Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Swastika

There currently exists a WikiProject Hinduism welcome template, {{Hindu Links}}, which contains a swastika. The purposes of this template are to inform editors who edit Hinduism-related articles that there is a Hinduism WikiProject, and to perhaps persuade them to join it. It is, basically, among other things, an advertisement for the project. Some editors have expressed objections to the presence of the swastika on the template. This discussion can be found in an archive of the WikiProject Hinduism discussion page (see archive relating to Swastika). To assist the members of the project in determining whether the template would be more, less, or equally useful without the swastika as with it, we are conducting what is effectively an advertising focus group to determine which version of the template would be most effective. The members of WikiProject Hinduism would be very grateful to you if you were to assist them in gathering information on responses to the template to assist them in resolving this matter.

Background

The Swastika is an ancient symbol used in Dharmic religions including Hinduism and Jainism. In the 1930s and 40s, Adolf Hitler, used the Swastika as the banner for Nazi Germany and under that banner he conducted genocide against Jewish people. Today, many Western societies associate the Swastika with meaning quite the opposite of what the Dharmic followers believe in.

In January 2007, some Wikipedia users expressed their opposition to the use of the Swastika on Hinduism related templates in Wikipedia. There has since been rigorous discussion at WikiProject Hinduism involving both Hindu and Non-Hindu users alike. This page is for people who have received or seen the Welcome Template Template:Hindu Links to express their views in relation to this discussion. Your views will be taken into account in the final result and you will be helping all of Wikipedia in civilly presenting them. This discussion will be open for a period of one month in which you may write whatever you want (as long as it is within the boundaries of civility).

Guidelines for commenting

You may comment in whatever way you wish and produce whatever evidence you may wish in YOUR statement. Mark out your statement by using the following wikicode to begin it.

===Statement by User:X===
~~~~~
Answers to questions (numbered)
Additional comments
~~~~

It is important that you express your views only and don't intrude into other people's statements by refuting their arguments within THEIR section. You may talk to them about their arguments on their talk page and that may urge them to change their statement but in essence this is a series of comments and opinions and is NOT an argument. You may change your statement as and when you so wish.

Your statement should answer the following questions clearly and directly:

1. Have you ever contributed to Hinduism-related articles? If yes, how regularly (weekly, monthly, etc.)
2. How well informed on the subject of Hinduism do you consider yourself to be? (Slightly, somewhat, moderately, very, extremely)
3. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika without an explanation on your userpage, how would you react?
4. Would seeing a swastika on the banner without explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles?
5. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika with an explanation on your userpage, how would you react?
6. Would seeing a swastika on the banner with explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles?
7. What led you to this page.
8. Feel free to add any additional comments here:

Note: The first three statements were made before these questions were put onto this page, but for everything after that, we would appreciate it if you answered the above questions.

Resources

You may want to visit the following pages to gain an understanding of the issue:

• Swastika
• Image:HinduSwastika.svg
• Image:Swastik4.GIF
• Image:Nazi Swastika.svg
• Image:Reichsdienstflagge.jpg

Comments

Comment by Grace Note

I can't believe you are even bickering over this. It is grossly offensive to many of our readers and editors, regardless of its being a Hindu holy symbol, for entirely obvious reasons. That this should be chosen as the symbol of Hinduism is almost frightening. Why use a symbol that requires a note to explain why your project is willingly offending others? Why not just choose something that has not, however unfairly to the beliefs of Hindus, been hijacked as the symbol of a great evil? Grace Note 05:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Anupamsr

Meh... the purpose of Encylopedia is to tell the right thing. May be people getting offended should read this information? You know, some thing grownups do? Getting offended and moaning about it even after knowing that it has grossly unfounded basis is what kids do. (Muh phula ke baith jana:Hindi) --æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bakasuprman

There is a swastika a sauwastika and etc. The Nazi swastika is also rotated 45 degrees. Wikipedia should not censor nor should it feed the trolls. Keep the Swastika on templates and if possible add it in more places so we correct horrid misconceptions on the meaning.Bakaman 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Priyanath

Answers to questions above that are being requested of all who comment here:

1. Have you ever contributed to Hinduism-related articles? If yes, how regularly (weekly, monthly, etc.)

Yes, quite regularly

2. How well informed on the subject of Hinduism do you consider yourself to be? (Slightly, somewhat, moderately, very, extremely)

Moderately-Very

3. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika without an explanation on your userpage, how would you react? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 extremely negatively, 10 extremely positively)

neutral — it's such a common Hindu symbol that I am used to seeing it in many contexts here on Wikipedia and in 'real' life

4. Would seeing a swastika on the banner without explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 never contributing again, 10 very enthusiastically)

No, but I like the explanation since it helps to educate people that Hindus have used this symbol for thousands of years

5. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika with an explanation on your userpage, how would you react? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 extremely negatively, 10 extremely positively)

Since I already know the meaning of the symbol, it's only speculative, but I am always wanting to learn new things about other religions - so if the shoe were on the other foot, I think I would appreciate the education

6. Would seeing a swastika on the banner with explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles? (Scale of 1 to 10 - 1 never contributing again, 10 very enthusiastically)

No, the presence or removal of the banner wouldn't affect my willingness to edit Hinduism articles

7. What led you to this page.

As a member of ProjectHinduism I saw the discussion on the Project talk page. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

8. Feel free to add any additional comments here:

Hindu Swastika

File:Nazi Swastika.svg Nazi Swastika

Since we're discussing two very different visual symbols, here they are. The Hindu Swastika, a sacred symbol of Hinduism for thousands of years is on the left. You can see it on the walls of many Hindu temples, ancient and modern, in India. The Hindu Swastika sits flat, giving it a more passive posture, and has four dots. The Nazi Swastika, a relatively recent symbol of terror and hate is on the right. The Nazi Swastika is always tilted, giving it an aggressive active posture. It's also surrounded by a circle. Since Wikipedia is for educating people, we should allow the holy symbol of Hinduism to remain visible, where people can be educated. To see the template being discussed, including the educational message about Hinduism's sacred symbols, click here. ॐ Priyanath talk 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by RyanFreisling

With all due respect, please notice Germany's official state flag from 1933-1945 as an example of how the Nazi swastika is not 'always' tilted as you claim, and in fact was used non-rotated, and oriented in exactly the same way as the Hindu swastika you posed.

All this because a select group of editors will not display the consideration to remove this controversial symbol from their welcome template. I recognize they are different symbols to different people, but Priyanath's argument is seriously in error and I thought I'd provide some 'education' (better here than on a welcome template, eh?).

The Nazi and Hindu uses of the swastika are not innately distinguishable as 'aggressive' and 'passive', and since educating users isn't the goal of a welcome template (whose images are purely decorative), why not avoid teaching the lesson on the doorstep? This symbol is not the most universal symbol of Hinduism - the Aum is - but a select group of vocal editors seems to want to 'retake' the symbol or use possible misunderstanding or shock as an opportunity to 'teach' new users to the project about the symbol. It's non-encyclopedic, and it's especially ill-advised to insist on using a welcome template to fulfill this purpose. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by BostonMA

The image on the welcome template is purely decorative. The mission of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not self-expression. The swastika is both unnecessary and provocative, and so it would be better if it were removed. --BostonMA ^talk 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the questionaire in the Guidelines for Commenting above, I believe it is not the Wiki way. We should focus on arguments, not on the editors who make them. --BostonMA ^talk 13:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thernlund

1. No
2. Slightly
3. 4
4. Probably not. I'm smarter than that.
5. 5
6. Same as 4.
7. RfC
8. It is unfortunate, but the Nazi's ruined alot of things for alot of people. It is what it is. I wouldn't likely be automatically offended, but I'd certainly do a double-take and want find out who's idea it was to put that on there. Of all the possibilities, is there not another image that's suitable? Why MUST it be that one? I'd say no. Use something else.

Statement by Ned Scott

1. Have you ever contributed to Hinduism-related articles?

It's possible, but I don't recall having done so, so no.

2. How well informed on the subject of Hinduism do you consider yourself to be?

Somewhat informed

3. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika without an explanation on your userpage, how would you react?

I know the swastika is a symbol used outside of the Nazis, and considering there is no major connection of the Nazis to Hinduism I would assume it was unrelated to Nazis.

4. Would seeing a swastika on the banner without explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles?

It would not affect me to contribute more or less.

5. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika with an explanation on your userpage, how would you react?

Same as #3

6. Would seeing a swastika on the banner with explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles?

Same as #4

7. What led you to this page.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues

8. Feel free to add any additional comments here:

Certainly there is a strong connection to the swastika and Nazis. When I saw the icon the thought of Nazis did pop into my head. However, that is only an initial reaction, much like seeing a color that reminds someone of a past memory. Will it remind someone of Nazis for about 10 seconds? Yes. Will it keep people from editing Hinduism articles or joining this WikiProject? I doubt it. Not to be rude, but if someone really does get offended by something so simple.. then it might be a good thing they don't want to join the WikiProject. Hinduism has no significant connection with the Nazis, which is likely to be the second thought in people's mind after seeing the image. It's obvious that the image is not being used to talk about the same topic or promote Nazism.

That being said, I could see the project using other images that are more unique to Hinduism. You want project graphics to stand out and be reasonably associated with the topic for the project, so it might be a good idea to use another image simply to be more unique. The Nazis being bad or good really shouldn't matter. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dangerous-Boy

Basically what Bakasuprman stated.--D-Boy 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Nat Krause

1. Have you ever contributed to Hinduism-related articles? Only occasionally. I contribute frequently to Buddhism-related articles.
2. How well informed on the subject of Hinduism do you consider yourself to be? Somewhat. I certainly don't have any up-close experience of Hinduism on the ground in India.
3. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika without an explanation on your userpage, how would you react? It sounds nice. I'm used to the swastika as a Buddhistic symbol, and also of Hinduism and other religions with roots in India.
4. Would seeing a swastika on the banner without explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles? Probably not.
5. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika with an explanation on your userpage, how would you react? No particular reaction to the explanation. It seems a bit like clutter, but I understand why it would be there.
6. Would seeing a swastika on the banner with explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles? Can't see why.
7. What led you to this page. Indirectly from #wikipedia-india
8. Feel free to add any additional comments here:

Although I personally have no negative reaction to seeing a Hindu swastika on my talk page (in fact, I can't see why I would have a negative reaction to a Nazi swastika on my talk page, if there was some reasonable reason for someone to put it there), I suspect a lot of people would. For this reason, I'd like to recommend that the swastika be removed from the default version of the welcome template (I see no reason to remove it from anything else). I don't know a lot about Hindu symbolism, but I suppose the Devanagari oṃ would be a good replacement. There could be an alternate version of the template available for use when it is believed the recipient is already quite familiar with Hinduism and/or with Indian culture, so that the swastika would not be inappropriate.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by DaGizza

1. Have you ever contributed to Hinduism-related articles? If yes, how regularly (weekly, monthly, etc.)

Yes, very much so. At the moment I contribute almost daily.

2. How well informed on the subject of Hinduism do you consider yourself to be? (Slightly, somewhat, moderately, very, extremely)

One day I will have extremely! I gradually increasing my knowledge of the religion everyday.

3. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika without an explanation on your userpage, how would you react?

I consider the symbol holy and I will pray towards it. I know what the Swastika means, well-being. I also know that for ten years or out of its 4000 year history in one continent it was used as a sign of evil. Otherwise it has always represented good.

4. Would seeing a swastika on the banner without explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles?

Having a Swastika won't affect me, having a Swastika with no explanation won't affect, having no Swastika AND no Aum won't affect me. For that matter, if there was or there was no cross or Star of David on Christian and Jewish templates, will that affect anyone? Are there people who will people who will only edit if there is a pretty image in the template. Will they "say OMG I'll die without seeing pretty pictures that waste Wikimedia server's space." Nobody, whether Jew, Hindu or anyone else should be offended when a Swastika, an Aum a Star of David, is there or not there. Look at this Template:The_Simpsons. There is no picture of the Simpsons. Are the Simpsons editors going to lose their motivation because there is no picture. Are they gonna be people who will stop contributing if a picture is added? Having a picture or not a having a picture doesn't do anything!!! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, stop getting your emotions tangled into this, everyone. We write article here.

5. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika with an explanation on your userpage, how would you react?

See 3/4

6. Would seeing a swastika on the banner with explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles?

See 3/4

7. What led you to this page.

I was the one who originally saw emotional Jews who only knew about the Swastika's ten year period of history remove the image even though it is the most sacred visual symbols in Hinduism and Jainism. I don't think they read the Swastika page.

8. Feel free to add any additional comments here:

I am an absolutely strong supporter of BostonMA's propsosal. People are becoming so emotional on something so trivial. The only thing images do on templates is waste Wikimedia's valuable space. Wikipedia is not an art gallery. Templates are not an art gallery. Templates link a group of related articles together. Tell me what pretty pictures, whether it be the Swastika on the Hinduism template, a dog on the dog template, a phone on the phone template (if there is one!) do? Exactly, nothing. Remove all the futile images on the templates. That is not a anti-Hindu, anti-Jew, anti-dog stance. It is a Wikipedian stance. Gizza^{Chat ©} 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Badbilltucker

1. Have you ever contributed to Hinduism-related articles? If yes, how regularly (weekly, monthly, etc.)

• Rarely if ever to the best of my knowledge. I primarily work in assessments, article tagging, and generating article lists for projects. I am currently going through all the projects on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy and religion page, starting at the bottom, and haven't gotten this high on the page yet.

2. How well informed on the subject of Hinduism do you consider yourself to be? (Slightly, somewhat, moderately, very, extremely)

• Moderately well informed in general, with some acknowledged glaring lacks in specific fields.

3. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika without an explanation on your userpage, how would you react?

• Actually, I probably would ignore it. Templates don't actually impress me all that much.

4. Would seeing a swastika on the banner without explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles?

• No.

5. If you were to receive a welcome banner which contained a swastika with an explanation on your userpage, how would you react?

• As stated above, I doubt whether I would notice it.

6. Would seeing a swastika on the banner with explanation on your user page affect whether you would continue to contribute to Hinduism articles?

• I doubt I would notice it.

7. What led you to this page.

• I knew about it from the beginning, having taken part in the previous discussion.

8. Feel free to add any additional comments here:

• Personally, from the beginning, I felt that this was actually an internal matter. If the project members felt that using an image which might potentially alienate a select group of possible contributors had some other, perhaps higher, usefulness, well and good. It's their project; they can conduct it however they want as long as no specific violations of policy take place, and inclusion of that image isn't a violation of policy. However, there have been repeated comments, often cast in a disparaging manner by the commenter, on others which I found to be inherently objectionable, and my responses to those perceived insults and attacks on others have tended to misrepresent my opinions. I personally believe that maybe a short personal note from an existing project member to a potential new member might be the best possible alternative, as it can more easily be made specific to the individual contributor (perhaps with a comment on the specific kind of edit made, for instance). If a template were decided to be the best way to go, however, I personally think the best alternate might be to use perhaps images of the aum, Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu (or some avatars of the last three) or perhaps the images which are used by the various subprojects. Those images specifically Image:Aum.svg, Image:HinduSwastika.svg, Image:Shiva dansant Guimet.jpg, and Image:Shankara sm.jpg. Unfortunately, the swastika image is one of the four images used above. On that basis, perhaps it could be replaced by an image of Vishnu, perhaps Image:Vishnu07.jpg, in the various templates in which it is used. This would balance with the image of Shiva from the Saivism group, and possibly present a more balanced and neutral view of Hinduism in general. Badbilltucker 14:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Blacksun

First of all, I refuse to categorize myself with the questions. Moving on, I can lean both ways. On one hand, I see the temptation to go for the "Why bother - it is just a project page. Not worth the hassle." However, I quickly realize that it is wrong to censor things. Freedom of expression is given to us (atleast in some countries) to protect our right to express things that might not be so mainstream or uncontroversial. I also find it bit disturbing that some chose to equate Swastika as just a "pretty picture." I also noticed few saying "Why not use some other image?" Why should they use another image? Their is no real good reason because if you use Nazi then I can use KKK, Terrorism, whatever to censor a whole lot of other things. Are you prepared to go down that slippery road or are you just arrogant enough to pick on this one symbol? Quite frankly, I do not think that many of you guys realize just how flip-flop it is if you go to India: A large number of Indians have probably never heard of Nazi swastika and would be shocked if you tried to tell them not to use the swastika. Guess what? That is a point of view of approximately a billion people. It is not insignificant. It cannot be ignored. Finally, Swastika is an EXTREMELY important symbol in Hinduism. If you go to India you are bound to see it everywhere - on people's doors for welcoming guests (makes sense that its used in the context it is huh?), in most temples, etc. You know what else? India is one of the most popular place of visit for Israelis. I guess most of them do not find it offensive.

So, in brief, HELL NO to censorship - that is all this is, no matter how you try to package it. --Blacksun 03:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Meiza

I'd like to raise the point that censorship was one of the weapons of the Nazi regime. What kind of message does it send if a symbol is censored for its connection with such a regime? As Bakasuprman said, why should we not correct a misconception about a symbol by making it prominent? Why should we not also bring awareness to the atrocity of the Nazi regime by actively disconnecting it with a well-known symbol? This can be done simply by displaying it, thus creating controversy (and therefore attention) as is seen on this page. --Meiza 05:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Chronons =

02:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Answers:
1: No;
2: Extremely;
3-4: with respect;
5-6: depends on the explanation;
7: looking for use of left swastika;
8:
The discussion is very interesting. Easterners RESPECT the swastika and Westerners ABHOR it. There is no way the two can be reconciled. Sorry! The final decision would be on vote based on plain belief and that would be sad.

Grace Note:
The Swastika is a RESPECTED symbol of the Hindus and is interpreted as well-being. Do you have a problem the interpretation? If no, then why do you want to interpret the symbol in a way it is NOT interpreted and say it is offensive!
Assuming that you are a Christian, what if we Hindus say that the cross is to be removed from all Christian sites because cross symbolizes British domination over India!!!!

Priyanath:
RyanFreisling is correct! At a more fundamental level, the very symbol (the overlying form) does not convey aggression. The underlying interpretation does!

Thernlund:
Hindus have a right to take the symbol back and to use display it proudly. Also, it is used freely is Buddhist countries.

Blacksun:
You said this right! Israelis visit India. They even visit the temples and show the reverence to the Swastika as another Hindu. The problem with the Swastika is with the European & American culture. Israelis have no such compunctions and I respect them for the ability to differentiate between the Hindu Swastika and the Nazi one!

Standard Disclaimer: I am a Hindu and and sick and tired of being have to defend our religious symbols.
Chronons 02:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Æscing

  1. 

Don't think so.

  2. 

Somewhat. I have read an abridged Rig Veda and can rattle off some names of gods and things.

  3. 

I don't really understand the question to be honest. If I'm being welcomed to something then I'd probably react positively. If it was a normal religious Swastika then I suppose I'd be more pleased than if it was a Nazi Swastika, but that's just a reflection of my own interests. If there is a wikiproject:Nazism then I would expect them to use a Nazi Swastika.

  4. 

Not at all.

  5. 

I'd roll my eyes at how pathetic it was that they had tacked a little explanation onto it in case I was an idiot.

  6. 

No.

  7. 

Looking for pictures of Swastikas.

  8. 

If there is a misconception out there that the Swastika is an exclusively Nazi symbol then surely it is the role of wikipedia to inform and educate rather than encourage ignorance.

Anyone who needs the Swastika explained to them shouldn't be contributing to Hinduism articles in the first place. Hindus won't be offended by it. Hindu scholars won't be offended by it. People with a general interest in Hinduism won't be offended by it. So who will be offended and why do they matter?