Talk:Swastika

YOU CAN NOT DESCRIBE THE SWATSIKA BY CLOCKWISE MOTION BECAUSE ONE CAN NOT UNIVERSALLY TELL WHICH WAY THE LEGS OF THE SWATSIKA ARE MOVING AS IT IS NOT AN ANIMATION

that being said I think the Nazi Germany swatsika's legs point outwards and to the right so I think it would be going in a clockwise motion which is the opposite of what is said in this article.

108.17.109.131 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Armenian 'arev'

If this is a version of the swastika, why no sources in Google books? Who is the source and what does he say, and why should we use him as an authority on this - is he the only source? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hipster user in SE Asia

Sadly, I have frequently seen the swastika emblazoned on t-shirts (and other items) worn by young guys in south east asia, normally the national socialist flag of black upon a solid white circle, on a red flag. As a European, it is somewhat sickening, especially given that the country I live in was brutally occupied by another Axis power.Wavy (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing sickening about its use in south east Asia, since it's been used there for thousands of years. Have you read the article? Paul B (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Generic Unicode swastikas

Where the article means a generic swastika I have changed it to ࿕ or ࿖. According to Chapter 10 of The Unicode Standard, Version 6.0, "These signs are encoded in the Tibetan block, but are intended for general use; they occur with many other scripts in Asia. [...] The svasti signs have also been borrowed into the Han script and adapted as CJK ideographs. The CJK unified ideographs U+534D and U+5350 correspond to the left-facing and right-facing svasti signs, respectively. These CJK unified ideographs have adopted Han script-specific features and properties: they share metrics and type style characteristics with other ideographs, and are given radicals and stroke counts like those for other ideographs." The Tibetan signs have the general category of "Symbol, Other" and their script is "Common"; the CJK signs have the general category "Letter, Other" and their script is "Han". 卐 and 卍 are obviously meant for CJK use only, and ࿕ and ࿖ are for everything else. Gorobay (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with using the ones you identify as CJK. I do have a problem with the new ones as I simply can't see them, and I've checked it's not just a font problem. Unicode 6 is very new, released only in October 2010, so probably only OSes newer than that come with builtin support for it. CJK is almost as old as Unicode itself, so is supported on all Unicode OSes, all or almost all of which come with appropriate fonts and have for many years.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The generic swastikas were added in Unicode 5.2, released in October 2009. On Windows XP SP3 (released April 2008), with a suitable font, they appear. Swastikas have no complicated rendering needs, so there should be no OS-related problems. What font are you using? Gorobay (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've hundreds of fonts installed. My OS is Mac OS 10.6 which has full unicode support and comes with a large number of fonts, so out of the box it has CJK, extensive European/Latin, punctuation and technical etc. support. I've added a lot of fonts since, including some genreral unicode ones but mostly ones for particular scripts as I come across pages on WP about those languages/scripts: if I see lots of black rectangles I look on the page for a 'xxx fonts' link.

That's I think another concern. At least on a language page black rectangles are easy to fix: search for the font for that language, sometimes on the same page, at most a simple google search away. This won't work for this page as it's not a language page. A user might even seek out and install a font with a swastika in and still not fix the problem if, as likely, it's a CJK font. Likely as e.g. the swastika appears in 65 fonts on my computer at code point #5350. It appears at none at code #0FE6. Or searching for '卍' returns 29 million hits. Searching for '࿖' returns zero hits. I don't see the problem with the CJK versions of the swastika and they are clearly much better supported and pretty much universally preferred.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This should be revisited when more fonts support the generic swastikas. Google hitcounts are unreliable because there are obviously not zero webpages with "࿖". Gorobay (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Image problem

There is a problem with images on this page. Even though the Finnish Lotta Svärd and Tursaansydän images are coded into the Finland section, they are displayed in the Nazi section - a grave error. Can someone fix this, please - I couldn't.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Janke (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 December 2011‎

The best thing might be to remove one or two: there are five images which seems too many for a such a short section. I have no idea though which are the most important or significant.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has waaay too many images. It could do with a brutal prune. Span (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Revival

I'm quoting from an archived talk page

I have now obtained an image of the Samarra bowl. Now, it turns out that the swastika in its center is "partially restored", i.e. it may as well have been a product of the imagination of the restaurators in the Berlin Staatliches Museum than in that of the Chalcolithic artist. A 1981 article in fact complains about this, and the lack of proper documentation explaining that it is a restoration.

   Stanley A. Freed, Research Pitfalls as a Result of the Restoration of Museum Specimens, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 376, The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections pages 229–245, December 1981

I think it is no coincidence that the excavator (Ernst Herzfeld) "neglected" to indicate this fact in the sensational description of a Neolithic swastika discovered in the 1910s and described in 1930, i.e. at the very height of the swastika fad of the early 20th century. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No one seems to have taken note of this fact. It would be wise to delete the references to the Samarra Bowl from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.192.251 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)