Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Swastika/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I just ran across this article on S:RC. On reading it, I found it comprehensive and good quality, as well as very informative. There is supposedly a failed previous nomination, but I can't find it anywhere. Excellent images, in particular. Smoddy (tgeck) 18:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) p

Previous discussion was here; I made a copy at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Swastika/archive1. Gdr 22:02, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Support, very appropriate. --GRider\talk 19:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, ex-o-rilliant. Even includes the bit about the Finnish air force using it as their emblem, and it has Johnny Rotten in it! But is that image - which looks to have been scanned from a magazine - really in the public domain? And come to think of it, the text to the right seems imperfect. In its current form it goes "Punk rockers like Siouxsie Sioux, Sid Vicious and John Lydon used the Nazi version of the swastika for its shock value. (Its red and black coloring fitted with the punk aesthetic, too.) This is all the more shocking as Siouxsie Sioux and Malcolm McLaren, the Sex Pistols' manager, were both Jewish. They may also have used it as a way of criticising the previous generation's supposed fixation with World War II". My worries are (a) the line about the 'punk aesthetic' seems like nonsense, (b) "this is all the more shocking" is an opinion, and it's written in an editorial voice, and (c) "they may also have used it" is just floundering. Apart from that, however. great.-Ashley Pomeroy 19:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I will support when the 'Taboo in North America and Europe' section is brought up to par with the rest of the article. Currently it is comprised of a heterogeneous series of example, with little cohesion and some dubious claims (including the one mentioned by Ashley Pomeroy). Phils 21:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Make that a conditional support. Based on how swiftly concerns about the Taboo sections were addressed, I have faith the lead section will be "brought up to standard" before long. Phils 11:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Support Phils 09:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice article. Though I do see one thing that could be improved: the pic of the 1917 1,000 ruble note isn't clear enough to be able to see the swatika. Maybe I'm just blind, but I did go to the larger version of the pic (which isn't much bigger) and still couldn't see it. Ganymead 21:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, I have been through these concerns, and:
      1. I have highlighted the appropriate section of the 1000 ruble note.
      2. I have removed two of the comments Ashley Pomeroy mentions, and improved the third.
      3. I think I have improved that section. Have a look. Smoddy (tgeck) 22:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - the introduction in downright bad. It consists mostly of word etymology and doesn't actually give any useful information - it doesn't even mention the nazi connotatations associated with symbol, which is what the vast majority of westerners immidiately think of when they see a swatstika. →Raul654 23:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) - Introduction has significantly improved. →Raul654 18:01, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support if lead is brought up to standard. Denni 00:27, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Lead text is too short and it's usage as a nazi symbol and a summary of the perception of the image around the world has to be there(in the lead).
    • This by Pamri (talk · contributions) Smoddy (tgeck) 16:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Lead rewritten. I think this is a distinct improvement. Smoddy (tgeck) 17:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Support Significantly improved. pamri 02:48, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • ObjectSupport. External links should not be placed in the article body, they should go to the external link sections and be linked through maind body by notes (preferably using the following syntax: <sup>[#Notes/external links etc.|1,2,3...etc.]</sup>. Lead can use some expantion as well. After this is adressed I'll support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Progress. There are still few elinks in text (see first para), but the work done is impressive. the lead is ok now. I will support when all elinks are removed from the main text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)The notes are excellent, I think I will adapt this to my own articles in the future. Good job. I support now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Numerous {{unverified}} images (i.e. images lacking source information). —Steven G. Johnson 20:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Few images remaining shown that are not verified (two have been temporarily commented out). I have added a little more to the lead, which is now 183 words. This is not huge, but I think it is long enough. Footnotes added. Whaddya think? Smoddy (tgeck) 23:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. (1) History and Origins should be one section, or at least History should follow Origins.
(2) It is stated that the swastika was used freely by Sumerians, Hittites but this is not backed up in the article, nor do the articles on these two civilizations include mention of the swastika. Remove if can't substantiate claims.
(3) Most of the Origins section astonishingly, IMO, devotes three paragraphs to what it admits are unsubstantiated guesses about comets and one sentence to the theory of universal spontaneous development.
(4) The article obfuscates the continuities of the swastika symbol, e.g. Hinduism split into Buddhism and Jainism, Buddhism spread to East Asia and influenced the religious symbolism there. The different interpretations propounded by subsequent religions should not be confused with separate development. I'm not sure that the reader of this article would be able to tell that there is a direct line of causation from, for example, Hinduism in northern Indian several millenia ago to the swastika on Pokemon cards through the spread of Mahayana Buddhism to Japan.
(5)Going back further, I was also under the impression that the symbols found in Greece and among the Celts may all be traced to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. (The Hindu vajra and Zeus' lightning bolts have been traced to a common Proto-Indo-European origin after all.) I think the phrase "a religious symbol for the native religions of Northern Europe" is thus on shaky ground indeed.
(6) I assume that the phrase common as a design motif in current Hindu architecture and Indian artwork as well as in ancient architecture, which is followed only by European examples, should be ancient Western architecture. The implication that non-Western architectures cannot be ancient is very offputting.
(7) The Sauwastika section should be a more general discussion of the use and frequency of left-facing swastikas, with a clear link to the Sauwastika article. In particular, the correlation between swastika direction and religious circumambulation direction compared between Buddhism and Bön is noteworthy.
The movement of the Sauwastika section basically nullifies this objection. - BanyanTree 21:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(8) In general, the article does not show the depth I would hope for with a topic as fundamental as the swastika. The brief mention of the Navajo didn't sound right so I found this, which seems to contradict it. While the article touches on how the swastika's meaning in various regions, it does not focus on the commonalities of it as a cosmological symbol representing movement and stability, impermanence and eternity, destruction and creation, and contraction and expansion. I simply do not find this article comprehensive on the origins and early spread of the swastika.
BanyanTree 02:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Point by point
  1. This reordered and improved (I think)
  2. Cited one, removed the other
  3. Corrected, with a note about Jung
  4. I have added a couple of notes to this effect. If you consider this a major problem (and you do seem to be knowledgeable on the subject) please give me a citation or (better yet) work this into the article.
  5. What's the problem? I don't think the common root makes the statement "shaky", because of the shared Indo-European origins. If you can clarify, do.
  6. I didn't find it offputting. It's changed, if it makes a difference to you.
  7. I have cut the section down, so that the entire discussion of the sauwastika is on a separate page. I don't think that alters the quality of the article, as the sauwastika seems to be far less important.
  8. {{sofixit}} You appear to be the expert here. I have found no cites for these ideas. I cannot understand how the link does contradict this. It doesn't really seem to say anything about the swastika.
How is it coming? Smoddy (tgeck) 17:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article is much better in Eurasian development and diffusion, and I never had any objections to the descriptions of more recent events. However, I would like to see more on the origins, development, and use of the swastika in the Americas. An analysis of the commonalities and differences with the Indo-European version would be extremely interesting. Also, I am not aware of any other swastikas drawn at a 45 degree angle besides the Nazi one. (It destroys the correlation to the cardinal directions.) Is it unique to the Nazis and, if so, why did they change it? I withdraw my objection and change to abstain. - BanyanTree 21:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... So the etymology with a reference link has been replaced with the previous version, without a reference... I'm not going argue evidence over exact origins because I don't have a stack of books next to me. The point is that nobody editing this article appears to be consulting a stack of credible sources. In the course of checking my fuzzy memories of a long-ago course on religious symbolism, I found the sources for half the "Religion and mythology" sections on various webpages. (BTW, I find it really amazing that people seem willing to accept a general assertion that the swastika is a symbol of "luck" or the sun, without any sort of in-depth explanation of how and why.) Do you notice that the only reference listed for origins of the swastika is from 1896, precisely the period when nobody had the slightest idea? I've come the conclusion, unfortunately, that the Religion and Origins sections need to be thoroughly referenced to recent academic sources. In a first for me, I'm moving back to object. (I'll leave the creation of a cross (symbolism) article to someone who still has the textbooks from their college classes.)- BanyanTree 12:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not surprised, BanyanTree. I don't blame you in the slightest. I'm beginning to think it is not exactly ready for FA status, with this ongoing dispute. If it makes a difference to anybody, the support inherent in my nomination is now an abstain. Smoddy (tgeck) 13:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support An amazing demonstration of a totally NPOV and factually complete article on a controversial subject. -Lommer | talk 22:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I really like this article a lot, but it is too disorganized and it has too many unsubstantiated assertions. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I support this time. It was substantially changed during the previous nomination, but now it seems fairly stable. The minor objections can be accounted for fairly quickly. But what are the unsubstantiated assertions? We'll have to hunt those down first, of course. dab () 08:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • omfg, I thought I was watching this article! It has deteriorated badly, since the last nomination. I did some rough cleanup, but it's really terrible. The concise etymology section was butchered by a "sanskritist" with little etymological or grammatical knowledge, of course without noting the change on talk. This is a sad demonstration, of how articles on WP are raised to a certain (mediocre) level automaticall, but also levelled to the same level, if not carefully watched. change my vote to abstain.
    Here are some assertions that seem pretty shaky to me. (1) It has been suggested that it is part of what Carl Jung termed the collective unconscious ... -- maybe so, but says who? (2) The most widely accepted explanation is of a single origin ... the most likely candidate is the "Kurgan" group ... This is presumably due to the fact ... -- I'd like to know who is accepting this theory, who thinks the Kurgan group has something to do with it, and who presumes something about religious customs. (3) Like all religious symbols, it was created as a simplified representation of the cosmos, as understood by the makers. -- wow, an assertion about the swastika, and all religious symbols too. (4) The swastika may be seen in two ways: as a cross or as a square. ... -- this entire paragraph reads like BS. (5) A more recently proposed correspondence is gendered. ... -- this paragraph reads like BS too. These paragraphs are in serious need of mainstream references (I'm not interested if somebody made these assertions on their Geocities web site or something). (6) The "hooks" at the end of the bars of a swastika might thus be seen as an alteration in the path from the world center. -- I wonder who saw the hooks like that. (7) It is considered to be the second most sacred symbol in Hinduism ... -- not surprising, but in need of substantiation. (8) However, a proposed direct link between and a swastika floor mosaic ... is considered unlikely -- agreed; I wonder if this theory is actually taken seriously by anyone. (9) The swastika, known as the fylfot in northwestern Europe ... -- it is certainly true that "fylfot" is understood today as a synonym for swastika. However, it is quite unclear whether "fylfot" was ever actually used in premodern times. (10) The swastika is the sign of the god Zeus/Jupiter, ... -- interesting, would be nice to substantiate that. -- The long and the short of it is that there is a great deal of misinformation surrounding the swastika, so, considering the importance of this topic, it would be best to be very careful about what kinds of claims are presented in this article. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 05:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
whoa, thanks for pointing these out. valid objections indeed, it seems a lot of BS was snuck in since I last read the entire article. Especially the rambling paragraph about single origin / Indo-European should be cut mercilessly (it's not like there is a single swastika symbol associated with the Kurgan culture). dab () 07:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, now that all this has been deleted (to BanyanTree's chagrin, I shouldn't doubt), have you objections? Smoddy (tgeck) 10:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, my deletions may have left some jarring edges. somebody should look it over and turn it into more coherent and fluent prose (without adding new unreferenced claims!). I'm not positively objecting, though dab () 13:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should mention recent efforts to outlaw the display of swastika[1]. Leonardo 06:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

featured on 2 April 2005, in this version.