Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ravenswing (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 10 December 2021 (→December 2021). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/* Historically Inaccurate Cover Photo For This Article */ new section

This article had the main photograph changed from the historically verifiable likeness of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus by someone posting an image from a Russian site of Sulla and trying to pass it off as Scipio Africanus. Even in the Russian Pushkin National Museum in Saint Petersburg, Russia, there are marble sculpture busts of Roman General Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus that are labeled from antiquity with P•COR•SCIPIO•AFR at the bottom of the sculptures. You can see from Wikimedia commons these busts from Ancient Rome of Scipio housed at the Pushkin museum which are clearly labeled as Scipio. Now someone is trying to destroy the mainstream popular view of Scipio with a sculpture of Sulla with an uploaded image that is even labelled "ScipioAfricanusSulla". This bust is from Sulla from the Roman civil wars, not Scipio.

I find it incredibly offensive that someone who is misinformed about history passing off an alternative ridiculous theory can be allowed to alter the mainstream image identified with Scipio. This happened during the Coronavirus pandemic in 2020 and I noticed that someone changed the image from a historical marble bust of Scipio to a picture of a marble bust of Sulla or some other individual missing a nose.

In my academic pursuits as a historian of Greece and Rome, I have collected images of dozens of sculptures of Publius Cornelius Scipio, victor of the Second Punic War over Carthage, all dating from antiquity and matching the historical descriptions of Scipio as a bald man of large stature and muscular build. Anything else is just some non-historical theory.

In terms of the Latin expression, QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDVM - thus it is demonstrated - one must look no further than the Wikimedia commons articles showing marble busts from antiquity depicting Scipio's authentic physical appearance labeled with his name at the bottom as P•COR•SCIPIO•AFR clearly at the bottom of the marble bust, an abbreviation for Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. That should be definitive evidence compared to any non-historical pseudoscientific attempt to alter the image of Scipio Africanus in the public mind.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Isis_priest01_pushkin.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Isis_priest02_pushkin.jpg

When you look at the caption of the image of Sulla replacing the image of the actual Scipio that was on this article for 10+ years, it says "Bust tentatively identified as Scipio Africanus, formerly attributed to Sulla. It might have been on the facade of the Tomb of the Scipios." So "tentatively" and "might have" replace identification of a man whose sculptures depicting his likeness were labeled in antiquity? This is obviously ludicrous and ridiculous. The citation used to justify this opinion misidentifying Scipio links to an article written in French, not English like this Scipio Africanus wikipedia article. To me it's also absurd that the image at the end of the article shows a sculpture from the 15th century which looks more like Pyrrhus of Epirus than Publius Cornelius Scipio.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Publius-Cornelius-Scipio

I have dozens of photographs of marble sculptures from antiquity that I've collected with the likeness of the real historical Publius Cornelius Scipio who was later given the title of "Africanus" after his victory over the Carthaginians at the Battle of Zama in North Africa. He is not to be confused with his father Publius Cornelius Scipio who fell at the Battle of Cannae. I've tried to upload these images to show the community the obvious truth with ancient Roman sculptures labeled bearing his name with marble busts compared to some ridiculous theory written in French that even shows a Roman denarius from c. 209 BC within that French article that clearly shows Scipio's historical physical appearance wearing a helmet.

ZLinn1776 ZLinn1776 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Historical Appearance of Publius Cornelius Scipio

This wikipedia article, Latin for "The Dream of Scipio" which was written by Cicero has an image depicting the correct historical appearance of Publius Cornelius Scipio . Africanus was an honorific title for his victory over Carthage at the Battle of Zama on African soil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Somnium_Scipionis

When you click on the link to the photograph on this wiki article, you can see clearly that the ancient Roman marble bust of Scipio was labeled in antiquity with an abbreviation of his name at the bottom P•COR•SCIPIO•AFR

This of course providing contrast to some non-historical theory falsely characterizing a sculpture of another man missing a nose, most likely Sulla from the Roman civil war with Marius.

In honor of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers.

ZLinn1776 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Publius

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.MB 02:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. General Ization 02:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That was an accident as I was trying to respond to attacks. Thank you for the "warning" User talk:General Ization|<i style="color: #000666 <===

I'm starting to realize that this Misplaced Pages community might be heading towards chaos from editorial conflict. No one that is attacking me has even a single historical source to back up their position. The overwhelming weight of historical knowledge supports my position. Read the label on the sculpture. Who do you think that is? Compared to their image labeled ScipioAfricanusSulla.jpg depicting Sulla.

If I have to continue spending my time fighting against outright ignorance, then I'll just eventually decide that Misplaced Pages lacks objectivity, because apparently anyone can edit even people that can't tell the difference between Scipio Africanus and Sulla.

ZLinn1776 ZLinn1776 (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if your assertions about Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, Scipio Africanus ‎, or anything else are correct, we have certain policies here concerning the conduct of editors. This is a collaborative project, and you must follow those policies whether or not the information you are attempting to include in the encyclopedia is correct. General Ization 03:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your false assertions notwithstanding, the broken nose image HAS been posted with a valid source. That you don't like it bears no weight; it exists all the same. Ravenswing 03:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.