Talk:Swastika

This article needs to be fixed
We need to fix this article. And not just say FAQ. Wikipedia is one of the top source for common people. This is actually creating a lot of problems for Hindus in schools and immigrations.

First. We need to dedicate Swastika to Hinduism which is the original source of this and is still widely applicable.

Then we need clear out how Nazi symbol is completely different from Swastika.

Nazi symbol is Hakenkruez not Swastika.

Just like you wouldn't call American Football as Rugby, in the same way you can't call Nazi symbol as Swastika.

I am happy to contribute if someone wants to pair pair up.

https://cohna.org/swastika-is-not-hakenkreuz/ Firedrake123 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not here to correct something you think is wrong. Rather, Wikipedia summarizes the mainstream literature about a topic. Your request has no chance of happening. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You should think twice before giving your lecture here it's clearly mention in every German document that Swastika is different and German Nazi symbol hakenkruez is different just because it belongs to Christianity that's why you are not accepting it we have prove and documented old 1930 document and newspaper articles and German published real document on internet sites you can find it easily so I believe Wikipedia good correct it if you don't have information then take it from my account and email you the information then uploaded on Wikipedia don't give miss information about Swastika and hakenkruez
 * Just 100 years ago, in an article dated Nov 21, 1922, the New York Times, in its first ever coverage of Hitler, called his movement the “Hakenkreuz Movement” and referred to his followers as “Hakenkreuzlers.Another 1934 New York Times article, even reported about the Nazi Newspaper, accurately calling it the Hakenkreuz Banner, versus anything related to Swastika.New York Times’ March 1933 coverage of Hitler’s “Hooked Cross.”The popularization of "Swastika" in Media TerminologyHakenkreuzbanner, The Nazi NewspaperIn a similar vein, 1925 edition of The Jewish Daily Bulletin Index (page 14-15), made repeated references to Hitler’s followers as the “Hakenkreuzlers,” documenting their attacks on Jews, women’s groups and more. 18 mentions of this word can be found in the paper.We can also look at the records of the Nazis themselves, who published their own paper in Mannheim from 1931- 1945. Not surprisingly, the paper was known as the “Hakenkreuzbanner”, and not any word related even remotely to “Swastika 2409:40C4:28:4FD4:D82C:465A:8DC2:EB9B (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I sympathize. I honestly do.  It is terrible that we have ended up in this place where the Swastika is associated with evil.  Were Swatika and hakenkreuz different and distinguishable at some point in time?  Quite possibly.  But the sad fact is that the term Swastika is the one used in the vast majority of English sources to date.  Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not leading.  I am all for the various efforts to educate people and distinguish the symbols.  But until such efforts take hold, Wikipedia should remain the way it is.  Change the world, and Wikipedia will surely follow.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is amazing that English speaking Christians in western world could not find a Kosher English word for the German word Hakenkreuz used by Hitler and his Nazis.
 * For any educated and sensible person it would be simple "Crooked Cross", but as Hitler and Nazis were all true Christians and followed the same sacred cross as their enemies, it would be unthinkable to tarnish our Christian Cross.
 * So the most convenient thing was to associate our enemy's Christian Crooked Cross with an ancient alien culture and pick their Sanskrit language word "Sawastika"(Holy and auspicious) which was used in most of the temples and scriptures of Buddist, Hindu and Jain religion.
 * Most English speaking population would have never heard of it.
 * Therefore it was not Hitler but the English speaking Christians who translated "Hakenkreuz" to Sanskrit word Sawastika rather than two simple english words "Crooked CROSS"
 * Let's please be honest and acknowledge the real meaning of Hakenkreuz and give back Sawastika to the real peaceful ancient religions worldwide. Koshswstka (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What are your sources for English speaking Christians being responsible?  Adolf Hitler pretended to be a Christian but actually despised Christianity. I don't know how many senior Nazis were Christian. This is a waste of time without reliable sources.  Doug Weller  talk 14:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ... and if you actually read the article, you would know that the British Empire adopted the Sanskrit word (and it association with good fortune) at least one hundred years before the German Volksich group adopted it independently from ancient Nordic culture. No translation involved. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And that's the nub of the issue. The swastika and the hakenkreuz are visually indistinguishable even if they represent very different things. The swastika (symbol and term) was well known in the western world well before the Nazis. What else were they going to call it, especially the British elite with their background in the Raj? Certainly not some German word favoured by the Nazis. Can you imagine Churchill et al. saying to themselves "we must respect Nazi sensitivities and use the word they have allocated to this symbol and forget what we learnt for our Cambridge tripos". DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Direction of movement, Vinča & modern use
"The investigators put forth the hypothesis that the swastika moved westward from the Indian subcontinent to Finland, Scandinavia, the Scottish Highlands and other parts of Europe."

This is backwards to the apparent dates of the inscriptions found e.g. it appears in Ukraine ~10,000bce, then Hungary/Romania/Bulgaria/Serbia ~3,000 to 6,000bce, then Iran ~5,000bce, then the Indian subcontinent ~3,000bce, indicating it was moving Eastward. The introduction of the article also suggests appropriation of the symbol from the East, despite the archaeological evidence suggesting the opposite.

The article should probably discuss the Vinča archeological finds more in the prehistory section. It's worth noting that archaeological surveys unearthed Vinča symbols around the end of the 1800s and start of the last century. It was in use as a flag emblem by the National Christian Union party, led by Alexandru Cuza, in Romania, in 1922. 14 years prior, Vinča archaeological finds had been made in Serbia. Evidence suggesting that it was selected as an emblem as a result of its presence in the archeological finds can be found in the article pertaining to Cuza himself; e.g. Cuza mentions the Swastika and "signs were found on our soil", an apparent reference to the Vinča archaeological finds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.56.5016:40, 1 May 2024 (talk)

Appropriation
" Nazi Party who appropriated it from Asian cultures". Considering that there are Germanic examples dating back to the 3rd century, I would say that this statement is incorrect. Neither group appropriated the symbol from the other. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The counterargument here would be that Hitler--and, I think it fair to say, Nazis more broadly--associated the symbol with their concept of an "Aryan" background of the Germanic race. Though you are of course quite correct that the Swastika is found the world over, I would argue that the Nazis' particular usage is an appropriation from the Sanskrit tradition.  Reasonable minds may differ, however.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Equally, they appropriated it from the European tradition by repurposing it as a militaristic symbol.
 * No single word can really capture such a complicated question: right now, appropriation is the closest we can get. It is certainly better than to say nothing at all and so pretend that there is no issue. But fell free to propose an alternative. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think "saying nothing" is the better choice. "The swastika (卐 or 卍) is an ancient religious and cultural symbol, predominantly found in various Eurasian cultures, as well as some African and American ones. In the western world it is more widely recognized as a symbol of the German Nazi Party. The swastika never stopped being used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. It generally takes the form of a cross, the arms of which are of equal length and perpendicular to the adjacent arms, each bent midway at a right angle." I don't see what "issue" you are referring to. This symbol means one thing in one context and something else in another. That is a simple fact, not an "issue". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your approach would make sense to me if the Nazis had picked the symbol at random, or if they liked the way it looked, or some such. But there was more to it than that.  Hitler himself couched the choice in the context of nonsense 'Aryan' history.  To say it is just another use of a widespread symbol strikes me as a less desirable choice.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And that Aryan history linkage was based on the fact that it was in both regions. He didn't bring a solely Indic symbol into use in Germany, he linked German and Indic symbols. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lots of good sources use the term "appropriation", for instance Steven Heller in The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption? (2010) and Malcolm Quinn in The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol (2005). Appropriation is the right stance here, despite the existence of the relatively less known Germanic symbol. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. "He didn't bring a solely Indic symbol into use in Germany, he linked German and Indic symbols." DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove Nazi Hookedcross picture from this article
Swastika symbol is prehistoric and has much more importance than the discredit brought to it by Nazi party. Nazi's stole the symbol and it should not be treated on par with Swastika, instead it should be called HookedCross and dealt separately. A passing reference to its similarity to Swastika is enough. No need for bold picture. 198.208.47.91 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌ See The common English language name for the symbol used by the Nazis is "swastika" message above. See the common name policy. Please also see the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay. Peaceray (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)