Talk:Swastika

Simon D. Messing's letter to the editor

In this letter to the editor written in 1976, Simon D. Messing responds to an article by Shiloh published in an earlier issue of Current Anthopology. Messing says that Shiloh should not try to analyze Nazi phenomenon alone, that it takes a large interdisciplinary team to get hold of every aspect. But Messing is just as guilty himself.

Messing writes that Hitler "transmuted the Christian cross to the hooked cross, representing the Hakenkreuz as a modern cross which would lead its followers to inevitable victory. (It was never called a swastika, perhaps to avoid giving credit to its Asian source or to emphasize the Kreuz part.)"

Messing damages his own argument by saying that the the Nazi symbol had an "Asian source", contradicting the supposed transmutation of the Christian cross. More importantly, Messing loses track of the great array of writers who trace the swastika from Asia to Nazi Germany, leaving a clear path of how the swastika was already being used in Germany by völkisch nationalist movements before Hitler adopted it for Nazism. The Asian provenance is damning to Messing's assertion about the hooked cross. Binksternet (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The German name of Hitler's emblem:

And his greatest animus, in the immediate postwar period, was reserved for the word Hakenkreuz (hooked cross), the symbol adopted as an emblem by Hitler’s fledgling Nazi party as early as 1920.
— "Avant-Garde in a Different Key: Karl Kraus's The Last Days of Mankind". Critical Inquiry. 40 (2). Univ. of Chicago Press. doi:10.1086/674117.

The German word for swastika, which mean "hooked cross":

Instead, we now see them head on, from an elevated perspective, as they stand frozen in place at the very crux of a Hakenkreuz (given the title of the piece it is important to recall that the German word for swastika literally means "hooked cross").
— Michael G. Levine (2006). The Belated Witness: Literature, Testimony, and the Question of Holocaust Survival. Stanford University Press. p. 58. ISBN 0804755558.

The swastika is revealed to be a new guiding light--the ancient likeness of the sun for the modern age. Moreover, the German translation of the Sanskrit word swastika is Hakenkreuz ("hooked cross"). The Nazis present the swastika as a new cross to lead the German people.
— William S. Skiles. "Refraining the Sacred: Valkyrie and the Basis of Resistance". Journal of Religion and Flim. 25 (2). University of Nebraska.

Nazi party's swastika was the German Hakenkreuz lit. "hooked cross":

The country’s name is a pun on ptomaine that is as clever as it is revealing. Chaplin’s verbal satire of the megalomaniacal dictator centers on Hitler’s speeches, delivered as linguistic nonsense of Chaplin’s own invention. His visual ridicule of the Nazis is equally sophisticated. The swastika, the German Hakenkreuz—literally, “hooked cross”—has become the Tomainian Double Cross.
— Winkler, Martin M. The Roman salute: cinema, history, ideology. Ohio State University Press. p. 7. ISBN 9780814208649. OCLC 255142712.

The sources evidently state Nazi's swastika was the German Hakenkreuz which translates to "hooked cross". WikiLinuz (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And, there isn't a violation of WP:DUE on my revisions of Swastika or Nazi symbolism. Sources that I listed above support the writings of Messing on the journal; unless this is addressed, these two reverts will be re-reverted and copy edited by incorporating the listed sources. WikiLinuz (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding already being used in Germany:

A publisher's advertisement of 1928 stated that the swastika was frequently "mistaken" for the National Socialist "hooked cross": "When this ancient (Indian) sign was named Hakenkreuz in October 1918 and received its contemporary meaning, the Circle of the Blatter Fur die Kunst could not abandon the signum which it had introduced long ago.
— Peter Hoffman (2008). Stauffenberg: A Family History, 1905 1944. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 35. ISBN 0773578269.

WikiLinuz (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This talk page has been through this issue before. There is more to it than you finding examples of your preferred version, which in many cases (the reference to Chaplin's film, for instance) reflect only the fact that the English word swastika is hakenkreuz in the German language. The swastika was in use by German Aryanists from the 1890s, taken explicitly from ancient Indo-European (supposed Aryan) cultures, as argued on this talk page many times by the late User:Paul Barlow. No Christian symbols were harmed in the making of the swastika.

Hitler's own words don't convey the whole picture. He was hiding the Indo-European origin of the symbol, to make it serve his wishes. Scholars have analyzed the topic carefully, especially in the masterwork The Swastika by Malcolm Quinn who says on page 43 that, "Just as their theory of Aryan racial purity is fanciful, so, too, their use of the swastika as an Aryo-Christian symbol..." Quinn says that the swastika was arbitrarily assigned a Christian meaning by the Nazis, but the original symbol as used by German Aryanists was simply the old Asia Minor swastika. Binksternet (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This talk page has been through this issue before, where is it? English word swastika is Hakenkreuz in the German language, yes, and the sources literally translate Hakenkreuz to "hooked cross". Also, seems like the quote you mentioned was said by Helena Blavatsky in ‘The Relation of the Seen and the Unseen’, 1888, quoted in Fred Gettings, A Dictionary of Occult, Hermetic and AlchemicalSigns, London, 1981, p. 257, not Malcolm Quinn. If you think Hakenkreuz isn't "hooked cross", which runs contrary to multiple sources, please give citation to that claim. I'm going to stick with what the sources say, and edit accordingly. WikiLinuz (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You are using weak leverage to make a very large change. Messing's non-peer-reviewed letter to the editor is not a foundational source. You are also extrapolating Messing's poorly expressed viewpoint as belonging to "scholars", multiple. The article already summarizes the literature very well. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Messing's writing indeed published under Current Anthropology, a peer-reviewed journal, so you're incorrect. You're not addressing the claims I raised though multiple sources and just exhibiting WP:IDONTLIKETHEM. Prove me wrong if you want things to be edited. Your personal opinion regarding Messing's writings doesn't matter. WikiLinuz (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Courtesy ping for dispute resolution noticeboard report regarding Hakenkreuz. WikiLinuz (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You mistake a letter to the editor with a peer-reviewed paper. Two very different beasts.

Messing's point is valid, that people should not try to analyze the Nazi phenomenon without looking at a wide range of sources from a spectrum of scholarly fields. This article has for years been based on the foundational masterworks of the topic, for instance Quinn's The Swastika (1994) and Heller's The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption? (2008). You haven't even factored these into your appreciation of the topic. Instead, you have been cherry-picking your sources to bolster your proposed text. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If you were intended to challenge only the inclusion of Messing's writings, why would you remove the Nazi Party's swastika—Hakenkreuz—or hooked cross translation text as well? You should have only removed the sentence which sources to Messing writings, leaving other texts, and raised your point here. Again, you're not citing a contrary source that doesn't translate Nazi Party's Hakenkreuz as "hooked cross". Even Quinn's masterwork quotes:

[...] cannot avoid the temptation to construct an interpretative travelogue in which Nazism is the exception which proves the rule. To quote an example: Those who know the swastika only as the Nazi Hakenkreuz (Hook Cross) may be surprised to learn that it is one of the oldest, most widely distributed religious symbols in the world.
— Malcolm Quinn (1994). The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol. Routledge. p. 11. ISBN 9780415756334.

Thus, the "masterwork" you described goes contrary to your own argument that Nazi Party's Hakenkreuz isn't "hooked cross". You are accusing me of cherry-picking, however, Wikipedia defines WP:CHERRYPICKING as selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source, but where is the contradictory information that Hakenkreuz isn't "hooked cross"? I already asked you to cite such an example, which you haven't done. Now, challenge this edit, if you want, by citing contrary pieces of evidence. WikiLinuz (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You continue to confuse normal mentions of the German language word with how the symbol is treated in English. Nearly every author writing about the swastika mentions that the German word is Hakenkreuz, but that doesn't mean we change our English loan word to the German one. It doesn't mean we use the German word. You have come here with a chip on your shoulder, trying to redefine a very controversial topic – a HUGE redefinition that is not supported by anybody in the mainstream. This shit stops right here. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all my edits—including the discussion on the talk page here—are supported by peer-reviewed mainstream scholarship, including the "masterwork" that you referred to (above). You still didn't cite me to any reliable academic sources that support your claim. I don't know what shit needs to be stopped, now you're also violating WP:CIVIL guidelines when I challenged your argument and requested you to support your claim by citing academic sources. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

None of your source support the change you are making. That's why I'm not bothering to debate them; you don't have a foundation at all. You are trying to change the topic from the Nazi symbol being a swastika to the Nazi symbol being a "form" of the swastika, a particular form called the hakenkreuz. This is nonsense. English language swastika = German language hakenkreuz. Same symbol. All of your sources acknowledge this basic fact. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect. In fact, the contrary: your arguments are the ones that are groundless. Did you ever cared to cite a single source in support of English word swastika is a German Hakenkreuz and it isn't translated as "hooked cross"? Where is it? you don't have a foundation at all, you are the one who was making vague arguments aroused out of personal feelings from the start, whereas I've always argued with academic sources; you don't care to debate them because you don't have any points to begin with. Did you read the sources above? All my sources explicitly say Nazis DID adopt a FORM of swastika—Hakenkreuz—which is translated as "hooked cross". CITE ME A SINGLE SOURCE WHICH DON'T TRANSLATE "Hakenkreuz" as "hooked cross".

Facts may contradict your personal assumptions; Nazi's did adopt a "form" of swastika, which is called "Hakenkreuz", and that "form" is lliterally translated as "hooked cross" in English, and it's commonly referred to as "swastika" in non-WP:HIST English language sources, although the actual form used by the Nazi Party is "Hakenkreuz", a variant of the swastika. The Holocaust Encyclopedia also translate Hakenkreuz as the hooked cross, and it is one of the eminent sources regarding the Holocaust. WikiLinuz (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is yet another more-direct academic source from a notable scholar, Norman K. Denzin:

The first swastika, with its arms spinning clockwise, is a symbol from ancient temples representing the sun, and its ability to sustain life. The second swastika, its arms spinning counter-clockwise is the Nazi Hakenkreuz, a symbol of prejudice.
— Norman K. Denzin (1 August 2003). "Reading and Writing Performance". Qualitative Research (journal). 3 (2). University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: 248. doi:10.1177/14687941030032006.

All these "facts" directly goes contrary to your previous (incorrect) assumption. WikiLinuz (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You are still cherry-picking your sources. You came here to redefine the topic, but without studying the literature. The literature you are "studying" is from Google searches, from you trying to support your notional redefinition rather than from trying to fully understand the topic. You have no idea how many times the swastika is stated as the Nazi symbol because that's not where you are looking. Countless times. The main thrust of the literature establishes the swastika as the Nazi symbol. You don't have any traction here. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware of the fact that Hakenkreuz IS swastika, but a rightward spinning one, and not a straight one? No one is denying the fact that Hakenkreuz is symbolically appearing swastika, however, Nazi Party adopted a "form" or "variant" of the swastika, that is Hakenkreuz (or rather I should say they "modified" swastika as Hakenkreuz, or "hooked cross" by spinning it 45^o counter-clockwise). It's what literally every source states, which is also something you are obliviously denying from the beginning. WikiLinuz (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I commented over at the edit warring noticeboard, where I said I had no underlying opinion, and I didn't, as of then. But I decided to come see what all the fuss was about. WikiLinuz, while I understand your argument and don't doubt your good faith, I think Binksternet has the better part of the argument here. I agree with his assessment of a letter to the editor being something less than a peer-reviewed paper (though not nothing), and I think in general his approach is better. While I certainly think noting the term hakenkreuz is appropriate, it is still categorically a swastika and that is by far its more common appellation in English. Therefore, I think it should be the name generally used in the article. I don't think at Wikipedia we are beholden to an attempted Nazi rebranding, basically. As ever, if the weight of consensus is against me, I won't complain, and a Happy Monday to everyone. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: As I previously stated, no one denies the fact that Hakenkreuz is a variant of the swastika. The disputed material of Messing's writings was already removed in this revision, so I'm not sure why we're going back to a resolved issue. Non-WP:HIST English language sources don't use the "specific term" for Nazi's version of the swastika, rather they group all variants of swastika together. But we should remember that this article is about the swastika itself, thus we should be more accurate in its coverage and use the specific "form" of a swastika that Nazi Party adopted, not try to be vague and group them all together in an article about swastica as the subject; this is what literally every academic source I quoted support. WikiLinuz (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstand the contours of the dispute here, and feel free to enlighten me. That said, with all due respect, I find your citations in the latest addition underwhelming. The Denzin citation is not about swastikas, per se, but rather about performance aesthetics and specifically the artist Richard Posner (whom I was gratified to learn is NOT the famed jurist). It seems to identify all counter-clockwise Swastikas as hakenkreuz which is clearly not the case. The Holocaust Encyclopedia cite, on the other hand, very much is about the Swastika, and introduces hakenkreuz...but then goes on to refer to the symbol as "Swastika" for the balance of the article, much as is proposed here. In that way, your citation is a good example of the treatment I think the term should be given here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: It's referred to as "swastika" because it is inevitably a form of the swastika. But the specific term for that variant of the swastika is Hakenkreuz, i.e. "hooked cross", and it is important to include the actual term used by the Nazi Party for their version of the swastika in an article concerning swastika as the main subject. The swastika was misappropriated as Hakenkreuz by spinning it 45^o towards the right; that doesn't mean every single spun swastikas are Nazi Party's Hakenkreuz since it's been used as sacred religious iconography for 1000s of years. WikiLinuz (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Right; perhaps we're not actually disagreeing here. I think introducing hakenkreuz is appropriate, but then generally using "swastika" after that. But I believe you are advocating that basically all mentions of the Nazi emblem should be called hakenkreuz. Am I incorrect? And again, sorry for not picking up on things quicker. Unfortunately, at least 15% of my brainpower goes towards my actual occupation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not stating that we should "find-and-replace" every instance of "swastika" with "hakenkreuz"; rather I'm saying we should indicate that the swastika used by the Nazi Pary is Hakenkreuz, which translates to "hooked cross". Swastika was a vague term when it comes to Nazi's usage; we should mention the specific form of swastika used by them to avoid ambiguity and inaccurate. WikiLinuz (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Binksternet, are you okay with that? May I ask your take? Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The literal translation "hooked cross" is not the standard semantic translation which is "swastika" in English. We should tell the reader about the German word and its literal translation but the positioning should be further into the article as the issue is not critically important. The article already contained two instances of this prior to the arrival of WikiLinuz. No change is indicated. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. The German term absolutely bears mentioning, but that's about it, for me. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: And that's exactly how the current revisions of Swastika or Nazi symbolism looks. Since WP:LEAD summarizes the body, there is one mention in the lead and another one contained within the article. The current revision is perfect in that sense, and it indeed is crucial to mention Hakenkreuz in this way. WikiLinuz (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It is revisionist and wrong to do so. Unjustified redefinition of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: If you're wondering why Nazi's Hakenkreuz (a variant of the swastika) was translated as "hooked cross", this could be a good start; to quote a few from that journal:

On the cover of this book [The Aryan Jesus] is a photograph that graphically illustrates the perverse success of this synthesis, as well as the theme of the book. The photograph, taken in 1935, is of the Altar of the Antoniterkirche in Cologne. Surmounted by a crucifix, the altar is profanely draped with an altar cloth with the Nazi swastika emblazoned on it and surrounded by wreaths lovingly bedecked with banners decorated with the Nazi Hakenkreuz. One can hardly imagine a more scandalous symbol of the capitulation of the now openly antiSemitic churches to Nazi ideology, nor of the pathetic desire of pastors, theologians, and parishioners to be cherished by Hitler—an unrequited love, in the end—and integrated into the Führer’s sickening “new world order.”

Born in 1906, Grundmann received his doctorate in 1932 from Gerhard Kittel at Tubingen. He served as Kittel’s assistant in preparing the Theological Dictionary, to which he contributed twenty articles. In December of 1930, he joined the Nazi party and became active in the DC, formulating twenty-eight theses adopted in 1933 as leading principles. Eventually, he became leader of the National Socialist Ministers League of Saxony and editor of the monthly church journal, Cross and Swastika

This textual work [Die Botschaft Gottes], if we can dignify it with that name, was underwritten by an Aryan Christology, which in turn relied on “scholarship” that strove to prove that Jesus was not a Jew but most likely an Aryan and the essence of the gospel message was the hatred of Jews
— Susannah Heschel; Kevin J. Madigan (September 2009). "The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 77 (3). Princeton University Press: 742–748. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfp041.

Essentially, it's based on a pseudo-scientific racial interpretation that Jesus was not Jewish, but of Aryan race, which didn't play out very well as we know. WikiLinuz (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this underplays the terrible philological speculation regarding the Aryans as "Indo Europeans" and a sort of theosophical "root race," but yes. I am quite familiar with the dodgy thinking behind Nazi adoption of the Swastika. Dumuzid (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you, Binksternet, should re-read how Wikipedia defines WP:CHERRYPICKING. As mentioned before, none of the sources translate Hakenkreuz to other than "hooked cross", so I'm not engaged in "cherry-picking" the ones that only translate Hakenkreuz as "hooked cross"; as a side-tip, someone engaging in such "selective citing" isn't called "cherry-picking", it's called "editorial bias". So, you accusing me of cherry-picking is bizarre and irrelevant to this discussion. WikiLinuz (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Nazi symbol as swastika or variant of swastika

Should Wikipedia say that the Nazi symbol was the swastika, or that it was a variant of the swastika, for instance hakenkreuz or "hooked cross"?

Affected articles include Swastika, Nazi symbolism, Flag of Nazi Germany, Mein Kampf, Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, Nazi punk, etc. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Swastika, not variant. The swastika is still a swastika no matter if it is standing flat on one arm or angled at 45 degrees. The swastika is still a swastika regardless of whether the arms are pointing left or right. (Some authors call the left-facing version the "sauwastika", but the term is not widely used, and most observers accept that all the graphic representations of the symbol are collectively the swastika.)

  Regarding Hitler, the literature is clear that he adopted the pre-Christian swastika which was already in use by German Aryanists to stand for notional "Aryan" racial purity. To serve as the symbol of Nazism, Hitler imbued the swastika with pro-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-Marxist characteristics, to fit his political aims. He represented the symbol as having a Christian origin, but it was demonstrably in use many centuries before Christ. All of this is treated in Malcolm Quinn's 1994 The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol.

  Regarding the difference between the English and German languages, the English loan word swastika is by far the most common term for the symbol in the English-speaking world. The German word for the same symbol is hakenkreuz, which translates literally to "hooked cross". Literal translations are interesting for the reader but not definitive. The definitive semantic translation in the English language has always been swastika.

  For many years, under the careful attention of the late User:Paul Barlow and other topic experts, this article has supplied the German word hakenkreuz in two or three places, as an entry in lists along with French and other language translations, or when a specific German law is mentioned. This is the proper way to represent the German term, as a part of the global picture. The wrong way to represent the German term is to prop it up prominently as the primary English term for the Nazi symbol. Recent edits have attempted to do just that.

  Activists and others have also come to this article many times to try and separate the positive aspects of the swastika from the poison of Nazism, a form of trying to Right Great Wrongs. These editors often use the tactic of changing "swastika" to "hakenkreuz" as if the two words meant two different symbols.[1][2][3][4][5][6] These efforts have been reverted in every case. Very often, the activist editors have a history of editing in Hindu topics, for instance Toshi2k2 who was blocked for WP:NOTHERE. They have been trying to use Wikipedia as a tool to establish two different symbols, so that the ancient swastika is no longer saddled with Nazi toxicity. But this is wishful thinking! Steven Heller describes this problem in depth in his book, The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption?, writing about how the swastika in Western usage has become a symbol of the rejection of civil order, or it is employed simply to shock the observer. The Nazi connection persists in the swastika today.

  Let's not try to rewrite history and ignore the damage from Hitler. Rather, let's tell the reader about all of these aspects, but in proper balance. The Nazi symbol has always been a swastika. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support — As per the lengthy discussion above concerning this, and various sources that are quoted in support, including Malcolm Quinn's 1994 The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol, it is inevitably essential to include the Nazi Party's variation of the swastika as Hakenkreuz, i.e. "hooked cross", since grouping them all together is inaccurate; and saying a "swastika" is a swastika no matter turned left or down is just like saying a Christian cross—pointing straight—is same as Cross of Saint Peter and has nothing to with Christophobia even if it was turned upside down as a "cross is a cross", and calling it "anti-Christian" is rewriting history since it symbolically represents crucified Saint Peter. Discussion concerning this is already stated above, and I don't want to repeat it here. Linking WP:RGW is irrelevant as no one denies the fact that Hakenkreuz is a form of a swastika. This article, as mentioned above, is about "Swastika" as a subject, so, it's important to be accurate and univocal. Linking to previous diffs of WP:INCOMPETENT editors who cluelessly changed "swastika" to "Hakenkreuz" isn't helping either since my edits are based on stronger academic sources. It's peculiar that Binksternet claims that accurately articulating the Nazi Party's version of Swastika as "Hakenkreuz" is an act of historical revisionism when I myself against "find-and-replace". To other editors, please look into my previous discussion above and current revisions of Swastika and Nazi symbolism. WikiLinuz (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Lengthy and useless, because your cites don't support the thing you are trying to do. I brought up the string of past hakenkreuz editors because you and they share the goal of inserting a step of separation between the ancient symbol and the 20th century symbol commandeered by the Nazis. Such a separation is not indicated by any new scholarship on the topic. The main thrust of current scholarship is that the Nazi symbol is the swastika, despite whatever local languages were used, or whatever literal translations. The difference between you and the "incompetent" editors is that you are using a scalpel rather than a blunt club, but your extra cleverness does not justify your activity here. Nothing in the literature points the way toward a new revision of the topic, with a step of separation inserted. No new scholarly works have been written about how the Nazi symbol is not really the swastika. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

    • You WP:DONTGETIT, do you? When did I ever mention Hakenkreuz has nothing to do with the swastika? Quote that statement of mine back, if you ever find one. The swastika used by the Nazi Party is not inseparably distinct from the swastikas used by various Asian religions, rather a modified form of that ancient iconography—this doesn't mean both are unequivocally different things. Why is a Latin cross not indisputably same as Cross of Saint Peter? It's all "cross" anyway and the latter just got rotated 180°, just as an example. Scholarships did mention Nazi Party's swastika as Hakenkreuz (the name Nazis gave) and its translation as "hooked cross", why don't you go back to the start and read the quotations in the green boxes? Or, just visit each individual inline citation on the article and read the academic journal for yourself? A loanword—by definition—means that incorporated language also holds the same meaning as that of donor language. However, that's evidently not the case with Hakenkreuz, since it does not translate as "swastika" when that supposed loanword gets translated to the English language, so calling it a loanword is provably incorrect. Given this, my citations indeed do visibly support my intention. I already mentioned this multiple times and do not want to WP:REPEAT, but here you go: no one here—including me, scholarships I cited, or my edits (at talkpage or mainspace)—blatantly claim that Nazi Hakenkreuz is not really a swastika, or it has nothing to do with the swastika; rather, a distinctly modified (or misappropriated) form of a swastika used by the Nazi Party was Hakenkreuz, i.e. "hooked cross", and it is indeed a variant of the swastika—not the one used by those ancient religions, but a form filched by the Nazi Party honed to suit their narrative. It's lengthy and useless to you because your claims like Hakenkreuz being a loanword or Hakenkreuz not translated as "hooked cross" is erroneous, to begin with, and runs contrary to what the sources say. WikiLinuz (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

      It would be extremely helpful, to me, at least, if you could each be specific in the concrete changes you would like or not? Binksternet, I know you want hakenkreuz out of the lead, what else? And WikiLinuz, are you happy with the current state of the article? Dumuzid (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

      @Dumuzid: Like I previously stated, the current revision of the article falls in line with what the scholarly sources say; one mention in the body of the article, and the other in the lead in adherence with WP:LEAD. I'm not replacing all the instances of swastika, rather making a vital mention, like I already did. WikiLinuz (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Swastika - The Nazis did not really use only one particular orientation of the swastika. The version on the front of their flag was a tilted counter-clockwise version with straight arms. However we show plenty of examples of them using it flat on this very page, and since at least some of their flags were printed through and through presumably anyone at the time would have recognized the clockwise version as also being a Nazi symbol. Loki (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar: Hi Loki, thank you for your inputs. I have disambiguated what the RfC proposal is all about under the "Note to the participants of RfC" section (above). Would be helpful if you could rephrase and register your response in accordance with that. WikiLinuz (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Vote is unchanged. I don't think we should call it [word that means swastika in English], I think we should call it a swastika. We don't call the Iron Cross the Eisernes Kreuz. I think on some articles it'd be useful to mention that the Nazis called it a Hakenkreuz, but certainly not this one. Loki (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Hakenkreuz doesn't mean swastika in English; Hakenkreuz—the original Nazi emblem—in English translation means "hooked cross". WikiLinuz (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, no. The English word is swastika.[7] Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Swastika. This is the English name for this symbol, regardless of slight differences in angle or direction. I do think it should be noted parenthetically, where appropriate, that the Nazi symbol has a particular name in German – so for example, "the Nazi Party adopted the swastika (German: Hakenkreuz, lit. 'hooked cross') as their logo" – but not in the lead of this article, where the German name is already mentioned further down along with other foreign-language equivalents. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Let's be clear what we're talking about here.(Summoned by bot) If the question is whether or not to merely mention the hakenkreuz aspect somewhere within the prose generally, then I don't see why that is a particularly controversial argument: whether one considers the question one of mere metonymy or a more significant conceptual distinction, this seems like entirely relevant discussion of nomenclature that would be of use to a substantial portion of the likely readers of this article, particularly if it helps to contextualize the distinction between the longer standing meaning ascribed to the symbol and it's lamentable association with Nazism. On the other hand, if the suggestion is that every mention of the symbol in this article with regard to the Nazism and other far-right racist/ultranationalist creeds with 'hakenkreuz', then I think that is clearly not editorially called for here: the common name for the symbol in English sources, is clearly 'swastika', regardless of the pseudo-separate etiologies and a lack of accord with the parallel usage in German, even if it's possible that difference in terminology has a semiotic difference in impression attached to it.

Unfortunately, like others here, I find the RfC very poorly approached in almost every respect and have no idea which of these two outlooks (if not a separate question altogether) I am being asked to endorse. But it's my hope that by addressing both likely possibilities as I have above, the general thrust of my !vote should be discernible if the confusion here ever gets disentangled and someone is struggling to capture consensus here with their closure. Of course, the devil is in the details, and there may very well be a more nuanced question buried here under the previous discussion on this talk page and the inartful use of the RfC process. If it's ultimately a question of whether to make a brief mention of the hakenkreuz distinction in the lede, I would say that doesn't strike me as inappropriate or out of scale to the importance of the varying terminology, particularly as foregrounding matter of nomenclature is one of the foremost functions of a lede which covers controversial subject matter. But it's also probably not outright essential: as a general rule, I feel, upon reviewing this article, that it does a decent job in a difficult circumstance of explaining the complicated and divergent meanings associate with the symbol in question here. It can't have been an easy balance to strike, so it should be remarked that the regular editors here, whoever they may be, deserve some credit for that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Swastika per Binksternet. This is Hindutva agendas spilling into unanticipated areas. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Swastika, per the outstanding argument made by Binksternet. The Nazi symbol is most well-known to laypeople as a swastika, and described as such by academics. It is rare but possible for two congruent shapes to have different names—the only example I can think of is that "diamond" and "lozenge" describe rhombi with particular rotations (but they are still a type of rhombi)—however, in this case the distinction is not widely made. — Bilorv (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Swastika. Do not use the word "hakenkreuz" at all anywhere in the text except perhaps a single parenthetical mention in the body as the German word for Swastika (it should not be in the lead, since it is trivia with only marginal coverage even for the relevance of that bare fact); at least based on the current sourcing, absolutely no text should indicate or imply that there is any meaningful distinction meant by that or any significance to the word beyond that, and absolutely no text should say, imply, or indicate that it is a "variant" or "version" or that anyone believes this to be the case. At most a single sentence saying it is the German word for Swastika, with the precise meaning of "Swastika", fullstop, nothing else. In the English language Swastika is the term used by all sources; the attempt to use hakenkreuz as an alternative term to discuss it is marginal to the point of being WP:FRINGE (a quick search for sources suggests it's almost entirely limited to WP:USERGENERATED sites; scholarly usage of it in English is nearly nonexistent, especially given how massively the larger topic is covered.) The sources presented in support of it, as far as I can tell, almost uniformly say only that hakenkreuz is the German word for Swastika, and nothing else; the scant sources that could maybe be interpreted otherwise are largely passing mentions or are overtly worded in ways that make it clear that the authors know their views are not accepted. This is insufficient to actually support the idea that there is any serious controversy or discussion about this beyond that among WP:RSes, to the point of rendering the distinction people are trying to make here WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Not sure, I fully understand the question. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We are deciding whether the Nazi symbol is a swastika (full stop), or is not quite a swastika – some other form of swastika, a modification of the swastika, or a variant of the swastika. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly most identified with Nazism. Place it on one's usepage & see how quick it'll be deleted by others. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: The way you phrased that proposal sounds strange. The RfC is rather regarding "mention of Hakenkreuz at the article text, and subsequently in the lead in adherence with WP:LEAD". No one is suggesting total replacement of swastika with its "variant"; it's about a mention. Please rephrase your proposal as such; because, your proposal doesn't seem to reflect the discussion. WikiLinuz (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: You are trying to conceal and misinterpreting my actual intention with regards to mentioning Hakenkreuz. Your proposal doesn't reflect the actual discussion. If you do not self-revert this edit, you will be taken to WP:ANI. WikiLinuz (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What was the article's status quo? -- GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What this RfC is about?

The RfC is regarding mentioning an instance of "Hakenkreuz"—the original term used by the Nazi Party—in the article body, and subsequently a single mention in the lead section in adherence with WP:MOSLEAD.
The current revisions of Swastika & Swastika#Nazi_symbol and Nazi symbolism & Nazi_symbolism#Swastika does exactly that: a single mention in lead, and a single mention in the article body.

What this RfC is NOT about?

The RfC is NOT regarding replacing every instance of swastika with Hakenkreuz i.e. it's NOT about "find-and-replace" of swastika with Hakenkreuz, rather about a single mention of Hakenkreuz.

Preferred response submission

It's preferable if editors could "support" or "oppose" this decision regarding mentioning Hakenkreuz. Please have a look at the previous discussion concerning Hakenkreuz. WikiLinuz (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Trying to clarify this for myself and others – the debate seems to be not so much about whether the Nazi symbol was a swastika or a variant of a swastika (as the RfC question currently states), but about whether it should be primarily referred to as a "swastika" or a "Hakenkreuz". So this version of the article is the status quo, and this is WikiLinuz's preferred version (see specifically the second paragraph of the lead, and the first paragraph of the "Use in Nazism" section). And the consensus here will affect similar changes at related articles. Binksternet, is this a correct statement of the situation? If so, I'd recommend altering the RfC question, to something along the lines of "Should Wikipedia primarily refer to the Nazi symbol as a 'swastika' or a 'Hakenkreuz'?", with maybe those two diffs as examples. Dan from A.P. (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Dan, I was intending to see whether the community agreed to confirm the swastika as the Nazi symbol as opposed to any other conceivable term including hakenkreuz, hooked cross, angled cross, crooked cross, tetragrammadion, etc. I'm leery of refactoring the RfC at this point because I opposed a similar attempt by WikiLinuz. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I still feel a bit at sea here, since while I agree that Swastika is the general term and should be employed as such, I think noting hakenkreuz in a limited way is entirely appropriate, as I think WikiLinuz has agreed above. So then, the gravamen of the dispute is exactly where/how often to note the German term--I think? I would remove it from the lead, myself, but I confess, this is all very difficult for an old brain to follow. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think refactoring your own RfC would be okay, especially at this early stage when there hasn't been much input. But okay, I'll !vote on the proposal as it stands. I see your point about multiple possible replacement terms. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I do think that the RfC is not quite neutral nor sufficiently clear about the dispute at issue, and would prefer: The Nazis called the symbol on their flag a "Hakenkreutz". Does this word mean: A. Swastika B. A particular Nazi-specific variant of the swastika C. Something else? Loki (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I too, am confused by the RFC question. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it not possible to say that the symbol was “a” swastika? I think I, too, may be a bit confused by the question here. postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 22:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I too am confused by the RFC. But does it matter that the Nazis called it something else and gave a post-hoc justification? Everybody else says that the symbol which they adopted was "the Swastika". The article is Swastika, not Nazi iconography. So it seems to obvious that the lead should say no more that the Nazis adopted, a little on why they adopted it, but their renaming of it is incidental and doesn't merit a mention in the lead. Yes, wp:lead says that the lead should summarise the key points of the body: the swastika has been around as a symbol for thousands of year but to give undue prominence to 20 years of that history is, well, wp:undue. So IMO the lead must indeed mention the Nazi appropriation of it but no more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive the pedantry, but I think we should be careful about mixing our policy terminology and our broader perspectives here, and I don't think that's a useful reference to WP:UNDUE; what we perceive to be an "undue" association as a historical or sociological matter is quite separate from what is WP:UNDUE in terms of our policies and the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. Some may suspect that temporal proximity and social factors have pushed the Nazi association into too much prominence, relative to the symbol's usage in the extreme longterm and the rather substantial cultural currency of that original meaning; others may argue compellingly that the scale of the impact of the consequences of the Nazi regime have left their mark on the world in rather a substantial and immutable fashion, and that you can't un-ring the bell that now ties the symbol to some of the worst atrocities and institutions in the entirety of the human story. But whether we approve of the focus the overall corpus of sources places on the Nazi use of the symbol is really somewhat irrelevant under policy: we are here to determine what the available WP:RS say on the topic, in relative proportion to the different aspects covered, not to judge whether those proportions right in the circumstances and adjust the content according to our concepts of where they "should" place their focus. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Hitler chose the 'swastika' and the other elements, the colors and framimg, of the Nazi Party symbol. No matter the meaning or association of the swastika prior to the rise of facism in Germany, it is the emblem of evil and destruction for the twentieth-century. This is the primary content for the first line of the lede—the first appearance of similar in form symbols belong later. No rehabilation for the symbol of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany is possible. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with every element of what you say here, but that's a very western-centric view you are pushing on the whole. For the adherents of religious and cultural traditions which have used this symbol with an entirely different meaning for millenia, and continue to view it through that lens in contemporary practice, not only may some of them view it as entirely appropriate and reasonable to attempt to rehabilitate the symbol's meaning in the west, but (more to the point) most of them would probably object to suggestion that the meaning associated with Nazism should be perceived to automatically take prominence over the traditional meaning associated with the symbol.

Of course, as per my comments to John above, the question is not what we think is the dominant meaning that "ought" to be associated with the swastika, due to our own subjective idiosyncratic views, no matter how globally consequential the facts which influence those outlooks. Rather, what is called for here is that we summarize how reliable sources treat the subject, giving due WP:PROPORTION to how the various aspects of the topic are treated in said sources. In those terms, I think the article presently strikes a good balance, considering the difficulties in parsing the relative cultural weight given to fiercely competing (and almost directly antithetical) meanings for the symbol. I can't pretend to entirely understand the editorial history here, due in part to the problematic way the RfC was approached, but the open question here seems to turn on whether to mention the hakenkreuz in the lede--and if so, in what way? I don't think the proposal to rewrite the lede as you propose, to place emphasis foremost on the Nazi use of the symbol (which itself would first involve rewriting the entire article to match that approach) is at all on the table in the present discussion, or that it was the intent of this discussion. Though honestly, any respondent is entitled to be uncertain as to just what the intent is. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:, I think you are missing the point. Neither of us are saying that the Nazi appropriation is not significant. That is a straw man, of course it is highly significant and unquestionably should feature prominently in the lead. What we are saying is that the Nazi Party's post-hoc attempt to redefine it (as something else) is a second order effect. It is close to an assertion that the Nazi symbol was not a swastika at all, that it is misnomer, an application of the common name in English (which took it from India) to something that – purely coincidentally (!) – happened to look the same. Now if there were any truth in that assertion (and I don't suggest that you are making it), then yes it probably would merit inclusion in the lead, But there is none, which leaves the Nazi renaming as a rather trivial and incidental detail and so not worthy of mention in the lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I did understand what you were trying to say the first time around with regard to all of that. But with respect, you may be the one that is not quite tracking what I am saying about how policy governs here, because you can have all the well-reasoned arguments in the world for why one aspect of a topic is the "important" information (and every editor here could agree with you in that analysis as regards our personal opinion on the matter), but that would still constitute WP:Original research under this project's content policies. What matters is not our own opinions as to what should be foregrounded (no matter how well founded); rather for our purposes here we need to summarize what WP:reliable sources say on the topic, including mapping WP:PROPORTION accordingly. And honestly, from your comments here, I'm not sure you've read the article itself, because the lead already discusses the Nazi utilization of the symbol at some length, and changing that status quo is outside the scope of this particular discussion, which is focused on a much, much narrower issue. Personally, I can't fathom a version of the lead that accords with WP:WEIGHT that doesn't discuss both the broader spiritual use of the symbol and its role as the defining symbol of the Nazi state and ideology, but regardless, that matter is a broader issue than this RfC was created to address.

And just as a side note, though it's not centrally important to the editorial determination here, it is not really remotely accurate to say that the Nazis landed on the symbol by "pure coincidence"; the swastika as a spiritual symbol enjoyed widespread usage throughout Eurasia, including Germany, right up until the advent of Nazism. And Nazi ideology always had one foot firmly in syncranistic occultism (this goes back to earliest days before Hitler was even associated with the DAP and owes particularly, though hardly exclusively, to Eckart's bizarre historical theories), leading to a deep preoccupation with eastern spiritual symbology in the Nazi movement. Hitler and the other senior Nazi theorists and propagandists absolutely knew what a swastika was, and the appropriation of its meaning and cultural implications was quite knowing and intentional, as part of the mysticism and historiographic myth they engineered (half by canny design and half by quack historical research that numerous of the early leading figures seem to have genuinely believed) for the supposed origins of the Aryan race, as they saw it. The fact that the symbol had some particularized nuances in central European symbolic traditions (or that it had an alternative name in the German language) doesn't really change any of those facts. The Nazis did not coincidentally pull the symbol from thin air by any means. Now you and I might agree that the appropriation was a gross perversion, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to how we need to present the complicated history of that borrowing to the reader.

All of that said, there are numerous factors (factual, policy, and pragmatic) influencing where and how to discuss the appropriation of the symbol, and the resulting dominant interpretation of the symbol for the average individual in the contemporary western world. For my opinions on that, you can get a general sense from my !vote above. But again, the narrow issue being considered here concerns the nomenclature we use to describe the symbol in the fascistic context. If you want to argue that any mention of that topic altogether should be ommitted from the lead, I suggest you start a separate discussion. But given that there seems to have been a longstanding balance struck for that content (presumably with a lot of argument, compromise and consensus building over years) and the fact that this topic is under discretionary sanctions, and the further fact that I think the article actually does a decent job, considering the constraints and complications, of striking that balance, I would say you'd be looking at an uphill and slow process. And for a certainty, it would have to be based on how the topic is parsed in reliable sources, not original research (no matter how well reasoned the arguments). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Which part of of course it [the Nazi appropriation] is highly significant and unquestionably should feature prominently in the lead. did you not understand? And where did you find it is not really remotely accurate to say that the Nazis landed on the symbol by "pure coincidence" in anything I wrote? And where did I give you the idea that I might want to argue that any mention of that topic altogether should be ommitted from the lead? I wrote a very short paragraph, it might have been better had you read what I did say and not written a wall of text 'responding' to what I did not say. Had you done so, we might be further forward. But in all honesty, I don't see that further debate would be fruitful: this is an RFC and I have stated my opinion below. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose mention of Hakenkreuz in the lead of this article, in the light of the explanation above. (Whereas it is highly relevant to, and should indeed be in, the lead of Nazi symbolism.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s[4] when the German Nazi Party adopted a right-facing form and used it as an emblem of the Aryan race.

The party gets a mention in the florid prose above, the second sentence, but if a tattooist refuses then just quote the first one. ~ cygnis insignis 18:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Well since you insist that your "sardonic" remark belongs in this RFC discussion, clearly you consider it relevant. The RFC is whether the fact that the Nazi party called it Hakenkreuz has sufficient significance to merit inclusion in the lead. Given that introduction to the RFC clearly says that it is not about the fact that the Nazi party adopted the swastika as its emblem (since no-one disputes that this is an essential element of the lead), how is your remark relevant? Please enlighten us. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

change the line "In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s[4] when the German Nazi Party adopted a right-facing form and used it as an emblem of the Aryan race" to "In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s[4] when the German Nazi Party adopted a hooked cross which is a christian symbol which looks like the "Swastika" and used it as an emblem of the Aryan race" 2405:201:401C:B0BB:B911:1F70:48D:53FA (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad infinitum. Though certainly based on spurious and baseless theories, the Nazis were using a swastika. It was not somehow an independent symbol. I have sympathy for trying to separate the traditional use from the awful Nazi use, but this, to me, is a false distinction. Just my opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Sceptre (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur.

BTW, I was about to direct the requester to the article Nazi symbolism where of course the alternative explanation can be found. Only it isn't there. The Hakenkreuz is not even mentioned. Could it be that no-one has ever found a wp:reliable source to provide supporting evidence? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the requester is thinking of the German Faith Movement? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

About the “swastika”

Didn’t the nazis steal the symbol that represented peace and prosperity for hate and communism? Lolbitlover56 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

While it's true the Nazis appropriated an existing symbol and did awful things with it, I feel constrained to point out that they did not do it "for communism." Cheers, and Happy New Year! Dumuzid (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The Nazis were fanatical anti-communists. They established the Anti-Komintern to publish anti-communist propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Swastika and hakenkreuz are different, Swastika is symbol of peace in Hinduism and hakenkreuz is a hooked cross from Christianity.

Everyone must learn that truth. Sonubondre (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? Britmax (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Replacement of "swastika" with "gammadian"

In the earlier version "gammadian" was mentioned 6 times. The version by User:Peyushgoel, whose only edits so far have been to this article, mentioned it 140 times. The article itself makes it clear that "By the 19th century, the term swastika was adopted into the English lexicon, replacing gammadion from Greek γαμμάδιον." This is the English language encyclopedia, thus we should use the common English word. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes we should, yes we do, and thanks for your reverts. And yes; Peyushgoel's account should probably be restricted if they continue the tendentious editing. SN54129 09:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Gammadian is archaic, I agree.--Mvqr (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Swastika was never used by people outside asia until 1950. The term is never used in any of the articles published during Nazi regime but only afterward. Swastika is related to hindu and budhist beliefs and Hitler was a ardant cristian follower. I don't want to go into unprovable conspiracy theories but truth should be mentioned. The term 'Swastik' was never mentioned outside asia before Nazi rule. Gammadian was the term which was used and hitler's versiion is known as hakenkreuz, as also mentioned in the articles published by germans themselves during Nazi regime. I don't understand why people are trying to dilute history. I can share articles proving my theory and its very easy to find. --Peyush Goel (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2022 (IST)