This is an archive of past discussions about Swastika. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please fix the error which suggests that the Swastika was introduced to India by Indian kings. As a historian, as well as enthusiast regarding this subject, the Swastika was introduced to India by the Old Persians along side the Sanskrit language. Infact the earliest Sanskrit writings found in the world are in Iran (Persia), as well as shards using the Swastika symbol, were found in Northeren Iran, dating back 5000 bc. There are also thousands of documented writings demonstrating how the swastika was introduced to India along side the introduction of the Sanskrit language.
The traditional view was certainly that the swastika is an Indo-Iranian motif, but the Elamite and IVC discoveries suggest that its presence pre-dates Indo-Iranian culture in the area (though of course similar shapes used thousands of years apart do not necessarily imply continuity of symbolism). Northern Iran in 5000BC was not a Sanskrit speaking culture. You also seem to be conflating Elamites and Iranians. We have to be careful how we define cultures, and avoid pointless nationalist arguing over who had it first. But we also have to represent different points of view. BTW, new discussions should be placed at the bottom of the page. Paul B10:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any reference to the 5000BC date, which seems rather early! Where did you get this date? Paul B11:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you seem to have got the date from here, [http://www.cais-soas.com/news/2005/july2005/12-07-swastika.htm], cutting and pasting the passage complete with "1020" reference, but this is the only source I can find - after a quick search - with this date, and the passage that includes it seems odd. Paul B11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Paul, there are many many pages regarding the findings in Persian. I will write a letter to the Iranian Foreign Ministry requesting more information in English to be published. However, here is two sources i quickly found on google: http://www.cais-soas.com/news/2005/july2005/12-07-swastika.htm (middle half way down the page) http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=205701 in English, reporting the findings and the 5000bc. Perhaps I can request a translation from the Iranian Foreign Ministry in regards to their findings since all the comphrehensive, detailed and archaelogical details are written in Persian.
You should also try other terms rather than Swastika since Persians do not call it the Swastika, they refer to it the Roundabout of the Sun / Myst and its more likely for people inside of Iran to refer to it by those names.
In regards to the Sanksrit introduction, doing more research, I realise it was a v. similar script called Avestan "the Aryan Language" http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Languages/aryan/aryan_language.htm It is documented that both Sanskrit and Old Persian are derivations of an older language, Avestan (Aryan Language).
Quote from website: Many languages have been used in the long history of Persia. The speech of the court and nobility in the days of Darius I was Old Persian, a tongue so closely related to Sanskrit that evidently they are both dialects of some language older still. http://www.theology.edu/lec24.htm
Quote from Wikipedia (LOL): The Avestan sound differs from the later Old Persian chiefly by the larger inventory of vowels. As opposed to Sanskrit, Avestan has retained voiced sibilants, and has fricative rather than aspirate series. There are various conventions for transliteration.
I have many sources I will add later.
Im not disputing the prosperation of Sanskrit in India, but the form and origination of Sanskrit is infact from Persia. Its a bit like saying the language they speak in Australia originated from UK. Although the English didn't take massive twists, the principle is still the same. Even now, when you compare, Hindi, Sanskrit and modern-Persian you realise vast number of words that are exactly similar, and majority of the words being a close variation of Avestan.
On another note, Zorastrainism was Persia's (Iran) national religion before the Islamic invasion. Many who wanted to keep their Zorastrian religion, had to flee to India to seek refuge, and are the people we now know as Parsee's in India who make great use of the Swastika. Hence the name Parsee's/Parsi's which mean Persians / people of Persian origin. Even until this day Persians use Pars to refer to ancient Iran, also bear in mind the word Farsi which is the word used to describe the modern Persian language.
Your first link is the same as the one I have already posted as your likely source. The second one says nothing about 5000BC. My guess is that the first link is copied from the second (many paragraphs are identical) with some idiosyncratic material - including the 5000BC date - being added. Possibly the date is a misunderstanding from a comment somewhere about it being possibly 5000 years old. But maybe not. We shall await the information you have requested! Regarding the history of Iranian languages, you might want to read Elam, Indo-Iranians, Proto-Indo-European. Very few people believe that an Iranian language existed in 5000BC. Paul B17:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"Sir Jones was the first to suggest that Sanskrit originated from the same source as Latin, Greek and Persian, thus laying the foundation for the comparative study of what we now refer as the Indo European languages." http://hinduwebsite.com/general/sanskrit.asp, its very sad that all these great history books I have are not online or in English. I emailed then Iranian Foreign Ministry today, and will keep us updated. But perhaps this website will shed some light on the Persian origins of Sanskrit http://hinduwebsite.com/general/sanskrit.asp from a Hindu Website. There are many many more documentation, unfortunately yet to be translated to English. As a encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia I think it is imperative that we look at sources other than English to ensure 100% credibility to the provided information. I will translate phrases, and list books of useful value in due time.
JUNE 2009 I will be providing sources for my future edits. I am currently reading a text on ancient Iran (called Persia by Greeks) that mentions the Wheel of Mitra/now called Swastika. Ancient Aryan Iranians invaded India. That is a fact. For some reason, there are some revisionists who are trying to change that part of history. The origin of the symbol comes from the pagan Iranian religion of MItraism - not to be confused with the adapted Roman version of the same religion. Zoroastrians are Persian, and some moved to India - some mixed with Indian population, many did not and are still ethnic Iranians. The "swastika" symbol is still used in Iran as part of Aryan heritage. No one is disputing the fact that the symbol is used in India. However, the oldest use of the symbol, as well as the term Aryan comes from Iranian culture. See the history of Iran around the time of Darius/Daryoush the Great and before his rule. The term, symbols, Mitraism, Zoroastrianism are of Iranian/Persian origin. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The Swastika originated out of Hinduism
I find it amazing that there are still people who question where the Swastika originated from. I mean the oldest major religion is Hinduism, and Hinduism uses the swastika, so common sense means that it is fair to say that it may have originated out of Hinduism....71.119.255.3121:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be the oldest major religion, but that does not mean the swastika originated from hinduism. You seem to be assuming that the symbol has to have originated from religion which makes little sense. Indeed you seem to be assuming not just any religion but a major religion. But it's just as easily possible it originated from an early minor religion, and was then subsumed into Hinduism. Or alternatively, it may have originated outside religion or arisen multiple times (as the article suggests) Nil Einne16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is false. The symbol comes from the Persian god Mitra (also a Persian name). Maybe the Indians adapted this god as the Romans did - who created their own version of a religion. It's not originally an Indian God. The swastika symbol comes from the Wheel of Mitra (ancient Persian pagan religion NOT to be confused with the adapted Mithraism of Rome, influenced by Persians, but not the same). It is now currently a symbol of luck by Persians and Indians. I concede that it was later used in the Hindu faith, however the Persians brought over that symbol to India when they invaded the northern region of the country. The Aryans of various tribes came from the Ukraine region, and the Persian Aryans invaded India. That is not to say that there are no Aryan Indians, especially in the North. Most of the southern regions of India are a mix of Dravidian and Aryans. I, a Persian-American, and my friend who is half Persian and half Indian, both agree with this. However, the majority of Aryans of Indian ethnicity are in the North and are a result of the invasion of Persians. These Indians are Aryan cousins to the Persians, along with Greeks, Celts, Slavs, Cimmerians/Germans, etc. Germans to this day call Iranians "brother" because of their shared ancient background. My mother's cousin lives in Germany and is married to a German woman. That was one of the reasons Hitler adapted the symbol and convinced the Iranian leader to change the international name of Persia (greek name for Persians) to Iran. The original name for Iran was Aryanna, or land of the Aryans. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Star of David/Seal of Solomon
Is there a reason for "Star of David" in this article pointing to Seal of Solomon and not Star of David? Symbols are similar, but judging from those articles their meaning is different. GhePeU 23:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've just edited links, if you revert them please explain here the motives, thank you. GhePeU 12:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
removed bits
I'm sorry, I had to remove substantial parts about "symbolism" and "history". Unsubstantiated stuff seems just to pile up on this article. The problem was that all these assertions came without references. If you provide book sources to who said these things, it will be a different matter altogether, but this is the difference between Wikipedia and your average geocities page: we don't just ramble about things we have heard. We look them up. See sauwastika: It is unsightly, but carefully researched. I prefer concise references over flowing prose any day. dab(ᛏ) 07:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can people making changes to such well-advanced articles please discuss them!??! I am tired of arguing over and over again that asti is not the 3rd person sg. But infallibly, some enlightened student of Sanskrit will come along and "correct" that again. And of course, add the Devanagari, which we had just decided to omit, see above, of course without giving any reasons on Talk. dab(ᛏ) 07:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
etymology
alright, I see there was an edit summary. the changes, I am sorry to say, were still ill informed. There is no such thing as "Classical Vedic Sanskrit". As for the -ka suffix, the prime reference for this would be Wackernagel's Sanskrit Grammar, vol. II.2, p. 515ff. It is the standard diminutive suffix in Sanskrit, as any other grammar will tell you, too. dab(ᛏ) 08:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
for the record, asti- is not the 3rd person singular verbal form asti "is". It is inconceivable that a nominal suffix would be added to a finite verbal form. Can we put that idea to rest, please? It is rather a nominal abstract formed by the ti- suffix. You don't have to believe me, I invite everybody to look it up themselves, just don't change things merely on the basis that you have heard somewhere that asti means "he is" in Sanskrit. dab(ᛏ) 08:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
{{
Primo Levi's contribution
In "Lilith" there is a novel which french translated titled is "décodification" in which Primo Levi explains that the Nazi symbol is obtained crossing "n" and "s" of national socialism.
Anyone has an idea why Primo Levi explains that while you get no Swastika if you cross an n and a s?
(and considering he knows better than any of us what is national socialism)
I've no idea why he says it, but it's just plain wrong. However, I can see that the vertical axis might be interpreted as a stylised S and the horizontal one as a backward N. Takes some effort of imagination, though.
If it's a novel, it counts as fiction, so perhaps he did intend it to be taken as a factual account. Paul B17:35, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
Nazis and Hindus and "Indo-Europeans"
I see there has been a bit of discussion here about the notion of the Swastika as an "Indo-European" symbol. I don't know what the history of that was in the article-text, but I do think that this article would be improved by a cogherent account of the reason behind the expansion of Swastika motifs in the West during the late 19th and early 20th century, and that was undoubtedly closely tied to Indo-Europeanism (i.e. Aryanism). In other words, the the belief that it was a specifically IE/Aryan motif was central to its popularity. At the moment it appears that Kipling liked it because it was Indian, and the Nazis picked it up because of some quirky ideas of theirs. The reference to Schliemann, who was actually the central figure in defining the Swastika as Indo-European, is isolated and rather oddly stuck-on. But it was bevcause of his findings in Troy and his correspondence with Emile Burnouf that the motif "took off" in the West, and then became associated with Aryanist ideas, Max Muller's "Sun Myth" theories and emerging Nietzschean ideas about Zoroastrianism etc etc. Without this tradition of thought, I've no doubt that swastika would not have been so widespread as it was in the West in the 1880-1930 period. Paul B17:35, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
Ignore above. The material is in there. I just read badly. Still, I think this stuff about the belief that Germans being 'predestined' to rule the world is slightly OTT. Paul B13:35, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
-The swastika is not exclusively an Indo-Aryan or even Indo-European symbol, as many have thought and continue to believe. The symbol, as a common geometric design, has been used in all cultures in both the new and old worlds for several millenia. It is as basic a design as a square or a triangle or whatever. The name, of course, is Sanskrit. Ultimately, it was the India version that became the most imitated in Europe and for some reason (this is just my speculation, but I think it had something to do with the fact that the symbol could be found in both pre-Christian Nordic pagan cultures as well as Hindu cultures) became associated with the Aryans. Millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Native Americans still view it with respect. Although I dont follow any of these religions (i'm, in name, a Muslim) I think it is tragic how this symbol has been tainted forever as a symbol of hate just because of a few lunatics like Adolf Hitler. I remember in high school how one of my friends (who was Indian Hindu from West Bengal) was derided as a "Nazi" because of his use of the swastika on his new car(it was put on there by a Hindu priest from a local temple, Hindus have a temple here in Iowa.)
-User: Afghan Historian
It should be noted that many Indian are considered Aryan and the crazy nazis and crazy hitler just took the swastika and chnanged the idea of the Aryans 71.119.255.3121:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
shrii-vatsa
is a different word, and a different symbol, and would deserve an article of its own. Monier-Williams:
"favourite of Shrî, N. of VishNu L.; a partic. mark or curl of hair on the breast of Vishnu or Krishna (and of other divine beings; said to be white and represented in pictures by a symbol resembling a cruciform flower) MBh. Kâv. &c.; [1]
Is that the only reference you have? You might want to brush up on your Sanksrit or actually talk to some Hindus or Vedic Monks. It was srivatsa long before it was a swastika.[2][3][4][5]mas5353 1:06am April 21, 2005 (EST)
I've removed this again. All your website references entirely agree with Monier-Williams. suggesting that the old prof may have known something about Sanskrit after all! Here they are, in the order in which you provide them:
Exotic India
"The endless knot is a closed, graphic ornament composed of right-angled, intertwined lines. It is often associated with the Hindu srivatsa sign. In its earliest form, this seems to have been a naga symbol with two stylized snakes." [not much resemblence to a Swastika there then]
Mewar Encyclopedia
"On his chest is a curl of hair known as the srivatsa mark, a sign of his immortality" [curl of hair]
Vedic roots of Early Tamil Culture
"Besides the Srivatsa (also found among artefacts at Kanchipuram), many coins depict a swastika, a trishul, a conch, a shadarachakra, a damaru, a crescent moon" [so besides the srivatsa there was also a swastika. Separate motifs]
Encyclopedic Theosophical glossary
"Srivatsa (Sanskrit) The favorite of Sri (lord or goddess); a mystical mark worn by Siva in his representations, as well as used in various ways by the Jains as the emblem of the tenth Jina. This emblem is a particular curling of hair on the breast of Krishna or Vishnu and of other divine beings, said to be white and often in iconography pictured as cruciform and supposed to represent a flower." [so, a hair curl again. This encyclopedia has a separate entry for "Swastika" and makes no linguistic or iconographic connection between the two motifs]
So be it. I apologize for troubling you. User:micsmith 09:51, 21 Apr 2005 (EST)
"brush up on your Sanskrit" indeed :\ I'll consult Monier-Williams rather than exoticinidaart.com for questions of Sanskrit any day, thank you. dab(ᛏ) 13:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How far back are the origins?
Currently the article says, "The history of the swastika goes back to the origins of the Eurasian continent". How many hundreds of millions of years ago was that? PittBill00:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I fixed it before seeing your comment. I don't know who originally wrote that sentence or what they meant, but I wrote what seems to make the most sense with the least amount of modification. If someone has authoritative references on the origin of the swastika they should write a more specific and less ambiguous statement. — Miguel 13:42, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
The oldest ever archelogical piece of evidence to be found bearing the Swastika symbol was in the Khuzestan region of Iran, dating back 5000bc. The discovery was as of 2005. More can be found here: http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=205701 and various other sources. If you could read Persian then it would be easier to find comphrehensive information regarding the findings.
Protected against moves
because of wikipedia is communism vandalism. I don't want it to happen again, the featured article was gone for a couple minutes. Please unprotect soon. -Frazzydee|✍01:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I've just seen the article on the front page. Full marks. It is a superb article. That is what wikipedia at its best is all about. Having read this article I'm proud to be associated with this wonderful project. FearÉIREANN03:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Not that I don't think it's a great article and FA-worthy, but do you think anyone's going to post a massive rant on this page about how an image of a swastika on Main Page is "BAD"? Nickptar04:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Swastika has been around for thousands of years. It is still a highly-respected religious symbol in many Asian countries today. If anyone hates to see it and refuses to take circumstantial evcidence into consideration, it looks like intolerance to me. And this could sound like hate speech. -- Toytoy 08:45, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
I was kinda shocked to see a swastika on wikipedia's main page. However, this is a very informative article. Great work.SenorAnderson04:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
well the swastika
is the symbol of love and prisperity for the hindus
it is belived that
any 1 who keeps swastika at their home is believed to be best protected by god
many of the big indian buisness men even carry the swatika with them
in a survey conducted by an cultural organisation it is believed that people who carry the swastik with them are more happier than persons without them
The Abrahamic Religions
First off, great page. I had no idea that the swastika was and still is so widespread in a non-nazi context. Anyway, theres a bit of a mangled sentence in the Abrahamic Religions section, which goes "However, a proposed direct link between and a swastika floor mosaic..." If someone knows what this is supposed to say, could they fix it RMoloney10:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the swastika is used in Kabbalah as symbol of Kether. But I don't know if that's traditional or if it has been added by the likes of the Golden Dawn etc.
Swastika-shaped Houses & Buildings on Google Maps
Near where i live in Dublin, Ireland, there is a building in the shape of a
swastika (As seen from the air). The urban myth is that it was built in that
shape so it would be passed over by any Nazi bombers if air-raids were to
happen during WWII. I'm sure the real reason is different, but if it can be
verified, it might make an interesting sidenote on this page.
RMoloney10:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
the structure may be visible on google maps..... where exactly is it? it's not the swastika laundry! :-) JXM16:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's one from a naval base in San Diego, California:
Swastikas, gammadions and fylfots, otherwise known as manji, are normally presented with lots of flowers and lavenders and purples by Asians. It might be wise to present a truer picture of the warmth and happiness associated with this dumb-looking symbol. Furthermore, it is certainly just one word among many in the East Asian lexicon. A compare and contrast ought to be done with the words ladder, little brother, snivel and cardinality each of which has the swastika built inside it. Another word would be the Chinese Wu or Japanese Go meaning mouthbreeder or recreation/leisure/socializing when paired with the female radical. It would be worth it to clear up the obvious political issues. The events in Europe during the 40s belong in an International Courtroom. A discussion of East Asian map legends with Swastika for Shrine or Religious Mountain, right next to Gas Food Lodging and right below National Forest would certainly be refreshing. It would help to clear the air so a more sanguine attitude could be applied to the military and cultural details of the recent war. In following this thinking, a properly decked out manji with extra flowers and holiday colors should really be used to set the tone. Something is needed to illustrate this over and above the picture of the swastika with the heraldic roses. It is more of a Christmas morning look that is indicated here. If you've been to the Buddha's Birthday celebration in May at the Seoul temple near the US Embassy and the Sejong Cultural Center near Chungmuro you know what I mean. Its like Christmas with flowers and trees and outdoor lights. This is the direction to take. It will be very helpful, not to mention Wiki Accurate. McDogm--64.12.116.20415:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
so I understand you want (yet) more images of swastikas, preferably happy looking ones with flowers? dab(ᛏ)16:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't really use the swastikas; Asians and people associated with Asia are more or less considering other people's feelings at this point in world history. But, if there are swastikas, they better not be threatening-looking, because that's not how the Asians, who invented them, use them. Except, of course, in documentary usage. --McDogm13:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
contemporary use of swastikas fall into two, largely disjunct, fields, (a) Hinduism and related religions, and (b) Nazism. Both fields are reasonably well-covered, I believe. Historical usage is more involved, and you cannot claim that "Asians invented the Swastika", the symbol appears in Neolithic Europe, and it could have been re-invented any number of times all over the world, due to its simplicity. These historical issues are also reasonably well covered afaics, but feel free to point out any defects. dab(ᛏ)12:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"leading scholars"
Following his discovery of objects bearing the swastika in the ruins of Troy, Heinrich Schliemann consulted the leading Sanskrit scholars of the day, Emile Burnouf and Max Müller.
Should that read "leading European Sanskrit scholars"? There are probably quite a few South Asians who could lay better claim to title of "leading Sanskrit scholars of the day". DanKeshet 19:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Simply say "consulted two leading scholars of the day". Removing the "the" removes the implication that those two people were the top two sanscrit scholars. — Miguel 20:00, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
That's one of my lines. I've thought that could be tweaked for while. It should probably read "two of the leading Sanskrit scholars". I'm not sure it's possible to compare traditional Indian scholarship with the kind of Western scholarship represented by Burnouf and Müller, so I doubt the former could have a 'better claim' in any absolute sense, because we are talking about two very different models of scholarship. I don't say this to glorify Burnouf and Müller. Burnouf has some quite unpleasant and downright silly ideas. By I think it's reasonable to call them leading scholars. Paul B 19:45, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
left to right misordering of image captions
Maybe it's my Firefox browser but the images were scanning wrong in Swastika#Geometry and symbolism, so I fixed it to scan like this left to right:
A swastika composed of 17 squares in a 5x5 grid
A right-facing swastika may be described as "clockwise"...
... or "counter-clockwise"
A swastika composed of 17 squares in a 5x5 grid
... or "counter-clockwise"
A right-facing swastika may be described as "clockwise"...
Which looks wrong. Does it scan this way for other readers or is it just me in Cologne Blue skin? -Wikibob | Talk 22:09, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Yes, it varies depending on the display options you are using. Paul B 22:50, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
That is strange. My browser displays them in the revers ordering relative to how yours does. Perhaps we should change the captions so they do not refrence eachotehr or use some mroe explicit code like a table with no borders or somesuch. Dalf | Talk06:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I changed the article to use a table there. Can you please check and see if this causes it to render in a way that looks correct? It looks the same either way with my browser. Dalf | Talk06:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Poor Timing!
I am not Jewish, so perhaps I am way off here; however, doesn’t it seem a bit insensitive to have the Swastika presented as the “entry of the day” right at the end of Passover. Certainly the historical perspective is valuable in mitigating the Nazi-centric depiction of the symbol, but it seems almost any other day would have been a better choice for this article.
It was, by request, already moved away from a first schedueled 'FA of the day' in late April due to that being around Hitlers birth/death dates. I guess it's not easy to find a date for this article that everyone find ok. Shanes05:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
If any of you reject this Asian religious symbol without taking its context into consideration, you're a bigot. As a Chinese Christian, I cannot say this for the Hinduism, but many of my buddhist friends are wearing this 365 days a year and they are not Nazis. So what? Had they done anything wrong? I say it is OK to run this article any time of the year. -- Toytoy 06:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Passover commemorates the Jews' suffering at the hands of the Egyptians and their deliverance therefrom. Is it so wrong to remember other suffering that the Jews have endured? Nelson Ricardo 18:02, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Actually Passover celebrates the opposite - the suffering of the Egyptians at the hands of the Jews, or at least at the hands of God on their behalf. Still, I don't see why the memory of Jewish suffering in the war should preclude the public discussion of the swastika motif. After all, this whole year commemorates the end of WWII, does that mean that the article shouldn't have been showcased at any time this year? Paul B 18:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
N.B. This is not true; there is no celebration of the suffering of the Egyptians. On the contrary, Jewish tradition insists that when some angels started singing at the drowning of Pharoah's army, God admonished them "How can you sing when my creatures are dying?". The solemn custom is to spill a drop of wine for every one of the ten plagues in remembrance of the suffering.--Pharos19:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I am a Native American Nazi, Buddhist Holocaust Denier or Hindi Historical Revisionist. I don't know much about history, but when was the last time, a swastika-wearing Aboriginal American, Chinese or Indian sent millions of Jews to the gas chamber? Please educate me!
All I remember is some innocent people wrongly persecuted over this non-issue. Last time I checked, Chinese were hiding Jews in Shanghai during the WW2 to save their lives. And 50 years later, some Chinese panda cookies were pulled from the shelves. Did you know some vegetarian instant noodles manufactured in Taiwan were also banned because of the same reason more than 10 years ago? I could not remember all the details, but I checked in a Taipei supermarket a week ago, most vegetarian foods except for two no longer carries the historical Buddhist swastika (they cannot afforrd to lose overseas markets). Try to find an example that we ban the word "Kosher" in any Asian country.
I think this ignorance and self-centered ideology very offensive. Wikipedia is an educational website. It is not a good idea to spread censorship, hate and witch hunting here. -- Toytoy 02:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yep, a little known fact is that China had an open door policy for fleeing Jews. Now their holy symbols are denegrated in the name of Political correctness. I seem to remember censorship and political correctness being rather popular w certain folks in the 1930's and 40's as well... Sam Spade06:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
why is everyone so heated about this? The swastika is among other things connected with the Holocaust. We featured the article on the Main page, by coincidence on the last day of Passover. So what? it's not like it contains anti-jewish diatribes. Everybody agrees that these things should be commemorated, and while we didn't consciously pick the date, I can see nothing wrong with it either way. dab(ᛏ)07:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I consider it culturally insensitive for the Jews to think that every occurance of the swastika is used as a symbol of Nazism. How would they like it if someone thought the Star of David was offensive and wanted it removed everywhere they saw it? Or, maybe a campaign agianst the Tetragrammaton? 172.192.142.10522:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Firehouses
When I was growing up in the 70's in Glenside, PA our local firehouse (built before the depression, I think) had a swastika on the outside wall, just below the peak of the eaves. I was told at the time that they're very common on firehouses, but it's the only one I've noticed.
Minor edit
The article claimed that Crispian Mills was thought to have "fascist" sympathies. I changed fascist to nazi, as I personally take great offence when people dont distinguish the two seperate ideaologies. Shanekorte04:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Before you edit, please read this.
Please don't offend 800 million people (including me) by randomly deleting/modifying
the page without having some sort of FACTUAL
reason. I am personally required to draw seven
swastikas with rice everytime I go to my Jain
temple. This symbol, the word, the language everything about is holy and sacred (just like a cross might be to a Catholic) so please do not be a jerk about it.
This goes double for:
dbachmann
Paul Berlow
You simply reverted the page without even bothering to look at the many facts that I added.
If you are a racist and want a Eurocentric view or whatever, no one is stopping you from starting a Hakenkreuz or flaflot or whatever page with that view, just
don't do it here.
what the hell? Jainism has been mentioned in the article for ages. The problem with your edits was that they seemed to equate Jainism with Hinduism, and Hinduism with "Indo-European religion" (yes, I did look at your edits, and if you think that if your edits do not prevail on Wikipedia, 800 million will be offended, that's just hubris on a staggering scale). So don't even begin calling me "jerk" or "racist", just make your points in the Jainism section, without pathos or superlatives. dab(ᛏ) 07:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
also, with edit summaries like
Revert back from Paul Barlow's ignorant offensive belief that a hindi word for a hindu+jain symbol is not intrinsically Indian. Start a Hakenkreuz page for a eurocentric view instead, leave Swastika.[6]
I suggest you better get an account and start learning about how Wikipedia works. Incidentially, I am not sure people will like the new look you have given the Hinduism article (two swastikas, in the intro? come on.) dab(ᛏ) 08:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I looked at all the 'facts' you added in your several edits. As for my "ignorant and offensive offensive belief that a hindi word for a hindu+jain symbol is not intrinsically Indian", well the firstly the word isn't 'hindi', secondly the symbol is not 'intrinsically Indian' - as the article makes clear. You tried to minimise its importance in Amerindian culture, apparently to push the view that the symbol is in some sense "owned" by Indians. If you bother to check, you will see that there is already an article on the fylfot (not "flaflot"). The word Hakenkreuz is almost wholly unknown and unused in English speaking countries. Even the German Wikipedia redirects to Swastika, but does uses "hakenkreuz" extensively in the article. In English the word is Swastika. Yes, it's appropriated from Sanskrit, just as Restaurant is appropriated from French. That does not mean that Indian and Italian restaurants should all be renamed does it? Likewise all 卐 shapes are Swastikas whether they are Indian, "Indo-European", Chinese or Amerindian. Anyway, since the Nazi swastika is directly derived from the Indian one via the "Aryan" concept there is good reason to use the same word for it, a word that was already thoroughly well established in English usage well before Adolf came along. Paul B10:32, 1 June 2005 (UTC)
I rather doubt that 'swastika' was 'already thoroughly well established in English usage well before Adolf came along.' My impression is that you're guessing, and that it was not widely discussed outside books on heraldry, where it is known as a 'fylfot' (truncated swastika resembling water wheel with trough-like 'feet'). It was the English translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf which likely made the word as well-known as the symbol. If you have evidence to the contrary, please indicate. Etaonsh21:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well your impression is wrong. If you take the trouble to read the article through you will see that the swastika motif was very popular throughout Europe from the period c1890-1930. Its popularity was related to, but not dependent upon, the widespread interest in the concept of Indo-European identity ("Aryanism") following from Schliemans disvoveries and publications. I have the 1884 English translation of Schliemann's Illios, which has "swastika" in the index. You can also look at Thomas Wilson's 1894 book The Swastika, which is to be found in the external references section of the article. I've seen several catalogues with swastika motifs from this period which do not, on the whole, use the word fylfot, but usually say "swastika" or "swastik". The Nazis, as the above comments state, generally preferred the term "hakenkreuz." Paul B19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Your first sentence is very 'black and white.' Here in the English-speaking world, where the swastika's unfamiliarity is indicated by the use of a foreign moniker, (conceivably not in the popular consciousness prior to Hitler, apart from a minority interested in ethnological theorising) and our unfamiliarity with the native word. The use of the Indian word in Victorian studies and Kipling is arguably more an indication of British involvement in India than widespread popular usage. Those days are now gone, and the word 'swastika' carries associations with Hitler, associations which some (http://www.reclaimtheswastika.com/) are seeking to overcome. Etaonsh21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
more POV stuff
Our anonymous Jain contributor has rewritten the following section with his clearly POV agenda - which seems to be that the word 'swastika' can only be used for the Hindu/Jain/Buddhist symbol. This is clearly argumentative and unacceptable. Take these additions:
>>Your being Christian and residing in
Germany gives you a whole lot more authority on Hinduism and Jainism right ? Too funny.
The history and sensiblities spanning 3000 years of a Billion people are comparable to
a much smaller minority elsewhere ? Is that
your claim ?
You do not speak for 3000 years and a billion people. To claim that you do is narcissism of the first order. Who said I was a Christian residing in Germany? I didn't, and I'm not. You are confusing me with Dbachmann. I notice you don't offer a single argument here. Paul B 07:15 3 June 2005 (UTC)
The proper name for the Nazi symbol is Hakenkreuz. [This is wholly false. Swastika was always the English word used for the Nazi symbol]
>>Demostrably untrue since there are MANY
nazi-era poems that use the term "hakenkreuz". Similarly, because crusaders used the cross to
kill muslims and jews does not make the MAJORITY of crosses "bad" or "un-christian".
Read what I wrote. It says "Swastika was always the English word used for the Nazi symbol." The analogy with the cross is spurious because it was used by the crusaders as a symbol of Christianity. It means "christianity", whether that's seen as good or bad. Nazis used the swastika as a Nazi symbol. When yobs daub swastikas on Jewish graves they are meant as a Nazi symbol.Paul B 07:40 3 June 2005 (UTC)
Recently, the swastika was used as a symbol of Nazism and the word was borrowed from Hinduism on purpose. [what does 'on purpose' mean here? Some plan to deprive Hinduism of one of its symbols?]
>>Read Max Mueller and the use of the words
arya and aryan to understand what that means. Nazi philosophy wasn't limited to the swastika but stole (via earlier authors) major other parts of the vedas. "On purpose" means the nazis knew what they were doing in resurrecting dead and hardly pervasive symbol in Europe because it was a Vedic symbol too.
I have read Max Mueller. I know what they mean. The Nazis did not 'steal major parts of the veda'. Hitler always claimed in public to be a Christian. Rosenberg and Himmler were interested in so-called Pagan religions, the latter mostly in Germanic ones. Rosenberg, following Nietzsche, speaks well of the Manu Smriti and of Zoroastrianism, but that's about it. There is no significant connection between Nazism and the vedas. What bits exactly are they supposed to have 'stolen'? Aryanism as an ideology, of course, often made the claim that Indo-European cultures as a whole share certain common features, often characterised as belief in some quasi-pantheistic life-force as opposed to the "Semitic" judge-god. The Swastika's use by the Nazis as a sun-motif is certainly part of this 'life-force' imagery. As the article makes clear the motif was not 'dead', it had become very widespread in the west during the Aryan craze, and it had come to be part of a wider 'neo-pagan' set of images that encompased other non-Eastern forms of "paganism". Paul B 07:41 3 June 2005 (UTC)
The Native German word for this symbol is hakenkreuz. [repetition] Also note, the use of terms such as arya and aryan by Nazis. These are also Hindu religious terms and words in the Sanskrit languages and remain core concepts of Hinduism [yes, they have a Hindu religious meaning. They also have other meanings. Anyway, this is argumentative and largely irrelevant to this article].
>>Dont fool yourself. I'm sure biblical
terms (like ten-commandments) may have other meanings too. Q:But what is the canonical generally accepted meaning of "commandment" in religion ? A: The biblical one. Same for "arya" and "aryan" and the vedas. You do know that it is the DUTY of every hindu to attain arya ?
the meaning of "commandment" is "ruling". It's not restricted to the bible. The words arya and aryan derive from Vedic and Avestan (Zoroastrian) usages. However, in the 19th C on the west they were used to mean Proto-Indo-Europeans, since they were the oldest known terms at that time for an ancient IE people. Read Mueller's essay The Home of the Arya. By the time of the Nazis the word was used in Germany to mean little more than white non-Jew, as indicated in Tolkien's famous letter to to the would-be German publisher of the Hobbit, who was required by Nazi law to obtain confirmation that Tolkien was an 'Aryan'. Tolkien knew perefectly well that this was code for non-Jew:
I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by ‘arisch’. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.
Tolkien knew very well that when the Nazis used 'Aryan' they meant something very different from what the Vedas mean, something connected to the vedas by the most tenous of threads - so much so that it often almost reverses the meaning, so that gypsies became non-Aryans! Paul B 07:56 3 June 2005 (UTC)
After the end of World War II, the traditional uses of swastika in the western world were discouraged. Many innocent people or products were wrongly persecuted [such as who? I don't remember these dreadful Swastika Persecutions].
>>I did not add that statement. Remove it
if you want.
OK, sorry. My mistake. Paul B 08:05 3 June 2005 (UTC)
The swastika remains an important symbol of Neo-Nazi groups similar to use of the Christian Cross by right-wing organizations like the KluKluxKlan. Such use by small Neo-Nazi groups is considered non-mainstream when compared to its religious use worldwide (by billions in India alone).
[There is no analogy to to the cross. The burning cross is a specifically KKK symbol, used by no-one else afik. The Christian cross is not a KKK symbol. It the west, the great majority of swastika images refer to the Nazis]. Paul B 17:08 1 June 2005 (UTC)
[I have read that the burning cross was an ancient Manx symbol of 'Watch and Ward' (ancient Neighbourhood Watch, a sign system warning of invasion and a therefore a call-to-arms from promontories, I believe). Etaonsh21:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)]
>>You really seem to have a fetish about
neo-nazi, nazi and other small minority groups.
It's a bullshit eurocentric argument. Have you ever visited the pages of any christian identity organizations ? There are many in the USA alone. They all use the cross and they are all hate sites. If you mention this prominently in the christian part of the wiki. You'll be laughed out of existence.
Because it's irrelevant. The point is that they claim to be Christians, hence the phrase Christian identity! In contrast, neo-Nazis do not claim to be Hindus. The cross does not anywhere signify "right wing racist". It's used equally by African-Americans, by mainstream churches and by left-wing liberation theologians. In the West, the primary meaning of the swastika is "Nazism". Every morning I see a swastika daubed by some local yob on the side of an Indian restaurant. The idiot who put it there almost certainly a racist who used it as a statement against the presence of "non-whites". Like most Westerners, he would have no idea that it was actually an Indian symbol. Paul B 08:15 3 June 2005 (UTC)
Burning crosses are a form of KKK expression but they most certainly use a NON-burning cross for their internal ceremonies and logos. This is moot since there are many other christian identity organizations that all use the cross.
No, the burning cross has a specific KKK meaning. The other crosses just identify the KKK claim to be Christian.
Does that make the cross bad or the fact that
it is currently used by hate groups even
relevant to it's MUCH MUCH larger use by good
christians ?
The number of swastikas in the west is increasing dramatically because of Hindu and Jain migration. The total number of swastikas
ever used by the nazis pales in comparison to those used in India. Why is it even relevant what current practice is in the WEST while talking about the swastika anyway ?
The article discusses both Western and Eastern meanings. The 'West' is a very large part of the world, and most readers of this English version will live in the 'West'. Note that when this article was featured, there were complaints that it should not have been, because it was offensive to Jews! See discussion "bad timing" above. No-one objects to your adding information about the Jain and other usages/meanings of the symbol. The objection is to your argumentative tone and assertions about proper and improper use of the symbol based on claims of cultural ownership.
Your other replies are to Dbachmann. Paul B 08:49 3 June 2005 (UTC)
addendum: however, I have commented on your use of "latika", since I removed that section. There are already separate articles on tilaka and bindi. This is nat an article about Hindu symbols. Start one if you like. Paul B 14:20 3 June 2005 (UTC)
the analogy is also wrong because KKK members claim to be Christian. I've never heard of Nazis claiming to be Jains or Hindus. They argue some muddled, unprovable prehistoric "Aryan" connection, and the historical Nazis of course claimed the Aryans originated on German soil. dab
>> You missed the point entirely. The
point was the use by a minority of hate organizations, whether they be crosses or swastikas are simply irrelevant when talking about the proper use of the symbol by billions of christians and hindus respectively.
oh man, who will clean up the poor article now. Wikipedia's expnentially rising popularity has its drawbacks.
however only the un-dotted version is used in formal Hindu ceromonies. — says who? in all of Hinduism? what formal role does the symbol play in what traditions?
>>Well engage in debate. Rising popularity
does mean more viewpoints and quality goes up after initial squabbles. I am not some freak and neither are you and I don't want to get into some protracted battle on this. We all appreciate the hard work that you have done in getting this page up and running.
BUT, you really are ignorant about Hinduism aren't you ? You really don't know that the dotted swastika is like a decorated cross and that formal religious use does not use that decoration ? (you'll see the decorated version in homes during diwali etc and on pastries and cakes -- much rarer in temples and scripture).
How many devout Hindus do you even know personally ?
the holiest non-syllabic symbol (also see Om) in the Aryan religion of Hinduism, as defined by the Vedas. — as we have established several times, the term swastika does not occur in the Vedas.
>>You sure about that ?
Native American and other aboriginal faiths before World War II but such usage was mostly minor and unrelated to it's primary religious use in Hinduism. — horribly India-centric. Hinduism is just as "aboriginal" and not in any sense "primary".
>>The swastika IS India (Hindu)-centric. The
cross IS christian centric. I don't know why
you are so confused about this issue. Yeah,
it was so important in amerind culture that the symbol has essentially totally disappeared in their culture.
laltika and shubhtika are spurious terms. A bindi is called a bindi, and laltika is not mentioned on bindi. They may be Hindi words (?), but -tika is certainly not a Sanskrit suffix.
>>
Wrong. The proper name is laltika and
that's what it's called when Hindu priests wear it.
You've lost all credibility right here. You'll probably kill someone with uncontrollable laughter if you refer to a priest wearing the "laltika" as as bindi.
Bindi is a decorative common name in Hindi
for a round decorative thing worn by women
(never used for men).
-tika is a sanskrit prefix although it
may have been in later sanskrit (sanskrit
evolved too, just like german did).
Read this paragraph again until you understand it fully. M'kay ?
Indo-European culture of India now we are getting to the bottom of this. India-centric racism, anyone?
>> OK, take out Indo-European if you want, its' kinda orthogonal to this discussion.
' Today, as always, the swastika is the sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. lecturing, essay. what is meant by "as always"?
>>3000 years. Replace always by "since the
birth of Hinduism" if it makes you happier.
Schliemann correctly concluded that the Swastika (Hakenkreuz in German) was a specifically Indo-European symbol.. pov. Schliemann concluded. He didn't "correctly" conclude. (incidentially, the IE language group was discovered in the 1700s, not the 1800s)
>>I did not add that
Indo-European people (who called themselves ""Aryans"" in their holy books, the Vedas) . endless repetition doesn't make it any more true, just more monotonous.
>>Feel free to disprove it. The 4 Vedas are
all online and the word arya is used zillions
of times (and as mentioned a devout religous
duty for Hindus just like following the commandments is for christians). Or are you now claming that "arya" is not a vedic religious term ? Or that it's canonical meaning for the majority of people (billions) is otherwise ?
we have not gone through all the FA trouble so the article is turned into a Hindutva essay.
>> I hate hindutva and religoius chavinism in
general too. But I hate ignorance even more. This is not about hindutva but proper historical and CURRENT practice. Your complete lack of context and myopic nazi influenced view is certainly not endearing.
Anon, get an account, argue your points, individually, attributing statements to notable sources. I am leaving the Jainism section in place, but you have no business to turn our article into your opinion piece.
>> How gracious of you to leave the Jain
section in place. Oh my !
You have no business as a German lecturing
hindus about their religion. Feel free to
start a hakenkreuz page if you feel the need
and put anything you want in there. I heard
that Germany wants to ban the swastika entirely. That's exactly like India wanting
to ban crosses entirely (hypothetically) and then some Indian lecturing Christians why the cross is not intrinsically a biblical thing.
Incidentially, I am not sure people will like the new look you have given the Hinduism article (two swastikas, in the intro? come on.) dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You have proved my point better than I could have hoped for. You even trolled the Hinduism page and called the presence of swastikas on that page as "vandalism" and wanted the maintainers of that page to remove their holiest non-syllabic symbol. Just because you dont' like it (the billion Hindus are just statistical noise right ?) You have a clear political agenda, don't you ?
Your uncomfortable and knee jerk reaction to the swastika shows you true feelings better than any words could have described. You have clearly never been to India, know nothing about Indian culture or the Hindu religion and have simply no idea that 2 swastikas don't even BEGIN to do justice to the pervasive, universal, complete use of the swastika in all aspects of Indian life.
Do you think that it would be appropriate for me to go into the christianity page and comment on how many times a cross is displayed on that page ? Or talk about the size of the image depicting the cross ? (both of which you did when you complained about the swastika on the Hinduism page). And you still pretend to maintain the swastika wiki-page in a non-biased fashion ?
Feel free to go into a hindu weddings, house, market, building, or attend a diwali, rangoli or any celebration to understand this point.
I mean the very hubris of a German christian man lecturing Hindus on their religious symbols. Holy mother of God !
Ignorant and offensive offensive belief that a hindi word for a hindu+jain symbol is not intrinsically Indian", well the firstly the word isn't 'hindi', secondly the symbol is not 'intrinsically Indian' - as the article makes clear.
Are you really being dense on purpose ? Many
sanskrit words are hindi words too and swastika
is also a Hindi word (Hindi descended from Sanskrit and other languages).
Secondly, it is intrinsically indian since it is used by Billions in all facets of life, both religious and civil. Are you saying that it's use by any other society had ever approached the pervasiveness that it has in India ? Are you saying that some aborigines making swastika symbols (amongst others) is comparable or even relevant ?
Let me repeat that once again:
1 BILLION PEOPLE. 3000 YEARS. ALL FACETS OF LIFE. CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS. SANSKRIT WORD. CONSIDERED HOLY.
I think most people would agree that crosses
are intrinsic to Christianity for some of the same reasons.
Count all the swastikas in the rest of the world (all paintings, diagrams, statues whatever). It's use in india is going to
be about 10 billion symbols more. Why ?
1 billion homes, millions of transport, billions of food items, god knows how many millions of marriages, temples, scriptures,
books, buildings and on and on and on). Fly
to Delhi during diwali and starting from the airport, start counting the swastikas you see.
If you count manually, you won't be able to finish in your lifetime.
Can you point to any other country on the entire planet where this is the case ?
Do you agree that a difference of say 10 billion (to be conservative, it's more in
reality) in region A vs. region B means that
the symbol is intrinsic, embedded and
pervasive in region A ?
You are absolutely a euro-centric reverse racist by minimizing and trivializing the whole thing. Please salvage a little dignity and stop doing this.
to the anon: this would go to your talk page. Unless you get one, I won't address you again. I suggest you work on the Jainism section and show some good grace and civility. My nationality has nothing to do with this, but I do not happen to be German. Yes, the cross is not "intrinsically biblical", no dispute there. In the light of what happened in Nazi Germany, it is ridiculously bad-faith to scold the German government for attempting to restrict display of the swastika. Sure, the Jainism-in-Germany issue should be discussed, but preferably by somebody capable to keep back with the venomous polemics. dab(ᛏ) 11:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
revisions
Rather than revert, I've tried to integrate some of the more legitimate points from the above Jain contributor. But it takes a lot of time and effort and inevitably repetitions get missed (there are still several repeated statements). It's very tiring adopting this approach. However I'll summarise my intentions and some outstanding issues:
1. Putting the Hindu usage first in the overview seems legitimate.
2. The meaning of the Aryan connection is perhaps still slightly less clear than it could be, but readers can easily follow this up via the relevant articles on Indo-European topics.
3. I think the Jain contributor is probably right about the fact that the use of the motif in Amerindian culture was relatively minor, but was "blown up" during the Aryan craze when American ethnologists got all excited by the presence of swastikas, so the Navaho started sticking them on every saleable thing because they were trendy. However, I don't feel confident enough about the details of Amerindian cultural history to say this outright.
4. Someone who knows about the German legislation should contribute to the section about Jainism in Germany, however to describe the German legilature's aims as religious intolerance is surely unfair. Paul B 14:40 3 June 2005 (UTC)
thank's Paul. I cannot be bothered too much with this kind of editor, at the moment, and I appreciate your patience and good faith. dab(ᛏ) 10:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about "the holiest non-syllabic symbol (also see Om) in Hinduism." In Jainism, granted, but I don't know about an official Hindu ranking of holiness. "non-syllabic" is also bogus, there is no categorization in "syllabic" and "non-syllabic" signs, and this remark is simply crafted so the superlative can be used. I mean, see Hinduism — there is no Hindu canon, "Hinduism" is not even a Sanskrit term, it's more or less an umbrella term introduced by western Orientalists, and therefore it should be avoided to make sweeping statements about Hinduism as a whole. Yes, the swastika symbol is prevalent in India. Hell, we say so already, and have done so from the beginning, no dispute there. Hinduism is the only tradition mentioned in the intro. But to say "holiest in India, BILLIONS OF INDIANS, 3000 YEARS, uneducated westerners" in every other sentence, in unrelated parts of the article is just cheap rhetorics. dab(ᛏ) 11:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Non-Syllabic actually makes sense. If you show any Hindu / Jain / Sikh the sign of "Om", he will pronounce it as "Aum". The Swastika on the other hand has no distinct sound for it. (Like "Z" is pronounced "Zee" / "Zed", for instance) --Wcil11:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"Thor's hammer"
the "an 8th century Icelandic manuscript" reference is symptomatic for this topic. It's very simple: either give a respectable reference (which manuscript? published? when/where?), or remove it. It has the ring of a neo-pagan syncretist legend, and should not be endorsed until substantiated (I'm not saying it's necessarily false) dab(ᛏ) 10:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
LinkFix dump for "Swastika", no edits made:
Clockwise ! Disambiguation Page
Nazi % Nazism
Native American % Native Americans
Robert Baden-Powell % Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell
Boy Scout % Boy Scouts
Neo-Nazi % Neo-Nazism
Radical ! Disambiguation Page
Brahma (god) % Brahma
Celts % Celt
Native American % Native Americans
Sixth century BC % 6th century BC
Akan (ethnic group) % Akan people
Gilan % Guilan
Indo-European language % Indo-European languages
European % Europe
Twentieth century % 20th century
Westerners % Western world
Nazis % Nazism
Motif ! Disambiguation Page
Yuma ! Disambiguation Page
Brahma (god) % Brahma
Buddhist % Buddhism
Liao dynasty % Liao Dynasty
Manji ! Disambiguation Page
Om ! Disambiguation Page
Romanesque % Romanesque architecture
Chinese script % Chinese character
Tà ijÃtú % Yin and yang
Southwest United States % Southwestern United States
Fifth century % 5th century
Druidry % Druid
Anglo-Saxon % Anglo-Saxons
Robert Baden-Powell % Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell
Civil War in Finland % Finnish Civil War
Croix de Guerre % Croix de guerre
Congressional Medal of Honor % Medal of Honor
Dublin City ! Disambiguation Page
American Southwest % Southwestern United States
Native American % Native Americans
Navajo ! Disambiguation Page
Coca Cola % Coca-Cola
Hitler Jugend % Hitler Youth
Esoteric Hitlerism % Nazi mysticism
Neo-Nazi % Neo-Nazism
Neo-Nazi % Neo-Nazism
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse % Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse
Medieval % Middle Ages
Panda ! Disambiguation Page
American ! Disambiguation Page
Nazi % Nazism
Afrika Korps % Deutsches Afrikakorps
Fancy dress % Costume party
Rodlo % Union of Poles in Germany
Currently the article says that the swastika is still used in Finnish medals and decorations. Can someone verify this? Having visited the National Museum in Helsinki some time ago, I seem to recall reading there that the swastika was replaced in Finnish medals (including the Mannerheim cross) in 1961 (or thereabouts), but I could be wrong.
As I put 3 external links to Finnish Defence Forces sites, there shouldn't be such a question. Mannerheim cross is awarded only during war, and last was awarded 1945. 1963 swastikas were removed from Grand Cross of Order of White Rose chais and replaced by spruce-crosses. No other replacements. Swatiska is still included in crosses and Presidential standard, see: http://www.presidentti.fi/eng/institution/ensign.html (Graphic is not the best; there should be yellow rose in center of yellow swastika. --Thule15:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Is the swastika in Germany banned by law under most circumstances or are there other types (e.g. hindu, etc.) that make an exception? because I heard that the game Wolfenstein 3D was confiscated due to the nazish art on it. --SuperDude08:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
What a bunch of Nazis.
You're correct, under German law basically anything that could be slightly interpreted as 'nazi' will get you hung drawn and quatered with extreme prejudice. Jachin10:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
German law does not ban the swastika explicitly but the use of nazi symbols. So a swastika is banned if used as a nazi symbol, otherwise most likely not. Wolfenstein was confiscated because of use of swastikas as nazi symbols. I'm not aware of any precedents but I doubt that a hindu temple would fall foul of the law. There might be an issue of swastikas being inappropriate in Germany per se, because of sensibilities of the local people. The same would probably hold in Israel (are there any hindu temples in Israel?)195.128.250.21422:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
the game Wolfenstein 3D is forbidden in germany. maybe there is a german version of the game but then you won't find any swastika in it. in other games the swastika was replaced by white circles or the roman symbol SPQR (for example Übersoldier)
The 'neo-nazi' defaced cemetary photo
This photograph has no reference in the article, the claims in the subtitle cannot be established. Where was this photo taken? Who by? And what purpose does it serve in this article? Jachin10:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
According to the image file it was uploaded by User:Alkivar, and is from Reuters. I don't see what the problem is. It's in the section on the post-war use of the swastika in the West - including political propaganda imagery of various kinds, so it seems apt. Paul B14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
in the interest of encyclopedicity, it would still be nice to present some specific defacing of some specific cemetary, rather than saying "oh, and here's a picture of a defaced cemetary, defaced by some neonazis, somewhere, sometime". That's clipart. dab(ᛏ)12:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
image policing
I've removed Image:Taipei subway temple symbol.jpg before. It was added again, apparently without comment. So on Taipei subway maps, temples are symbolized by swastikas. big deal, seeing that we say about 50 times in this article that the symbol is sacred in Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Imho, this image is just a random snapshot with no encyclopedic value, clogging up an article that is already overburdened with images. dab(ᛏ)17:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
fine, I'll not edit-war about it; still, "the only one of contemporary use"?? what about the Hindu swastika? the Falun Gong swastika? the Neo-Nazi ones? the Raelian one? Are they not from contemporary use? I mean, Hindu temples all over India are positively plastered with the things, there must be billions of swastika 'in contemporary use'. dab(ᛏ)19:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
A metro map is printed every year or so, a wall may be old; the Raelian symbol was changed; I meant non-nazi related use.--Patrick20:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
ok, but could it be cropped? Also, showing a snapshot of a swastika used as a symbol of buddhism around as an exhibit somehow runs counter to the continued efforts of Asian editors to convince us that really the symbol is widely and currently used, honestly it has nothing to do with Nazis, that is just a western thing. It's like we didn't believe them until some westerner went to Taipei and found that *wow* they do use the swastika for Buddhism just like they use the crucifix for christianity. quick, take a picture, they were right all along, who would have thought.... That said, I don't think the image does any harm. It could just be cropped around the swastika so the article isn't dominated by a Taipei subway map too much. dab(ᛏ)21:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
It is already a photo of a little piece of the map, the whole point is to show where the symbol is used, not to just show how the symbol looks.--Patrick23:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Jainism
The Jainism section is wrong. Jains do use the Aum symbol, though it looks different, more like the ek onkar (ੴ) of Sikhism. An example can be seen here. And the swastika is not their only symbol. The hand, which represents the doctrine of ahimsa is also very important. The swastika, is their primary symbol, but not their only symbol. And a note should be made that the Jain swastika also has 3 dots and a candrabindu (ँ) atop it. I was given a link by a Jain friend months ago, but could not remember it. However the following link has the same information about the symbolism of the swastika in Jainism. The symbol shown is of course relatively new, but the symbols that it is comprised of are not. The Jain swastika can be seen on the Jain flag, though I'm not implying they don't use the basic swastika of the other dharmic religions as well. Also not even mentioned (I think) are the historical Persian use of the swastika during Noruz, and there is no mention of the Kuna people of Panama whose flag has a left facing swastika. I would normally add such info myself, but on such a naturally contentious article as this I'll consign myself to just offer these suggestions. Khirad09:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I am an avid aircraft modeller with no Nazi sympathy whatsoever. Occasionally I like to build a kit of a WWII German Luftwaffe aircraft. These, of course, have a Hakenkreuz on the tail. However, it is difficult to find kits that do not delete the swastika from the decal sheet because model manufacturers are scared of running afoul of European laws banning the swastika. I hardly think a kit of a Messerschmitt 109 with historically-accurate markings would cause someone to become a Hitlerite.--MarshallStack21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
EBAY
About anyone who has done business on EBAY knows that they are VERY strict about not selling Nazi memorabilia. This also extends to plastic models. A couple of years ago I listed a couple of Luftwaffe decal sheets on EBAY that contained the swastika. I put a disclaimer in the item descriptions saying I intended no Nazi sympathy. However, EBAY removed the items and sent me a very stinging warning e-mail about violating their "no-Nazi" content policies.
In India nowadays the right facing swastika is seen more commonly than the left facing one. However, I have always seen the left facing swastika used in Hindu rituals, never the right facing one. The left facing swastika is the traditional Hindu swastika. The right facing one seems to have now gradually imprinted itself in the minds of modern Indians, as it is the one most often seen in the media. So, Indians who are unaware of the significance, use either swastika they feel like in their decorations and Diwali festivities, however, knowledgeable Hindu priests use only the left facing swastika in religious ceremonies. The left facing swastika is the traditional Hindu symbol. The left facing swastika you see in India is the correct traditional one and not an error made by the sculptor or artist, as the article claims.
Hinduism places great significance to direction. There is indeed a belief that the right facing swastika is evil and the belief predates the Nazis. Is there any reference to support the claim in the article that the right facing swastika is the traditional Hindu symbol, rather than the left facing one? We cannot merely look at a few dozen depictions of the swastika in modern India and come to conclusions about Hindu beliefs based on which type occurs most often. What source says that the belief that the right facing swastika is evil did not exist before the Nazis and was manufactured only afterwards, as the article claims?
I admit I find it hard to get definitive information on this. Some while ago we had a very dogmatic Jain contributor who insisted that the left facing design was "evil" (see discusions above), and is universally recognised as such in India. At the time I left a message on the Hinduism page asking for input on this from Hindu contributors, but none was forthcoming. We could really do with some knowledgable input here. The sources I am aware of date back to the swastika/sauwastika debate of the mid-nineteenth century (see sauwastika article), when a claim is made that the left facing design is inauspicious in some way. But later writers deny that. The whole thing gets further complicated by the Nazi use of the right-facing design, so that that orientation then came to be seen as "evil". Some occultists like to argue that the Nazis were in some mystical way invoking "dark forces" by their choice of this orientation. It seems that you agree with the view that the right-facing design is "evil". It would be very helpful if you could provide sources for this view. Who are these knowledgable "Hindu priests" who accept this view? What are the sources for this belief? Please please can we have some clear information on this matter rather than just assertions. All I can say for certain is that there was discussion among 19th century European scholars about this, and that I have seen images of ancient swastikas oriented both ways (some are reproduced in the article). Paul B09:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
additional comment: the following passage was (in significant part) added by the Jain contributer. After I asked for comments it was left unchanged and has remained so ever since, but I must admit I've never been happy with its assertions about ignorant artists etc. "The left-facing swastika is generally regarded as evil in Hindu tradition. The much more common form in India is the right-facing swastika. Indians of all faiths rarely use the symbol in both orientations although Buddhists (outside India) can use the left-facing swastika. Sometimes, examples are said to be found of left-facing swastikas in India. These are invariably an unintended or ignorant mistake by the decorator or sculptor who created the left-facing swastika." Paul B13:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. But is it considered to be "evil"? Even if not "evil", is it thought to be inauspicious? If so, do attitudes differ between traditions and cultures within India? Paul B15:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Im the son of a Hindu pries aand as far as my father knows, the right facing one is the one that has been used in india for thousands of years.it is ufortunately also the one that Nazis use-though with a 45 degree deflection.
I think you would have to be searching for symbolism where none was intended to say there was a swastika in their logo. See e.g. [7] if you're not familiar with it. --Stormie03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This was a year ago, but I thought to add this to put this to rest: [8] -- the chairman of Columbia Sportswear, the founder's daughter, is a Jew that fled Nazi Germany. Marty428601:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hitler
But the notion that Adolf Hitler deliberately inverted the "good left-facing" swastika is wholly unsupported by any historical evidence
Should we also point out how silly this claim is since it suggests Adolf Hitler thought of himself and his actions as evil? Nil Einne22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to add something to the article to the effect that Hitler's use of the swastika and deference to India as some sort of erstwhile Aryan fatherland may have served to assuage Asian(esque) traditionalist doubts and suspicions about a government which was secretly industrialising ethnic cleansing. Does anyone object? Etaonsh09:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't object if there is any evidence that this is true, which I rather doubt. Do you have sources for this idea? What "Asian(esque) traditionalist doubts and suspicians" do you mean? As far as I am aware the Asian population of Germany was virtually nil. Of course the Japs were later termed "honourary Aryans" during WW2, but Hitler had no reason to please the Japs back in the 1920s, and anyway the swastika does not, afaik, feature hugely in Japanese culture. It was a well established Aryanist symbol in the early 20th Cent. Paul B11:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you are underestimating both international influence and Hitler's grasp of it. Hitler clearly saw beyond the 'here and now,' and unlike many national leaders, set out his long-term intentions in writing long before achieving power. However evil his actions and philosophy may be, his tactics were cunning, sending out symbolically sympathetic vibes to socialists, fascists, occultists, pagans, Finns, and Asian religions while planning industrial-scale ethnic cleansic in secrecy. It's not about 'the Asian population of Germany' or lack of it; it's about a movement taking on a British Empire which, at that time, had a massive Indian and Hindu contingent with the potential to affect the outcome of any conflict. As we know, an India almost entirely ignorant of Nazi racial atrocities focussed instead on gaining independence from Hitler's enemy. Etaonsh12:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
In the 1920s Hitler did not envisage fighting the British Empire. In Mein Kampf he asserts that Germany and Britain should form a grand coalition. Even at the end of the war he was fantasising that the Brits and Americans would switch sides to fight the Bolshevik/Asian slavic hordes! Hitler's territorial ambitions were centred on Europe in line with Haushofer's geopolitics theories. Yes, there were some pro-Nazi Indian nationalists, but mostly the Indian army remained loyal to Britain during the war. post-war independence having been promised. Anyway, what matters is having published support for any theories presented here.Paul B12:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
That India's consensual political focus was split, diverted to independence and ignorant of Nazi racist policies is undeniable. It is shown in the fact that the Indian National Army originated in collaboration with the Nazis and Japanese, and that, to this day, they have superior war pension rights to troops who supported Britain's fight against Nazism. These are not mere 'theories,' to be bolstered up by the vanity of 'published support,' but facts. And altho an evil fantasist, Hitler was clearly not the small-minded 'little European' you depict. Etaonsh17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Note also that Hitler's quotation deliberately chooses swastika over hakenkreuz (this by a man who sought to purge the German language of foreign influence!) and the possible (likely?) glance at Swaraj (Indian independence), which the Axis Powers supported in their struggle to displace the British Empire. Etaonsh21:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is certainly a fact that the Indian National Army existed, but no-one is disputing that are they? It's still a fact that most troops formed part of British forces. The "theories" in question are your claim that Hirler used the swastika to "assuage Asian(esque) traditionalist doubts". There is no evidence for this that I know of. The swastika was the princpal Aryanist symbol prior to Hitler, already in use by proto-Nazi groups. Published support has nothing to do with "vanity" but with Wikipedia: No Original Research, a policy we must follow to minimise the problem of editors adding their own unsupported speculations. No-one has presented Hitler as a little-European, but his territorial projects are well laid out in Mein Kampf and in the Hossbach Memorandum.
Hitler uses the term "Hakenkreuz" in Mein Kampf. The word "Swastika" appears here because we are using an english translation.Paul B22:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You state: 'It is certainly a fact that the Indian National Army existed, but no-one is disputing that are they?' This is somewhat opaque. Then, as if by way of explanation: 'It's still a fact that most troops formed part of British forces.' References would be handy, here. But in any case, recent history shows that the activities of 'most troops' is no surefire guide to popular sentiment. Also, you are Hitler-referential: You have, at least twice, now, on this page, dismissed reasonable statements on the basis that 'Hitler clearly stated otherwise.' You seem to need reminding that Hitler was a dastardly, cunning propagandist who deliberately set out to 'catch people napping' in this way. Re the Wikipedia: No Original Research policy: this is rather like the law on cannabis. Marijuana is illegal, yet a complete, practical ignorance of it is widely regarded as symptomatic of 'square' dysfunctionality. A rigid adherence to the Wikipedia: No Original Research policy would clearly leave nothing but plagiarism and breach of copyright. Etaonsh06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hinduism shares with Nazism a belief that some people are born superior to others. In Hindu opinions those of high Caste according to the Indian caste system are born superior to others of low caste. Those who do not accept the Hindu concept of Karma are likely to feel the treatment of low cast Hindus and Dalits, (Untouchables) is grossly unjust.
Discussions of the caste system, and unsourced vaporings about how it's similar to Nazism, are quite inappropriate in this article. If someone wants to explain—with sources—that the Nazis found much to admire in the Hindu caste system, that they consciously modeled their racist policies after it, and that they chose the swastika because of this admiration of the caste system, that would be a welcome addition to the section on Nazi Germany, alongside the other theories. Material describing how some people are likely to feel about the caste system is best left to a separate article. —Charles P. (Mirv)00:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)I’ve reverted the comments about the Swastika again with slight modification. I believe I’ve made valid comments. If others disagree, please go to arbitration.
The problem is that this is pretty marginal to "Swastika". It's much more relevant to the various "Aryan" articles, to the Indian caste system article itself, or even to Hinduism. It's also a fairly direct attack on Hinduism, and therefore provocatively POV. However, I've added a section on this theme to the Nazism part of the article. Paul B15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack16:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)I've added yet more. " Avoiding racial mixing if practiced can damage humanity. It prevents favourable genetic mutations which arise in one population spreading to other populations. In reality some racial mixing will always happen. People frequently find exotic foreigners sexually attractive. Natural selection caused humans to develop that sexual interest as it enables people to get those favourable mutations into their families and their communities."Children born from such relationships can benefit from Heterosis.
this is entirely beside the point. This is an article about a symbol, and its uses throughout history. There is a reason we have wikilinks, and you may discuss the Indian caste system in depth over at Indian caste system. THe same goes for Racism and Eugenics, which have their own articles. dab(ᛏ)
The header 'culled rant' seems offensive. I think Barbara Shack has a point which is to some extent relevant to the topic, and have attempted to illustrate this in the entry above this one. Etaonsh09:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
yeah, we could just agree that it is a very common symbol, and that we don't need a snapshot of every instance in Eurasia. Imagine people spamming rectangle with every rectangle they could get in front of their lense. dab(ᛏ)16:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It also seems to me that the (Unicode) renditions of the image in the introduction are wrong. Unless clockwise and counterclockwise have an application here that isn't properly explained, I would expect the two versions to be the other way round. --Michael Snow00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
it's stupid anyway to talk of "clockwise" when this article itself advises against using the term on "Geometry and symbolism". Use "right-facing" or "left-facing" instead. dab(ᛏ)21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
that said, and contrary what the article claims, I maintain that "left facing" is at least as ambiguous as "clockwise". which arm faces "left" (the upper or the lower one?), and which is the "face" of the arm? if the arms are "trailing", the "face" is probably opposite to where it is if the arms are seen to be "leading". I can think of no easy solution to this except than have the article define unambiguously what terms it is going to use before actually using them. dab(ᛏ)13:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Was wondering if this kind of disambig/classification helps: right-facing = the top most horizontal bar starts from the top-right corner (and top-left corner for left-facing)... It may help clarify the context of the term for the rest of the article, at least. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Swastika
Some one removed some words about association of Swastika with Buddhism and Jainism - actually, he was wrong: so I reverted the edtis. I am giving two useful links:
Anon User:70.231.242.236 removed a section from this article in this edit claiming it was "plagiarised". I have restored it since he offered no hint as to where it is allegedly plagiarised from. But I did a quick Google for it, and found (besides Wikipedia and many mirrors), this page on www.crystalinks.com which contains several sections which appear to be plagiarised from Wikipedia (the "Art and Architecture" and "Religion and Mythology" sections). A check of the Wayback Machine shows that our article here certainly predates anything on that page. What is to be done? I'm more familiar with dealing with people violating someone else's copyright in a Wikipedia article than the reverse! --Stormie13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The section was removed by me, and is plagiarized (consciously or not, I do not care) from my own dictionary on about.com. No 'hint' was given as there was not room for comment. It has reappeared in various configurations, but always with significant phrases copied directly.
I haven't cmpared with the crystal links page, but I do know that she has had that page up for a long time, and the images here seem to have been borrowed from there, so I would not be surprised if material was appropriated from there as well. 70.231.252.21214:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that the text of the "crystalinks" page is copied from an earlier version of this one, not vice versa. I recognise the text in that form, including additions and modifications by specific Wikipedia editors. I assume that is true of the images too. I'm not sure what you mean by "plagarised consciously or not". Plagiarism in the scholarly sense is not really an issue afaik. We are not passing off other people's ideas as "ours", since the article does not carry an author name. What is at issue is the use of copyrighted text. If you think the ideas referred to are original to your article, we can add reference to the source page - if it is a source. Giving the full reference to the web-page would help. Paul B15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous editor appears to be referring to this page, from which the clumsily-added reference to the Picts etc certainly seems to have been taken. [9]Paul B15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
That's it exactly, I'm not talking about ideas, but word for word copying, a number of articles under the 'symbol' heading have segments copied (and a couple of images as well). This seems deliberate now that i've found so many instances, but I haven't yet figured who's responsible.
The crystallinks page is not really an issue for me and I'll gladly take your word for it; I assumed (seems wrongly) that that was her original work.
Right, that would explain my lack of success.. I googled for some phrases near the start of the paragraph you originally removed, whereas the two sentences you have a complaint about were at the end of it. My apologies. --Stormie13:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I've sent her an email with information about this subject. Here is a copy of the text I sent:
Subject: Copyright issues of text and images.
I came upon your page about the history of the swastika symbol during a search. I found it to be very similar in wording and image use to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika which has pieces made up from various sources. I did not find any attribution of sources in your page. Several of the image you use are available under free licenses, however those tend to require a cop of or links to the license they are published under, many under the GPL (GNU Public License) or the cc (Creative Commons) license.
While using content from other sources is perfectly fine, it is often legally mandated to attribute content to those sources that it came from. A few simple links and a reference to sources would clear a lot of minds and add credence to more of your pages. I don't know if any other the persons in the above linked discussion have contacted you about this issue, but it would be a simple matter to remedy.
Thanks,
Jon.
I hope she can take a few minutes and make some easy changes. --JDP
to Paul Barlow
Your reasoning for deleting my additions are quatsch. The Nazi version of the swastika is counter-clockwise, and Falun Gong version is a clockwise rotating swastika. Just because you do not know how to read the symbol does not mean you should restrict this information. Also deleting what I said about the outward and inward focus of the swastikas is deleting an important belief about the swastika. This is the interpritation of the swastika promoted by the Nazis, and needs to be known.
Hi, the above contributor made two additions:
1. "Clockwise or counter-clockwise refers to the implied rotation of the swastika; the Nazi swastika would be a counter-clockwise swastika, while the Falun Gong swastika would be a clockwise swastika." The problem with this is that it was inserted in the middle of a paragraph that was questioning the usefulness of the terms "clockwise or counter-clockwise" to the motifs - as is clearly illustrated in the captions to the images. The point is that the swastika does not actually move, so either design could be imagined to be rotating either way. This is also discussed on this talk page above. If you want to say that followers of Falun Gong interpret their version of the motif as "clockwise" that's fine. It would be desirable to link to evidence that this is so.
2. "The clockwise/counter-clockwise use of the swastika has its own symbolism. The counter-clockwise use of the swastika denotes an outward focus, and was said by the Nazis to represent the sun's rising in the east and its traversing westward across the sky. The clockwise symbolism of the swastika is to be interpreted as an inward focus." The problem here is that the "clockwise counterclockwise" language is repeated as fact again. Yes, it's true that there was a widespread view at the time that the different versions represented the rising and setting sun, but there is nothing especially "Nazi" about that view. However, if you can quote actual Nazi texts explaining their view of the symbolism that will be useful. Paul B11:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Paul is absolutely right. Check the archives, we have spent enough time pondering this counter-clockwise/clockwise nonsense. Whatever terminology you decide to settle for, there is no orientation of the Swastika that is reserved to the Nazis. dab(ᛏ)12:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Ogham stone
The following passage has been added at some point: "The "Ogham stone" found in County Kerry, Ireland is inscribed with several swastikas dating to the fifth century AD and is believed to have been an altar stone of the ancient Celts." As far as I know, the Ogham stone is covered in Ogham script, in which the swastika does not feature. Does anyone have other information? Paul B09:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
this is nonsense. How can a 5th century Ogham stone be an "altar stone of the ancient Celts"? The term "The Ancient Celts" alone makes me shudder. I understand that there are ornamental "swastikas" in ancient (pre-Celtic!) Irish carvings (as just about anywhere at all). "The Ogham stone found in Kerry" is certainly not good enough: There about a hundred Ogham stones found in Kerry. Maybe one of them sports a swastika, if so, kindly quote its CIICCISP. In general, this article is fraying. People for some reason feel compelled to list any swastika shape scribbled on an ancient artefact. In most cases, these shapes appear as just one form in a continuum of ornaments, and to call them holy symbols or whatever is a modern projection. Notability people. Do we really need to branch off a List of artifacts adorned with Swastika-like shapes? I remind everybody (read the article!) that the first evidence of a special position of the Swastika as a holy symbol dates to 6th century BC India (generously, it might as well be a couple of centuries later). All earlier finds are consistent with simple unmarked ornamentation.
Also, this article makes an effort to define the shape of the Swastika as an angular cross etc., while all the time, implicit identification with all sorts of similar symbols (spirals, sun cross etc.) are seeping in. If similar symbols are compared or even identified with the Swastika, the article needs to come up front with who does this comparison/identification. Saying "as can be seen on the Internet" is simply not good enough (by a long way). An intelligent google search may be the first step of doing research, but it does not substitute for actual research.
Also, while it is true that in Neopaganism, the Swastika is sometimes claimed as a holy symbol of hoary antiquity, this is difficult to accomodate in the ToC as it is at present: it is neither "Pre-Christian European" (where only archaeological discussions are permissible), nor is it "Early 20th century", nor is it related to "Appearance in Media". I think we need a general "Post-Nazi" section, treating both the "Taboo" and "revival" attempts. Likewise, "Swastika usage and controversies" does not belong under "Early 20th century", nor does the "The Legend of Zelda Controversy" (sob). This article was really good at some point, but it is being drowned in crap again. For pity's sake, somebody clean it up, please. dab(ᛏ)12:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this is apparently the stone they are referring to: [10]. We have now to try to identify it, and may then list it. This would have been the job of whoever added the blurb in the first place. dab(ᛏ)13:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
it appears to be CIIC 141 or 142 [11]. Now someone go and look up Macalister. Really, we badly need to enforce some minimal standards of encyclopedicity, especially on FAs. dab(ᛏ)13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I found an actual discussion of this stone now. I beg you to compare:
"as found on the Internet":
The "Ogham stone" found in County Kerry, Ireland is inscribed with several swastikas dating to the fifth century AD and is believed to have been an altar stone of the ancient Celts."
encyclopedic, researched:
An Ogham stone found in Anglish, Co Kerry (CIIC 141) was modified into an early Christian gravestone, and was decorated with a cross pattée and two swastikas at this time.
the "History" section has swollen to seven screens worth of speculation about birds and comets, apparently by Mr. Korbes. What are we going to do about it? Branch out? Request more sources? Plaster the section with {{fact}}? Summarize? dab(ᛏ)13:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of any proponents of the bird's-foot theory other than Mr Korbes himself. The passages he has added are also written as if to persuade us of the importance of the bird's-foot explanation. Surely the obvious explanation of the "long-tailed pheasant" description of the comet is the long tail, not a footprint, but to say that in the article would be OR. I'd rather these speculations were reduced to a sentence or two as they skew the article towards a fringe view. Paul B13:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The point is to add support for the influence of a comet in how this motif became so widespread and why the design is often associated with birds. For example why would the swastika like symbol from Africa be called "the talons of the eagle" if there were no substance to this relationship? As for the "long tailed pheasant"--as I suggested: the foot-print of an animal can represent that creature so the long tail is only an added term of description, supplied by the person who composed the silk comet atlas, for a bird that could produce such a foot-print. The visual similarity of the swastika to an owl's foot is well illustrated here. bobk
of course, I am not saying your theories should be removed entirely; you did publish them, and it's fair enough to mention them; however, you are adding your own original research here, and you are unsurprisingly biased towards your own conclusions -- therefore it might be best to let others summarize your theses. dab(ᛏ)17:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the content being altered or I would not have offered it on Wikipedia but I do think that this particular aspect of the history of this motif should be better understood. Comets have visually impressed people of all cultures and the influence of these flamboyant objects was much greater prior to artificial lighting and an improved understanding of what comets actually were. The shapes comets can produce are only recently becoming better observed and understood so it is not surprising that the influence they have had on the art and ideas of humanity are yet to be well established. From the interests he describes, Paul Barlow might enjoy seeing if he can identify a common idea or story behind these visual compositions. Bkobres18:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) bobk
nice image, the Boioitian one; I would prefer to have that than most of those we have right now. Now, even granted that comets may take swastika shapes, that's not exactly typical, it's one shape of a dozen on the silk atlas; how many centuries do you reckon do you have to watch the skies before you see a shape like that? Surely, if the swastika has a significance already, a swastika shaped comet will seem significant, but I don't see how it can work the other way round, or how the swastika could become a generic symbol for "comet". Be that as it may, we can document swastika shapes from the Neolithic onwards, but the Boiotian vase (600 BC) is really among the earliest artifacts where the shape is apparent as singled out as a symbol. So our article should really focus on times from 600 BC onward, maybe mentioning in passing that similar shapes are found earlier, and that comparisons with comets and bird talons have been drawn. dab(ᛏ)19:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
One thing that I did not mention that was reported by Sagan regarding the silk, is that the swastika like comet was the only one with an omen for all four seasons, which would imply that it was seen fairly often. This suggested frequency of appearence adds support to the notion that this particular comet was part of the Taurid debris complex, which includes comet Encke. This mixture of dust, meteoroids, asteroids (out-gassed comet nuclei) and comet Encke have an orbit of only ~3.3 years so the larger fragments of this complex could have put on quite a show for sometime as they lost the volatiles that made them appear as comets. This short period orbit also allowed the same objects to be viewed differently at different times of the year as I've crudely illustrated here. Bkobres21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) bobk
well, I think it is definitely time to branch out a separate "Han Dynasty silk comet atlas" article by now, so these things can be discussed at leisure there. dab(ᛏ)21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That works fine for me. Also I've uploaded a very altered version of the Boeotian funeral vase that should be OK as far as copyrights: and a version I redrew around ten years ago: Bkobres23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC) bobk
Hi again, I think part of the problem here is the old one of defining a "swastika". I don't doubt that some of these markings can reasonably be related to bird-tracks, or interpreted as attempts to portray them. The one called "talons of an eagle" is presumably so-called because that's what it looks like. Each of the "arms" curves to a point. But this is not the case with the archetypal swastika. I do think we need a separate page on stylised bird motifs, with a couple of sentences here about the problem of interpreting motifs as "swastikas". This is an important issue, because Schliemann's efforts to Aryanise the Trojans is at the root of this history. He's looking for something visible - archaelogical - that can be used to support the well established ethnolinguistic arguments about IE migrations. So I think it's reasonable to discuss how he and later writers overstressed the commonality of widely divergent motifs, creating a narrative concerning "swastikas" that does notr exist in any comparable form with other motifs - squares, crosses, spirals etc. Paul B14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Greek coins
searching the Perseus database, I found a number of coins, one of ca. 600 BC [12] and one of ca. 400 BC [13]. There are also a number of vase images (about six), but the symbol is comparatively rare. Thus the Boioitian vase referred to above is really special, and we should maybe mention it (also with reference to the potnia theron. dab(ᛏ)20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Socialist Swastika
As we know, Rex Curry is back again pushing his "S" for socialism theory. I wonder if we need to at least address the real evidence for socialist imagery in the Nazi flag, which is clearly articulated by Hitler "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic." (Mein Kampf). It's clear from this that the red in the Nazi flag stands for socialism ("the social idea of the movement") appropriated from the traditional socialist Red Flag. The white stands for German Nationalism and the swastika for "Aryan man". There is a very faint hint that the cross piece might be seen as an S, signifying "sieg", but it's barely perceptible. There is no hint at all that it signifies socialism since Hitler has already said that the red stands for that. Paul B14:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Much as one reviles Nazi delusions of socialism it does seem possible that a double 's' could stand for Sozialistischer Sieg. Otherwise, Nazis noticing the obvious 'conjoined double s' possibility might be forced to conclude it merely indicated SS supremacy. I don't feel impressed by argument to the effect that 'S can't mean x because Hitler said something else meant x'(!). Etaonsh10:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The Chinese character 卐 has developed into the modern one 方, pronounced fāng in Standard Mandarin, and has the main meaning of "square".
as it is unsourced and probably untrue: the Chinese character 方 long predates the influx of Buddhism in China. --Pkchan05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it (I believe from the current China Exhibition at the Royal Academy) the Chinese swastika character meant '10,000,' and therefore seems likely to have served as yet another Chinese longevity device, a genre with which Imperial China and its artists and craftsmen appear to have nurtured something of a cult. It seems, in such a context, to share a note of imperious, hyperbolic bumptiousness with Hitler's notion of the 'Thousand-Year Reich! '. It seems oddly synchronicitous if the successor of the ancient symbol, so similar to the Nazi motif, means 'square'(!). Etaonsh18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Offtopic comment on etymology
In Serbian language, svastika means "wife's sister". Little thing associated with well-being, indeed! :))) Nikola21:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Opening...
With such an important article I don't want to tamper with the opening paragraph unannounced, but it doesn't specify anywhere in the first sentence that it has anything to with religion or spirituality, and then just states the following out of the blue
the Hindu version is often decorated with a dot in each quadrant.
The devanagary text reads स्वस्तिक 'svastaki' were it should read 'svastika' स्वस्ितक
And even if it is funny to pronounce, as it sounds like a greek dish, it may confuse people learning sanskrit or devangari script.
If anyone has a comment...
and if someone may correct it please do so.
James Jasos Bach
It’s a Unicode issue. Quoting myself from 2005-01-23:
”I corrected the Sanskrit character order. The Unicode standard 4.0.0, section 9.1 says: "In a text sequence, these [Devanagari] characters are stored in logical (phonetic) order." So, I should be entered after TA, not before. T42 00:45, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)” T42
The thing here is that the 'correct' form in sanskrit devangari for the vowel 'i' is an vertical line to be put before the consonant after which it is sounded and be connected to it by a 'over-line' lace. And in the case that it would be not 'i' but 'ii' then it should be placed after the consonat phonetically presiding it, but the graphic lace between them must exist nevertheless.
Here it is also interesting the comentary brought about 'asti' being the 3rth person singular asati
(to be) in which case it perhaps is 'svastiika' (su- asti- ika) but i really doubt it, for assymilation would had taken place.
J.J.B.
Since the naval base with the building which look like a swastika from the air doesn't predate WWII, I removed the line saying that the building predate WWII. The land the buildings in quetion sit upon wasn't even above water, prior to WWII. From http://www.nbc.navy.mil/index.asp?fuseaction=NBCInstallations.NABC "The Naval Amphibious Base (NAB), Coronado was established in 1943 after the land was literally created from the dredging of San Diego Bay done to allow large ships used in World War II to steam into Naval Station San Diego... Formally commissioned in January 1944, Naval Amphibious Base (NAB), Coronado provides a shore base for the operations, training, and support of naval amphibious units on the West Coast. It is one of only two Navy amphibious training bases in the United States. NAB is approximately 1,000 acres in size and is composed of the Main Base, training beaches, California least tern preserve, recreational marina, enlisted family housing, and state park. State Highway 75 separates NAB into surfside (ocean) and bayside portions. The majority of the bayside is composed of fill materials dredged from San Diego Bay in the early 1940s. Amphibious training is conducted on both surfside and bayside beaches. To the south of the Main Base, the majority of amphibious training activities take place on about 257 acres of ocean beachfront property, leased from the State of California. A least tern nesting preserve is located on North and South Delta Beach between the NAB Marina and Main Base. NAB is located within the city of Coronado, California, a community of approximately 30,000. The city of Coronado covers nearly 9 square miles of land, and NAB lies south of the main residential and commercial portions of the city. Another naval facility, Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island, is located northwest of the city of Coronado. South of NAB is the Silver Strand State Beach" Adelord05:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Swastika in trade logo
This bit of information may be useful for those interested in swastikas used in trade logos and the history and attitudes of the peoples of the Pacific Northwest. I have an artifact - a concrete utility sink - with a swastika logo on it.
The swastika is in the center of an oval logo impression made into the front center of the sink. The oval is 8 inches across and 4 inches high. The swastika is 2 inches across, right facing and "square" (not tilted). Within the oval and following its curve are the words "Washington" and "Charcrete Co." above and below the swastika respectively. To the left of the swastika within the oval is the word "Trade".
The question that is interesting to me is whether the company chose to use the swastika out of inclinations toward the nazi mind set or for other reasons. This question could be addressed by dating the companies use of the symbol.
I have not found any evidence of a date on the sink. The sink was some of the "garbage" found in our house in Seattle Washington USA when we moved in. The house dates to 1910, but was reportedly moved to its current location sometime later (but before 1938). Of course, the sink may have come into the house at a later date.
Perhaps there is someone out there with first hand knowledge of the Washington Charcrete Co.?
I agree that that would be an interesting bit of trivia and would add to the value of the article. If I come across something, I'll mention it. --DanielCD22:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
On the Nazi flag
Hitler describes the creation of the Nazi flag in quite a lot of detail in Mein Kampf. It all boils down to his personal preferences and nostalgia for the "old colours" of pre-WWI Germany in the end, but, for the record, here is the full relevant passage. -- Nikodemos06:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"The Movement which is fighting Marxism today along these lines must display on its banner the symbol of the new State.
The question of the new flag, that is to say the form and appearance it must take, kept us very busy in those days. Suggestions poured in from all quarters, which although well meant were more or less impossible in practice. The new flag had not only to become a symbol expressing our own struggle but on the other hand it was necessary that it should prove effective as a large poster. All those who busy themselves with the tastes of the public will recognize and appreciate the great importance of these apparently petty matters. In hundreds of thousands of cases a really striking emblem may be the first cause of awakening interest in a movement.
For this reason we declined all suggestions from various quarters for identifying our movement by means of a white flag with the old State or rather with those decrepit parties whose sole political objective is the restoration of past conditions. And, apart from this, white is not a colour capable of attracting and focusing public attention. It is a colour suitable only for young women's associations and not for a movement that stands for reform in a revolutionary period.
Black was also suggested – certainly well-suited to the times, but embodying no significance to empress the will behind our movement. And, finally, black is incapable of attracting attention.
White and blue was discarded, despite its admirable æsthetic appeal – as being the colours of an individual German Federal State – a State that, unfortunately, through its political attitude of particularist narrow-mindedness did not enjoy a good reputation. And, generally speaking, with these colours it would have been difficult to attract attention to our movement. The same applies to black and white.
Black, red and gold did not enter the question at all.
And this also applies to black, white and red for reasons already stated [earlier he said that those colours had been disgraced by defeat in WWI]. At least, not in the form hitherto in use. But the effectiveness of these three colours is far superior to all the others and they are certainly the most strikingly harmonious combination to be found.
I myself was always for keeping the old colours [red, white and black], not only because I, as a soldier, regarded them as my most sacred possession, but because in their aesthetic effect, they conformed more than anything else to my personal taste. Accordingly I had to discard all the innumerable suggestions and designs which had been proposed for the new movement, among which were many that had incorporated the swastika into the old colours. I, as leader, was unwilling to make public my own design, as it was possible that someone else could come forward with a design just as good, if not better, than my own. As a matter of fact, a dental surgeon from Starnberg submitted a good design very similar to mine, with only one mistake, in that his swastika with curved corners was set upon a white background.
After innumerable trials I decided upon a final form – a flag of red material with a white disc bearing in its centre a black swastika. After many trials I obtained the correct proportions between the dimensions of the flag and of the white central disc, as well as that of the swastika. And this is how it has remained ever since."
There is no speculation in the passage in question. Hitler is absolutely specific about the significance he attached to the design, and I suspect you are very well aware of the fact. Here is the relevant passage:
"In the red we see the social idea of the movement, in the white the national idea, in the swastika the mission to struggle for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time the victory of the idea of creative work, which is eternally anti-Semitic and will always be anti-Semitic."
Here he is quite clear that the white stands for the "national" aspect of National Socialism, that the red stands for the "social(ist)" and that the swastika symbolises the racial (Aryan) idea. That it can also refer to the old red, white and black flag is no contradiction. After all, he also says these colours were preferred because they were "the most stikingly harmonious", and he wanted something that would look vivid and effective on a poster. In fact the black/white/red combination was common in modern graphic design at the time. It was the most "trendy" colour combination of the period, as it were.
Also, remember that the socialist aspects of National Socialism were a prominent part of the movement at this time (in the 1920s), and Hitler needed to keep on board Rohm, the Strasser brothers and others. You may not think that "National Socialism" has anything much to do with socialism as you understand it, but that does not alter the fact that they used the word and that Hitler said that the red in the flag stood for that aspect of the movement. This is unambiguous. It is simply false to say this is "unsourced" when it is a direct quotation. Paul B11:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment. The chapter in which Hitler discusses this issue is one in which he is explaining his struggle against the Marxist "Red Front", and describing the difference - in his eyes - between "socialism" and "Marxism". Shortly before the passage you cite he states explicitly that the red has been taken from the Marxist "Reds" in order to emphasise this point. "The red color of our posters in itself drew them to our meeting halls. The run-of-the-mill bourgeoisie were horrified that we had seized upon the red of the Bolsheviks, and they regarded this as all very ambiguous. The German national souls kept privately whispering to each other the suspicion that basically we were nothing but a species of Marxism, perhaps Marxists, or rather, socialists in disguise. For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism." He then goes on to discuss the debates about the choice of colours and design in the passage you cite, and sums up the meaning of the final choice in the "victory of Aryan man" passage. [16]Paul B13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hitler dedicates an entire chapter to explaining his opposition to Marxism, Bolshevism, and every other form of socialism (except his self-proclaimed "National Socialism", of course). This particular fact should not go unmentioned. He does say that Marxism and "socialism" are very different things in his view, but he does not elaborate on this point, and does not explain what his idea of "socialism" actually is. Also, the social/national/racial symbolism of the flag is mentioned only after Hitler says he chose the colours for their historical association with Germany:
"Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. [...]"
So first he chose the colours, then he realized they may be used to represent the party programme too.
I think the best way to settle our dispute is to use Hitler's own words rather than our interpretation thereof. I will edit the article in this spirit; please let me know what you think. -- Nikodemos20:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC).
Hitler Brought the Swastika with him to the Party when he became member. His first encounter with his symbole when he was a little boy and he was singing in the churchchoir, where the swastika was a onrament. Dixit BBC report: Hitler A fatal Attraction (Dobby-fc16:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
No, the swastika was well established as an Aryanist symbol quite independently of Hitler's personal experience, and was used by Aryanist groups well before it was adopted by the party. Paul B20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Translation of ' Hakenkreuz ' as 'swastika' in English Mein Kampf
This seems one of two things: either it is the ultimate example of how something can get 'lost in translation,' or it is a deliberate attempt to appeal to an international audience. 'Swastika' has clear Indian connotations, whereas part and parcel of Hitler's Nazi 'mission' was to expunge evidence of foreign influence in the German language. Relevant here (but unknown at this point in time) is the degree of liberty enjoyed by the English translator(s) - obeying Nazi orders?; or independently seeking to advise of content in the simplest, most understandable terms? Unfortunately, translating Hakenkreuz as 'swastika' would give, at the time, thru English, a completely misleading impression of an eclectic linguistic cosmopolitanism, and has the current effect of stigmatising a word from a sub-continent where, paradoxically, the symbol is associated with harmlessness. Etaonsh07:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
etymology
I see that there has already been much discussion about the etymology of the Sanskrit word "svastika," but changes are merited. These are the ones I propose, which I'll make unless they raise dissent on the talk page:
First, the root (Skt. "dhaatu") "as" does not mean "to be," it means "is, be"; Sanskrit has a true infinitive, so this is important.
Second, a brief mention should be made of the phonological rule of assimilation (Skt. "sandhi") that causes the prefix "su" and the noun "asti" to form the praadisamaasa compound "svasti," namely, that before a vowel, "u" shifts to its homologous semivowel "v."
Third, it would be worthwhile to indicate that the word "asti" is a primary derivative (Skt. "k.rt pratyaya") of the dhaatu "as," using the common suffix "ti," (e.g. "gati" from the dhaatu "gam," "mukti" from the dhaatu "muc," etc.), which should set to rest the idea that the "asti" in question here is the 3rd pers. sing. present indicative, which it is not; it is a noun.
Fourth, and most importantly, the suffix "ka" is not always a diminutive, and it is not functioning as such here: it is an agentive marker. True, the taddhita pratyaya (secondary suffix) "ka" _can_ indicate a diminutive sense, but it can also indicate bahuvriihi usage, and most frequently it is an agentive marker. For instance, when applied to the noun "ruupam" (form), the "ka" suffix creates the word "ruupaka" ("form-making," or "metaphor").
So, for svastika, here is the full derivation: k.rt pratyaya of "ti" is appended to the dhaatu "as" to form the noun "asti" ("being"). Adding the prefix "su" ("good") results in the praadisamaasa "svasti" ("wellbeing"). Adding the taddhita pratyaya "ka" results in the agentive noun "svastika" ("[something that] creates wellbeing"). Bmani00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
it is conventional to give English infinitives as root meanings, if you understand the term root, this is without consequence. Discussion of sandhi seems over the top for the purposes of this article, this not being an article on Sanskrit morphology. I very much agree with your third point, and have repeatedly removed the "3rd person" mistake in the past, but I think this is made sufficiently clear in "western" terminology in " asti a verbal abstract to the root as", I don't think there is a need to confuse the reader with the equivalent term k.rt pratyaya (although it would of course be entirely correct to use it). Your final point is very valid too, and ka is the only of the four morphemes (su-as-ti-ka) that may be open to debate. I don't have Wackernagel ready just now, but I think it would be a good idea to say that ka has various functions. Bottom line, I would support edits adressing your fourth point. dab(ᛏ)17:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thanks for looking at this. I cringe to see dhaatus cited as infinitives in English, since the stasis implied by a verbal root was to become such an interesting philosophical question for "Sa~nkara, but of course take your point. Blasted English with its lack of a true infinitive. Similarly, I suppose the other questions of how deeply one wants to explore the Sanskrit etymology of the term depends on the view of readership; as someone who strongly supports widening the audience of Sanskrit grammar, I tend towards the Sanskrit end but that's a matter of opinion. Wackernagel's "Altindische Grammatik"? Do you also use Böhtlingk's "Panini's Grammatik"? Volume II in particular is enormously useful. Bmani22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the reference to the "Forced occupation" of Finland by Nazi Germany, since none such took place. I refer to the article Continuation War, for instance. Also, it is not strictly true that the swastika has been replaced by a roundel in all instances (for instance the medals mentioned in the same paragraph) so I do not think the rest of the sentence is very accurate either.
German troops were in Lapland by agreement of Finland. After Finland made peace with Soviet Union, the later demanded to declare war against Germany. That was Lapland War. --Thule23:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Not correct. Soviet union wanted germans removed from Finland and they refused to leave (at least on the timeframe given by soviets) so lapland war was started.
The Persian Influence
It saddens me to see criticals parts of such an important symbol not defined.
I am organising an summary of the Persian influence and usage of the Swastika which I will put up soon.
The Introduction of the Swastika to India
Please fix the error which suggests that the Swastika was introduced to India by Indian kings. As a historian, as well as enthusiast regarding this subject, the Swastika was introduced to India by the Old Persians along side the Sanskrit language. Infact the earliest Sanskrit writings found in the world are in Iran (Persia), as well as shards using the Swastika symbol, were found in Northeren Iran, dating back 5000 bc. There are also thousands of documented writings demonstrating how the swastika was introduced to India along side the introduction of the Sanskrit language.
The traditional view was certainly that the swastika is an Indo-Iranian motif, but the Elamite and IVC discoveries suggest that its presence pre-dates Indo-Iranian culture in the area (though of course similar shapes used thousands of years apart do not necessarily imply continuity of symbolism). Northern Iran in 5000BC was not a Sanskrit speaking culture. You also seem to be conflating Elamites and Iranians. We have to be careful how we define cultures, and avoid pointless nationalist arguing over who had it first. But we also have to represent different points of view. BTW, new discussions should be placed at the bottom of the page. Paul B10:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any reference to the 5000BC date, which seems rather early! Where did you get this date? Paul B11:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, you seem to have got the date from here, [http://www.cais-soas.com/news/2005/july2005/12-07-swastika.htm], cutting and pasting the passage complete with "1020" reference, but this is the only source I can find - after a quick search - with this date, and the passage that includes it seems odd. Paul B11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Paul, there are many many pages regarding the findings in Persian. I will write a letter to the Iranian Foreign Ministry requesting more information in English to be published. However, here is two sources i quickly found on google: http://www.cais-soas.com/news/2005/july2005/12-07-swastika.htm (middle half way down the page) http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=205701 in English, reporting the findings and the 5000bc. Perhaps I can request a translation from the Iranian Foreign Ministry in regards to their findings since all the comphrehensive, detailed and archaelogical details are written in Persian.
You should also try other terms rather than Swastika since Persians do not call it the Swastika, they refer to it the Roundabout of the Sun / Myst and its more likely for people inside of Iran to refer to it by those names.
In regards to the Sanksrit introduction, doing more research, I realise it was a v. similar script called Avestan "the Aryan Language" http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Languages/aryan/aryan_language.htm It is documented that both Sanskrit and Old Persian are derivations of an older language, Avestan (Aryan Language).
Quote from website: Many languages have been used in the long history of Persia. The speech of the court and nobility in the days of Darius I was Old Persian, a tongue so closely related to Sanskrit that evidently they are both dialects of some language older still. http://www.theology.edu/lec24.htm
Quote from Wikipedia (LOL): The Avestan sound differs from the later Old Persian chiefly by the larger inventory of vowels. As opposed to Sanskrit, Avestan has retained voiced sibilants, and has fricative rather than aspirate series. There are various conventions for transliteration.
I have many sources I will add later.
Im not disputing the prosperation of Sanskrit in India, but the form and origination of Sanskrit is infact from Persia. Its a bit like saying the language they speak in Australia originated from UK. Although the English didn't take massive twists, the principle is still the same. Even now, when you compare, Hindi, Sanskrit and modern-Persian you realise vast number of words that are exactly similar, and majority of the words being a close variation of Avestan.
On another note, Zorastrainism was Persia's (Iran) national religion before the Islamic invasion. Many who wanted to keep their Zorastrian religion, had to flee to India to seek refuge, and are the people we now know as Parsee's in India who make great use of the Swastika. Hence the name Parsee's/Parsi's which mean Persians / people of Persian origin. Even until this day Persians use Pars to refer to ancient Iran, also bear in mind the word Farsi which is the word used to describe the modern Persian language.
Your first link is the same as the one I have already posted as your likely source. The second one says nothing about 5000BC. My guess is that the first link is copied from the second (many paragraphs are identical) with some idiosyncratic material - including the 5000BC date - being added. Possibly the date is a misunderstanding from a comment somewhere about it being possibly 5000 years old. But maybe not. We shall await the information you have requested! Regarding the history of Iranian languages, you might want to read Elam, Indo-Iranians, Proto-Indo-European. Very few people believe that an Iranian language existed in 5000BC. Paul B17:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"Sir Jones was the first to suggest that Sanskrit originated from the same source as Latin, Greek and Persian, thus laying the foundation for the comparative study of what we now refer as the Indo European languages." http://hinduwebsite.com/general/sanskrit.asp, its very sad that all these great history books I have are not online or in English. I emailed then Iranian Foreign Ministry today, and will keep us updated. But perhaps this website will shed some light on the Persian origins of Sanskrit http://hinduwebsite.com/general/sanskrit.asp from a Hindu Website. There are many many more documentation, unfortunately yet to be translated to English. As a encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia I think it is imperative that we look at sources other than English to ensure 100% credibility to the provided information. I will translate phrases, and list books of useful value in due time.
Misleading Photograph description
The description for the photograph is misleading. The swastika like symbol shown on the flag is not really a swastika, but it denotes the mark that will be cast on the ballot paper when a vote is cast. When this mark is depicted on the flag, it merely conveys that the sickle and hammer is official election symbol (ballot papers in South Asia have symbols for the contesting parties) for the communist party.
The section on a Californian shop - if it is noteworthy enough to occupy as much space as it does - needs referencing. TheGrappler03:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Use of the swastika prohibited?
I have a question concerning the use of swastika's on for example, video game covers, book covers or film posters. I thought the public display/use of these symbols was banned or restricted in most countries. Philip K Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" has this famous cover art [17], but I was wondering in what countries (if any at all) this is legal and if so under what guidelines. --Steerpike17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the display of the swastika in virtually any form is prohibited in Germany; beyond that, I don't know, aside from that there's no prohibition on its display in the United States (although it's considered highly distasteful). --Emufarmers(T/C)13:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In what way? It's simply illustrating the use of the swastika to make political points. The article does not endorse the point that the catoonist is making about Danish politicians. Paul B23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
New Mexico State University Yearbook
New Mexico State University named it's yearbook the Swastika in 1912 after the Native American symbol used throughout the region. It dropped the name in 1968, but retained the symbol on it's cover till the 1980's.
Loki-dog15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Geometry and symbolism
Removed the following paragraph as it is entirely unsourced and IMO not very encyclopedic in its wording:
As a mystical image, the swastika is often seen in a "vision" as a field of equal "perfect crosses" in rotation, the outer portion of the arms being seen as after images that are seen like the tips of rotating aircraft propellers or fan blades in videos. The direction of rotation seen by the person having the vision is considered to be indicative of the direction of their spiritual movement as either ascendant toward the Light or descendent toward the Darkness. The most auspicious such "vision" is when the person having the "vision" discovers that they can choose through "essential will" (as compared to mechanistic "ego will") and change the direction of rotation first one way, then reverse and then back again. This is considered to be an indication of spiritual maturation and self-responsibility."
The description of these "visions" could potentally be interesting if anyone can find corroborating sources, presumably from some spiritual discipline; but "is considered to be" doesn't cut it. — Xaonon (Talk) 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's clear to me that the swastika is a symbol, not simply of the Sun, but of a whirl or gyre. The rotational movement is inherent in the geometry of the symbol. Furthermore, the direction of vortex is also obvious- the right-facing swastika (ie the one used by the Nazis) is a COUNTER-clockwise rotating gyre. The left-facing swastika, or the one more commonly used by Native Americans, is a clockwise rotating gyre. The reasoning behind this logic is simple- look at a photo of a galaxy. The spiral arms trail behind the direction of the rotation! Therefore, there should be no debate over which version of the symbol is sunwise or clockwise- the version with arms that are bent to the right is a counterclockwise (or "widdershins") rotating gyre. The version with arms bent to the left is the clockwise rotating gyre. When something spins, and objects spill out from the ends of its arms, they fall behind the arms, not forward of the spin. This is simple physics, and irrefutable in my opinion. This is one of those incidences where physics does meet metaphysics, and each one colloborates the other.
In discussing "evil" and "good" swastikas, I would hope that Wikipedia would mention how Native Americans and other pagans believe that everything moves in circles, and that these circles move clockwise in blessings, and counterclockwise in curses, making the right-facing swastika the one with the negative connotation, appropriately enough, considering this version is the one the whole world knows as the Nazi symbol. Historical use of the swastika aside, this version of the symbol is tainted, at least in the Western world, by the stigma of Nazism.
168.13.191.6618:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Keith Savage, shamanic neo-pagan.
left-wing German convicted for selling crossed-out swastika symbols
See this story. From the German WP: "Das Landgericht Stuttgart hat am Freitag 29.09.2006 diesen Versandhändler und bekennenden Antifaschisten zu einer Geldstrafe von 3600 Euro verurteilt." -> "Friday, September 9, 2006, Stuttgart district court fined this mail order retailer and confessing anti-fascist (Jürgen Kamm) 3600 Euros." The sentence is currently being appealed. The reason given for the conviction was that any use of the swastika symbol, even in a clearly anti-fascist context, can lead to habituation and thereby desensitization against the illegal symbol and its extremist context. In my opinion, definitely worth including, what do you all think? Subversive element12:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we could add it, but this isn't the only case. The current article text reads, "the German postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons and for the purpose of showing opposition to Nazism (in which case the swastika is crossed out, broken, etc)" — obviously needs updating. That's sourced from here, which mentions the case of a student wearing an anti-Nazi symbol on his backpack. He was initially fined, but won the appeal. — Matt Crypto12:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I read about that student case, too. I'm going to look into it, but I suggest waiting for the appeal decision in the other case, because they are essentially deciding on the legality of anti-fascist use of the swastika symbol and the apparent self-contradiction of German law concerning the subject matter. So after that appeal we could include something a bit more definite/lasting into the article. Subversive element16:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
i added the section "taboo in western countries - germany" and gave some examples. i tried to translate the relevant passage of german criminal law, but failed miserably. if someone is better equipped to render german legalese into readable english, here is the passage:
“
§ 86 Stgb Verbreiten von Propagandamitteln verfassungswidriger Organisationen
(3) Absatz 1 gilt nicht, wenn das Propagandamittel oder die Handlung der staatsbürgerlichen Aufklärung, der Abwehr verfassungswidriger Bestrebungen, der Kunst oder der Wissenschaft, der Forschung oder der Lehre, der Berichterstattung über Vorgänge des Zeitgeschehens oder der Geschichte oder ähnlichen Zwecken dient.
I'm not an expert at law OR English, but decided to give it a shot. I included a link to German legal citation for explanation on the différance between the English paragraph and the German Paragraph (§).
“
§ 86 Stgb on spreading of instruments of propaganda of unconstitutional organisations
Subsection (3): Subsection (1) does not apply, if the instrument of propaganda or the act of citizen education (in question), is serving in the defense against unconstitutional efforts, (or for) the arts or science, research or teaching, media coverage of events of the day or history, or similar purposes.
§ 86 Stgb on spreading of propaganda of unconstitutional organisations
Subsection (3): Subsection (1) does not apply, if the instrument or act of propaganda serves the education of the citizenry, the defense against unconstitutional efforts, the arts and sciences, research, teaching, the report of current or historical events or similar purposes.
”
that would be my alterations. thank you very much for taking the effort. i thoroughly hate legalese, german legalese in particular.-- ExpImptalkcon23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Handlung der staatsbürgerlichen Aufklärung" doesn't mean an "act of propaganda" or an end to which it happens. If I get it right, it means an educational act involving the use of means of propaganda (rather than "instrument of propaganda", according to your source below). Subversive element07:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
the website claims the translation is provided by the Federal Ministry of Justice of Germany
“
Section 86 Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations
(1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda:
1. of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party;
2. of an organization, which has been banned, no longer subject to appeal, because it is directed against the constitutional order or against the idea of international understanding, or as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a banned organization;
3. of a government, organization or institution outside of the territorial area of application of this law which is active in pursuing the objectives of one of the parties or organizations indicated in numbers 1 and 2; or
4. means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Means of propaganda within the meaning of subsection (1) shall only be those writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) the content of which is directed against the free, democratic constitutional order or the idea of international understanding.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.
(4) If guilt is slight, the court may refrain from imposition of punishment pursuant to this provision.
Section 86a Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations
(1) Whoever:
1. domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in Section 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or
2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto.
(3) Section 86 subsections (3) and (4), shall apply accordingly.
”
I believe Section 86a(2) is especially relevant as in "Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those..." and the previously seen 86(2) with "...serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims..." -- ExpImptalkcon00:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
German law
Would the Finland swastika's be illegal in Germany? It's not a religious symbol nor is it for scholarly purposes. Nil Einne20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
i live in germany and i'm sure it's illegal. it's even forbidden to show a smashed one!
Revert
I reverted some recent edits ([18]) to the intro which changed "swastika" to "swastik", but made the first sentence hard to understand. This just seems like a transliteration issue, but since it was a good faith edit I'm letting you guys know in case you want to use it in any way. Rampart03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Eki Naryn swastika
Here's a link to a recent NYT article (abstract) regarding a forest swastika in Kyrgizstan. I wasn't able to find a photo, however. Apparently, there's much uncertainty about whether it was planted by German POW slave laborers or by others. Does anyone have any independent info on this?
Everyone agrees that Hitler misused an ancient and beautiful Swastika symbol. It is understandable that Jews are allergic to the symbol. A historical blunder of a lunatic cannot be reason to wipe out this symbol from day-to-day usage. Europeans should feel proud of their ancient symbol and resurrect it in Europe and other continents where they settled.
"Wikipedia announces discoveries from Opinion Editorials & the historian Dr. Rex Curry"
by Rex Curry
"Wikipedia is helping to announce amazing discoveries that first appeared on OpinionEditorials.com in a recent article by the noted historian Dr. Rex Curry..."
"Wikipedia is known as an online encyclopedia. The Wiki article repeats information from the Opinion Editorials article by Dr. Curry under the title "Swastika," with the sub heading "Russia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Russia ..."
Actually Rex is presenting the information in his characteristically distorted way to support his eccentric theory of the "socialist" meaning of the symbol, by claiming that the Bolshevik revolutionry government used the swastika in 1917. In fact it was the liberal "provisional government" of Kerensky that used the symbol on banknotes. There is a lot of evidence of this - you can even buy the notes on ebay - so it's hardly a "discovery" of Rex's. However, for some reason the reference to these notes has now been deleted from the article. Paul B12:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was removed because it was unsourced, and the mere fact that Rex Curry claims support from it does place it under a cloud of suspicion ;-) — Matt Crypto12:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Re the citation regarding Rosenberg - yes, it's not the best source, since it seems to be a neo-Nazi website. It was just the first one that came up. I'll look for a better one. Paul B12:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still looking, but most of the stuff that makes the connection with Rosenberg is depressingly fringy, though there's nothing obviously silly about the idea of such a connection. Paul B11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Swastika in Korea
In the Buddhist tradition, the swastika is used in Korean Buddhism. It seems that its main function is to identify a temple, on its face, and also on maps. However, nobody seems to know if the swastika has its own name or word in Korean. The most common one, which isn't really common, is "cheon pyo ji" which translates as "temple marking" or "temply sign". Does anyone have any input on this. It does not seem that the swastika is treated as "Hanja", a Chinese character.
POV in Header Paragraphs
The aside "Unfortunately" in the summary sentence noting the Western connotations at the start of this article seems POV-biased to me. I'm removing it. I'm not a Nazi.
Removed a final sentence in the North America section regarding Charles Lindberg. Suffice to say the issue is discussed at length on the Lindberg page. Added a link so that readers may decide for themselves in the context of a full discussion of Lindberg's actions.
argh, cleanup
the article is again longer than 100k! do we really need full citation of German laws in the article body?? It was reasonably slim when featured, and we should weed out clutter by comparison to the featured version. dab(𒁳)13:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
down to 66k after exporting the obsessively detailed "Ceramic tiles" report to the same article (which is now up to 36k). dab(𒁳)14:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Should all references to Western use of swastika use in early 20th century be moved?
There are still a number of nuggets of information left in the main article.
I removed some more. If notable examples are worked into the prose to illustrate some point, that's fine, but most of them were obviously just added in by passers-by, at more or less random points of the article. dab(𒁳)13:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Somebody edited my information I added yesterday about the the Air Force of Finland. Not only did they make statements that were totally not true and made it worst. They somehow had fixed it in the history section that I nevered posted anything there at all. How, they did that?? They must have hacked into the sysnops account of Wikipedia.org. and gotten their passwords to bypass everything.
2nd most common form of the cross?
From the article: "The swastika is, after the simple equilateral cross (the 'Greek cross'), the next most commonly found version of the cross." I seriously doubt this is true. What about the Latin cross? I left the sentence in the article (since I'm not sure), but added a "citation needed" tag to it. RobertAustin15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
we should remove that, it is obviously just pulled out of thin air. How are you ever going to establish something like that. dab(𒁳)19:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Rudyard Kipling and the Swastika
In the section about the swastika in Europe in the early 20th century, would it be a good idea to include the following info from the article about Rudyard Kipling? I have several volumes of Kipling from my great-grandfather's library which have the swastikas imprinted on the covers. I have seen several over-reactions in relation to these books in the past, (e.g. "Why don't you throw these in a fire!?" ) and want to help make sure this info is as widely available as possible to prevent the destruction or defacement of innocent books.
Quote:
The swastika
Covers of two of Kipling's books from 1919 (l) and 1930 (r)
Many older editions of Rudyard Kipling's books have a swastika printed on their covers associated with a picture of the elephant-headed Hindu god Ganesha, which since the 1930s has raised the possibility of Kipling being mistaken for a Nazi-sympathiser. Kipling's use of the swastika, however, was based on the sign's ancient Indian meaning of good luck and well-being. He used the swastika symbol in both left and right facing orientations. Even before the Nazis came to power, Kipling ordered the engraver to remove it from the printing block so that he should not be thought of as supporting them. Less than one year before his death Kipling gave a speech (titled "An Undefended Island") to The Royal Society of St George on 6 May 1935 warning of the danger Nazi Germany posed to Britain.[32]
Huh. I remembered it being mentioned, and it was, at least in the past: [22]. Wonder why someone nuked it? I don't have time at the moment to figure out when it happened or put it back in. A2Kafir02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
repeatedly, the claim of the swastika being a "holy symbol" of "Odinism", Germanic religion or "Old European" religion is being sneaked in. This is a claim by some neopagan groups, not an established fact. All that we can say is that swastika shapes appear as ornaments, among any number of other ornaments, on pre-Christian European (Germanic as well as non-Germanic) artefacts. We can name one Runestone (out of some 6,000) sporting a swastika motif. The Sun cross is different here, there is indeed evidence that this (a cross in a circle) was a solar symbol of some religious significance in (pre-Germanic, pre-Celtic!) Bronze Age Europe (see prehistoric religion). Claims that identify the swastika as a 'variant' of the Sun cross need specific sources (that is, academic/archaeologist, not neopagan internet sites). dab(𒁳)09:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Odinism" in this context refers to the neopagan religion, not to actual ancient Germanic cults. I doubt that it is notable enough to be flagged up at the beginning alonmg with the great Dharmic religions, but it's not a claim about ancient culture, but modern culture. Paul B13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
well, the implication that the neopagan symbol has a historical precedent in Germanic paganism keeps coming up. I don't get this, since swastika shapes are rather rare in Iron Age Celtic/Germanic artefacts, sometimes people go out of their way to classify anything remotely spirally or cross-shaped as "variants" of the swastika. I guess some people are just slightly obsessed with the symbol. There are known pre-Christian religious symbols, such as the Valknut or the Sun cross or the Triskele, but these are simply not "gammadion" symbols. Of course they are "similar", but that makes them just specimens of a much larger class of designs with rotational symmetry of which the swastika is just another example. dab(𒁳)13:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Swastika Name not just Symbol
Dab, you removed my edit in the Swastika article which stated that "Swastika is also a very popular name among Hindus and particularly among Bengalis. [23]" stating that "the article stresses the importance of the symbol in Hinduism/Buddhism only about twelve dozen times over so far..." - this is true, for the symbol, but my point was that nowhere in the article does it say it is also a very popular persons name among Hindus particularly among Bengalis, I could be mistaken if I have missed it and for that I apologise but I cannot see a reference. I added this into the article because their was no disambiguation page for Swastika. Robert C Prenic09:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Raelian Movement & Neutral Point of View guidelines
Reading the article on the Swastika, I was dismayed to see that the Raelian Movement is described as a religious "cult".
Taking into account all the pejorative connotations of this term, I think it is in very bad taste to call the Raelian Movement a cult.
Furthermore, in your own guidelines, you state "Neutral Point of View"... Calling a group of people a cult (or sect), is hardly a Neutral Point of View. It encourages discrimination and hatred towards a group of people who belong to a minority religious faith.
As a member of the Raelian Movement for more than 20 years, I think it is high time that at least sites like Wikipedia which are open to editing by everyone, can truly be a Neutral and verifiable source of information.
The Charter of Human Rights, grants to all individuals the freedom to choose their faith and to be respected whatever their choice.
Calling the Raelian Movement a "cult" in Wikipedia or in any other place is a breach of the Human Rights of the individuals.
If the traditional media, many of whom are related to politicians, big religious organizations and corporations, use their power to reach the masses to insult and discriminate against those who are not like them, we should not follow their example. How are we to improve this world we live in and make it a more fair place for everyone if we imitate those who try to censure and guide our thoughts and actions?
But Wikipedia is different. It is supposed to be a planetary database of information which should not discriminate against anyone, regardless of their creed, race, or whatever.
"The Finnish Air Force received its first airplane in 1918 as a gift from Swedish Count Eric von Rosen. The plane was adorned with swastikas as good luck symbols. Thereafter, a blue von Rosen swastika was adopted as the nationality marking on the Finnish Air Force planes."
with
"It is a common misbelief that the swastika would have become to Finnish use at 6 March1918, when Eric von Rosen transported an airplane, adorned with swastikas as good luck symbols from Sweden to Finnish white army. However, artist Akseli Gallen-Kallela had already plans about the use of swastika before the given date. The swastika was officially adopted as the nationality marking on the Finnish Air Force planes at 18 March1918."
since the upper story is false, according to Finnish wikipedia and plenty of other sources. My spelling might be a bit awkward, so feel free to edit it. 88.115.14.2414:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this section since it seems to have almost no relevance to the article, beyond Walker's claim that these courts used - in some unspecified way - a "double swastika", whatever that may be. This claim seems to be a tendentious attempt to link real or alleged medieval antisemitism to Nazism. Some admirer of these courts has added an unreferenced defence of them, which is no more than a series of assertions supported by mention of a novel. Better out that in, I think. Paul B15:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Walker (A Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects) states that the double swastika was associated with the Vehmic courts of the Middle Ages, a system of informal courts founded to persecute "heretics and Jews" before becoming associated with the Inquisition. These courts, she says, continued as "underground societies of summary justice" and "hotbeds of anti-Semitism" during the nineteenth century before being superseded by the Nazi party, the members of which substituted the single swastika for the doubled version. In fact, while the Vehmic courts may certainly have been guilty of gross prejudice - as all informal and summary courts tend to be (cf. Nuremberg trial) - they were not the "proto-Nazi", inquisitorial bogeys Walker alleges, but rather often the only recourse for northern German peasants to satisfy wrongs perpetrated against them, for example by soldiers and vagabonds (often enough gypsies and Jewish merchants), which were not addressed by nobles or anyone else. Hermann Löns' Der Wehrwolf, set during the ravages of the Thirty Years' War, illustrates how, and why, such a protective association would come to be. In addition, Walker provides absolutely no evidence, visual or documentary, to substantiate her claim that the swastika was associated with the Vehm, and her claim appears to be politically-motivated, on the whole, and her drawing a line of descent from a tradition of vigilante justice, to political murder, and then to National Socialism, quite dramatic.
I find it amazing that there are still people who question where the Swastika originated from. I mean the oldest major religion is Hinduism, and Hinduism uses the swastika, so common sense means that it is fair to say that it may have originated out of Hinduism....71.119.255.3121:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be the oldest major religion, but that does not mean the swastika originated from hinduism. You seem to be assuming that the symbol has to have originated from religion which makes little sense. Indeed you seem to be assuming not just any religion but a major religion. But it's just as easily possible it originated from an early minor religion, and was then subsumed into Hinduism. Or alternatively, it may have originated outside religion or arisen multiple times (as the article suggests) Nil Einne16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is false. The symbol comes from the Persian god Mitra (also a Persian name). Maybe the Indians adapted this god as the Romans did - who created their own version of a religion. It's not originally an Indian God. The swastika symbol comes from the Wheel of Mitra (ancient Persian pagan religion NOT to be confused with the adapted Mithraism of Rome, influenced by Persians, but not the same). It is now currently a symbol of luck by Persians and Indians. I concede that it was later used in the Hindu faith, however the Persians brought over that symbol to India when they invaded the northern region of the country. The Aryans of various tribes came from the Ukraine region, and the Persian Aryans invaded India. That is not to say that there are no Aryan Indians, especially in the North. Most of the southern regions of India are a mix of Dravidian and Aryans. I, a Persian-American, and my friend who is half Persian and half Indian, both agree with this. However, the majority of Aryans of Indian ethnicity are in the North and are a result of the invasion of Persians. These Indians are Aryan cousins to the Persians, along with Greeks, Celts, Slavs, Cimmerians/Germans, etc. Germans to this day call Iranians "brother" because of their shared ancient background. My mother's cousin lives in Germany and is married to a German woman. That was one of the reasons Hitler adapted the symbol and convinced the Iranian leader to change the international name of Persia (greek name for Persians) to Iran. The original name for Iran was Aryanna, or land of the Aryans.
Clockwise vs Counterclockwise
Here in Wikipedia is the first time I ever saw that the "clockwise" direction of the swastika (the right-facing) is mentioned as "ambiguous". I think that it is not the movement of the cross what is meant for "clockwise", but the bending of the arms (from the center). At least, it should be mentioned that usually (I rather say universally, but well...) the clockwise swastika refers to the right-facing one. Nazroon15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Use by Communists in Nepal
This is a query regarding the image shown on the page referring to the communist party in Nepal using the Swastika.
I know that in India the shape of the stamp used in elections, to indicate the choice (no hanging chads) is similar to that of a Swastika.
So I was wondering I was wondering if it had anything to do with the symbol for "vote" rather than any religious or cultural connotations. As in "vote for the sickle and hammer"
(/) I bet both Stalin and Hitler would've loved that by the way(/sarcasm off)
Did you read the section on South Asia in addition to looking at the image? 16:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Modern computer character encodings
I just noticed that the Chinese version of the page uses 卐 as its title, so it's actually a part of their modern computer character set. Does anyone have a list of encodings or languages that have the 卐 or 卐-like symbol in it, and if it has been approved by western authorities like the IETF, IEEE, etc.? I recall there were a few fonts that had a 卐 and raised controversy, but I'm asking about actual encoding standards for characters. Identity003:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps reading the article will help? The current version mentions several instances of the swastika in the unicode character set. Nil Einne16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Akan civilization of Ghana and the Swastika
The statement "the Akan civilization of southwest Africa may have been the result of cultural transfer along the African slave routes around AD 1500", does not make very much sense. What 'the African slave routes' are is unclear. If the article is refering to the Atlantic Slave Trade, which did not begin until plantations requiring African slave labor were established in the 'New World' colonies in the 1600's and not 'around 'AD 1500', then from which culture was the swastika transfered from, an African culture, European, Native American? The implications are that the Akan could not have produced this symbol independently or needed to have it 'transfered' under European stewardship in the form of the African Slave Trade.
Archaeological and historical evidence has clearly shown that the use of the swastika in Akan culture predates the presence of Europeans in Africa let alone on the coast of what is today the Republic of Ghana. When the Portuguese arrived in 1471 they observed the use of brass/bronze weights among the Akan for weighing gold dust, which was their currency before European arrival. Excavations among the ruins of an ancient town in the Ashanti region found weights of the type that is dominated by the swastika. The ruins were dated between the 13th-15th century (1200's-1400's). please see: Recent excavations of Adansemanso by clicking on the following link: http://cohesion.rice.edu/CentersAndInst/SAFA/emplibrary/46_ch09.pdf
Even if the Portuguese had introduced the symbol immediately upon arrival on the coast in 1471, it is highly improbable that it would have been integrated by the Akan in an art form and an economic system that predated the Portuguese and in which the Portuguese were a marginal factor until the 16th century; the Portuguese were traders not colonizers on the coast and were only relevant or influential in that regard. Further, the excavated weights were found in the interior of the Akan area. The Portuguese never made it beyond the coast unless they were ivited guests, which was rare, at best, for any European until the 18th century at which time Portuguese influence & usefulness had diminished considerably along the coast.
I know nothing about Akan swastikas, but cultural transfer from the Portugese seem an unlikely theory - since it wasn't of great signifance in Europe at the time. Paul B00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the section altogether, since it was unreferenced. Your citation is not informative about the swastika motif, but if you have specific information feel free to add it. I've had a quick look around at some Akan weights. There are a lot of sworl-like and geometrical shapes, some of which resemble swastikas. I've seen some out-and-out swastikas, but they seem to date from the 19th C. It wouldn't be surprising if there were earlier examples, since it's just a geometrical pattern. Claims about sun-symbolism would need to more clearly supported, since this kind of interpretation is typical of the early 20th C. Paul B08:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
![[7]](http://www.columbia.com/images/header/test_01.gif){kind=link}
![[15]](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/18/forest_swastika.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://website.lineone.net/~ianw/ericbrown/images/dick.jpg){kind=link}
Huh. I remembered it being mentioned, and it was, at least in the past: [22]. Wonder why someone nuked it? I don't have time at the moment to figure out when it happened or put it back in. A2Kafir 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
