Talk:Swastika/Archive 6

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Svastika

Why is the spelling Svastika not used? A w is only used instead of a v in English spelling because the w makes the v sound in German (making it the proper way of transliterating स्वस्तिक for german), and the German nat.soc. political movement made Svastikas well known to westerners who don't have much exposure to eastern religions. The spelling faithful to the sanskrit should be used, or else the article will be biased towards modern political usage of Svastikas. But in Buddhism, svastikas are used all the time Mualphachi (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, "swastika" is the English spelling, and this is the English Language Wikipedia. BTW, it seems very unlikely that we (English speakers) chose to use 'w' to help the German's pronounce it correctly - as far as i know the German's only use "hakenkreuz" anyway. - Snori (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Direction

The illustrations clearly show that the term "swastika" is applied to both the left-facing and right-facing forms of the symbol. There is no justification for calling the right-facing form "inverted".

Definition from Collins Dictionary:

American

a design or ornament of ancient origin in the form of a cross with four equal arms, each bent in a right-angle extension: a mystic symbol found in both the Old World and the New World
this design with the arms bent back clockwise, used in Nazi Germany and by other Nazi fascists as a party emblem and symbol of anti-Semitism

British

a primitive religious symbolor ornament in the shape of a Greek cross, usually having the ends of the arms bent at right angles in either a clockwise or anticlockwise direction
this symbol with clockwise arms, officially adopted in 1935 as the emblem of Nazi Germany

--Thnidu (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hinduism

QUOTE: It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, especially Hinduism. END OF QUOTE

There might be a content of error in this statement. Hinduism is actually the religion of the Brahmins. And this religion has connection to Sanskrit, Vedas and the epic stories. However, how much connection the Brahmins have with the antiquity that reaches out to more than two thousand years backwards also needs to be studied.

As to Modern Hinduism as seen in current-day India, almost all non-Brahmin populations became Hindus only around the 1930s, and after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.166.141 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Pelagic (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As Chinese character

§ Written characters says

The sauwastika was adopted as a standard character in Chinese, "卍" (pinyin: wàn) and as such entered various other East Asian languages, including Chinese script. In Japanese the symbol is called "卍" (Hepburn: manji) or "卍字" (manji).

What does it mean? --Thnidu (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

First English usage

It says: "The first use of the word swastika in a European text is found in 1871 with the publications of Heinrich Schliemann", but a quick search at Google Books shows that this claim is false. For example, 1858 (p83) 1864 (p253) and 1868 (p209). There are some references to even earlier works which I haven't checked. In general it is very difficult to identify the first usage of a word. This claim in the article needs to be removed or rewritten. Zero^talk 03:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC) The Essex Standard newspaper used it (with spelling "swastika") on page 3 of Oct 28, 1842. The main context is heraldry but it also mentions the Hindu and Jain usage and has a picture of a plain left-pointing swastika. Again, references to earlier use. Zero^talk

Still a good luck symbol after the 1930s

At least into the 1940s, after the rise of the Nazi party and the start of the war in Europe, the swastika was a symbol of good luck and used as such in western countries by non-nazis. While it came to be associated with nazis in the 1930s and a change may have started in the 1930s (though possibly not until 1939 would it have become strongly noticed), whenever the change came and it lost almost all its high regard in the west, it was not definitively and universally the 1930s. Waerloeg (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

In any case it is correct (hard though it is for Westerners to imagine now after the Nazis and WW II) that "In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s". See, e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29644591. So I have removed the "dubious -- discuss" label, and revised to "until (or even a bit after) the 1930s". James Dunlap (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any justification for "(or even a bit after)" in that source - what example does it have for 1940 onward? Also that's very clumsy for the intro.

Reclamation attempts

Shall we add this guy and his (divine, as he claims) mission? https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/avn78e/manwoman-is-taking-back-the-swastika Zezen (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

More than just him. There's also Reverend Kenjitsu Nakagaki: "Buddhist monk raises awareness about the swastika’s original meaning". He got a bunch of attention for writing a book and being featured in a documentary. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us mention this reappropriation, reclamation or resignification.

Zezen (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 6.1 Europe > Iceland

The short paragraph on swastika use in Iceland has a notable error, easily confirmable by checking the already sited reference.

- - - Current text - - -

The Swastika, or the Thor's hammer as the logo was called, was used as the logo for H/f. Eimskipafjelag Íslands[124], from founding day in 1914 until the Second World War when it was discontinued and changed to read only the letters Eimskip.

- - - End of current text - - -

- - - Suggested text - - -

The Swastika, or the Thor's hammer as the logo was called, was used as the logo for the in H/f. Eimskipafjelag Íslands[124] – a freight ship company in the North-Atlantic, from founding day in 1914 until 1989 when it was discontinued and changed to read only the letters Eimskip.

- - - End of suggested text

The already sited refence is an archived version of a still unchanged page on Eimskip's web site: https://www.eimskip.is/um-eimskip/saga-eimskips/

The title/headline of the web page is: "Saga Eimskips" (e. History of Eimskip)

- - - Relevant text in cited reference - - -

"1989 - Eimskip tók upp nýtt merki á 75 ára afmælinu þetta ár. Kom það í stað Þórshamarsins sem hafði fylgt félaginu frá upphafi."

- - - End of relevant text in cited reference - - -

For an easier verification, the following translation is broken down into matching pairs:

- - - Translation begins - - -

Eimskip tók upp → Eimskip adopted

nýtt merki → a new logo

á 75 ára afmælinu → on the 75th anniversary

þetta ár. → this year [i.e. 1989].

Kom það í stað → It replaced [lit: came it instead]

Þórshamarsins → the Thor's hammer

sem hafði fylgt → which had strung along with [lit: followed]

félaginu → the company

frá upphafi → since it's foundation [lit: from the beginning]

- - - End of translation - - -

The 1989 entry is (not surprisingly) missing in the corresponding Eimskip web-page in English; https://www.eimskip.com/about-eimskip/our-history/

However, another page in Eimskip's web in English – https://www.eimskip.com/about-eimskip/mission-and-vision/ – support my suggested adding of the words "a freight ship company in the North-Atlantic". Without that change, most reader's won't realize that the company using the swastika as their logo until 45 years after the end of WW2 is a shipping company on international lines. (The 3rd photo on https://www.eimskip.is/um-eimskip/saga-eimskips/ shows how prominent the swastika was on the vessels. I do not know of similar photos eligible for Wikimedia.)

I want to make it clear to the moderator of the page and any readers of the talk pages, that while suggesting this, I am not implying that Eimskip related with or syphathized to nazism. They had been using the swastika 1919 and maintained it in order not to recognize the nazi abuse of the ancient symbol. Eventually, the swastika-nazi link would diminsh. However it did not and using became increasingly embarassing until the inevitable decicion of 1989. Please also note that the sentences in this final paragraph of mine are not part of my editing suggestion; I am merely trying to argue that it is relevant and non-biased. This is my first ever attempt at suggesting an edit to a protected page. I am not sure if I am doing it in the proper way. I will surely take notice if someone tells me how to do things properly.

Bjarkikarlsson (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sentence fragment

§Meaning of the symbol begins with this paragraph:

European hypotheses of the swastika are often treated in conjunction with cross symbols in general, such as the sun cross of Bronze Age religion. Beyond its certain presence in the "proto-writing" symbol systems, such as the Vinča script,^[1] which appeared during the Neolithic.^[2]

The second sentence, which I have boldfaced, is a fragment : This sentence no main verb. I can't fix it because I don't know what the writer was trying to say.

References

^ Paliga S., The tablets of Tǎrtǎria Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, vol. 19, n°1, 1993. pp. 9–43; (Fig. 5 on p. 28)
^ Freed, S. A. and R. S., "Origin of the Swastika", Natural History, January 1980, 68–75.

--Thnidu (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The preview of the page on both google and other Wikipedia pages shows only the first paragraph of the page. So shouldn't that opening paragraph at least mention the Swastika's most well known usage, as the symbol of the Nazi Party?

TGRFAN (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@TGRFAN: Good point. I've joined the paragraphs. --Thnidu (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should also mention that there are other cultural usage that has no connection with Nazi party usage.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

you mean something like: The swastika continues to be used as a symbol of good luck and prosperity in Hindu and Buddhist countries such as Nepal, India, Mongolia, China and Japan. It is also commonly used in Hindu marriage ceremonies."? Oh look it's already there. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hakenkreuz

The original cross used by nazi was not called a swastika nazi refered to it as Haken Creuz (hooked cross) Pls remove the nazi part from this article and make a new page haken creuz Its defaming hinduism Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This is made abundently clear in the article. And whatever name they gave it, it is exactly the same design. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The design isnt same The haken creuz is leaned upwards while swastika has four dots in the quadrants Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

You made an assertion based on your own observation, but you have no support from WP:Reliable sources. That means you have no leverage to change the article. And even if you brought a few reliable sources, there would still be the ones that say the symbol is the same, and so we would give both views in proportion. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please also read WP:COMMONAME - hakenkreuz is not a commonly-used term in English. Acroterion (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I have just reverted a change made by @RootOfAllLight: this afternoon. They had changed swastika to Hakenkreuz in two places referring to the Nazis' use, in paragraphs that list different terms used in many languages and cultures; all of these vocabulary descriptions use swastika when referring to the shape itself.

This is the second time in five days this user has made the same change and been reverted.

--Thnidu (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed the header of this discussion to Hakenkreuz to make it clear what we are discussing.

To me it looks like various attempts to redefine the Nazi symbol as the hakenkreuz and not the swastika is an attempt to distance the Nazis from the symbol. Which is ridiculous. It's probably something to do with modern preferences of neo-Nazis, but I couldn't care less. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources which all agree that Hitler took the swastika and made it his party's symbol, and then the symbol of Germany under Nazism. It doesn't matter what he called in his own language. So all this fussing about the German word is useless. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think if wiki can have another page for flipped Swastika(Sauwastika), so is 45-degree rotated Swastika(Hakenkreuz). Indians and Buddhists would love to see that. Puetsua (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I would rather see the Sauwastika material merged back inside this article. The 45-degree rotation of a symbol, and the mirror image of that symbol, should be covered in the same manner, all on the same page. And we should definitely avoid a WP:POVFORK. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody please propose the merger? --Khajidha (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

This edit request to Swastika has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Swastik has nothing to do with Adolf Hitler nor the Nazi Party . Swastik is a Religious symbol of Hindu Community 2405:204:95AF:B37B:85EC:8C53:7784:29BB (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done. You are wrong about Hitler and the Nazi Party. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

This edit request to Swastika has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the prehistory section, there is a line talking about how the swastika motif came westward from the indus valley in around 3000 BCE, this paragraph is perceded by a referal to the swastika motif being found in northern Ukraine in 10000 BCE, 7000 years before they are found in India. This makes the idea sound silly, and also can confuse the reader completely 83.252.93.10 (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. h 05:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

North American symbol

I notice the North America section says the symbol was used in the Mississippian and Southeastern Ceremonial period, which suggests it pre-dates European contact, and has an independent origin. Do the Native American cultures who use it have their own names for it? Moonraker12 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"...to the Navajo it represented a whirling log ( tsil no'oli' ), a sacred image representing a legend that was used in healing rituals."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs) 05.27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (I should have noticed that!) I did wonder if it was a motif held in common across Native American cultures, and thus would have had a common term, but it seems not…Moonraker12 (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Sauwastika into Swastika

CLOSED AS MERGE

There are good arguments on both sides; I find the length argument especially compelling, but the argument that the length issue can be solved via pruning trumps that for me. Closing without prejudice; if during the merge the length issues aren't fixed, another RfC is fine. —valereee (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Sauwastika article describes an aspect of the swastika that should be presented to the reader here in the swastika article. The only physical difference is that one symbol is a mirror image of the other. If we had both articles fully fleshed out, the cultural differences between the two versions of the symbol would have to be described in both articles, which is redundant. I propose we have only one article describing the differences, and that the swastika article be the main article, turning sauwastika into a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Support per the obvious advantages outlined by Binksternet. --Khajidha (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I would be opposed to this merge; This article is already 143Kb long, which is well past the point we should be thinking of splitting it up, not adding more stuff in. Also, as the sauwastika appears to have a different significance, and be favoured by different groups, to the right-handed swastika, I'd say it constitutes a discrete subject warranting its own article, even if it is a lot shorter. Moonraker12 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Support. As per proposal. Editor2020 (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
oppose Sauwastika has a distinct meaning in 19th-century scholarship. Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Support Supporting it because of 45 degrees Hakenkreuz is in this article. Puetsua (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Support the merger. Also, the distinction between swastika 卐 and sauwastika 卍, the first associated with the masculine creative power of God and the second with the feminine destructive power of God, or reabsorption into godhead, seems to be present mostly in Hinduism and less so in other religions, especially Buddhism which almost universally favours the so-called "left-facing" version 卍. Therefore, such distinction should be discussed in the appropriate context (the section about Hinduism) and with robust sources, and not universalised to all the religions using the swastika. In other religious movements the symbolism is the other way around; for instance, in the contemporary Russian new religious movement AllatRa, as explained in the eponymous book AllatRa by Anastasia Novykh, the 卍, in the present article called "left-facing", is defined as the rightwise creative movement of God, while the 卐, in the article defined "right-facing", is rather defined as the leftwise destructive movement of the Goddess. Furthermore, as far as I have been able to investigate, the terminological distinction of the sauwastika from the swastika could be a 19th century invention of Eugène Burnouf, not existing in Indian terminology beforehand.--Æo (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Strong Support This article already lists other culture's symbols. It is a no brainer that Sauwastika and Swastika be merged into one. I will probably ~~close this discussion before New Year as consensus is pretty much reached in a majority.~~ request for closure as I think concensus has been reached. PyroFloe (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@PyroFloe:: On a point of order, a majority isn’t the same as a consensus: You have a majority here, not a consensus. Also, as you have offered an opinion on the proposal it would be inappropriate for you to close it as well, don't you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moonraker12:: If we were to consult WP:MERGEREASON and WP:OVERLAP, the article "Sauwastika" is clearly overlapping this article. The shortness of "Sauwastika" can be merged into this whole thing. Also, the left facing "卍" already redirects here. If we were to base it from the references in the "Sauwastika" article meanwhile, the term doesn't even get mentioned on some of the listed references. On a side note, size does not mean that it automatically should be separate, there are many articles that were merged that are talking about the same subject, for example, the "History of _____" articles ("Almost certainly" as what the size guideline says). PyroFloe (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet:: If I understand your argument it is that if the cultural aspects of the left-handed symbol are fully developed, then we would have to include the difference to the right-handed one, and that would overlap. Can I suggest that if the suavastika article ever does that, then would be the time to propose a merger, not before. To be clear, You want to pre-emptively merge the article in case it eventually qualifies for one. But as it stands, there is very little overlap, so there is little reason to merge them. Moonraker12 (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

OTOH, in view of the size of this article, wouldn’t it be better to start splitting stuff out of it, instead of piling more stuff in? An obvious candidate would be the stuff on the hakenkreuz which could go to (say) Swastika (Nazi symbol); Similarly, some of the less swastika-like symbols (Kolovrat, Thor’s hammer) might be better in separate articles. Or the content on items that already have their own page could be trimmed down to a summary. Either way, that seems a better direction to be going in, n’est ce pas? Moonraker12 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I definitely would not take the Nazi stuff out of this and put it into a different article. There's altogether too much of an extremist push by neo-Nazis to deny that the swastika was chosen by Hitler as his party's symbol. ("The German flag displayed the hakenkreuz, not the swastika." As if there's any important difference.) Splitting the topic would give those folks fuel, and I don't want to do that. This article's unwieldy size can be treated by simple pruning. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Support. I was thinking of closing here but I suppose I'm involved at this point since I commented in the previous section. My observation there may be relevant here, at least with regard to Binksternet's point immediately above: anyone who claims that period Nazis never used the term "swastika" hasn't read Mein Kampf. Which is fine –– it's a terrible book –– but Hitler does refer to it as a swastika in the section where he discusses designing the Nazi flag. Generalrelative (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to this change because they have different meanings, and this article is already really long--24.85.21.226 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

Comment, instead of closing this merge request myself, even though I think that a merge should happen, I will just list it at the noticeboard for a third party to close this as I've already engaged in this discussion before. Pinging other involved editors as well Khajidha, Editor2020, Puetsua, Æo, Dimadick, Moonraker12, Binksternet, Generalrelative, and IP 24.85.21.226, before I request for closure. PyroFloe (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I still think the merge should go ahead, so that all the related aspects of the symbol can be discussed in one place, without needless repetition. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just go ahead with the merge. No objection from me. Puetsua (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

This edit request to Swastika has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the date of death to May 7, 1945, the day Germany surrendered. 199.96.141.250 (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The swastika cannot die, as it is a symbol. It has continued in use since the end of the war. Are you sure you have the right article? Britmax (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

This edit request to Swastika has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Pls donot relate Swastika symbols with Nazi symbols. Pls remove photo of Nazi symbol. Woughbur (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done: The swastika was a prominent nazi symbol. Flalf^Talk 02:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Stone walls in Iran

Basp1, let's talk about what you are trying to do here. This edit of yours cannot stand because of all the "citation needed" tags and disputed text you restored. That stuff must stay out.

Your specific text appears to be the following:

In some mountain in Iran, there are swastikas or spinning wheels on the stone walls of the mountains, which are estimated to be more than 7,000 years old. One of these graffiti is in Khorashad, Birjand, on the holly wall called Lakh Mazar. At least one of its swastikas has survived. Numerous shapes and graffiti have been drawn on Lakh Mazar, some have been destroyed by subsequent or deliberate drawings in next periods specially in Islamic era.

Your reference is Parssea website from 2014: https://parssea.persianblog.ir/Dvbe4xKanwIp7mnqw7yn-%D9%86%D9%82%D8%B4-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%DA%AF%D9%86%D8%AC%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%8C-%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%A7-%D9%88-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C

The reference has "blog" in the URL, so I'm wondering if it is a personal blog or a department of a magazine. I used Google translate to inspect parts of the page, and I did not find all of the facts you inserted in the article.

Another point is that the parts about "survived" and "destroyed" are not important here. It's enough that a scholar says they were there. Binksternet (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

greetings . all have mentioned in the book by the archeologist labaf khaniki:
the book survey of lakh mazar[1]

is in persian and unfortunately you can not access it but part of the book have published in the above link of parssea.so this is why i mentioned the link of parssea.

[2]
survey of lakh mazar[3]
survey of lakh Mazar [4]
swastika in Iran [5]

please see : Lakh Mazar also Tall-i Bakun 02:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)

Why is a Christan Cross being called a swastika?

Can someone explain why the Nazi Christian origin cross being called a swastika? The Germans never called it swastika , swastika is a Sanskrit word belonging to dharmic religions. In both linguistic, culture and usage it's alien to the Nazi hooked Cross.

This is like saying the Bible is the quran because they are books and Square. GhostIn$hell (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

GhostIn$hell, did you read the article at all? As far as I can see, it eexplains it pretty well. Oh, see also Abrahamic religion, aka the faiths of the book. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm pointing to the obvious , Logically they should not be classified as the same, swastika is defacto alien to the Nazi hooked cross.

It makes no sense, it's like saying Hindu 6 point start symbol is same as the Jewish star of David , just because they are stars.

My point is the Nazi hooked cross should not be called a Nazi swastika .it's very intentionally misleading. GhostIn$hell (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "right great wrongs", nor lead the way in political corectness. Wikipedia reports what scholars are saying. Every source written in English refers to the Nazi symbol as a swastika. It would actually be misleading if we were to use any other term. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

GhostIn$hell is completely wrong here. The idea is nonsense, that the hakenkreuz and the swastika are somehow different. They are not different; every scholar describes them as the same thing. GhostIn$hell's suggestion is one that was promoted by Libertarian attorney Rex Curry of Florida, who wrote fake histories about the symbol on his website. He was blocked as Special:Contributions/Rexcurrydotnet in 2005. His website at rexcurry dot net was blacklisted here. I search of that website on the Wayback Machine shows how batshit crazy are his ideas. There is no earthly good that can come from using his ideas on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Germans never called it swastika" There's part of your problem. What the Germans called it is irrelevant, because this is the English language Wikipedia, and we (including the historians that write our reliable source material) call the Hakenkreuz the Swastika all the time. Britmax (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Also: the Germans did sometimes call it a swastika, including Hitler himself. If you're curious, see the section where he discusses designing the Nazi flag in Mein Kampf. Just one more case of cultural appropriation by Nazi fuckwits. Generalrelative (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Hitler never uses the word "swastika" or anything like it in the German original of Mein Kampf. He does, however, use "Hakenkreuz" several times. Perhaps you are referring to the various English translations.Tewdar (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Where did Hitler call it by the Indic name? ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read all those various comments above. It does not matter what Hitler, Mussolini, or Julius Ceasar called the symbol. The English language Wikipedia uses the English language (the clue is in the name) and English language sources universally call this symbol a swastika. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So, by the same logic plus and multiple symbol should be same as it resembles. Just because some dumb translater not able to find any correct name, that person holds no authority to misguid. Wikibreaks (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we are not going to figure it all out by applying logic. When has the English language ever been logical? Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. We will use such sources and follow their style. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Simon D. Messing's letter to the editor

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

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

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

The German name of Hitler's emblem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding already being used in Germany:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short description

@John Maynard Friedman: Can you please explain how this [6] description is better than the previous one? LearnIndology (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@LearnIndology: Thank you for your polite challenge. Actually I don't really believe that it is an improvement but WP:HOWTOSD insists that the maximum length of a short description is 40 characters: my version is the best I could do within that limit. At Wikipedia talk:Short description#Conclusion, I argued without success for a more useful length. Feel free to add your voice there if you feel strongly about it. Or try to write a better haiku :-)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have updated the description. LearnIndology (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hakencruz

Why is it called a swastika Why Not a haken Cruz It's an inverted church cross Not a hindu symbol IRONCULT117 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a swastika because virtually all of the English-language sources use that term. Binksternet (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

and it was a Hindu symbol long before Hitler appropriated it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)