Talk:Swastika/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Hakenkreuz Continued! – Dr. T.K. Nakagaki

I just wanted to start a new thread, because the last one had become too bogged down. I think we've made some progress, though I still believe there is a lot more to be done. That being said, I am not about to push through anything that the rest of the community believes is not yet ready for the encyclopedia.

However, there is one item that I believe is not entirely fair, and that is the statement that "Nakagaki is not reliable." Dr. TK Nakagaki is a published (by a RS, Stone Bridge Press) scholar of the swastika and hakenkreuz. He is deeply respected by other scholars such as Steven Heller, as well as being an ordained Buddhist reverend (my apologies if those Western terms do not properly reflect Eastern Buddhist traditions of Dr. Nakagaki). Dr. Nakagaki also earned his doctorate degree with a dissertation titled, "TRANSFORMING THE SYMBOL OF THE “SWASTIKA” – TOSHIKAZU KENJITSU NAKAGAKI Submitted to New York Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF MINISTRY New York, New York, USA 2012"

I agree that Nakagaki alone would not be sufficient, but he is an authority in academic circles researching the history and symbolism of the swastika, so he should absolutely be given fair and due weight along with other sources. As an aside, has everyone engaged in this conversation listened to this video in full? It is very good, here is the link (between Heller and Nakagaki).

I am happy to continue writing, editing, and working on this page and this section. I feel it will likely take a few years before it is really to my liking, and that is just fine, but I wanted to get the Nakagaki question out of the way up front, because any hesitancy to cite his work seems unjustified in my view. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, as I don't want to go digging through the history, but I think this question is highly context specific. Would you mind presenting here the text you'd like to cite to Dr. Nakagaki and the proposed citation? I can imagine places where it might be appropriate, and places where it wouldn't. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I had cited a few different sections in reference to claims made about Hitler exclusively using language of "hakenkreuz" etc. that have since been reverted (instead of edited, which I would have preferred). I will cite the pages and the book here.♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

References

The problem with Nakagaki is that his popular book is not a neutral history of the swastika but a biased call to action. He wants to change the mainstream usage of the word 'swastika' in English, because he hates how the Nazis gave it such a bad image. His popular book is not a scholarly dissertation published after peer review. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, How did you reach this conclusion? I mean absolutely no disrespect when I say this, but have you read Nakagaki's seminal book The Buddhist Swastika and Hitler's Cross, if not, I highly suggest grabbing a copy and giving it a read through. It is $18.76 including free shipping on Amazon to where I live in the world. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The article in Quartz describes Nakagaki as a crusader against the English language use of the word 'swastika' to describe the Nazi symbol.[1] He's an activist, not a neutral researcher. His book advocates his position on the issue. A point of order: His book cannot be labeled "seminal" unless and until the German word hakenkreuz replaces the English loanword 'swastika'. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Binksternet:, I just went back and read the QUARTZ article again to see if I was misreading it somehow. After a second reading, I still do not believe it is an accurate reading of this piece to describe Nakagaki's work as activism, but here is a direct quote: "After coming to the US 25 years ago, Nakagaki chose to abstain from using the symbol, in deference to the Western perspective. It was only around 10 years ago, when he heard someone refer to the swastika as a universal symbol of evil, [emphasis added] that he began to actively write a corrective. His goal, he says, is to show there’s an alternative reading of the ancient symbol [emphasis added], which has roots in the Indus Valley around 500 BC." If I may attempt a synopsis please. It was only after a talk where Nakagaki heard another speaker deliver comments that the swastika was a "universal symbol of evil" (this other speaker had never even heard of the swastika in any light other than that of Nazi symbolism, even though this speaker was supposedly an expert on symbols and even part of a diversity coalition bringing together persons of a diverse array of faiths and backgrounds) that Nakagaki felt that this demonstrated the need to account for regional differences. In short, he felt a global POV was needed, and he began the research that turned into his dissertation in 2012, and his book in 2017. His work covers a breadth of history on the swastika, and has even been called one of the "lucid [pieces of] scholarship" of the swastika, by Heller (his frequent interlocutor on this issue):

See Heller's more up to date comments on the matter here.

• https://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/the-daily-heller-anti-hate-symbol-law-will-foster-more-hate/ ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 01:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part where the Quartz writer said Nakagaki was on a corrective "crusade". In Nakagaki's book, he asserts that the proper term for the Nazi symbol is hakenkreuz or hooked cross. Of course he is talking about English language usage; German language is already there. In short, he wants to replace the word 'swastika' in the English language for those times when Nazi notions or hateful themes are being conveyed. The message is clear as windowpane in his book—it's the main theme of the book. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to let the matter rest for now. Worth revisiting in time and see where the public is then. I think you've all made some fair points about public western usage at least for right now. One question for you directly as well @Binksternet:, have you read the Nakagaki book? Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 04:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet -- as a broad matter of principle, I agree, but I can see it cited in sort of sidelong ways to attest to people engaging in this advocacy. As I say, I'd have to see the particular usage, but I most definitely agree that secondary sources would be preferred. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We might, however, want to consider assigning a bit of weight to this issue, maybe a paragraph. Is there a significant enough 21st century movement toward retiring the use of "swastika" in the instance of the Nazi symbol? Has this movement received any press coverage, for example? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jpgordon:, please see the following from an array of different sources to start:

• https://www.huffpost.com/archive/au/entry/swastikas-are-less-racist-than-racists-think_a_22057402
• https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/vertical/archive/undefined/entry/swastika-hinduism_n_6582828
• https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29644591
• https://qz.com/1757244/can-the-swastika-ever-reclaim-its-original-meaning/
• https://nypost.com/2013/11/14/tattoo-parlors-offer-free-swastikas-to-reclaim-nazi-symbol/
• https://www.jta.org/2013/07/19/culture/reclaiming-the-swastika

♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to do the work. I'm suggesting an approach you might take; you're not going to get Wikipedia to change its usage, but you could instead write encyclopedic material about the movement to change the usage. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• The references to Nakagaki that you (Th78blue) cite don’t seem to do what you want them to do. They are all about Nakagi’s mission to change the current view of the swastika in the West. The clue is in the title of his book. …Rescuing a Symbol of Peace… (my emphasis). It’s a piece of advocacy trying to change mainstream opinion. And that’s how it should be used. We represent the mainstream view (right or wrong) - that’s what we do in Wikipedia hence WP:NPOV/WP:DUE. But as Jpgordon suggests, where Nkagaki may come in (in WP terms) is a section on the movement to change the mainstream’s mind. that’s something that’s within WP’s policies to be reported. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: and @Jpgordon:, I had actually written a paragraph on the matter from Nakagaki (among others), but the Nakagaki cited material was reverted. I am aware of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. I might add that Nakagaki is Japanese, and since English is his second language, the titling of his book might potentially be interpreted differently to a native-English-speaking-reader, than he had intended. Thank you all for reading my comments. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 22:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that this was reverted? If so, the reversion was correct. You could only use Nakagaki to report his arguments as an advocate in the debate. Effectively he would be a WP:PRIMARY source for that purpose. You’ve used Nakagaki to make statements in wikipedia’s voice - he’s not reliable for that. So everything cited to Nakagaki would have to say something like “Nakagaki argues that…”, as you’ve done in part of the edit. Even then I’m not sure whether that would be WP:DUE and make no comment on that. It would be better to find a secondary source that provides commentary on Nakagaki and use that as the citation. DeCausa (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"You’ve used Nakagaki to make statements in wikipedia’s voice - he’s not reliable for that." Because of the primary source piece, correct? Or because Nakagaki in your view is unreliable? I am willing to revisit all of this at another time, as I feel that there have been some good points made that I'll need to revisit with greater mental bandwidth etc., but I was hoping to just make sure I understand which of those two points you were making. That Nakagaki is himself unreliable (which I believe would be an unfounded statement), or that because his work is a primary source, that to use it as I did is too close to WP:OR. That latter point I feel may be a fair criticism, and is why I believe I'll need to revisit this matter at a later date. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 04:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Nakagaki himself was probably editing tendentiously here on Wikipedia, trying to get the German word hakenkreuz to replace 'swastika'.[2] Editing as Toshi2k2, he was blocked indefinitely last November. It's possible that Toshi2k2 was another person, but my "spidey sense" was pinging very strongly relative to the observed interests and behavior of Toshi2k2. Quite a few other editors have also tried to change 'swastika' to hakenkreuz, especially ones that display interests in topics related to Hinduism or the Indian subcontinent.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] There might be a concerted effort to use Wikipedia as leverage, to establish their preferred version on English Wikipedia and from there spread it to the world. I will continue to base my viewpoint on mainstream sources, the great majority of which describe decades of Nazi negativity attached to the swastika symbol. There is a massive amount of inertia – resistance to change – in the literature. The folks who want to change the English language will have to fight their battle elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet:, I felt this discussion was shelved for the moment, but it apparently still has some life in it, so I'll come back and address your hypothetical notion that, "...Nakagaki himself was probably editing tendentiously here on Wikipedia..." While an interesting theory, I believe it not to be true based on one detail over any other, and that is that the cited edits you mention refer constantly and consistently to a so called "Hindu swastika." Even if an "activist" (which I do not believe to be an accurate description of Nakagaki, but we can agree to disagree on that), Nakagaki would be a Buddhist one, not Hindu. If Nakagaki were to refer to the swastika with any sort of additional adjective, it most certainly would be "Buddhist", over anything else. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 02:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Nakagaki interacts extensively with Hindus. He wrote a book about Buddha's travels in India, and he recently spoke at a conference of the Coalition of Hindus North America. He is definitely connected to the Hindu movement to reclaim the swastika as a symbol of good. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

With respect, if you listened to that talk (or other talks given by Nakagaki), read his book, or otherwise read his other scholarly work on the swastika, you may find that while he is very friendly with Hindu people and their relevant view on the swastika, Nakagaki himself would predominantly refer to the symbol as of Buddhist character. Secondarily, or in a tertiary stance, he might speak on the symbol in regards to defending the plight of Hindu, Jain, or indigenous peoples, but his personal background is Buddhist first. As a result, if the message had been from a Buddhist writer (Nakagaki here as you make claim), one might expect that they would have used the 'Buddhist' adjective over 'Hindu'. That would be my thinking on the matter though, obviously as it relates to an anonymous wikipedia account, it is conjecture in either case. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

If there’s a “movement” to change mainstream usage (even if unsuccessful or not yet successful) then that’s something to be mentioned provided it is consistent with WP:DUE. That’s why it’s important to use secondary WP:RS to cover the “movement” if indeed it exists. Using only the advocates themselves, like Nakagaki, means that WP:DUE wouldn’t be satisfied. DeCausa (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Any such movement would not change the fact that the NAZI symbol was the Swastika. Anyone who thinks it will is indulging in revisionism and wishful thinking. Britmax (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Well yes, but I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

But I would, because Britmax's remark is not really correct. The Nazi symbol was (and still is) called the Swastika in English (language), because that is how the symbol was named in the UK since probably 200 years ago or thereabouts. In German (language), it is equally called Hakenkreuz – and exactly the same word is used in German for the Buddhist and Hindu usages too (unless, as I suspect is likely, there is a 'renaming' campaign in Germany too, aiming to distinguish between the usages). As has been repeatedly said above, if the preponderance of external sources adopts a different nomenclature, Wikipedia will follow. There is no evidence that this has happened. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman's comment is incredibly astute on the matter. I am in touch though with some German academics and speakers to hear more about the specifics as it relates to contemporary usage. Though the historical record reflects that at least during Hitler's age, Hitler himself was aware of both words and symbols. And he himself differentiated between the symbols as a "swastika" and "hakenkreuz." Nazi Eugenic thinking also did not permit for these symbols to be thought of as "variants" or "derivative" of one another, but rather as separate and distinct symbols. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Swastika is NOT Hakenkreuz.

Swastika is sacred in Hinduism symbolizing sun, prosperity, good fortune

Hakenkreuz is Nazi symbol, also known as Hooked Cross. It has no relation with Hindusim.

Please edit the article. This is humiliating for the Indians as this has nothing to do with Hakenkruez. Its just they look similar, coincidently.

Thanks a lot. 110.235.233.230 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As I have frequently said, I agree with you on a philosophical level, but unfortunately, the Nazis took an existing symbol for a bunch of stupid and ahistorical reasons, and perverted it to their own ends. For English speakers, I am afraid it is clear that the Swastika and Hakenkreuz are the same symbol, even if they have very different connotations. We are still trying to figure out how best to present this in the article, and would welcome thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

swastika is NOT hakencreuz 122.173.187.38 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is. Sorry about that. Britmax (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As a eurocentric view it is only. We should always remember that. India and the rest of the non-commonwealth-plus-USA world see the two symbols as fundamentally different. Aesthetically similar, but symbolically near polar opposites. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As the article documents, that was also the view in Europe too before the Nazi and neo-Nazi appropriation. But the fact remains that the name for the symbol in English – regardless of use – is 'swastika'; the name for the symbol in German – regardless of use – is 'Hakenkreuz'. Wikipedia reports what is, not what should be. This is the English language Wikipedia: we use the WP:COMMON NAME in English. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The difference between Swastika and Nazi party's Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross).

1. Swastika is sacred in Hinduism,Buddhism and Jainism symbolizing sun, prosperity, good fortune.

2. Hakenkreuz is Nazi symbol, also known as Hooked Cross. It has no relation with Hindusim.

So,please do make the necessary changes. 27.59.42.59 (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This question has already been answered multiple times above.  Not done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This will never truly be settled until we break off another article called Hakenkreuz I feel. I tried writing one here, but it was declined. I know that we have addressed all of the above and that we have a little sub-section on the topic, but there definitely is a massive divide about this across the English speaking world. In commonwealth nations (UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) or the US, I have little argument (for right now, I suspect this will change in time) over the hakenkreuz/swastika distinction, however coming from India especially, we will continue to hear this message, over and over again. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The people coming here complaining are wrong. No need to coddle them. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

More precisely, the Nazi Party (and neo-Nazis) did appropriate the swastika, that is a historical fact and nothing can change it. We cannot pretend it did not happen and continues to happen, no matter how offensive that fact is to some visitors. For everybody else, we lay out the full facts and leave them to make their own value judgements. The "wrongness" would be to try to present a half story. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Misleading & False

This information is misleading & false. I can't respect wikipedia if the content is not corrected. Anu222 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

What specific suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hitler Called It {'hakenkreuz' “Hooked Cross”}, Church Named It “Swastika

Hitler Called It {'hakenkreuz' “Hooked Cross”}, Church Named It “Swastika.

We have been using the Hindu [divine swastika] symbol for our devotional service since ancient times {since 15000 years ago.} Hitler died 78 years ago. Hitler calls it the "Hooked Cross," and the church calls it the "Swastika." 106.78.37.51 (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there credible evidence of the claim that Hitler called it Hakenkreuz but the Church renamed it to Swastika?

If there is, it is important that you share it. Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hitler spoke German: the name of the Swastika symbol in German is hakenkreuz (and that German language name long predates Nazism) so that is what he called it.

Churchill spoke English: the name of the Swastika in English is Swastika (and that English language name long predates Nazism) so that is what he called it.

I suspect that by "Church", 106.78.37.51 meant the religious leaders of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism?

The name in English was adopted during the British occupation of India from the Sanskrit name.

All this is explained in the article. EN.Wikipedia gives the WP:COMMON NAME in English. DE.Wikipedia gives the common name in German. In both cases, we report the world as it is, not what some readers believe that it should be. It is not our mission to WP:right great wrongs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I think 106.78.37.51 is trying to refer to claims such as this - https://kreately.in/hitler-called-it-hooked-cross-church-named-it-swastika-p1/

The reference here is to the Catholic Church. However, this needs more credible evidence before a consensus can be generated on including this point in the article itself. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead priorities

Why is the first line "today primarily recognized in the West for its use by the Nazi party"? I thought we were trying to get away from a western-centric position? This is mentioned in the lead after a skim over the symbol's long history. And here, if this is a sop to Google again it doesn't even work. Britmax (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how we can fail to recognise properly that horrendous historical reality. I can only suggest rephrase the order of clauses so that it reads The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍 is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. It is today primarily recognized in the West for its use by the Nazi party and by its modern admirers. Would that work? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I would support this, and note that it would appeal to me as chronological ordering as well. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I’d oppose. In fact I’d remove the reference to “in the West”. I don’t see a proper source for that in the article. in fact, the reality is the inverse of that statement. Globally the symbol is associated with Nazism (including much of Africa, Middle east, a great deal of central asia, Latin America etc). There are specific cultures which have a historic connection with Indic religions/Buddhism where that global viewpoint not the case, and that is the exception rather than the so-called “western POV”. That’s how it should be presented. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see the logic in that. Is Russia in "the West"? The 20 million dead in WW2 might have had a view on that. So how about The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures. It continues to be used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Otherwise, it is primarily recognized for its use by the Nazi party and by its modern admirers. Would that work? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC) revised --19:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A truly global perspective gives greater priority to the Nazi use, IMHO. I would suggest a compromise between recognising its long history and its current primary usage is: The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures, but is now primarily recognized for its use by the Nazi party and by its modern admirers. It nevertheless continues to be used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. DeCausa (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just thinking that rather than …for its use by the Nazi party… maybe a clearer/fairer description is …for its appropriation by the Nazi party… which, to me addresses, some of the concerns raised. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am troubled by the unqualified "primarily recognized" language, and would personally prefer John Maynard Friedman's "otherwise" formulation above. Per articles like [11] the Swastika "pops up regularly in everyday life . . . in countries such as India, Japan, Nepal, China and Sri Lanka." Those countries make up approximately a third of the world's population. For me, that's too large a chunk of usage to gloss away with simply "primarily." As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and happy to bow to consensus should it differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Doh! That should have been blazingly obvious. I guess tires and forest might apply. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if the word “primarily” is deleted? DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I would certainly prefer that -- I do still prefer the "otherwise" language, because (and this is utterly unreliable as it is simply my surmise, but I wanted to elucidate my thinking) I am willing to bet that the third of the world in those Asian countries encounters Swastikas in an anodyne context far more than "the West" encounters the Nazi Swastika. As I say, though, taking out "primarily" makes it fine to me, if not my absolute favorite. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You see, I think that’s a step too far. There is very definitely a hindutva theme to campaigning for the swastika being “nothing to do with Nazism”. But I think it’s rather naive to think that in south Asia and elsewhare the swastika is just anodyne and they live in blissful ignorance of the association with Nazism. That’s just not the case. Look at this anti-Indian tweet by Imran Khan’s party, which was widely reported on in the Indian media. Clearly this smearing Indian PM Narendra Modi as a “Nazi”. The swastika appears in that. Even in countries that are the home of Indic religions the association of Nazism and the swastika is well known. They just wish it weren’t so. But that’s a very different issue to denying the global association. I maintain that the most accurate reflection of the global position is: The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures, but is now recognized for its appropriation by the Nazi party and by its modern admirers. It nevertheless continues to be used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry--"anodyne" was the wrong term. Even in India, for instance, it's a multivalent symbol. Certainly no argument there. And in no way do I think we need to remove or even reduce the Nazi linkage. It's just that I think we do a disservice in the opposite direction if we assert that this association is always front of mind. As I said, my suspicion is that more often than not it's an underlying layer in a complex cultural accretion. The wording is fine to me; what I want to avoid is the implication that a worshipper sees a Swastika on a statute and comes away saying "ahh, yes, Nazi Buddha." Dumuzid (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps the use of the word “appropriation” rather than “use” by the Nazis resolves that. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I amended the lead per the above and WP:BOLD, which was reverted - which is fine. Sometimes it’s easier easier to come to agreement with new text in situ. But no problem. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I reverted DeCausa's bold edit because I don't see a consensus for a revised version yet. DeCausa's text fails to give due precedence to the centuries-old religious symbolism in Northern Europe as well South, South-East, and East Asia – which is what takes up a large part of the article and per WP:LEAD, should be summarised accordingly. I may be taking WP:RECENT a bit far but we do need to bear in mind that the 100 years of Nazi use is a rather small fragment of its history, albeit the most impactful. So building on DeCausa's earlier version, I propose The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures that continues to be used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. More globally, it is recognized for its appropriation by the Nazi party and by its modern admirers. Any better? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

My view is that not including Nazism in the first sentence does not fulfil WP:DUE/NPOV, and is a significant failing. It’s got to be there. I do think it is taking WP:RECENT too far given tha its about “news spikes”, “breaking news”, “transient merits”, "Is this topic of lasting importance?" etc etc DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been useful. We all want to achieve the most neutral and the most representative first paragraph. I am greatly in favor of emphasizing the Nazi connection, but we can get that job done without being so blunt. I would first tell the reader the swastika is from ancient Eurasia and then say it was appropriated by Nazis. I would say the larger world response to the Nazi connection changed the symbol's meaning from good luck to evil. I don't think "admirers" is the right word to use for neo-Nazis, skinheads and plain ole knuckleheads who have used the symbol for its negative shock value. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Well in South, South-east and East Asia, it is still a symbol of good fortune, but I agree that in Europe, North America and West Asia it is a symbol of evil. I consider that this is an important distinction and these two perspectives need to be given early in the lead. Why? Well I suggest that there are two main audiences for this article: (a) people in "the West" who see the images from Japan, India (and on Buddhist/Hindu/Jain temples closer to home) that include the symbol, are shocked by it but actually choose to search for the facts before shooting their mouths off; (b) people in India exposed to the hindutva campaign, who want a neutral source to explain what all the fuss is about. Can we do all that in one sentence? I don't think so.

As for "admirers", a better word is certainly welcome if anyone can suggest one. I considered and rejected "imitators" because not even Myanmar (re Rohinga), Syria (various), Afghanistan (re Hamza, Shia), etc are remotely close: it would belittle the Holocaust to put them in the same league.

I believe we have a broad consensus that the current wording is unsatisfactory. I believe we have two independent concepts to be said up front but I don't see how we can cram them both into a single first sentence, even with colons and semi-colons to avoid using a full-stop (period). IMO, the historical context comes first (and it includes pre-Christian Northern Europe) because that provides the context to for the Nazi appropriation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It may sound pedantic, but I think having an opening sentence that doesn’t reference Nazism and leaves that to the second sentence is a clear understatement of the relative significance of the Nazi appropriation. The chronological point shouldn’t be relevant as per MOS:FIRST “should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is”. Leaving out Nazism means, IMO, the sentence doesn’t do that. And I don’t see “cramming” as a problem. A really don’t see any stylistic or syntax issue with this as a first sentence: The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures, but is now recognized for its appropriation by the Nazi party and by its modern supporters. It’s neither overlong or complex nor is it “crammed”. A second sentence expanding on the modern continuation of the ancient religious usage then works fine. Ancient European usage is covered by the reference to “Eurasian cultures” and is also expanding on the rest of the lead. DeCausa (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I am with John Maynard Friedman on this one. I don't think moving it to a second sentence is underplaying the undoubted importance of the Nazi appropriation. For me, the "but" clause threatens to do what I fear here, which is to subsume all usage under the Nazi rubric. There are billions of people who have a more complicated cultural relationship to the symbol. That doesn't mean those unfortunate connotations aren't there, but I think it is error in the opposite way as usually encountered here to give the impression that "swastika means Nazis, full stop." And while I don't think that is what you intend in your proposal DeCausa, I think it's a viable if not probable interpretation of the wording. As ever, reasonable minds may differ and I am happy to go with the wisdom of consensus here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a particular problem with DeCausa's "but is now recognized" because for billions of people, that is simply not true. DeCausa, you have evaded the charge of 'cramming' by discarding any reference to the Indic religions' continuing modern use of the symbol and the values that they associate with it. That is a straw man argument and really does frame the question into the "swastika means Nazis, full stop" perspective. We must not do that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don’t follow what you mean. The opening words are about it being an ancient religious symbol in Eurasian cultures. The “but” could become an “and” if that’s any better for you. Frankly, the evidence is to the contrary that the symbol is not “recognised” in south and east Asia as connected to Nazism. The claim is that it shouldn’t be called a “swastika” in that context, which is a different pont. But happy to go with the consensus - removal of “in the West” is an improvement. By, the way, you missed Africa in your list of regions “recognising” the Nazi connection. DeCausa (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"And" is preferable for me, but I still think I would personally prefer it in two separate sentences. I won't speak for John Maynard Friedman, but to me, the 'but' seems to imply "this whole religious deal is in the past, and now it's a Nazi symbol." As I said above, I certainly don't deny that people in India, China, etc. are aware of the Nazi ties, just that it's one layer of many--and there are plenty of people who regularly encounter swastikas and have no Nazi sympathies. For certain cultures, the Swastika is certainly a symbol with a single valence: where I grew up, it did, indeed, mean Nazis, full stop. My only point is that there is a large swath of the world where it's a lot more complicated than that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it has exactly that connotation for me too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think DaCausa's initial formulation would work with a couple of changes: The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures, now widely recognized for its use by the Nazi party and by its modern admirers. It also continues to be used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. - i.e., replace "primarily" with "widely", and drop the "nevertheless". Simpler would be (the second sentence) It is also a symbol of divinity ...--RegentsPark (comment) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is better yet than the "and" formulation, though I still have to say for sort of unjustifiable aesthetic reasons, I still am partial to two sentences, almost as if to imply that there are two periods of the Swastika: the thousands of years where it was basically just a religious symbol, and then the Nazi appropriation and afterward. But again, I can live with RegentsPark's approach as well! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I can't say that I like it either but I can live with it subject to one small change: swop the "also"s thus: The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, is an ancient religious symbol in various Eurasian cultures, also now widely recognized for its use by the Nazi party and by its modern admirers. It continues to be used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indic religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Dp we have "equality of misery" for that version? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I prefer RegentsPark’s proposal to mine. And I’m also happy with JMF’s adjustment. There was one small point previously raised: “admirers” is a slightly odd word for this. Maybe “supporters”? DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Let's declare consensus quick and post it! I agree that "admirers* is not good enough but it'll do for now.

I don't think "supporters' works because that suggests Quislings etc, th Nazi Party's contemporaries. "Successors" is too strong. "Imitators" any better? Or just straight "neo-Nazis"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Adherents," maybe? I don't love that either, but I am not loving any of the choices (no offense to anyone!). Dumuzid (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis was a good call JMF. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

On the basis that there is a consensus to replace the opening sentence, that we have agreed the text of the replacement sentence except that we are still struggling to find a succinct final word, I have been bold and applied the agreed text. I have arbitrarily chosen "neo-Nazis" for that final word, given that it summarises body content and that I fear that every other word we have proposed and dismissed so far would all fall foul of WP:WEASEL. "The perfect is the enemy of the good": I considered it best to go ahead with 'good enough' for now and see if anybody comes up with the magic word later. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This was a wonderfully productive conversation! I wish I had known about it while it was going on. No matter, I think the lead looks much more globally inclusive now, though we still have so much work to do on this article, it is getting better. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes that’s good. Was the switch from “appropriation” back to “use” by the Nazis intentional? It’s not a major point, though “used” as the fifth word in the following sentence makes it sound slightly repetitive. DeCausa (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that too but decided not to argue the point. I prefer 'appropriated' too, so will reinstate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Change "Indian religions" or "India" to "South Asian religions" and "South Asia" to be inclusive to religious symbolism which predates the current political borders drawn during British colonisation. rainshine 01:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Partly done. I used the term "Indic religions" which is suitably general for the whole subcontinent. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That request was not in good faith (the user disrupting another article in the same vein), Indian religions is a specific term referring to religions originating in the Indian subcontinent. Indic is a term largely restricted to linguistic usage (for Indo-Aryan languages) and is not used beyond that. We need not dubiously replace and redirect-link scholarly terms. Gotitbro (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

sub section on use in Southeast Asia?

would it be possible for me to pen a section on the historical use of the swastika in South East Asia? Its commonly used there in Hindu and Buddhist temples, and I feel it would be a good addition to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepherino (talk • contribs) 08:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone may edit, of course it would. You may edit directly or, if you prefer, write a draft here. Don't forget that any assertions need to be backed up by citations and to resist the WP:no original research trap. Have fun! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

it was locked so I wasn't sure how to do that. Could I just post a draft here? Josepherino (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You can request a change be made to a protected article, for which you have to explain what change you want made. A draft here would be ideal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Zwastika

I removed Zwastika (which links to "Z (military symbol)") from the "See Also" section. It's important that we don't let the see also section become a safe place for mud slinging.

The only connection between the Z (military symbol) and the Swastika is that in English you can slanderously connect them phonetically. But it's just an attempt to call Russians Nazis (I know Putin started that awful slur toward Ukraine!). We don't take sides here on wikipedia, and if we ever explicate slurs, we make sure not to do it in wikivoice. "See also" section does not have citations, so everything there is automatically in wikivoice.

If someone searches "Zwastika" they will be redirected to Z (military symbol). So our informative job is done in that regard. The Z Symbol page has a "see also" link to this Swastika page. In my opinion, it makes sense to link in that direction (Z->Swastika), because if you are already on the "Z (military symbol)" page, you might be curious how it compares to the actual Nazi symbol (not at all!). However, linking in the other direction crosses the line and becomes endorsing the slur. Why? Because we are propagating the slur, not explicating it. Someone coming to this page doesn't need to have the additional information that a totally unrelated military symbol has been rhymed with it for the purpose of propaganda.

Here's an analogy. Trump has slurred Elizabeth Warren and Native Americans, by calling her Pocahontas. An argument could be made that this fact belongs on her page, contextualized as a pejorative from Trump. However, linking Pocahontas to Elizabeth Warren would not be acceptable at all, as it endorses the slur and creates a connection that is not already there.

The question is: "Are you creating a slanderous association or explaining an already existing one?" And secondly, "Does the slur have notability on the given page, from the perspective of that page?" I hope this makes sense. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is true that "Zwastika" redirects to Z (military symbol) but that only helps those that see it in print. Anyone that heard the word would interpret it as "Swastika" and come here to see what the symbol has to do with the Russian military. The "See also" link gives them a chance to discover that connection. Besides, Wikipedia is not censored and we try to describe the world as it is, for good or bad. Sjö (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

California bill AB 2282

Dumuzid I have added better source. But, try to ask for better citation instead of just reverting and edit warring.Dhawangupta (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Dhawangupta, I still don't think your content belongs in the article at this time, but I will let others make that decision. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Dharwangupta, I would ask that you re-word your addition. The idea that the bill delineates between "hakenkreuz" and "swastika" is objectively untrue; the article does this in editorial glosses. The word "hakenkreuz" does not appear in the bill. Instead, it says the intention is to criminalize the display or placement of the Nazi swastika and not swastikas associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The bill, in fact, supports the idea that the Nazi emblem in the west is called a "swastika." I know this is unfortunate, but sadly, it is the state of the world. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Dharwangupta, I have deleted again because the California Bill does exactly the same as similar European laws: it prohibits fascist displays without restricting religious use. The Indian news source is just wrong, because it asserts without evidence that the German word hakenkreuz and the English word 'swastika' are not names in different languages for the same symbol. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Expanded to say why the Indian newspaper article is not reliable. --11:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Sanskrit: स्वस्तिक is another language name for the same symbol. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the text of the bill here, the word Hakenkreuz is used but so is Nazi swastika: It is the intent of the Legislature to criminalize the placement or display of the Nazi Hakenkreuz (hooked cross), also known as the Nazi swastika that was the official emblem of the Nazi party, for the purpose of terrorizing a person. Hakenreuz is not mentioned again, but "Nazi swastika" is then mentioned twice in the context of prohibited actions. It also says This legislation is not intended to criminalize the placement or display of and are symbols of peace. Dhawangupta's edit doesn't reflect any of that, and I don't see anything in the bill that's worth putting in this article anyway. DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Responding late. Thanks DeCausa for recognising that the text of the bill uses Hakenkreuz.

Also, What my edit reflects is that for the first time there has been an attempt by any kind of Government in United States to differentiate between Nazi Hakenkruz and Hindu Swaastika. Hence, it is important addition to the sub-section "Swastika as distinct from hakenkreuz debate" and is indeed worth putting in the article. Dhawangupta (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Dhawangupta, with respect, we don't determine that importance ourselves. We do it by coverage in reliable sources, and currently, this bill just does not seem WP:DUE for inclusion to me, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether it's DUE or not the point of it is that it most certainly does not "differentiate between Nazi Hakenkruz and Hindu Swaastika". It differentiates between the "Nazi Swastika" and the "the ancient swastika symbols that are associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism". It specifically says the Nazi Hakenreuz is also known as the Nazi Swastika (i.e. they are the same thinG) and then only goes on to talk about the Nazi swastika. So on your characterisation of the "Swastika as distinct from hakenkreuz debate" it's saying that there is no difference between a Swasrika and a hakenkreuz but there is a difference in the treatment of those that use the swastika with an intent to support Nazism and the use of the swastika in the practise of hinduism. Which is what this article says already so there's nothing new or worth adding here. DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It has been mentioned in the article elsewhere whenever there was a distinction made by a government between the use of the symbol in the context of support to Nazis and terrorizing versus context of religious use. Hence, I don't understand why this story doesn't make it worthy of inclusion to the article. Possibly, this content might go to the 'United States' subsection. Dhawangupta (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I do think a mention of the new California law might be appropriate -- Governor Newsom signed it yesterday -- but I'm not sure how. We say here and a few other places that the public display of Nazi flags is protected by the Constitution, but there are indeed laws such as California's against using hate symbols, including but not limited to nooses, burning crosses, and swastikas, with the intent to terrorize. There's nothing special about the swastika in this regard, at least in California law; it's called out as an example, but any symbol intended to terrorize qualifies... --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hakenkreuz again

Due to archiving, the previous discussion of Hakencreuz is no longer visible. So this is a brief summary to assist readers who believe that the Nazis used something else. They did not. Since they were speaking in German, they certainly called it a Hakencreuz but this is the English language Wikipedia, so we use the name that is overwhelmingly used when writing in English.

• The words 'Hakencreuz' and Swastika are two words for the same symbol: the first is German, the second is transliterated Sanskrit.
• Because of the British colonisation of India, it is the Sanskrit form that has been adopted into English; the German form has not.
• The huge majority of English-language sources use the word "Swastika" for the Nazi usage.
• The symbol was used routinely in pre-Christian Europe.
• There are many many reasons to denounce and repudiate the behaviour of the Nazi Party: that they appropriated the swastika as their party badge is most probably the least of these.
• The Nazi Party and the Nazi armed forces used all orientations of the symbol, not just the 45 degree rotated one.

Finally, Wikipedia records what exists, not what should exist. Among the many things that WP:Wikipedia is not, it is not a WP:SOAPBOX or a place to put right great wrongs. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It is correctly pointed out by John Maynard Friedman that for now, overwhelmingly, western world uses the word "Swastika" to refer to "Hakenkruz". And, there is nothing Wikipedia can do about it.

Also, in terms of plain design similarity, both symbols are same.

However, it is also important to set the proper context.

• It has been constantly claimed, here and elsewhere, that German speakers call it Hakenkruz and English speakers call it Swastik. However, as we can see, even the German Wiki titles the article as 'Swastika' and continue to use the same name even for non-Asian usages of the symbol. Hence, the problem lies beyond just the language gap.
• It was the James Vincent Murphy's translation of Mein Kampf that popularised the word 'Swastika' for Hitler's symbol in the English-speaking world. It seems, when faced with choice of translating hated Haken Kreuz to Hooked Cross - a direct reference to Christian cross, versus translating it to Swastika - a name used by clueless communities that were colonized for ages, a former Christian priest chose to defend his faith from any negative associations, to shift the blame.
• Similarly, NYT started using the word 'Swastika' to refer to Hooked Cross.
• T.K. Nakagaki mentions in his book: “Whether intentional or not, these translators protected the Christian cross and damaged the Eastern religious swastika.”
• Indeed, there was a great wrong done, then. But, not just by the Nazis, but also by those translators.

Finally, it is correct that Wikipedia is not a place to put right the great wrongs.

The above points are put here to set the proper context. Dhawangupta (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't spotted that German wikipedia does that (I wonder if there is an issue in German law?)

Someone would have to find the sources but I have a strong recollection of reading many moons ago that the Sanskrit word "swastika" was being used in English academic writing for the early Anglo-Saxon symbol, long before the Nazis appropriated the symbol and was immediately applied in England to Nazi symbolism before ever any German terminology was recognised. You may well be right but I'm not convinced. Not that it really matters for Wikipedia purposes, as you say, because it is beyond dispute that the word Swastika is the wp:COMMONNAME used for both the Asian religious and the Nazi uses of it. Yes, great wrongs indeed! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

In 1879, the Royal Irish Academy published a book about the swastika: On the Croix Gammée, or Swastika, written by Charles Graves, Bishop of Limerick. Graves gives croix gammée and "swastika" as equivalent terms, then goes on to use the word "swastika" as the common name of the symbol. In 1880, Edward Thomas of the East India Company wrote a book, The Indian Swastika and Its Western Counterparts, using the word "swastika" as the common name, also using "mystic cross" a few times. In 1881, historian Robert Sewell wrote a book titled Notes on the Swastika, in which he uses the word "swastika" as the common name, but also adds the term "mystic cross" a couple of times. In 1896, anthropologist Thomas Wilson published his book The Swastika through the US Government Printing Office. The book describes the swastika as "the earliest known symbol". This means that translators of Mein Kampf are not to blame for whatever harm was done to the swastika's reputation by the Nazis. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The books referenced above were written in the period when there was an ongoing search of hypothesised Forefathers of Indo-Europeans - Aryans. Ref Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_century.

Also, most of them are discussing the resemblance of Swastika to other symbols observed in Europe, rather than the equivalence.

Indeed Thomas Wilson writes how the word Swastika did not appear in any major dictionary or reference source during his time, admitting:

“I began a search of which proved almost futile, as even the word Swastika did not appear in such works as Worcester’s or Webster’s dictionaries, the Encyclopedic Dictionary, the Encyclopedia Britannica, Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia, the People’s Cyclopedia, nor Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities…In the American Encyclopedia the description is erroneous while all the Century Dictionary says is ‘same as fylfot,’ and ‘Compare Crux Ansata and Gammadion.’”

Now, it is important to note that Max Mueller had warned Schliemann against using the word “Swastika” when describing the ancient symbols found in Troy, saying:

“I do not like the use of the word [Swastika] outside India. It is a word of Indian origin, and has its history and definite meaning in India. I know the temptation is great to transfer names, with which we are familiar, to similar objects which come before us in the course of our researches. But it is a temptation which the true student ought to resist, except, it may be, for the sake of illustration. The mischief arising from the promiscuous use of technical terms is very great….the occurrence of such crosses in different parts of the world may or may not point to a common origin. But, if they are once called [Swastika], the vulgus profanum [common masses] will at one jump to the conclusion that they all come from India, and it will take some time to weed out that prejudice.”

As we are witnessing a different and sinister prejudice has taken shape, for the word and the symbol.

The first (abridged) translation of Mein Kampf was done by E.T.S Dugdale in 1931. Dugdale accurately translated the relevant passages and never once used the word Swastika, instead used hooked cross. Unfortunately, Dugdale’s translation did not become popular.

Murphy deliberately mistranslated Hakenkreuz into Swastika while leaving other German words either in original form or translating them properly in English. For example, in his preface, Murphy describes how he carefully avoided translating Weltanschhauung and Volkisch. To quote:

“There are a few points more that I wish to mention in this introductory note. For instance, I have let the word Weltanschhauung stand in its original form very often. We have no one English word to convey the same meaning as the German word, and it would have burdened the text too much if I were to use a circumlocution each time the word occurs. Weltanschhauung literally means ‘Outlook-on-the World.’

Another word I have often left standing in the original is völkisch. The basic word here is Volk, which is sometimes translated as People; but the German word, Volk, means the whole body of the people without any distinction of class or caste.”

It is evident that Murphy was familiar with native German words that didn’t really have English equivalents! Furthermore, if there were no English equivalents of these words, how does Swastika (a Sanskrit word used by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains only) then become the English translation of Hakenkreuz?

Another similar and interesting case would be the symbol of Star of David or Hexagram or Shanmukha. Now, similar to Swaastika, Hindu Shanmukha is prevalent all over the world. But, we don't seem to use that word 'Shanmukha' to refer to the symbol everywhere. That is why, CONTEXT MATTERS. And, appropriate names should have been used to refer the symbols.

So, Translators, and others, deliberately misused the word Swastika without its Dharmic context. Hence, they are surely at blame. Dhawangupta (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Dharwangupta, this is interesting, but beside the point. Whatever the merits or demerits of how we arrived at the present situation, we are now in it. I would wager that most people in the English-speaking world are familiar with the term swastika and the symbol; far less so with hakenkreuz. Though I think differentiation is a laudable goal, until it occurs, we can't reflect it on Wikipedia, which by its very nature is a lagging indicator. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Reference to German Wiki was made.

Similar to German, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Afrikaans and many other wikis use the term Swastika.

Finnish use Hakaristi exclusively to refer to the symbol.

Chinese & Japanese expectedly use the symbol 卍 which is part of their script and pronounced Wanji, Manji.

Hebrew and Arabic use the words similar to hooked cross Hacknkraits and Salib Maequf

Notable are the French, Greek and Japanese wiki which differentiate between Swastika versus Croix gammée, Angled Cross and Hakenkruz respectively.

it is also notable that although, the article claims Fylfot to be same as Swastika and just a different name and variation in Old Norse, there happens to be separate article for Fylfot. Dhawangupta (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. In English we call it the swastika. DeCausa (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

And the first sentence of fylfot says that it is a type of swastika associated with medieval Anglo-Saxon culture. That would seem to undercut your point -- to my mind, anyway. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Dhawangupta is trying to right a great wrong, which is considered a disruptive stance. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia describes history and summarizes mainstream historians. In this context, the swastika is the correct name for the symbol in the English language. It doesn't matter what Dhawangupta would prefer; Wikipedia is going to continue using swastika as the English term for the symbol. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my motive above. I am not righting a great wrong but only trying to specify what is the great wrong or finding out whether there is a great wrong, and I am setting proper context. I agree that Swastika is the common name and if there is no consensus to provide further weight to another term then I am also fine with that. Dhawangupta (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Hakenkreuz not Swastika

I see the English/Western individuals trying to maliciously whitewash and refer to the Hakenkreuz as the Swastika for decades as way of trying to demean the cultures of what were once European colonies in Africa and Asia. That has to be an example of ultra elite racism at its finest! Csmartstarr (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I would respectfully refer you to the copious conversations in the archives about this very topic, and wish you a pleasant weekend. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Maliciously? No, not at all. Just following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to ensure there is a clear distinction between the ancient symbol and the religious symbol in the very first summary paragraph. Please, do not engage in cultural appropriation by trying to say it is not necessary. I have not deleted anything! I have only adjusted the vocabulary and the grammar to be more respectful and give more context to the appropriation. Csmartstarr (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no distinction. The glyph is identical. German: Hakencreuz is not English, is not used in English language sources, and WP:advocacy here is utterly pointless. Change the world first, then Wikipedia will report it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

1. *Hakenkreuz - There is NO advocacy! - this is just a way to keep racist bias and bigotry out of factual information. I am not radiacally changing the content or the references and barely changing the sentence. Is Wikipedia a place for decency and facts or just an easy way to feed propaganda on racial bias and bigotry through the internet?

2. I am unaware what Wikipedia policies Dumuzid and Binksternet keep referring to while undoing my edits? Csmartstarr (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

- *radically Csmartstarr (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It might help you to understand why what you want to do can't be done on Wikipedia if you read this: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You might not like it, but the Nazis did "culturally appropriate" the swastika and because of that misappropriation a large part of the planet continues to associate it with them and the evil they unleashed. The symbol that the Nazis used and the ancient swastika can't be differentiated. They called it the Hakenreuz but that's not a word used in English. In English the symbol the Nazis used is called the swastika. I'm afraid that's the way it is and you can't change that. We have to reflect it in this article because that's what reliable sources say. Editors here really don't have a choice, even if they might wish it were different. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Still overloaded with images

We really need to try harder to choose only the most essential images. wp:Think of the reader on a small mobile phone with expensive down-load charges, which is true of most readers. Please read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE which in a nutshell says that images in articles are to illustrate points being made in the text, not to decorate. I've already done some but more needs to be done. Can we review each image and determine whether the article would be significantly less informative if it were to be removed. Thanks. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I just did my best to help with that. Came across this article after reverting some vandalism, and then I saw your comment here in the TP that had not yet been addressed as far as I can tell. I believe the article could still probably use some improvement, but it is better than it was a moment ago... at least regarding the image "overload" if nothing else. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Internet connection download charges seems like a red herring to me. John Maynard Friedman wrote,

Think of the reader on a small mobile phone with expensive down-load charges, which is true of most readers.

Can you substantiate this? First, I don't think it's true of "most readers". Second, many websites are rich in graphics, Wikipedia is hardly unique in this. And third, pretty much every OS and browser has a way to turn off automatic loading of images, and anyone who actually does worry about expensive download charges would have long since disabled them. Even the Wikipedia website has this: Help:Options to hide an image. So, I don't think expense is a legitimate reason to remove any images. There may be other reasons, but I don't see an argument based on cost of one's internet connection that holds up, unless I'm missing something. Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Not direct per-download charges but rather n-gigabytes scratch-cards or a monthly contract that has low usage for low price. (I assume you aren't disputing that most visitors do so on mobile?)

The policy on use of images is clear: they should have a clear purpose of illustration not decoration. Visitors should be directed to Commons for the wider catalogue. Clearly, it is a judgement call as to where to draw the line but this article (which has improved) has been significantly more image-heavy than most. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is image heavy, but it is an article about iconography, so I think it should be relatively so. I have no idea whether most readers access WP by mobile or not and even less idea of whether they do so using data or wifi. Furius (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I had a look into all of the images and I can say some cleanup is needed. For example, at Swastika#East Asia, there are 5 images but at least 2 images can be removed. Dhawangupta (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed a few more images today, and thus removed the image cleanup template. I think after 2+ months of careful image removal, we've done just about as much as possible to trim the article. It's still going to have a lot of images, simply because it is a visual topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback

This is mongolian symbol Uuganaa0530 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

indeed.

Saintstephen000 (talk)

So write a sentence with a citation and add it. "If you want anything done properly around here, you have to do it yourself". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit caption below Manji image

The family crest is for the entire clan rather than just the individual mentioned. Additionally fixes strange formatting issue.

Before:

[[File:Japanese_Crest_Maru_ni_Hidari_Mannji.svg|thumb|upright=0.5|[[Hachisuka Masakatsu]] family crest ([[mon (emblem)|mon]].]]

After

[[File:Japanese_Crest_Maru_ni_Hidari_Mannji.svg|thumb|upright=0.5|The [[mon (emblem)|mon]] (family crest) of the [[Hachisuka clan]].]]

2001:4998:EF60:9:0:0:0:113F (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Important Hitler quote on Swastika

Can add this Hitler quote from his August 13, 1920 speech which directly relates the Hakenkreuz to India and Japan

"... We know that all these people have one sign in common remained: the sign of the sun. They build all their cults on light and they find that Sign, the tool of fire making, the whorl, the cross. You will find this Cross as a Hakenkreuz not only here, but also in India and Japan carved into the temple post." 2607:FEA8:7A82:7100:D172:5D1B:EE96:938 (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(a) can you provide a source for that?

(b) assuming he did say it, he would have said the whole thing in German, where the word hakenkreuz is correct and appropriate in sentence written in German. But it is not a word in English: it should be translated as "swastika".

(c) the article is already very long and IMO adequately covers the Nazi use of the symbol (for a tiny fraction of the time that it has been used worldwide). So what is it that makes this quote especially relevant? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Original speech in German is available here:

https://ifz-muenchen.de/vfz-archiv

1968 issue 4, page 402 contains the quote.

Translation of speech is available on one Caroline Yeager's personal website. (Not a good idea to use it but it has been cited in an article on Firstpost.com).

The quote itself is mentioned in the book 'Buddhist Swastika and Hitler's Cross'.

Regarding "the whole thing in German" – This is true. The German speech recorded a bad spelling of the word hakenkreuz as well.

The translation on Caroline yeagers website uses both words for some reason. I have no interest in contesting this one way or the other.

This is the only direct quote from Hitler which directly links the Nazi symbol to temples of India and Japan, leaving no scope for speculation or misinformation, which you'd agree is happening a lot these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:401B:38BF:346B:476C:1ACB:EA2C (talk • contribs)

We would need a reliable source to say it is significant, to do otherwise would fall foul of our WP:no original research policy. At the very least we would need a reliably-sourced translation. Her retention of the German word hakencreuz casts doubt in my mind about its neutrality: why did she not use "swastika" or "hooked cross"? This review on amazon.de ("Why does Amazon sell books written by historically incompetent Holocaust deniers and Hitler fans?") is particularly damning. On that basis alone, I strongly oppose inclusion of this detail. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I found Yeager's specific webpage here, which says that the original German language speech appears in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420, which is true: It's on page 402 near the back of the periodical, in a section showing documentation. Hitler says,

Wenn auch in diesem hohen Norden diese Kraft nicht zum Ausdruck kommen konnte, sie wurde in dem Augenblicke fähig, wirksam zu werden, in welchem die Eisfesseln sanken und der Mensch hinunterzog nach dem Süden in eine günstige glückliche freie Natur. Wir wissen, daß allen diesen Menschen ein Zeichen gemeinsam blieb: das Zeichen der Sonne. Alle ihre Kulte bauen sie auf Licht und sie finden das Zeichen, das Werkzeug der Feuererzeugung, den Quirl, das Kreuz. Sie finden dieses Kreuz als Hackenkreuz [sic] nicht nur hier, sondern genau so in Indien und Japan in den Tempelpfosten eingemeißelt. Es ist das Hackenkreuz der einst von arischer Kultur gegründeten Gemeinwesen.

In English, translated from German by Hasso Castrup of Copenhagen, Denmark, in January 2013 specifically for Yeager:

If this power could not find its full expression in the high North, it became apparent when the ice shackles fell and man turned south to the happier, freer nature. We know that all these northern peoples had one symbol in common – the symbol of the Sun. They created cults of Light and they’ve created the symbols of the tools for making fire – the drill and the cross. You will find this cross as a Hakenkreuz as far as India and Japan, carved in the temple pillars. It is the Swastika, which was once a sign of established communities of Aryan Culture.

Hitler is saying that the swastika of the Scandinavian North is the same symbol as can be found in India and Japan. This is a strong refutation of the modern claim that Hitler did not appropriate the Eastern symbol at all.

For this to appear in Wikipedia, a WP:SECONDARY source must have made the correlation between Hitler's speech and the modern claims. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The book Buddhist Swastika and Hitler's cross chapter 3 mentions this quote. The issue, however, is that it goes on to emphasize that he used the word Hakenkreuz. So you do have a secondary reference BUT perhaps not the best one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:401B:38BF:346B:476C:1ACB:EA2C (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For at least the fiftieth time on this talk page, German: Hakencreuz is not a word in English. A neutral translation would say "swastika" or at least "hooked cross", so the whole thing is highly suspect. Yeager's involvement has poisoned the well so unless and until multiple impeccably neutral RSs can be provided that affirm that this snippet is notable, then it's inclusion is WP:UNDUE. Meanwhile it is just neo-Nazi wp:soapboxing, as has already been called out by the German reviewer on Amazon.de that I cited above. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I also don't think Yeager website should be cited as a source. So i think the goal should now be to find a neutral English translation of the speech. I'll be surprised if none exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:401B:38BF:346B:476C:1ACB:EA2C (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No. The requirement for inclusion is that a consensus of neutral reliable sources consider that it has significance, that it is notable, that its inclusion would be WP:DUE. Any attempt by Wikipedia editors to infer an importance from "a better translation" fails WP:no original research. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Well, at least you guys are aware of this now. Hopefully, in the larger world more sources will start citing this speech, to refute false revisionism that's happening these days. Maybe we can revisit this in a few months, if something changes. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.188.125 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Mezin bird pattern

Some call the pattern on the Mezin bird a "swastika". Just because you can trace 1/3rd or less of the pattern of the Mezin bird to a "swastika", which you could also trace a "cross" for example or many other geometric designs to the Mezin bird. Doesn't make that pattern a "swastika" or a "cross". You could describe that key pattern in any which way by stretching the truth, for example "an intricate meander pattern of joined-up crosses and lines" doesn't make this statement any less accurate. This statement is probably more accurate than "an intricate meander pattern of joined-up swastikas"

The Mezin pattern is properly mentioned in the key pattern page, which cites a reference mentioning the Mezin bird

Aufumy (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Does Joseph Campbell state that it is a swastika? If so, since a reliable source says so, it is not for us to dispute it. To question it validly, you would need to find other RSs that say that he has indulged in pareidolia. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not sure if this is considered a reliable source, but it points out that the illustration in Joseph Campbell's books appears to have been embellished by spacing the meander patterns closer together than they actually are, as well as rotating them 90 degrees each compared to the other surrounding meanders. When in actual fact the meanders are lined up rather than rotated 90 degrees. Aufumy (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

An "Aryan anthropology" (sic!) blog at least fails WP:BLOGS so that is a complete non-starter. Our assessment of the picture fails WP:OR. The most we can say is "according to Joseph Campbell" so that it is not in WP:WIKISPEAK, but we can't tag it as disputed. I will remove the tag pending better disputing RSs.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lotta Svärd badge.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Version with four dots called a "major form" with a link to majority

New user RamaKrishnaHare has made a series of edits claiming that the swastika version with four dots is a "major form" of the swastika, with a link to majority. The version with four dots is not proved to be in the majority by the cited 19th-century Schliemann source, which in any case could not tell us anything about the swastika in the 20th or 21st centuries, where the majority form is without dots. Other sources cited by RamaKrishnaHare include two unreliable blogs ( www.jadechocolates.com and www.lotussculpture.com ). This is not powerful enough to redefine the topic.

As well, RamaKrishnaHare has been adding Unicode symbols that don't show up as swastikas in my Firefox browser. These symbols, (࿗ and ࿘) appear as rectangles. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

are you now able to see it? RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

No, they are rectangles. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

and i can clearly see those symbols, even in your reply. maybe you should try updated version of chrome(just a suggestion, not a promotion, it is all upto you), because in my PC version of chrome too i can clearly see those symbols -> ࿗ RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

are you able to see ࿗ in this form U+0FD7 ࿗ RIGHT-FACING SVASTI SIGN WITH DOTS RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Still a rectangle. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

i am currently searching for more reliable sources, please grant me time. for now go by Schliemann source, when i will find more reliable sources i will correct it again RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your intended redefinition should stay in the article at all. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Many of hindu temples and texts have been existed on and before 19th century, so using a 19th century source and saying that it was majorly used in hinduism wouldn't be completely wrong.and if you have further doubts than you can please host consensus because I don't know how to do so RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

i don't by any means want to personally attack you or want to engage in any edit war or harm your feeling in any way, if it happen by any means assume good faith, because i believe in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. but if i have freedom of speech i want to say one thing that to my observation you were previously engaged in edit war and was blocked for 3 months. again don't take it as personal attack just wanted to clarify. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

all of my reverts were clarified and was sourced, no sign of any edit war, i have read the guidelines of edit war and strictly abide to them so please remove the warning from my talk page, i would be your grateful RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

also to clarify this is not “MY” theory, the image of swastika used from long time does too look like as described by me . so please Binksternet stop personal attacks on me 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

this image also appeared on Wikipedia's main page in 2006, so is this too my theory? please be respectful and don't degrade my reputation by saying that it is theory of mine. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet here. Your changes require gaining consensus here on the talk page -- the glyph additions do not improve the article. The last good version I see is that of Feb. 19. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was just about to revert to that and noticed this thread. DeCausa (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

what about the image(from a long time), why you all seem to agree with the image but not by my description of it? RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

do whatever you guys find necessary. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

but remember that i am a new editor, and if turn out to not be able to find reliable sources than you all could help me to do so, but Wikipedia's community doesn't seem to be supportive but instead turns out to be oppressive 😒, the only person i found supportive on this plateform is Doug Weller who helped me to recognise my mistakes and correct them. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have changed my opinion, DaxServer recently helped me too, so definitely some supportive people exist here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamaKrishnaHare (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

So take a look at WP:BRD. You've been bold. Good. You've been reverted. OK. Now we discuss. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

"Contains special characters"

Help:Special characters

I have inserted {{Contains special characters}} at the top of the section, which explains why some readers are seeing boxes ("Tofu"). There is really not a lot that Wikipedia can do about it as it depends on visitors having recent smartphones or computers, recent browsers, or both. It works fine for me using Chrome on Android and ChromeOS. The Help article gives specific advice for Firefox but we can't expect visitors to read that first. Maybe it will take another ten years to be completely clear? The same problem affected the Indian Rupee ₹ and Russian Ruble ₽ signs, so it is not exceptional. I think for now we just have to tag it mentally to revisit the question every couple of years. Meanwhile, the glyph has a large presence in the article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

okay, i agree to remove the sign, if they are not rendered properly but can we just keep the explanation of the swastika i mentioned? no offence RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No, because you were trying to re-define the topic in a way that is not supported by modern scholars. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

RamaKrishnaHare, what do you mean by "the explanation of the swastika i mentioned". If you mean this (included in one of your edits), it is unacceptable: Another major form of swastika is also observed in Indian religions, where every arm has a dot underneath it and is slightly bent at its ends, especially in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism (࿗ and ࿘).

"Lotus sculpture" and "jade chocolates" are not acceptable or reliable as sources and can't be used (not that they say what you are using them to say anyway). Schliemann doesn't claim that that that form for the Swastika is a "majority" useage. You need to be more careful with sources and read WP:RS to understand what sources can be used. DeCausa (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RKH, this form of the swastika is described at Swastika#Hinduism. Is that description not adequate? (bearing in mind that en.wikipedia is worldwide resource and excess detail risks WP:TLDR). Readers who want to know more should be able to find more in the cited sources. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lotta Svärd badge.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)