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added section on controversies

[edit]

Please expand this section with other examples of accusations of public figures or those in positions of authority being accused of using the salute. Marlarkey (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in Controversies section

[edit]

Please could someone with suitable access fix the manifest typo below where "office" should be "officer"?

I would do it myself but the page is locked.,

>> In 2019, a police office in Lincolnshire, UK was accused of "making a Nazi salute" while on duty at a police station. Bedales94 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2025

[edit]

Change "musk accused of making Nazi salute" to "Musk made a Nazi salute" as this is what happened and is a better reflection of the factual accuracy needed in these situations. 92.172.161.124 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not factually accurate. As such, this will not be an addition. PrIsMaTiSmX (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

[edit]

Remove the bullshit about Elon Musk. Neillwd (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Mellk (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Irrelevant

[edit]

The controversies section, added very recently without consensus, is irrelevant (see the template added to the section); I propose its complete deletion. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think because of the recent thing with Elon Musk people are quick to add stuff. No one will care in about a week. Fruitloop11 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fruitloop11: exactly, and with Elon Musk even less than a week. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the richest man on Earth would have better things to do than trolling 24/7. Ca talk to me! 23:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and I would think his trolls have no bearing, or noteworthiness in what should be PrIsMaTiSmX (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with its deletion; sections like that are just asking to become WP:COATRACKed. Ca talk to me! 23:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with its deletion. PrIsMaTiSmX (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2025

[edit]

Change the spelling of "offence" to 'offense' to better reflect it's modern spelling. PrIsMaTiSmX (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is "modern". C is British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand, S is American. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 February 2025

[edit]

Roman salute → Fascist salute – Having "Fascist salute" redirected to "Roman salute", with the article making clear that "Roman salute" is a misnomer makes little sense and does not seem to be a neutral position. I suggest therefore that we rename the page to "Fascist Salute", and redirect "Roman Salute" to it. PatriziaDE (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support These are of course synonyms, and "Fascist salute" is less ambiguous and more widely used. Jeppiz (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, it's defiantly pov to pretend it's anything other than fascist—blindlynx 20:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Much as this gesture has come to be associated with fascist movements, it had a long history unassociated with fascism before its adoption by fascists, and thus the proposed title would be misleading. The current title is not, because it was associated with Roman culture, even though its actual origins may lie more in contemporary perceptions of Roman culture than authentic Roman gestures. A bit like historical Viking helmets probably not having horns—even if the horned helmets are more of a Victorian invention, we're not going to stop calling them "Viking helmets". "Fascist salute" can redirect here, if it isn't split off; so can "Bellamy salute" or "open hand salute" or "extended arm salute" or anything else that makes sense, and all of the related uses—as well as a discussion of its authenticity—belong here. It would be a bit silly to discuss all of that in detail under a topic labeled "facist", and images of paintings or actors portraying Romans, Boy Scouts, and American schoolchildren would be misplaced in an article about fascism. P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry calling it roman salute when there is no historical evidence to it is disingenuous and misleading.
The salute was attributed to Romans in 20th century by politicians and entertainment industry. 178.248.100.172 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's plainly wrong: if you read the article, it says that this gesture was developed for artistic purposes in 1784, specifically depicting Romans, and popularized with that specific association throughout the nineteenth century. It was already being used to pledge allegiance to the flag before 1900, and was not adopted by the Italian fascist movement until 1923; it seems to have remained in general use until World War II, and only then became too associated with fascism to use for other purposes. So the idea that its association with Romans was a twentieth century fiction intended to mislead the public as to its true meaning is simply wrong; its fascist associations long post-date its associations with Roman culture. P Aculeius (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever was the case before 1923 has been eclipsed so dramatically since that time that it is mere background trivia at this point. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article covers a lot of nonfascist use of the salute. Killuminator (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The swastika continues to have other prominent uses and has a much longer history. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With regards to the comment by @P Aculeius comparing the name to viking helmets, I'd argue that in the case of this salute the name which is both more common and more historically accurate is "Fascist", not "Roman". Less significant usage by other groups doesn't make the symbol less Fascist, and fictional/artistic depictions of its usage by Romans doesn't make the symbol more Roman. Me (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These comments make no sense, since the use of any symbol by multiple groups for different purposes across time and different cultures necessarily makes it less representative of just one group or purpose. "More historically accurate" is plainly false, since it predates the rise of fascism by several decades. Whether a gesture like this was widely used in Roman times is a red herring; it was known as a "Roman salute" because it was associated with Roman culture, and that was the sine qua non for its adoption by fascists, who were intentionally invoking Roman history—hence the word "fascist". Retroactively naming what all other groups who employed the same gesture as "fascist" obscures that history and presents a misleading view, doing a disservice to our readers. P Aculeius (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The current title is not the term most commonly used to refer to this gesture and is also not more accurate than the suggested title, so it is not a better choice for the article's title. It historical background, diversity of uses, and alterative names can be described in the article. We should primarily consider modern usage rather than historical usage, and AFAIK no one writing about this form of salute in the last 75 years could ignore its association with fascism. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jpgordon
Codonified (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: keep the historical name / WP:COMMONNAME. Every other wikipedia language also calls it like that https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q841184#sitelinks-wikipedia--FMSky (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Killuminator. I do think it would be reasonable to create a separate article (WP:CONTENTSPLIT) for Fascist salute, but the scope of this article is clearly distinct. Suriname0 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The common name is not "Roman salute" and the Romans did not use it, therefore a misnomer, so it should not be the title of this article. Carlstak (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:COMMONNAME would only apply if it were correct in each of the significant contexts used here; but it would plainly be incorrect to describe Romans depicted giving a "fascist salute" to the emperor, or American schoolchildren and Boy Scouts giving a "fascist salute" when pledging allegiance to the flag. Neither the gesture's originators (assuming that it really does belong to the 19th century) nor most of its users prior to the 1930s were fascists or had any fascist intent, making the proposed title misleading. P Aculeius (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.I haven't heard this called a "fascist salute" until now. It's always been referred to as "roman salute." Ratgomery (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disbelieve you, but my experience has been the opposite - so from my perspective The WP:COMMON NAME argument would go in the other direction. PatriziaDE (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As another user pointed out, it's referred to as "roman salute" in every other language's page as well so I think it's quite clearly the common name. Ratgomery (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is English WP, so we use the name most common in English, not the one most broadly used in other languages. Carlstak (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be roman salute. In my personal experience as a native english speaker it's always been called a roman salute and "fascist salute" has never been used despite it's association to facism. According to google trends and looking at search terms it's VASTLY more often called a roman salute, and according to other language wikis it's called a roman salute in every other language. No matter what angle I look at this the common name is obviously roman salute. Ratgomery (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real opinion on the overarching debate here, but regarding looking at search terms it's VASTLY more often called a roman salute, Ngrams would beg to differ. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I specified "search terms" and Google Ngram does not analyze search terms, it analyzes what's published in books, so that does not necessarily differ from what I said. Here's what I'm looking at on Google trends
I'm not sure if there are any wiki guidelines on google trends vs google ngrams in regards to which is more indicative of common names, but I'm inclined to think google trends would be more inline with the common name since it's showing the term common people use more often as opposed to what's published in books. Either way that's useful information. Ratgomery (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, quoting WP:CRITERIA: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. That would indicate we should care about what's published in books, not what people have written into Google. But, as I said above, I have no stake in the overall discussion here; I simply wanted to refute the idea that "fascist salute" is somehow vanishingly rare in comparison with "Roman salute", which is what your comment (and the ones above) seemed to be stating.
It also wasn't clear to me what you meant by "search terms" (I just assumed you meant you searched different terms, presumably in a search engine; you said "google trends and looking at search terms", which indicated to me that the two were separate). Whatever the case, your claim wasn't that "it seems to be more common in Google searches, but less common in published sources", it was that it's VASTLY more often called a roman salute and No matter what angle I look at this the common name is obviously roman salute. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Fascist Salute" is much more appropriate for the gesture's common usage. "Roman Salute" is both a misnomer and misleading as to the salute's usage. Super m001 (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: since another user called all other uses "mere background trivia" (presumably including the fact that it continues to have official usage in some countries without any connection to fascism), I decided to do a cursory pageviews analysis. In the 90 days prior to the inauguration last month, "Roman salute" got an average of about 692 daily page views. "Fascist salute", which is a redirect here, got an average of 22. While the page views for the current title are probably elevated by the existence of piped links from other titles, the evidence seems even more conclusive that significant numbers of people were not searching for this article under "fascist salute". P Aculeius (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because people are searching for a term, that doesn't make it the correct term. PatriziaDE (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What people are searching for is quite relevant when it comes to the best title for an article. And as many people have said here, just because you associate it with fascism doesn't make all other uses or names incorrect. "Roman salute" is what it's been called since the nineteenth century, and thus by definition it can't be incorrect, even if it's not an authentic Roman gesture. It's not incorrect to call it that even when it's used by fascists. But it would be incorrect to describe Romans, schoolchildren, Boy Scouts, people in Mexico or Portugal, etc. as employing a "fascist" salute. You're not implying any allegiance to Rome when you call it a Roman salute, but when you call it "fascist" you imply a connection with fascism that is incorrect. P Aculeius (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be reasonable to have a s alsoon of the page describe the salute as having non-fascist origins before being co-opted by fascists. That would seem to cover the innocent originaltheuses whilst still being clear about what the gesture has come to mean in modern times. PatriziaDE (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if splitting the article might be a way to reach consensus. For something like this there are clearly strong opinions and I suspect people will be unhappy whatever happens. Perhaps then, we could add some text in the introduction along the lines of "for modern usage, see Fascist salute" to make the connection clear, then move everything outside "ancient Roman greetings" to the newly-created "Fascist Salute" page? PatriziaDE (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the article makes sense; splitting along "ancient" and "modern" lines does not, since as you've already mentioned multiple times, the evidence suggests that the modern gesture is probably not an authentic Roman one, but dates to a 1784 painting and its sequels, which were then emulated by other artists, dramatists, and organizations. Even if we suppose that the painter genuinely believed it to be Roman, and that the evidence is inconclusive, there are apparently current uses that are clearly not fascist in nature.
As the article mentions, in Mexico this salute is still used for pledging allegiance to the flag; a similar use remains in Portugal; and it occurs in a few other instances with no reference to fascism. I note that perhaps the reason why it lacks any such connotation in some places is that they were not participants in World War II, or at least not engaged with the fascist powers in Europe.
Because this article covers the whole history of the gesture, including modern non-fascist ones, it may be appropriate to split off portions of the article dealing with its use in association with fascism under the proposed title, "fascist salute", but leaving a shorter section here to cover the same topic in brief. That would allow for further expansion within the fascist article, if necessary. However, all splits come with the risk that other editors may feel that the articles should be merged again; and we do not want to trim down the section here so much that readers miss the modern association of the gesture with fascist movements at various places and times over the last century. P Aculeius (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split: The current article scope serves to educate people about the whole history and diversity of uses of the gesture. It also avoids the need to decide whether any particular use of the gesture should be considered fascistic or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split - The “Roman” attribution is ahistorical, so it should not be given a separate page, and the term “Roman salute” is intimately tied up with its adoption by Mussolini and its fascist association in most contexts today. -Drevolt (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giving "Roman salute" a separate page wasn't suggested. The suggestion was for splitting off "fascist salute", which would still be covered here, but more briefly. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but it's a better choice than renaming this article. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - After thinking this over, I support the status quo on this page. The Roman salute is very often an explicitly fascist gesture, and the term itself is ahistorical, but there are contexts in which the so-called “Roman salute” is not explicitly fascist (e.g., its use in the Jacques-Louis David painting should not be referred to as the fascist salute, since it predated fascism by many, many years). Hopefully a more historically accurate term will eventually emerge for the generic gesture, but it’s not the job of Wikipedia to revise how terms are ordinarily used. -Drevolt (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split (2nd oppose) per others - time to close this. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_salute&oldid=1278603448"