Talk:Swastika/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Pre-Nazi German Usage

The documentary Den blodiga tiden states that the swastika was the symbol of Lanz von Liebenfels from whom a young Hitler purchased some of his first racist pamphlets; however, Weimar paramilitary groups#Freikorps indicates that Marinebrigade Ehrhardt was the first to use the swastika, implying that they were using it long before the Nazi Party. This photo appears to confirm this, but I am not certain that this (1) is actually a picture of Marinebrigade Ehrhardt or (2) when the photo was taken. Here's another photo claimed to be from the Kapp Putsch (You can see a swastika on the side of the truck.) A third supporting photo is also available. Swastika#As the symbol of Nazism suggests several additional possible prior German uses, such as "a symbol of German völkisch nationalist movements (Völkische Bewegung)"; "its use by the Thule Society"; by the "Order of the New Templars"; by the "Reichsbund Deutsche Jägerschaft (German Hunting Society)"; etc. Does anyone have any additional information? I feel this would make a valuable addition to this article. Squideshi (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Heard that FYLFOT is suppossewd to be the "GOOD" Swastika Good Luck etc

Heaard that the so called FLYFOT Swastika is suppossed to be the more fortunate Swastika.Also, seen in mystic supplies materials four right angle lines either inside a Circle or Diamond Forming a Swastika illussion is this aa genuine Swastika symbol? Thanks!Andreisme (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

please read the article. --dab (𒁳) 12:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Theosophical Socioty

There is no Aum in the symbol for the Theosophical Socioty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you should tell the Theosophical Society about this, as they clearly assume there is.[1] --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional merge proposal

While there's already a mergal proposal, I suggest we also look at merging the Sauwastika article:

As most of it's info is already covered in the Swastika article.

If the decision is to not merge, then all information in the Swastika article that is about the Sauwastika symbol should be removed and placed in the Sauwastika article, and vice-versa. (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's please get these merges going, it only makes sense. Vinithehat (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
agreed. that's what WP:BOLD is for. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


The image is of a logo from the Washington Charcrete Co. taken from a concrete utility sink.

The logo is an oval 8" by 4 1/4" featuring a 2 1/8" swastika in the center that was apparently stamped into the concrete.

The upper part of the logo contains the text "WASHINGTON" along the inner curve of the oval border. Also following the inner curve of the oval beneath the swastika is the text "CHARCRETE CO". The text "TRADE" and "MARK" appear on left and right of the central swastika defining a horizontal line through the axis of the oval.

The sink is from a house in Seattle, state of Washington, USA. The house was built in 1910 but was probably moved to its current foundation sometime before 1938.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talkcontribs) 20:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

please take this sort of thing to Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Finnish swastikas

While the article widely tells about the modern use of swastikas in general in Finland, it doesn't mention that Nazi swastikas are strongly resisted, like all the Nazi symbolism. For example, there is a country-wide moral panic in newspapers if anyone shows any type of Nazi flag, with or without swastika. (For example: [2][3])

The swastika as a geometric shape, however, is not the problem with nazi symbolism, but nazism itself is the reason of these moral panics. There is a swastika in the presidential flag and air forces flags, for example, but morally and culturally that is a totally different symbol than any nazi symbol. So Finland is similar to other Western countries in its attitude towards nazism and nazi symbolism, but not similar in its attitude towards non-nazi uses of swastika. This should be somehow mentioned in the article so that Finland is not represented in misleading way. Tuohirulla puhu 09:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the discussion of Finnish usage is in the spin-off article Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century. Paul B (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Revised Information

The picture of Matilde E. Moisant alleged that Werner Voss was a German-Jew. This is just wrong. I cannot put it anymore bluntly than that. Any Great War aviation enthusiast has heard statements that Voss was a German-Jew, but no evidence has ever been produced to confirm such claims. Hence, I have removed it from the caption. If anyone would like to talk about this further, I suggest they visit The Aerodrome and search the forum archives for this info. Fritz Beckhardt we KNOW had Jewish roots. The information regarding their paint schemes is otherwise correct, however; there's a well-known photo of Voss, for example, painting his Albatros D.III (making a white outline around the red heart with a swastika clearly visible just aft of it). (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Berkhardt's swastika was left-facing. Anyway, at that time the swastika was nothing but a popular good-omen badge. The French and American ace Raoul Lufbery flew at times on a biplane with huge redswastikas on the fuselage, and the swastika was part of the Lafayette Squadron's Indian Head badge.
"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


What is the legal status of the swastika in Israel? -- (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not illegal in Israel. Following anti semitic incidents in the past few years by non Jewish immigrants from former Soviet counties, involving Swastikas, some MPs tried to make it illegal. TFighterPilot (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Kuna Yala Flag

The Kuna Yala flag a province in Rep of Panama have a swastika. a comment to that will be very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayeco (talkcontribs) 08:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

sourse 33

This is supposed to be a Reliable source? It's utter BS written by a crazy RuSSian nazi. What do you think about this: "The picture of Oleg's shield is on the left below" And no picture to be found anywhere. This fkn idiot doesn't prove his own claims: "Sanskrit used by modern Indians (Sic!) descended from the Ancient languages of Slavs-Aryans" He thinks that Russian verb "tikat'" is etymologically linked to "Arctic" and mystical. "Slavs have been using swastika through all their existance, according to the last data it's not less than 15 thousand years" "People in Tibet and India are still saying that swastika was brought to them from behind the northern mountains by white teachers-Slavs"

Isn't it all too much crap for a "reliable source"? This guy obviously needs to have his head examined —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
References 36 and 37 are also taken from Russian nutcase nationalist web-posts, where swastika in various forms is presented as a symbol of the Superior Race (made up of Aryans and Slavs). These by no means are scholarly resources. -- (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"usage of the sign by religious groups is tolerated"

Quoted from the lead. Does this mean that it is technically illegal but grudgingly allowed? Or is it perfectly legal but begrudged by society? The sentence could suggest both and the section on post-WWII Germany talks only about its outlaw as a symbol of the Nazi Party. Could there be some clarification in the lead? SGGH ping! 13:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The earliest ?

"Archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates from the Neolithic period and was first found in the Indus Valley Civilization of the Indian Subcontinent."

Isn't the swastika in the Vinca signs older ? What is the date of the first swastika in India ? There is no source or precision about the date on this article page.

-Klo 17:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

this was just an unreferenced claim. It keeps getting added back by people who somehow seem to "know" it is true even though there is no kind of support for it. --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Think about this logically. There is no known date when it was first used. But the oldest religoin still existing, Hinduism (and that is said on the Hinduism page so its not just me) has recorded using the Swastika. So therefore it was first used in India/Hinduism. (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

dab : "this was just an unreferenced claim"
Ok but the neolithic India claim is still written like 6 months after, and still no source...
Klo 23:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Swastika is always a cross with arms bent 90 degrees towards right and not it's mirror image.

Dear Friends, As far as Sanskrit origin of Swastika is concerned it is a religious symbol of the Hindu religion and it is always meant to be a cross with arms bent (half way) towards right.

This article says that the mirror image of a swastika is also a swastika, but I doubt if it is true in the current context.

Swastika can be seen as intersection of two "S" symbols at 90 degrees, but not as intersection of two "Z" symbols at 90 degrees.

Please contribute your knowledge in this discussion to improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

this is a popular misconception, and if you read the article you will learn all about it. --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Taijitu, Swastika and ubiquitousness

Hi. You guys did quite a good job of creating a balanced article which shows that the swastika is an ubiquitous symbol which was used all over the world in in many different periods and cultures. That has certainly not been a easy task given that for some it is a holy religious symbol, while for other it is associated with war, misery and mass murder.

Now, therefore I would like to hear your opinion on the current controversy over at Taijitu. A user seems to be convinced that there is Taoist preeminence or even kind of ownership on the symbol, and repeatedly cuts away other non-Taoist material on that grounds. I, however, believe that the section on the Celtic and Roman usage (European symbolism for lack of a better term) is well-referenced, neutral and balanced, and therefore should be kept. What do you think? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

卐 in UTF-8

The swastika sign exists in UTF-8: 卐

Maybe some note about that would be intresting. (Or just show the character in UTF8 somewhere. / (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

They should have a note of this in context to unicode, even if it be only a line or two. U+5350; 卐. (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just the Chinese character. The article has been aware of it for years. --dab (𒁳) 07:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In Islam?

There's nothing yet on the use of the symbol in Islam, which definitely exists (e.g. some of the plaster painting in the eastern corner of the northern section of the Hagia Sophia, saw it myself). Please add this info if you have it. -- (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

These are just ornaments and as such do not need to have anything to do with "Islam". In fact, most of the breathless additions of the type "omg, look I found an image of a swastika" this article gets are just generic ornamental patterns. The term "symbol" would seem to imply that there is some significance attached to the pattern, and such significance will need to be referenced to quotable sources, otherwise this entire exercise becomes futile. --dab (𒁳) 07:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Swastika is Arabian and Arab.

Swastika is Arabian and Arab.

The older Swastika in the world was found in Samarra in Iraq, Arabia peninsula inside the Hassuna culture which is identified with proto Arab (aka proto semite).

So please correct this article.

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your url has a picture and a claim that a swastika symbol was found on neolithic pottery from the "Hassuna/Samarra Period, 6500 BCE - 5500 BCE". Three points,

  1. isn't a quotable source, the source attributed is "The Origins of Civililization: The Ancient Near East. Paris: Terrail, 1998, pg 34." I believe the point referenced to this work is that "swirling patterns in chocolate-brown are typical of the Samarran style." What we have here is just an instance of such a "swirling pattern", picked out because it happens to look like a swastika.
  2. this is from the same period as the Vinca swastikas, and should be inserted there
  3. the period in question has nothing to do with "Semitic", we are talking about the pre-Sumerian Ubaid period in Mesopotamia.

--dab (𒁳) 07:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But before that it was used in India and Hinduism. (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Samarran swastika is still older than Vinca one (by Carbon datation) and is Arabian (ie from Arabian peninsula) and probably according to a number of linguists and archeologs Ubaid and Kish culture were speaking a Semitic/Parasemitic tongue that is visible in Semitic substratum in Sumerian.

Thank you for your attention.

Humanbyrace (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome to cite a quotable source to establish this in the article. I seem to be able to find some references to a swastika on Samarra culture pottery, but they seem to date it to the 5th, not the 6th millennium BC. --dab (𒁳) 17:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The book I have is in Arabic but I think Carbon datations could establish which one is the older (I hope it will be the Iraqi one so that aryanists nazists and other racists got another strike after the one of the discovery of Hitler being possibly berber) Humanbyrace (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my precedent comments. The Arabian Swastika of Samarra in Iraq is the first Swastika , see the book below

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I love how Arabic people try to rob Persian culture. The swastika symbol originates from the old Persian religion of Mitra. It is called the "Wheel of Mitra" and is used by Persians as well as Indians today. You forget that the Persian empire stretched across Iraq. So Arabs, if they use the symbol at all (not likely), got it from the Persians - so did the Indo-Aryans who invaded Northern India. Many Northern Indians are closely related to Iranian peoples. Arabs did not create the swastika symbol. The symbol has always been attributed to Mitra, Iranian peoples, as well as a good luck symbol in India. There are books on the subject, and I have never read anything by a reputable scholar claiming such nonsense. I see you are spreading your revisionist propaganda on several Wikipedia talk pages. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious!?, I'am not Arab and there is no Persian or Arabic or English cultures but regional ones. At those times Indo-Europeans did not even existed let alone Indo-Aryans let alone Iranians and Swastika was and is used by many folks independantly of their mothertongue. ie The Swastika of Samarra in Iraq is ANTERIOR TO INDO-EUROPEANS, INDO-IRANIANS, IRANIANS, MITRA, PERSIAN EMPIRE ETC...IT DATES TO 6000 BC well thousands of years before even the attestation of indo-iranian mitannis in Syria let alone iranians let alone persian empire.

You did not choose your persian mother tongue nor you race nor you religion so please stop playing absurd nationalism.

The Persians came very latedly to middle east (from Anatolia via Caucasus and Turkmenistan then Iran plateau) and were few numbring illitrate nomads that took script , culture and official languages as well as alphabet and religions (polytheism then monotheism) from the local well established Semites aka Arabianites. Humanbyrace (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

can you please stop rambling and present a quotable source on the point that "The Swastika of Samarra in Iraq [...] DATES TO 6000 BC"? If you do, we can carry it. If you don't, you are just wasting people's time. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Come now "human-by-race", you are the one who claimed in this section-heading that Swastikas are "Arab", yet you now proclaim that "At those times Indo-Europeans did not even existed let alone Indo-Aryans let alone Iranians and Swastika was and is used by many folks independantly of their mothertongue." Well, if Indo-Europeans did not even existed, Arabs certainly did not existed either. You can't have it one way and not the other. So far, your only citation is a book called "Myth from the Ice Age to Mickey Mouse", which may be useful for uncontested facts, but any book that covers such a stretch of time is not a very good source. The text states "among the various designs [of the Halaf-Hassuna-Samarra culture] are the first examples of the swastika. In later cultures this widespread symbol represents the cosmos. Its occurence in Samarra pottery of the sixth millennium B.C.E indicates awareness of cosmic dimensions. Presumably the earliest cosmologies were composed about this time." This is such a compendium of non-sequiturs and errors, it's hard to know where to begin. In what sense does the swastika ever "represent the cosmos"? Even it it did, why would that mean that earlier examples of the shape have the same meaning, allowing us to leap to the conclusion that "cosmologies" were created at this period? It's like saying "among the various designs are the first examples of the cross. In later cultures this widespread symbol represents self-sacrifice. Its occurence in the sixth millennium B.C.E indicates awareness of the concept of unselfishness." There's nothing wrong with adding that this shape appears in ancient near eastern pottery, but that has nothing to do with "Arabs". It may or may not link to the later Indo-Iranian use of the symbol, but we need proper sources. Paul B (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is another case of wasted effort, Paul. WP:AHI simply will not miraculously make people better editors. --dab (𒁳) 15:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I can find a number of sources that date the Samarra bowl to about 4000 BC, and which also state that the symbol is found very rarely in Mesopotamia, essentially on a couple of pieces of painted pottery, and in a few early seal impressions. That's it. The symbol disappears throughout the 2nd millennium BC and re-appears in a single isolated instance in a Neo-Assyrian stone slab. Sure, the Samarra swastika is "anterior to Indo-Europeans", but it is also an isolated ornament, and about a millennium later than the Vinca symbols. The Vinca symbols are of course also "anterior to Indo-Europeans", for whatever this is worth, but it appears to be our earliest documented instance of the symbol worldwide. --dab (𒁳) 14:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Swastika of Samarra fits with proto Arabianic/Semitic speaking folk but for tempral and spatial reasons not with ie ones (at those time proto indo-europeans were a single unit in Halaf culture in levant)

Swastika of Vinca is pre ie (perhaps pelasgian/para pelasgian) anyway wht are your source that Swastika of Samarra dates to 4000 bc and Vinca dates to later because mine says Samarra's Swastika dates to 6000 bc.

Also Vinca swastika is just a symbol (if you take a look at ancient Arabic alphabets you will see that ancient arabs had this same symbol with the sound "t") very different from the very sophisticated Samarra's Swastika which is one of the first pottery artwork in human history (if not the first)

Vinca=>arbitrary symbol found also in ancient Arabic script

Samarra's=>"real" swastika (though call it "magrawaramz"=Arabic for cosmologic symbol) and according to my sources older than vinca's one (which still is not a real "swastika" but an arbitrary symbol graffiti by chance)

Please correct the article dear mr dab

See ancient Arab "swastika" letter "t" here below (that was borrowed through kadmos the Arab to illiterate Greeks)

(the 3 rd letter "t" from top to bottom)

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source speaks for "late sixth or fifth millenium BC" see below ie well before Vinca "symbol" and not "swastika"=>magrawaramz

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the Mickey Mouse book, do you have any evidence that the Samarra's=>"real" swastika, as you put it, rather than an mere appealing design? Paul B (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source speaks for "late sixth or fifth millenium BC" see below ie well before Vinca "symbol" and not "swastika"=>magrawaramz

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here below another source that takes the date back to 6300 BC (by far older than Vinca's symbol)

Book picture of Plate with Painted Birds Fishing and Central Swastika, ceramic, Samarra, 6,300-6,000 BCE, d: 27.7 cm Notice around the swastika the bird is also a crocodile ( metamorphosis ) catching fish on the inside and outside ( crocodiles represented the military in the past ) plate picture From the Hassuna/Samarra Period, 6500 BCE - 5500 BCE .Found in provenance unknown Ceramic production appeared in the ancient Near East towards the end of the 8th millenium BCE, and towards the 6th millenium BCE painted ceramics were common. In southern Mesopotamia the Samarra culture, and in northern Mesopotamia the Hassuna and Samarra cultures, produced finely decorated ceramics in the seventh and early 6th centuries BCE, showing the distribution of Halaf and early Ubaid cultures. Stylized animals such as the above birds and fish, and swirling patterns in chocolate-brown are typical of the Samarran style. Caubet, Annie and Patrick Pouyssegur. Source." The Origins of Civililization: The Ancient Near East. Paris: Terrail, 1998, pg 34.

I think know you can correct the article otherwise you will lower the standard of wikipedia and makes it irrelevant for HONEST UNNATIONALIST OBJECTIVE NEUTRAL SMART PEOPLE WHO KNOW THAT NO ONE DID CHOOSE HIS RELIGION/RACE/COUNTRY/MOTHER TONGUE

Please be accurate at least one time in your life what are your personal gain in distorting reality in your short meaningless (at the end of the day) life!

Also there are other very old Arabian "swastikas" magarwaramz (from magara=cosmos, wa=logy[from wayd], ramz=symbol) see below

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source clearly describes the motif as decorative rather than symbolic. The others are irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be objective and dont turn wikipedia to lolpedia

How it cames it is only decorative, it's symbolic connected with middle eastern religions and mythologies that were to diffuse throughout the world in the form of shamanism, animism, budhism, hinuduism, monotehism, manichanism etc... etc...

Please read some books about comparative mythology.

Mythology starts here in Anatolia-fertile crescent with first civilised men+discovery of agriculture+discovery of metallurgy, alphabet, script, animal husbandry,pottery, megalithic buildings , paganism, indo-european religions and deities etc...and was continual human waves pumping that provided Europe, western Asia and north Africa (where there was primittive hunter gatherer cave men like cromagnon with primitive life and primtive languages of a dozen of onomatopeic basic sounds and that's why first cave men europeans gets submerged linguistically first by neolithic farmers (R1b hg) then by Indo-Europeans [J2 and indo-europeanised R1a, G and E1b]) with civilised humans due to neolithic revolution and the consequent diffusion of cultures ideas and civilised men.

Magarwaramz/Swastika was clearly a mythologic religious as its written in the sources I provided and the books I read, you are not allowed to speak about things you ignore such as mythology, cosmology etc...

You are not going to say that there was diffusion in the opposite direction (ie from unhabitated ice aged Europe to Asia)!!!

Crocodiles in that plate has their particular fantastic meanings as well other elements in all those pots with swastika as you can read below:

"Notice around the swastika the bird is also a crocodile ( metamorphosis ) catching fish on the inside and outside ( crocodiles represented the military in the past ) plate picture "

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is NO source that the Vinca tablet that contained the swastika-like graffiti dates to 6000 bc, while I clearly provided sources that Hassuna cosmological symbol is dated to 6300 bc, also the article says that swastikas disappeared from western asia for a long while=>THIS IS NOT CORRECT AS I PROVIDED LINKS FOR OTHER POTS AND CLAYS FROM HASSUNA CULTURE THAT CONTAINS COSMOLOGICAL SWASTIKA, and also the swastika symbol in the old Arabic alphabet.

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit the German version

I'm posting this on the English version because I can't speak German and because of sh**** translators. The Nazi flag is illegal in Germany, and people in Germany obviously go on German Wikipedia, however German Wikipedia shows the Nazi flag on the page, wouldn't that be illegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Swastika#Germany (more in Strafgesetzbuch section 86a). This explains the German law on the matter. Wikipedia should be OK as there is an exemption for use for scholarly and religious reasons. That covers things like proper history books and serious encyclopaedia articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
also, Wikipedia as a whole is subject to Florida law. German Wikipedia is no exception. So even if German Wikipedia has content illegal in Germany, it's not a problem. German authorities can, and did in the past[4][5], block access to Wikipedia in Germany, or to the redirect domain This is a problem of Internet censorship in Germany on equal footing with the Chinese government blocking access to Wikipedia in China, not a problem of the Wikimedia foundation. --dab (𒁳) 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The first source speaks for "late sixth or fifth millenium BC" see below ie well before Vinca "symbol" and not "swastika"=>magrawaramz

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here below another source that takes the date back to 6300 BC (by far older than Vinca's symbol)

Book picture of Plate with Painted Birds Fishing and Central Swastika, ceramic, Samarra, 6,300-6,000 BCE, d: 27.7 cm Notice around the swastika the bird is also a crocodile ( metamorphosis ) catching fish on the inside and outside ( crocodiles represented the military in the past ) plate picture From the Hassuna/Samarra Period, 6500 BCE - 5500 BCE .Found in provenance unknown Ceramic production appeared in the ancient Near East towards the end of the 8th millenium BCE, and towards the 6th millenium BCE painted ceramics were common. In southern Mesopotamia the Samarra culture, and in northern Mesopotamia the Hassuna and Samarra cultures, produced finely decorated ceramics in the seventh and early 6th centuries BCE, showing the distribution of Halaf and early Ubaid cultures. Stylized animals such as the above birds and fish, and swirling patterns in chocolate-brown are typical of the Samarran style. Caubet, Annie and Patrick Pouyssegur. Source." The Origins of Civililization: The Ancient Near East. Paris: Terrail, 1998, pg 34.

I think know you can correct the article otherwise you will lower the standard of wikipedia and makes it irrelevant for HONEST UNNATIONALIST OBJECTIVE NEUTRAL SMART PEOPLE WHO KNOW THAT NO ONE DID CHOOSE HIS RELIGION/RACE/COUNTRY/MOTHER TONGUE

Please be accurate at least one time in your life what are your personal gain in distorting reality in your short meaningless (at the end of the day) life!

Also there are other very old Arabian "swastikas" magarwaramz (from magara=cosmos, wa=logy[from wayd], ramz=symbol) see below

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you need a tissue to wipe the foam from your mouth? Paul B (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, I dont give shit about swastika mwastika and all those things and I am hyper calm, I just want that this encyclopaedia remains serious and have accurate articles because sadly there are many falsifications due to absurd nationalist mottos when no one of us choosed his tribe , please take a look below to understand me.

The remarkable German Historian Leopold Von Ranke has a very famous (and accurate) quotation : "nicht das Amt die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, sondern bloß zu zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen " ie "(History) is not to judge the past nor to judge the contemporary world to take lessons for the future years, but to show just how it really happened"

Manytimes (some) persons when studiying history and reading historcial documents can fill embarassed when an ethnicity (or many ethnicities)/religion/race/country he is so emotionally attached (though even if a human usually does not choose those criteria except perhaps for the religion) has many "blackspots" in its history (analogously sentiments such as pride and relief could be feeled when studiying the "lightspots"_though many times those "light spots" could be seen in fact as "black spots"[see invasions, war successes, empire and imperialism]especailly by the "opposite" "ennemy" "human group_and also it could be that another person from the "opponent" side gets unhappy about the "accomplishements" and happy about the "catastrophes" underwent by the "opposite" side)

Those attitudes (which are evidently unhealthy and against humanity brotherhood) could be nefast when they are the leitmotiv of some scholars to write/rewrite history=>not accurate datas (that's the only detal that count in reality) and biased history (with history being all the time before the current instant) writings and interpretations (this later consequence is not important since all of us know that there is no "angel" and "devils" in our world)

Also I should say that racism is so absurd and unethical as no one of us could choose his/her race, religion, country, ethnicity/mother tongue etc...(and even if he chooses what's the matter) That same racism sadly is present implicitly or explciitly in the works of some scientists especially the ones dealing with soft sciences such as history, linguistic etc... Some people gets very angry for things like stating that his language has some foreign "loan words" or stating that his language is similar to one spoken by "wogs" (in both ways as when I told to some Somali students that the Somali language was from the same language family as Arabic and other Semites they get angry and directly argued that there was no relation between the 2)!? What's the matter to act such way!?

And that's why I'm taking many claims on anthropological and linguistical forums that are not accepted by the scientific community by great precaution and even some works of some "professors" could well be cherrypicked/manipulated/with agenda/subjective... From experience it seems that the liberal and left wing professors are the most ethical and close to the facts.

I remember on wikipedia some users get angry and was in the defensive when stating the historical and atetsted fact that "hittites came to Anatolia from south" I wonder why!?

And generally speaking a number of influencing wikipedia users are manipulating/cherrypicking sadly while they should act ethically and professionaly.

Also I noted that some peoples want to show that their "kind" is connected to another "kind" (they see as the "übermensch") and in the same time try to obscure more close connections with another kind they see as "altmensch" and there are also someones who want to portray their "kind" or "country/region" as the "mother of civilisation" while it's known that there is no such things ; all of us have brains and are equal humans and if a "rich" "civilisation" started in Greece or Egypt for example this has nothing to do with qualities of those folks but it's very arbitrary and mere coincidence besides the fact that saying that in X place there was a "rich civilisation" is also subjective and beyond all meaningless since even taking "pride" in self "accomplishments" is absurd and illogical let alone taking "pride" in some "achievements" of some obscure very ancient persons that by pure chance afforded to built a pyramid or whatsever only because they share the same region or a close language. Also someones try to minimise the "achievements" of a portion of their ancestors to attribute them to another ancestral folk albeit ironcially it is in reality the former who are responsible of those "achievements" as an example is some people from Italy minimising Etruscan "achievements" and attribute them to Romans while most likely they do descend from Etruscans more than they do from Romans (who take the credits only cos they "afforded" to "impose" their language on local folk)

But one who will looks at Turk history and Arab history (especially before Islam, for example in the different Assyrian-Arab wars many of the Arab[aribi,arabu,urbi] rulers were female queens such as Zebibi, Shamsi, Teelhunu;ancient Arabs also aided Assyrians in their was against Syrian mini states as well as Cyrus against Babylonians and Cambyse and Alexandres against Egyptians...) will see that "Turk and Arab history" is no less "bloody" nor no less "accomplishing" than "iranian one" or also "assyrian one" etc...

In wikipedia for example there are such a bias (especially by the modertaor Dbachman) which is lowering the quality of that free encyclopaedia and is absurd, unethical and inaccurate (as I explained) in the first post. For example: stating that Farabi was Persian (even one Farabi if he would be Iranian would be most likely Khwarezmian or Soghdian and not Persian_Khwarezmian is closer to the Pashtu language and is more distant to Persian than Arabic is from Hebrew or Turkish is distinct from Qazakh) when he has clearly Turkic ancestors with Turkic names and was born in actıual Kazakhistan arguing such things that Farabi had a "persian culture" (when he was not even Persian by ethnicity/mothertongue)as if there was "persian, arabic, tagalog cultures" ie culture that coincide 100% with the mother tongue/ethnicity and not(which is the case)with region.(I can also argue that Iranians came lately to middle east and were essentially nomads that took a lot from the "Sumerian","Elamite","Babylonian" culture; which is not accurate too of course) This is only an example but there are many and very clear bias "against Arab&Turks" in the wiki articles dealing with Arab, Turk and Persians. For example if a personality is born in actual Iran (or even sogdiana, khwarezm...) then it is automatically Iranian (even before the arrival of Iranians to what was to be called Iran)and in the same times if a personality is born outside "iran" and even if it descends from non iranian ancestors and has a non iranian language as its mothertongue then it is still called iranian for whatever reason and such absurd claims as "persian culture"...

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr -- please read and finally respect WP:TALK. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

the swastika comes from Ancient India

I am happy with this statement, but i provided a link from youtube that had a video that had this. And does anyone still have the link? Because I dont want someone taking this out of the article because there is no link. (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How difficult can it be to understand WP:CITE? I have asked for a reference that unambiguously establishes evidence of the swastika from Neolithic India about five times on this talkpage. So far, the oldest "Indian" swastika we are aware of is from the 3rd millennium BC, i.e. as part of Indus Valley inscriptions. Please understand that just repeating a claim is not helpful. Providing youtube videos of other people repeating the same claim also isn't helpful. --dab (𒁳) 07:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It was cited. Like many times on wikipedia it did ger cited. But someone and / or some people decided to take it out then. And someimes when you complain about things like this, no one helps you. But you are replying so thank you then. And it did get cited.....and by the way.....even if it didnt get cited, this own article admits that it is in Hinduism. And on Hinduism page it is mentioned that it is the oldest religion in the world then. And where is Hindusim near by? India and the surronding areas then. So isn't it fair to mention that the Swastika comes from Ancient India then here ? ? ? ?  ? ? ? ? (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
sorry, but this is nonsense. Read the article. The term "svastika" even in Sanskrit appears only in the Common Era. The swastika symbol is not mentioned in the Vedas, or in any Hindu context predating the decline of Buddhism in India. Even if there are Neolithic swastikas in India (which remains unsubstantiated), this would have nothing to do with Hinduism. The fact is, that whatever the antiquity of the symbol, and however it came to be a symbol used in Buddhism, the Hindu swastika was adopted from Buddhism at about the beginning of the Common Era. --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Where in the world are you getting your research? Hinduism was here before Buddhism. Hinduism had the Swastika before Hindu scripture was written. Hinduism was with the Aryans. Aryans are some of the original people who used the Swastika, and who had Hinduism. What your saying is that there was no Swastika in India and HInduism, and then it came to Buddhism, and then HInduism adopted it? What? (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Samarra bowl

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

Stanley A. Freed, Research Pitfalls as a Result of the Restoration of Museum Specimens, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 376, The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections pages 229–245, December 1981[6]

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

no mention of Ichigo's Bankai?

Bleach is a widely viewed anime. In the manga it is evident that the swastika is used; likely due to Japan being Buddhist ZEN!--Elvenmuse (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Differences between the left and right facing svastika versions

I guess that the both different versions of this symbol have OPPOSITE meanings as well, is this assumption correct?

I'd greatly appreciate a short summery of the historic and ancient use of those two different versions.

Thank you very much in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect, if what you mean is "facing one way is good and the other way is evil". --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


The article says "The suffix -ka either forms a diminutive or intensifies the verbal meaning, and svastika might thus be translated literally as "that which is associated with well-being," corresponding to "lucky charm" or "thing that is auspicious."

Not really. The suffix -ka does form diminutives, but it's other use, which is relevant here, is as an adjectival suffix. In A. A. MacDonald's A Student's Sanskrit Grammar he just says "forms adjectives and diminutives" (p.164). However it should result in vṛddhi of the root vowel, i.e. svasti + -ka should result in svāstika (स्वास्तिक) e.g. varṣāh 'rains' + -ka = vārṣika 'belongs to the rains' (i.e. in the rainy season).

So the definition 'associated with well-being' is OK, but the reasoning behind it is faulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaabaala (talkcontribs) 12:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Finnish symbols under the topic "As the symbol of Nazism"

I think its kinda stupid to list finnish symbols under a topic called "As the symbol of Nazism" because Lotta Svärd and Finnish airforces have nothing to do with nazism. Taistelu-Jaska (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've moved your signature to the end of your message. The Finnish section is above the Nazi section and is a subsection of "Western use in the early 20th century". It's neither "under" Nazism nor part of it. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging

The Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging use a Triskel, not a swastika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthraxinsoup (talkcontribs) 09:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Anyone researching the use of the Swastika sign may be interested in going to the site of The Ist Battalion Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regt.) and read the chapter, on line, "Ireland 1920-1922". Page 7 has a photograph of some soldiers and "Black and Tans" crossing a stream in Ireland. The vehicle in which they are travelling is a Crossley Tender displaying Swastika unit markings. Thought you might like to know...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the site you are referring to, but this was not uncommon at the time. See this picture. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

45th (US) Infantry Division Insignia

Did I miss it or is there no reference in this entry to the use of the swastika (yellow on red) as the unit insignia of the 45th Infantry Division in the 1930's? ( (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Native American Traditions

The reference to the Kuna world origin, cite note number 30, links to a dead/deleted site and needs new verification. --Capnleela (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Armenian 'arev'

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

Generic Unicode swastikas

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

I don't see the issue with using the ones you identify as CJK. I do have a problem with the new ones as I simply can't see them, and I've checked it's not just a font problem. Unicode 6 is very new, released only in October 2010, so probably only OSes newer than that come with builtin support for it. CJK is almost as old as Unicode itself, so is supported on all Unicode OSes, all or almost all of which come with appropriate fonts and have for many years.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The generic swastikas were added in Unicode 5.2, released in October 2009. On Windows XP SP3 (released April 2008), with a suitable font, they appear. Swastikas have no complicated rendering needs, so there should be no OS-related problems. What font are you using? Gorobay (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I've hundreds of fonts installed. My OS is Mac OS 10.6 which has full unicode support and comes with a large number of fonts, so out of the box it has CJK, extensive European/Latin, punctuation and technical etc. support. I've added a lot of fonts since, including some genreral unicode ones but mostly ones for particular scripts as I come across pages on WP about those languages/scripts: if I see lots of black rectangles I look on the page for a 'xxx fonts' link.
That's I think another concern. At least on a language page black rectangles are easy to fix: search for the font for that language, sometimes on the same page, at most a simple google search away. This won't work for this page as it's not a language page. A user might even seek out and install a font with a swastika in and still not fix the problem if, as likely, it's a CJK font. Likely as e.g. the swastika appears in 65 fonts on my computer at code point #5350. It appears at none at code #0FE6. Or searching for '卍' returns 29 million hits. Searching for '࿖' returns zero hits. I don't see the problem with the CJK versions of the swastika and they are clearly much better supported and pretty much universally preferred.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This should be revisited when more fonts support the generic swastikas. Google hitcounts are unreliable because there are obviously not zero webpages with "࿖". Gorobay (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


I'm quoting from an archived talk page

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

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

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

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

German nationalist gymnastic clubs

To an uninformed reader it appears in this article as if there where not links between nationalism and swastika previous to 1920, which is wrong. Can someone with better wrinting skills than myself please correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


that being said I think the Nazi Germany swatsika's legs point outwards and to the right so I think it would be going in a clockwise motion which is the opposite of what is said in this article. (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Swatstika's "srms" do go towards the right, or Clockwise. Indigodreamz (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)indigodreamzIndigodreamz (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

first appearance of swastika symbol

there is an error in an article stating that first appearance of swastika shaped symbol dates back to bronze age Indian civilization(3000 BC), actually it dates way back to Vince civilization in present day Serbia (5000-6000 years BC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosvujovic1982 (talkcontribs) 06:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hipster user in SE Asia

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

There's nothing sickening about its use in south east Asia, since it's been used there for thousands of years. Have you read the article? Paul B (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me tell you something: the swastika should have nothing to do with Europeans. It's only because of Hitler's smartass and sickening decision to use it as a symbol for Nazism and their ideologies, that it's become so stigmatized in the West when it shouldn't be. Don't bring up this kind of topic cause it has nothing to do with the swastika and 'shakti' or the sacred symbol of auspiciousness. Btw I'm guessing Hitler decided to use it because it was from the "Aryan" civilization, and it represents eternity. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, because of the horrifying past in Europe, people have been educated about Hitler and Nazism and the swastika. But, if you don't use that sort of association and thinking, then you won't think of the swastika symbol in this way. But if you want to feel disgusted, then direct that feeling towards Hitler and his sick use of this ancient, religious symbol for his own ideologies. Don't force others to feel bad or disgusted just because you and your education made you think of it this way. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like that's what he's describing, though, but a design actually reminiscent of a Nazi flag, which is a different matter, isn't it? Twin Bird (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
He never clarified what he described. What he said might mean that the swastika was used when it's normally used on the Nazi socialist flag (with block upon a solid white circle, on a red flag). A possible reason is because it's might be a traditional symbol in that region, and since westerners used it, they want to use it too, or they don't know about Hitler and Nazi's use of it. The other meaning is they are using the Nazi flag (to represent socialism), which is probably very likely. - M0rphzone (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Image problem

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

The best thing might be to remove one or two: there are five images which seems too many for a such a short section. I have no idea though which are the most important or significant.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The article has waaay too many images. It could do with a brutal prune. Span (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Already done twice. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

error detected

I know nothing about this topic. But I know that when the article says "right facing... clockwise" in the lede and "counterclockwise" in the first caption, both describing images with swastikas facing the same direction, there is an error. (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this whole "clockwise/counterclockwise" stuff needs to be removed. The use of these terms in the lede outright contradicts the later section on directionality which states that either orientation could be described as "clockwise" or "counterclockwise". Someone has made utter nonsense of the text by adding "clockwise motion", so we have contradictory passages such as this: "Left-facing" and "right-facing" are used mostly consistently referring to the upper arm of an upright swastika facing either to the viewer's left (卍) in clockwise motion or right (卐) in counterclockwise motion. The other two descriptions are ambiguous as it is unclear whether they refer to the arms as leading or being dragged or whether their bending is viewed outward or inward. However, "clockwise" usually refers to the "right-facing" swastika. Paul B (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

First attested Swastika dates to 6300 BC from Iraq

Thank you for the article however there is an error; first attested Swastika dates to 6300 BC from Samarra in central Iraq

Book picture of plate with painted bird heads fishing around a central swastika, ceramic, Samarra, 6,300-6,000 BCE, d: 27.7 cm Notice around the swastika the bird heads catching fish on the inside are also lizards and on the outer side ( crocodiles represented the military in the ancient past ) plate picture From the Hassuna/Samarra Period, 6500 BCE - 5500 BCE .Found in provenance unknown Ceramic production appeared in the ancient Near East towards the end of the 8th millenium BCE, and towards the 6th millenium BCE painted ceramics were common. In southern Mesopotamia the Samarra culture, and in northern Mesopotamia the Hassuna and Samarra cultures, produced finely decorated ceramics in the seventh and early 6th centuries BCE, showing the distribution of Halaf and early Ubaid cultures. Stylized animals such as the above birds and fish, and swirling patterns in chocolate-brown are typical of the Samarran style. Caubet, Annie and Patrick Pouyssegur. Source." The Origins of Civililization: The Ancient Near East. Paris: Terrail, 1998, pg 34.


Humanbyrace (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. See Talk:Swastika/Archive_4#Samarra_bowl. You should know. You were the one who raised it back then in 2010. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There does not exist any source or evidence or document that state that the swastika in Samarra's bowl was "fabricated", besides there is more than one "Iraqi" Samarran pot with the "swastika" symbol in it, for example the pot below:

Also the old Arabic alphabet contained has the "t" letter look like swastika (and this Semitic "t" that is the acronyme of "taw" that means symbol in Arabianic/Semitic languages did gave us the Greek "tau" letter and throughout Greek the Latin "t" letter), please look below

Humanbyrace (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there does exist just such a source, specified in trhe link I gave: Stanley A. Freed, Research Pitfalls as a Result of the Restoration of Museum Specimens, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 376. It's not really a question of "fabrication", but of creative restoration, which was probably entirely sincere. Lots of things look like swastikas. It's just a shape. Nice picture. Do you have a source for the flickr image of the bowl? Paul B (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC) and The swastika pattern is characteristic of the Hassuna-samarra culture.

According to the PDF in scribd there is a Syrian Swastika dated as back as 6/7 th millenium BC Humanbyrace (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Which Illyria from antiquity?

Ancient Illyrian lands did not have defined borders.

No one knows which Illyria is refered to in the article:

Greek Illyria- (control given to the Romans by Pericles in an Athenian treaty to control piracy) {"History of the Hellenic World"} Primary source: Herodotus

Barbaric Illyria- The far north Illyria

Someone should specify where the the present day location is. If it is in Croatia, Slovenia or some part of Montenegro then it is Northern or 'Barbaric Illyria', if it is in Northern Albania then it is 'Greek Illyria'.

Illyria existed in many different places at many points in history. The only known boundaries are that of 'Greek Illyria' and the area north "Barbaric" which was later outlined and defined during the Roman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Egypt and Ethiopia?

Aren't there Ancient Egyptian examples of sun worship and use of swastikas in some locations in lower Egypt?

I think there could be prominent examples in Ethiopian culture that are significant, surprising that there is no mention of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Check out these links of swastikas in an Ethiopian Rockchurch in Lalibela Ramzez1974 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


I'm not sure if (or where) this should be included, but as an interesting aside, it could be noted that prior to the Nazis, Rudyard Kipling used the swastika in his trademark and on the bindings of his books (as a "good luck" symbol, relating to the Hindu usage, and Ganesha). However:

"Kipling was so disgusted by the Nazis and the sight of their flag that he removed the swastika, a Hindu symbol of good luck, from his bookbindings. It had been his trademark for nearly forty years but it was now 'defiled beyond redemption'."David Gilmore, The Long Recessional, p. 304 (according

~E: (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference Link 2 appears dead.

In the 'references' section: "The Swastika." Northvegr Foundation. Notes on the etymology and meaning of Swastika.

I get a 404 error every time: "The requested URL /lore/swastika/004.php was not found on this server." (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hidden text in the lead

I have removed this hidden text:

Intent is important. If used to promote Nazism, it is illegal. If used in historical context, such as in a photograph of the era, it is permitted in most instances. Even in parody, it can be used as long as it is clear the intent is to mock Fascism or Hitler, etc.

This is IMO misuse of the hidden text facility. If this is important it should be in the article. I would argue that it is too much detail for the lead and needs sourcing without which it is largely opinion. This opinion is not all correct: I distinctly recall parodies being criticized by people who do not understand them. There is no reason why it should be an edit note in the lead. Britmax (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Swastika Seals photo appears twice

The same picture appears twice to the right side of the page as you scroll down, with the same caption in different phrasing.

I suggest removing one of those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. It was a duplicate, good catch. Britmax (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Swastika also exists in duplicate. First, in the introductory paragraph, then under 'name' heading. --isoham (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"swa"+"asti" vs. "su"+"asti"

I find no support in Sanskrit dictionaries that "svastika" derives from "swa" (or sva, meaning self, since there really isn't a "w" in Sanskrit) plus "asti". According to sandhi, or Sanskrit rules of euphonic combination, wouldn't "sva+asti" yield "svaasti" (with a long "a"), instead of "svasti" (with a short "a")? I feel we should change the lead in this respect, as the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead makes this claim. Etymologically, the "su"+"asti" derivation is quite well documented. The "sva"+"asti" is only supported by a dubious reference to some person on, who may or may not be qualified to speak about Sanskrit derivation. Does anybody else have a reference to a reputable source, say, a dictionary or grammar, on this issue? Mark Froelich (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Since no one has responded in the last two weeks to the above comment and question, I have removed the doubtful etymological derivation of "swastika" found in the first paragraph. Mark Froelich (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I also thought the same, sva + asti should result in svaastika. But, you've raised an interesting point on Sanskrit not having a 'w' sound. That Sanskrit does not have two different sounds viz 'w' and 'v', but has only one is correct. Whether that one should be a 'v' or 'w' or something else is interesting. In Sanskrit that sounds is defined as a transitory vowel from 'u' to 'a'. When I try making that transition, I think I don't end up making 'v' sound but more like 'w' sound. isoham (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
In serbian language, the word svastika (phonetically equal to swastika) refers to the mother of one's wife. Whereas the mother of the husband is called Priya. Funny, isn it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Swastika Image to Wiki representing Hindu, Buddhist religions sentiments.

The File:Swastika_Hindu_Symbol.jpg is unique right-facing swastika with smaller square in the middle with four circles. This item is a photo of a real, and existing Swastika avilable for sale at following:

I would explain why the red Swastika is not sufficient - Red Swastika is a computer creation of excellent artistic value. However it was found not adequate for religious purpose of a temple. Hence a better one was searched and, then I found more suitable one, and I uploaded it under the name Swastika_Hindu_Symbol.jpg. Please advice how to add this to a suitable location, as I have spent lot of time and effort on this subject.

Abeywickrama (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the new Swastika sticker 30px is redundant given the SVG drawing HinduSwastika.svg already included in the lede of the article. My reasons for preferring the latter are:
  1. Swastika is a symbol, not an object, so an SVG image is ideal for showing how the symbol looks. (Other images in the article can then depict how and where such a symbol appears in practice)
  2. In Hinduism, besides use as an architectural feature in some temples, swastika is most commonly hand-drawn using tikka, haldi, rangoli, or rice paste, typically in red, saffron or yellow colors. A plastic sticker of swastika, though undoubtedly sold and used, is frankly as traditional as a plastic sticker of a Christmas tree. (I am not sure what Abey meant by the depicted SVG symbol not being "adequate for religious purpose of a temple")
  3. Perhaps most importantly: the "smaller square" in the sticker image is not a desirable feature of any religious significance; it is purely an artifact of the manufactured product design and the swastika with four dots not being a simply connected. Hence the image is misleading since a naive reader may not realize this fact and interpret the central square to be part of the swastika design.
Due to 1 and 2, the sticker image is not suitable as a replacement for the existing SVG image or for the lede, and due to 3, it should not be included in the article. Perhaps User:Paul Barlow and others can weigh in too. Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Inspecting the sticker

I think this sticker shows a photograph of the Symbol, metal object made by brass. The Symbol appears to be pasted on the smaller perspex or glass square. Smaller square appear to be nailed on to a surface. The four nails appear to be the four dots.

As I live close by and travel in India, I may be able to search for the location where this photograph is taken in India, and get a first hand look and more information from the temple. For the time being please advice where it should inserted in the page. As a believer in ancient knowledge, I am certain the new symbol represent immense value to a person like me.

Abeywickrama (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia anti India?

This always happens with India. When something originates from India, or started in India, there are people who won't write it. They will use names like "Indus" or "Indo" or "Asia" or "South Asia" but they don't want to write India, or ancient India. Why? Well I know why, and I won't go into detail why. But this is why I, a person who is Indian, hates wikipedia. Because it is not fair......

For example....

Everyone who knows India will tell you taht the Swastika originates from Hinduism in Ancient India. This is common knowledge. But not here on Wikipedia. And it is not right.

Who is the ruler of this page that keeps on denying that the Swastika orginates from Hinduism in Ancient India? (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox Ogress smash!
Our article on the Swastika describes how, although wide use of it is recorded in India older examples have been found in Europe (old being Neolithic, you don't get much older than that). If you have a source that has Indian swastikas older than that by all means cite it. Britmax (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The pictures of Indian swastika are used from the lead, because it's prominent, and has most understandable roots. Which is pretty much enough. Agreed with Britmax too. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Wrong my friend....According to your great loveable Wikipedia, Hinduism is the oldeset religion. THats what it says here on your wonderful great amazing wikipedia. So, if Hindism is the oldest religion, then your wrong when you say you cant get much older then Europe nitholic. Yes, its not the same comparison. But who were HIndu? People from India and surrounding regions. And, even those who date Hinduism with a random date, they also should knwo that HInduism was spread orally before the date given. So that means its even older.....not enough?.....ok i have more......The Aryan heritage which is the founder of Indo-European, stars in India (Both of this is accordng to your great wonderful Wikipedia). So in conclusion, HInduism, Aryan heriate, Indo-European, all started from India, and again, this is according to the Swastika, which comes from Hindism, which comes from India, started in Hinduism...which is from India....please do not change the edit.

And for the record I could give you TONS of examples of how Wikipedia is anti - India. Tons. Would yo like me to? ...also...could you email me? Because I dont always come back here to Wikpeidia cus its anti INdia. So just emxail me so i can know that you want a response or something if you dont mind.(Personal contact redacted). (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

True, it's just we recognize every sourced information in wikipedia, not that they have to be certainly true, but from the sources(reliable ones). Bladesmulti (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
So how long will this stay until it is changed again? lol (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This page, as well as others are closely watched, Don't think there will be any vandalism. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
For years ive been fighting with the kings and emporers of Wikipeida. Fights from people who did not want to write that Buddha, Yoga, the Aryans, and yes the Swastika, were not from Ancient India. And your telling me this page is closely watched? May I remind you, that this page, which you say is closely watched, did not have a simple sentence that said the Swastika comes from Hinduism. And although now it is there (Because I put it there) I am kind of sure it will be taken down again. But so far it's there. Thank you then. (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the recently added dubious claim that Swastika originated in Hinduism. While there is no doubt of swastika's prominent use in the religion, any claims of its origins being in Hinduism (or, any any other specific culture) are likely to be historically unverifiable and will need solid contemporary academic sources to be retained. Note that the cited references, did not even support the claim they were appended to; in fact Wilson's book that was being false cited for the claim specifically says:

No conclusion is attempted as to the time or place of origin, or the primitive meaning of the Swastika, because these are considered to be lost in antiquity. The straight line, the circle, the cross, the triangle, are simple forms, easily made, and might have been invented and re-invented in every age of primitive man and in every quarter of the globe, each time being an independent invention,...

And although that was written in 1896, I doubt that basic conclusion has changed very much since then. Abecedare (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is only "anti-India" from the point of view of Indian chauvinists. Of course, it is made up of individual editors, so it's fair to say that there are probably specific editors who might qualify as "anti India", or anti any-other-country you might mention. Yes, we do have editors who will appear saying that the swastika was not invented in India, but in place X, (or that the earliest known swastika comes from place X). That's not usually motivated by some desire to do-down India, but rather to pump-up the editor's preferred culture. Why anyone should care where the first swastika-type shape was made is a mystery. We don't have people competing to claim to have invented the first triangle, or the first star-shape, or whatever. A case could be made for distinguishing the earliest known example of the shape from the earliest known example of the sign (i.e. the combination of shape and concept), which is certainly very likely to have been in India. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"if Hindism is the oldest religion, then your wrong when you say you cant get much older then Europe nitholic". This is the level of logic that supports your argument? Britmax (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This argument is probably over now. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
See! I told you! I told you the anti India people would do this! Where is the guy who said this is "closely watched" and "wont be vandalized?".....its amazng how wikipedia is so anti India. YOu zombies of wikipedia claim: Buddha was not from India. Yoga did not start in India. THe INdus valley civilization is not from India. India never existed. The Aryans are not from Inida. And now of course, the Swastikae is not from India. I cant belivee this! This is amazaing! Whats next? India is a word that doesnt exist? THis is why I hate wikipedia.....oh and, i also love love love love how everyone lookst at me and says WELL THIS GUY MUST BE AN INDIAN FUNDAMENTALIST IF HE SAYS THE SWASTIKA COMES FROM favorite: IF HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT HINDUISM IS THE OLDEST, THEN ITS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT.....riiiiiight......Hinduism is the oldest, the swasitake is used in hinduism, therefore the swastiaka comes from hinduism.....i could give you MUCH MORE REASONS but that reason alone should be enough.......

Man I hate wikipedia. I could give u so many more reasons on why wikpiedia is anti india, but whats the point? You emporers who worship wikipedia just dont like india. You pick and choose your facts, you dismiss people as extremists or fudnamentlaist, and you have no logic in your aruments. I keep challenging people ove rthe years but people just say GIVE ME A SOURCE. And then i give sources and they claim there not sources. Meanwhile you people use sources that have been debunked? Wow. (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

How can there be other without one?

My opinion is that the second sentence of the article: "The earliest...pole star" is vague. If someone is not providing citation and not providing the details such as people, place and time period, then it should be removed urgently. Because when we mention "various other ancient civilizations" in the following sentence, a reader would naturally assume that the one civilization mentioned in the said sentence should be the "primary civilization" from where the other cultures somehow or other borrowed the symbol. That in my opinion would be misleading to the readers.Cx3z (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the above mentioned point.Cx3z (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"Bronze Age Mycenaean "doll" with human, solar and tetragammadion (swastika) symbols. Louvre Museum"

I reason to believe that this is wrongly dated. Human figures like those seen on the doll are normally not considered to exist before 750 BC (that is how the late geometric period, c. 750-700 BC is identified in terms of art). Moreover, look at the small roses to seen in between the figurines, and a little bit higher up - those are typical orientalizing motifs originating in Corinth during the following, orientalizing, period (ca 700-625 BC). All dates are of course +/- 50 years or so at this point.

A reference where a professional provides a date would be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Too many pictures

From the "Archaeological record" section onwards the right edge of the article has dozens of pictures, more than is necessary. Even in the widest of browsers, this means that images will not appear aligned with the sections intended. This needs to be addressed, particularly because of the contrast between the sections. --LukeSurl t c 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

"well-being" citation needed.

Florian Blaschke, please add a citation from a reputable Sanskrit dictionary for "asti" being a noun meaning "being." You have added that information three times now without a proper citation, though I have asked for it. I do not wish to get into an edit war over this. I have left this in the article for now, but with a "citation needed" tag. Please do not remove this tag without providing a proper citation. Mark Froelich (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to appropriate hindu IP

This page seems to be euro-centric.

I make a strong claim here that the west is trying to appropriate hindu/Sindhu/Indu[s] cultural symbols for its own purposes (maybe because they couldn't design anything better that a cross).. There's some link that says it was 6000BC oldest record in bulgaria .... which is ridiculous.

If they knew what it means, and oldest record is 6000BC, how come ALL of non-hindu names only refer to it as a "shape", rather than the meaning behind it ? It clearly shows that those cultures were just superficially impressed by it ( as they continue to be today). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of 卍

I believe that both 卐 and 卍 are swastikas. To the IP, please respond here and provide reasoning before removing. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No they are not

  • 卐 is the swastik, the positive flow. The other one is copy imitated by those who didn't know what it means.. You can call it wanna-be-swastik, or sub-swastik or something like that...maybe inferior-swastik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Both have been described by sources as swastikas, the facing issue is only a religious matter, not a design matter. This article is about the design and its various uses, not merely one interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
To the unsigned user above; how can 卍 be a copy or imitation when it's well attested in the Danubian Vinca proto-script already around 6000 BC? What were these people "copying" or "imitating" in 6000 BC and what exactly did they not "understand" regarding its "meaning" at that point in time which is well within what we call prehistory? Both 卐 and 卍 are widely referred to as swastikas since they are simply two variations on the same geometric symbol. This shouldn't even be under dispute as they have rotational symmetry which is a well-known property when it xomes to classification of geometric shapes. Rotational symmetry is just a more technical way of saying that if you tilt the angle, e.g. reflect something in a mirror, the actual shape itself doesn't change. Now, that doesn't mean that it's identical to the non-mirrored shape but it does mean that it's a perfectly valid variant of the same shape. At the absolute minimum, the symbol 卍 should have a notable mention in this article as it is a common variation. As in the case of the yin and yang symbol, this is a page about a geometric shape, it's not about any underlying philosophies (whether about "positive flow" or anything else) that were developed centuries or even millennia after the shape's first appearance. The page on the yin and yang symbol deals for example with some variations on that symbol which actually alter the standard shape's appearance ever so slightly, but these two variations on the swastika are as I said of identical shape. I wouldn't personally have a problem if, say, 卍 was called "reverse swastika" or something like that in this article in order to distinguish the two shapes but I don't see any reason whatsoever to censor this variant given that it is historically well attested and not some random Photoshop experiment. This page after all deals with the history and development of the symbol - a history and development that should make references to variations of that symbol. If the symbol happens to be used by certain philosophical schools or religions, then that should of course be mentioned in the article, but the symbol itself is not the product or intellectual property of any philosophy or religion as it's not derived from any of them. So to conclude, I definitely object to its removal from this article. Abvgd (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Both are called a swastika, though the "reverse" version is also sometime called a "Sauwastika" (or "suawsatika") to distinguish it. All the claims about so-called 'positive' and 'negative' energies or whatever seem to be recent inventions. However, I disagree with Abvgd's assertion that the shape is all that matters. You can find the shape as far back in history as you like. It's really the shape attached to an iconographical tradition that makes it a swastika. Of course the article should cover both. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


I am overhauling the article by reverting to the 3 August 2014 revision by @Redtigerxyz:, and bringing in any agreeable or useful material from revisions since.

There were a number of theosophical, new-age, and masonic sources (and a God damned neo-Nazi site!) being cited that either did not meet WP:RS or did not support the material they were cited for. Seeing how there were academic references before, and the bent that the new references took, many of the citations appear to be nothing but WP:REFSPAM by User:MichaelRay3221 (stick to mainstream academic or journalistic publishers, please, you can find plenty at Google Books). At least one of the theosophical links was a malware site.

I would not be opposed to the masonic links being brought back in if we identify the views of the site as such, but we should try to stick to academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing some of the older citations, since one cites Wikipedia. Going through Google Books for academic works. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


Apologies for the links and any possible copyright infringement. I am new to this whole Wikipedia thing. I agree to the Overhaul changes, and hereby retract any previous links and citations on my end. MichaelRay3221 (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)MichaelRay3221

I am amazed this article isn't permanently semiprotected. It's an uphill battle keeping it together even when it is. I've spent more than a decade on Wikipedia now, and this has literally been going on all that time, and the article is still full of "hey, here's some clip art of a swastika I've seen somewhere" clip-art. Back in 2006, I opened "Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century" as a dumping ground for the endless stream of random examples ending up on this page. This seems to work, more or less, but the giant list-like "here are pictures of random archaeological artefacts, sorted by region" is still marring this article. I made Swastika (Germanic Iron Age) in 2010 to at least get the Germanic stuff out of our hair (which is at least noteworthy and certainly worth its own page), but hey, "the Illyrians" get a h4 section,

Swastika was widespread among the Illyrians, symbolizing the Sun. The Sun cult was the main Illyrian cult, and the Sun was represented by a swastika in clockwise motion, and it stood for the movement of the Sun (Stipčević, Aleksandar (1977). The Illyrians: history and culture. Noyes Press. pp. 182, 186. ISBN 9780815550525. )

really? the Illyrians? You mean just like every other Iron Age culture you could name? Also note how the missing definite article just remains unfixed, clearly because nobody bothers to monitor this stuff. "The Sun cult was the main Illyrian cult", here's a tall claim worthy of a reference. Luckily we have a good reference. Ah no, sorry, it's just a google books snippet view search result with no context, from a random (Noyes Press, 1977) book making random claims. Surely, this "main Illyrian cult" gets an in-depth treatment at the main article? No it does not, because, as that page correctly states, we do not know the first thing about Illyrian religion. But hey, it's only the swastika page, so it must be alright to post heaps and heaps of fantastial nonsense you googled somewhere. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Source to add

See here I just don't have the time to add it now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Image and mirror image against meaning

I have scanned through the article and read the geopmetry bit but I still don't know if there is a correct orientation for specific uses. I think a section to show that, say ancients used it in one direction and others used in it another would be helpfull. (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)