Talk:Swastika/Archive 5

Mukti Jain Campion is not a historian, ukrain has too much corruption & links with nazism to be trusted on this page!
How to fake a 10,000 year old ukrain artifacts in a nation with 90 percent open far right population.

step one, buy a 10,000 year old mamoth tusk from the internet which is legal and actully cheap depending on size and colour. $200 to $8,000

step two, Buy or use a stone age artifact and start to carve your ideal pattern, if you want to steal the whole of asias history just pop down a crude swastika.

step three, Tell the world you have a 10,000 year old swastika because the tusk of the material carbon dates to 10,000 years and the stone age tools which scratched the design matches up with the tools in the ukrain museum and found in the area by novest hunters.

Step Five, publish the results on every far right website and claim its been authenticated & wait for the news to be spotted and popped up on wiki so that the history can fall back into the hands of the far right for another round of the dark age.

is Mukti Jain Campion an established archaeologist/historian? Ukrain cannot be used a ref of honest historian activity, not when the nation has some of the worst corruption while being drenched in nazi ideology.92.236.96.38 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock
 * Do you have any sources for your claims? "Conspiracy theories" are not listed at WP:Identifying reliable sources.  The Swastika predates Nazism, and this is understood by academics (btw, this citation also mentions the Ukraine swastikas).  To say that is in no way condoning Nazism, it merely points out one further unfortunate effect they had on history.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Information is hardly new, see  Although it is not really the oldest one if we are talking about the usage, but this information is common. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Article wording is "earliest known object," rather than "earliest usage," though. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree and I was only trying to summarize and neutrally reply the above IP, who may have confused with usage and oldest trace together. Otherwise he wouldn't be making this huge post. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Clockwise and counter clockwise is reversed.
I'm speaking from a mystical Native American point of view. Clockwise sun wheels are facing to the LEFT, not to the RIGHT. Imagine an equilateral cross with one ribbon tied to each end. If the cross was turned counterclockwise the ribbons will orient to the right, and left when turned clockwise. In ancient European mythic and Native American tradition clockwise is for productivity, light, goodness. Counterclockwise is for negative things like curses and destruction. I understand that some very positive religions orient it the other way. I'm just pointing out the flaw of the statement that the article makes on what is a clockwise versus counterclockwise sun wheel.173.93.254.111 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong-Oak


 * The article explains that A right-facing swastika might be described as "clockwise" or "counter-clockwise". The section on geometry identifies clockwise and counter-clockwise as one means of describing facing, along with left-facing and right-facing, but does not state that those are the same direction.  Indeed, it even explains that clockwise and counter-clockwise are ambiguous.
 * At no point does the article discuss which orientation has what meaning in so definite a manner, and is not likely to.
 * Also, Wikipedia goes with a WP:Neutral point of view determined by citing reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

SCREEN recording In process!
I do not wish to see any distortions of this page to appease far right cults in Ukraine, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, France, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Hungary, Austria, Germany..ect

I dont like the idea or method of using the website "sacred text" as a solid Ref, I find it to be of low calibre and less established to be given top page status on this wiki page refs and cits. I Would also like to point out that The west as well as the chinese have been caught many times trying to pass forgeries off as Orginal artifacts, historians who have been caught in europe and in china explian how a object made today can be made into a 18,000 year old item just by treating it with radiation exposure which tricks the carbondating method, other methods are used to even trick museums with ease. TOP established historians from asia and europe can give refs, But ukrains and other high far right nations should be given with due caution92.236.96.38 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock


 * So you write off everyone in Europe (the Netherlands has no far-right cults) and Asia. Who's left? I can guarantee you that today's America has more far-right and/or neo-Nazi "cults" than do Europe and Asia. So, Africa? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor appears, for some obscure reason, to be complaining about claims that swastikas have been found on ancient artifacts. He is suggesting that they might have been forged. Somehow these artifacts "appease" far right groups. It has nothing to do with "writing off" "everyone in Europe" or the relative prominence of neo-Nazi groups in the US and Europe. Paul B (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Swastika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110520072007/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2007/0328/1175003340664.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2007/0328/1175003340664.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The 10,000 year old bird has to be cleaned up
1) the source provided is not an academic source, it is a BBC culture piece 2) inspection of the picture of the artifact reveals no swastika, only some spiral motifs - here we get into the "million monkeys at a million type writers for a million years, and eventually you get Shakespeare" situation 3) The shape, even if is similar to more recent swastikas, did not necessarily have the same intended meaning as more recent swastikas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.20.99 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Kolovrat
Kolovrat has no relation to the Slavs. It is used only Russian neo-Nazis. Please familiarize yourself with the opinion of the russian historian Roman Bagdasarov: http://www.webcitation.org/619kJgHL0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladchekunov (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Links
Bkobres, regarding this edit by you, would you please take the trouble to actually read WP:EL? External links belong in an external links section; that's why it is called an external links section. It simply does not matter how long the links you restored have been there. They are inappropriate under a widely accepted guideline. Please feel free to restore those links in an external links section, but please do not feel free to restore them in the middle of the article's text. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nazis?
When did the Nazis ever use the swastika? The article needs serious cleanup.112.198.83.66 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of the kolovrat in the ukraine conflict
As it was mentioned in quote 62, the kolovrat would be used by pro-russian seperatists, but that's not what is shown in the atricle quoted. There are pictures showing the kolovrat sticked to the uniforms of the Asow-regiment, which lately led an torch march in Mariupol after losing the elections. The Asow-regiment is strongly connected to the pro-western Ukraine "government" under Petro Poroschenko. SO it's just an attempt to make the russians look evil, instead of showing the reality, that the ukrainian government supports far-right neo-faschists like the Asow-regiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1340:1040:5477:D1A0:75E4:4B9D (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for this image
See the comment here: http://redpill.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=12993 for this image:

"I have looked and looked and can't find the Celt swastika. (Celt swastika looks like the Isle of Man and Triskel symbol.) AND I could not find many other from this image after a while searching. I feel like this image is a lie; it was once on the slide of the front page here: http://www.proswastika.org/

It would be great if there was some photographs of where these symbols were found because I cannot find much (except the Aztec one, which I found fan art on)."

—User 000 name 03:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup Satirical Section
According to the definition of satire (OED "Characterized by a sarcastically critical or mocking attitude to a person, situation, etc., esp. one viewed as foolish or immoral; expressing criticism in a sarcastic or mocking way."), all works intending to denigrate or otherwise show disapproval of a subject by comparing them to the Nazis, by implementation of a swastika, are satirical use of the swastika. I believe this tag to be inappropriate, but wished to note this on the talk page instead of starting an edit war. Gsnerd (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nazi German calling of symbol?
What was the Nazi (NASDP?) word for the symbol? "Hakenkreuz" or Swasitka, or both? Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

photo in 1922. airplane with Swastika
probable PD-old. Halfcookie (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

'Activist groups'?
In the early 20th century section, the sentence:

"The swastika remains a core symbol of Neo-Nazi groups, and is used regularly by activist groups."

I'm not sure what activist groups are referred to here in a clause that comes directly after one about Neo-Nazis. I'll delete the second part of the sentence unless anyone can advise. Born to Donne (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've made this change. Born to Donne (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo swastikas/Cambridge Museum?
I'm a bit confused by this line: "The pagan Anglo-Saxon ship burial at Sutton Hoo, England, contained numerous items bearing the swastika, now housed in the collection of the Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology." First, what items from Sutton Hoo contained swastikas? Second, weren't the objects all deposited in the British Museum? The snipped view on Google Books of the cited source (Gods and Myths of Northern Europe, page 83) shows that "Cambridge Museum" and "swastikas" both appear on page 83, but it doesn't appear that "Sutton Hoo" does. Could someone who knows more, or has the source handy, clear this up? Thanks! Usernameunique (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Having just looked into this, the line was originally put in by an IP address in January 2005 (link), and stated: "The pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon ship burial at Sutton Woo, England, contains gold cups and shields bearing swastikas." (Sutton Hoo was, indeed, misspelled as "Sutton Woo.") 3 years and a day later, changed this line to the current one: "The pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon ship burial at Sutton Hoo, England, contained numerous items bearing the swastika, now housed in the collection of the Cambridge Museum of  Archaeology and Anthropology." The edit summary said "Checked into it, information is valid. See talk. Can place a lot more examples here including bracteates, gold-embossed on cloth, a stool, runestones, etc. but needed?" The current citation was added sometime later, also by.


 * From what I can tell of the talk page, most of the discussion was over what objects that Cambridge Museum has in its collection, not what objects are attributed to Sutton Hoo. That said, there is a picture (sans discussion) of a hanging bowl from Sutton Hoo, and the British Museum's website (where it is housed---i.e., not at the Cambridge Museum) describes it as having a "zoomorphic swastika design."


 * Thus, it looks like the Sutton Hoo burial did have at least one object with something resembling a swastika, although it is far from the "gold cups and shields bearing swastikas" that was originally claimed, and it is certainly not at the Cambridge Museum. I'm unaware of any gold cups from Sutton Hoo, and don't think the shield (let alone shields) has anything even remotely resembling a swastika. (Although technically it looks like there was also a shield in Mound 17, not that there's anything suggesting it has anything resembling a swastika.) Nor do these items seem to have been "numerous," nor to have included items like "gold-embossed on cloth," nor to have been ever housed in the Cambridge Museum. It seems as if a line was incorrectly added to this article a decade ago, and then supplemented with information about objects housed at the Cambridge Museum which had nothing to do with Sutton Hoo.--Usernameunique (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's what the book (Gods and Myths of Northern Europe, page 83) actually says:
 * We have many instances of the swastika symbol from Anglo-Saxon graves of the pagan period, and it is particularly prominent on cremation urns from the cemeteries of East Anglia. On some of these, to be seen in the Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, it is depicted with such care and art that it must surely have possessed special significance as a funeral symbol. . . . The swastika is also found on weapons and sword scabbards. It can be seen on sword hilts from the peat bogs of Denmark as early as the third century A.D. It is clearly marked on a hilt and sword belt found at Bifrons, Kent, in a grave of about the sixth century. By the seventh centuty, the Christian cross also appears on scabbards, and an elaborate one recovered from the River Seine has the cross and the swastika side by side.
 * Mentions of Sutton Hoo: 0.
 * To take the words of "checked into it, information is not valid." Incidentally, the last three times this article failed good/featured article candidacy, a lack of reliable sources was mentioned each time. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"Ashanti weight" - the word "Ashanti" needs to be bluelinked.
Under this inset image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brooklyn_Museum_74.218.25_Weight.jpg

it reads: "Ashanti weight"

"Ashanti" needs bluelinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.39.37 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Origins and meaning of the swastika symbol
I want to spotlight the unfair editing of this article by an Indian user, "Tiger7253". He persistently deletes and changes content, especially to convey the idea that the swastika is an originally and exclusively "Indian" symbolism, while it is found across all Indo-European-influenced cultures spanning Eurasia and the article is full of sources supporting this evidence.--95.232.135.117 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * and, I would like to bring to light the several violations of wiki etiquette that has committed.


 * First of all, I reverted a rather profound - and dubious - edit to the lead paragraph that did not include any references or sources. The edit claimed that the Swastika is used in contemporary European pagan customs, such as 'Slavic Rodnovery'. While the Swastika does have an Indo-European link, as adequately explained by the article, there does not seem to be anything in the article to suggest its usage in contemporary European traditions. If anything, all sources point to historical, not modern, usage - and even that is rather limited because most of the text dedicated towards European usage focuses on its 19th/20th century adoption by various organisations. The lead paragraph summarises the most prominent contemporary religions and cultures that do use the Swastika today - like Hinduism and Buddhism. Everything else is included in the rest of the article. I am unsure as to why this user wants to push it into the lead when it is not as noteworthy as the examples that are now included.


 * Secondly, this user is engaging in outright ad hominem targeting, directed towards me as opposed to the content of this article, and more of this can be seen in the edit history of Swastika. This user went as far as to assume that I am Indian (when this has nothing to do with my edits) and then assumed that my edits are biased and agenda-driven. The edit history of this user seems to suggest some sort of sock puppetry at play here. As I am not an admin and do not have the required privileges to deal with this sort of thing, I have tagged the admins that I do know. Thanks. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I've temporarily semi-protected the page. Please use the talk page to discuss suggested changes. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The swastika did not originate in the Indian subcontinent, despite what some Indian nationalists, and the various ignorants who continue to impair the quality of this article, claim. It is a symbol brought thwartwise cultures by the Indo-Europeans (the earliest attested I.E. culture is Yamna), who were also the initiators of early Vedic culture. The two sources upon which the sentence which Tiger7253 continues to revert is built do not say that the symbol originated in the Indian subcontinent (d'Alviella 1894). The swastika is derivatively a symbol in contemporary Asian religions. The page is disseminated with iconographic archeological evidence that the swastika is used across various I.E. cultures and is not exclusively Indian.


 * Quote from d'Alviella 1894 (p. 73): "A first observation, made long ago, is that the gammadion is almost the exclusive property of the Aryan race. It is found, in fact, among all the peoples of the Indo-European branch, whilst it is completely absent among the Egyptians, the Chaldæans, the Assyrians, and even the Phœnicians, although these latter were not very scrupulous in borrowing the ornaments and symbols of their neighbours. As for the Tibetans, the Chinese, and the Japanese, amongst whom it is neither less frequent nor less venerated, it is not difficult to prove that it must have come to them, with Buddhism, from India.


 * There was only a step from this to the conclusion that the gammadion is a survival of the symbolism created, or adopted, by the common ancestors of the Aryans, and this step has been easily got over. Had we not the precedents of philology, which cannot come upon the same radical in the principal dialects of the Indo-European nations without tracing its existence to the period when these people spoke the same language? We did not even stop there. Desirous of investing the gammadion with an importance proportioned to the high destiny imputed to it, one has endeavoured to make it the symbol of the supreme God whom the Aryans are said to have adored before their dispersion. Thus we have seen Mr. Greg exhibit the gammadion as the emblem of the god of the sky, or air, who, in the course of the Indo-European migrations, was converted into Indra, Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, and so forth. [...]."


 * Regarding the meaning of the swastika, he further reiterates that (p. 74): " it might well have been, with the primitive Aryans, "the emblem of the divinity who comprehended all the gods, or, again, of the omnipotent God of the universe".--82.54.75.3 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

More from p. 82 of the same book: "As for India, everything, so far, tends to show that the swastika was introduced into that country from Greece, the Caucasus, or Asia Minor, by ways which we do not yet know." Here a diagram showing the chronology of diffusion of the swastika. India is the eighth step!--82.54.75.3 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem with your assertion is that you're relying upon a single source to back up your claims. There are many sources in the article with entirely different viewpoints, but I don't see you acknowledging that. There is implicit bias in all sources - if you're willing to call the position of Indian scientists 'biased' out of nationalistic intent, then it is only fair for others to call the position of European scientists biased out of imperialistic intent. European sources are not any more credible than Indian sources. Bias isn't the purview of any single region, despite what you might think.


 * Your entire argument is derailed by the mere fact that the Aryan Invasion Theory is just that - a theory. Sources from 1894 that detail the evolution of the Swastika are based on a rudimentary and speculative Max Muller-like understanding of the AIT - again, you brought up the term 'Aryan', so I'm bringing this up - It's all mere speculation as opposed to being rooted in fact, like say, actual scientific research. Anything that mentions 'Aryans' and then tries to imply something factual from it is already dubious at this point of time. Why, for example, should anyone consider this 1894 diagram with dubious question marks all over the place more credible than 2016 research from one of India's top institutions? Who are you to say that there is more implicit bias in a 2016 Indian source than in European sources written exclusively by monolithic colonial officers during the colonial era?


 * Quoting one source and claiming it as absolute proof of the definitive origin of the Swastika won't work here. As much as you're trying to make this about nationalistic intent, it has nothing to do with that. We simply do not know for sure if any of the colonial-era texts can be taken as the absolute truth, so for what it's worth, the lead paragraph simply details the most credible theory about the Swastika, especially given that ever since the supposed Ukrainian 'swastika' was debunked to be a stylised stork in flight - which calls your entire hypothesis into question - the next best theory of the Swastika's genesis is the one that links back to the culture that today uses the Swastika in the most prominent fashion: India, or the Indic religions.


 * But even disregarding everything I've said above, I reverted edits that claimed that the Swastika is used in European pagan religions today. There is absolutely no proof of that. Do not come for me for reverting something so dubious that other administrators would have done it had I not stepped in. If you want to prove that the Swastika or its derivatives are used in European culture in the 21st century, then by all means, feel free to find sources and references that state that the Swastika is as prominent in 21st-century European paganism as it is in Hinduism and Buddhism. Blaming a text on 'nationalism' simply because you don't like it only discredits you even further. Tiger7253 (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My primary concern is the origin and meaning of the swastika symbol. Knowledge does not have expiry dates like consumer products. "Aryans" in pre-WW2 times was the standard term for the now more politically correct "Indo-Europeans", and, besides, Eugène Goblet d'Alviella was not a colonialist. Aryan Diffusion Theory-laden hypotheses should be given the same credit of Out of India Theory-laden hypotheses, which currently dominate the lede of the article. The hypotheses of European thinkers are not less relevant than those of some contemporary Indian institute. The lede of the article should generically say that the symbol is associated to the Indo-Europeans and that it is a symbol of divinity or of the God of the universe. The various hypotheses about geographic origin and migrations should be discussed in different subsections.
 * As for what concerns the use of the swastika by contemporary Slavic Rodnovers, see: Aitamurto; Simpson (2014), Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, ISBN 1317544617: swastika is mentioned pp. 67-70, 269, 277, 281. The swastika symbol is used by Armenian Hetans and Slavic Rodnovers.--87.4.91.167 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This page is distinctively about the four straight-legged Swastika symbol that is used in Indic religions, as well as the version that was adopted by Nazi Germany. The Indic and Nazi version look exactly the same, which is why both examples find a spot in the lead paragraph. The Armenian and Slavic ones are the Arevakhach and the Kolovrat, respectively. They're so different in form that they've literally been omitted from the lead! (...Hakenkreuz, gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, croix gammée, fylfot, or tetraskelion). All those differently named symbols bear some resemblance to the Swastika, hence their inclusion. This Arevakhach may have a link to the Swastika, but it's not exactly a 'Swastika' per se. It is its own symbol. If anything they're notable enough to have their own pages, but so as long as this page talks about the Swastika, it is almost exclusively an Indic symbol in shape and form *today*. The Armenian and Slavic symbols are either too different or belong to extinct pagan cultures and civilisations, that were later replaced by Christianity, to be bunched in and grouped with living civilisations in the lead. It's all about notability here. Tiger7253 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I usually restrict my edits to correcting bad Sanskrit, but in this case, I feel that I must speak out on the following points: 1) Attacks ad hominem will destroy Wikipedia. Courtesy is essential.  Whatever one suspects, other contributors must be accorded the dignity of being treated as scholars unless they have been proven not to be.  Proven, not suspected.   A person's origin may well predispose them to a particular view.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Should we have only contributors of one particular background?  I, like many others, refuse to have an identified background.  (My pen name means "nobody" in Sanskrit.) 2.  Indo-European, or Aryan, is a language group.  Max Muller famously said that it makes as much sense to refer to  the "Aryan race" as to talk of a "brachycepalic dictionary".  The casual observation at the language family does not correspond systematically to any genetically defined grouping is confirmed by molecular biology. 3. Languages can spread by movement of peoples or by cultural influence. In particular, a small number of conquerors may bring their language to a new population, at times with very little change in material culture. If the new rulers are warriors, rather than, say, potters, decorative arts will be little affected. Conversely, cultural patterns can be transmitted independently of people or language. 5) The leading paragraph of this article, which asserts that the swastika originates in India, is clearly unsupportable, given the antiquity of the use of the symbol around the world - as far as Central America - as documented in the article itself. It may well be the case, but cannot be proven.  4.  Nakashchit (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I left out 4) somehow: 4) The suggestion that there is a continuous pagan tradition in Europe, rather than a recent revivalist movement would need a lot of support, as it is contrary to received history. In paganism is indeed a revivalist movement, which we must assume in the absence of contrary evidence, it is far too insignificant to merit a mention in the first paragraph. Nakashchit (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed fix to lede
Good grief, can't we just leave out of the lead section the five words "originating from the Indian subcontinent"? If the exact origin is disputed, then the opposing current and historical views can be (and are) described in sections "Theories of Origin" and "Prehistory", where there is space to provide balance.

I agree with above that languages, artistic symbols, and religions can spread separately. And that they may also spread through different strata of society, leaving others untouched. For example, a ruling class (or religious elite) may introduce a collection of language, religion, and artistic/decorative style and spread it to neighbouring areas through conquest, trade, or diplomatic relations without it ever filtering down to the common people in the fields. On the other hand, human history is also full of mass migrations.

Additionally, a geometric symbol can also arise independently in different places: just because it is invented in one place later than another, doesn't mean there was a direct chain of transmission. (Some of the examples of square spirals and knotwork included in the article – let alone the rounded versions – strike me as having only tenuous links to swastikas sensu stricto, but that's a topic for separate discussion.)

Given the above uncertainty, conflict, and possibility of multiple origins (apart from swastikas appearing in both places, is there any other good evidence of cultural transmission between Eurasia and the Americas in the same time frame?), surely pinpointing a single geographical in the lede is at best undue weight and at worst deceptive.

Pinging, , , , , – sorry if that is excessive notification.

To be clear: as a previously uninvolved editor who just stumbled on this discussion (I was looking for talk about merge with sauwastika), I propose to remove mention of swastika's origin from the introduction, and to cover the evidence, speculation, and differing interpretations only in relevant sections of the body.

Pelagic (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is like flogging a dead horse. Unless a concrete and reliable reference can be found to ascertain the definite origin of the Swastika, the lead is here to stay. Anything else is just conjecture - recall that the theories of a Eurasian origin are just that - theories, like the Aryan Invasion Theory. The prominence of the Swastika in Dharmic Indian cultures gives it a hegemony/makes it far more notable to that context than to anything else. The Swastika as we know it today in its straight-legged shape and form has definitively been excavated from IVC sites - the seals currently exhibited in the British Museum clearly show that. The other 'Swastikas' that were found in Ukraine or in other Eurasian sites were either debunked to be other symbols related to pagan European civilisations, developed independently to the Swastika, or even depictions of animals (storks in the Ukrainian example). Unless someone can prove that they are all one and the same, the lead is just fine the way it is, because it alludes to the Dharmic Swastika. Tiger7253 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reworded the lead to remove the POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not bad, I actually agree with your edit. It's fairer and still shines the spotlight on Dharmic religions/India/Asia. Hope now approves. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, where the symbol is primarily used is more important than where it might have originated. I also like how  restructured to get the also-known-as list out of the first sentence.  Pelagic (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

too many photos
This article is over-laden with photos, to the point that it's almost unreadable, especially on any mobile device. It would take quite a bit of serious editing to pare it down, however. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Major cleanup
I have made a bold edit, and have done away with the bulk of the symbols depicted under the 'Appearance' section. The pictures of the symbols appear to have been added without any consensus and/or sources or references. For example, one such symbol - the Lauburu - is described as a 'Basque swastika' without any references alluding to it. It appears to be original research. Just because it is a four-legged symbol doesn't make it a swastika, which is a misconception many people seem to have. I have done away with the dubious symbols and have retained the obvious ones, like the Nazi hakenkreuz. Tiger7253 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The lauburu is back .... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Swastika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908045814/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bronze.html to http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/bronze.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110165543/http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-07.html to http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-07.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/victory/559590-echo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lauburu
I have restored Lauburu image, as it indeed is referred to as the Basque swastika in reliable sources. Please see 1, 2, etc. I welcome any concerns citing sources to back those concerns, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

merge
Same concept, variant spelling. Editor2020 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Looks similar, but not the same concept. It is different, a reverse image. Not only is the spelling different, it signifies something different. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose No reason to conflate the two, and the English spelling is irrelevant to the subject topic. DA1 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Overstauration of images
I feel like this article has way too many images. Perhaps an image gallery might be better than stuffing the article. The Verified Cactus 100% 22:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's almost unreadable because of what the scattering of pictures does to the text. Even with a gallery, we should remove a good chunk of the pictures; wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be - can't be - comprehensive displays of every possible example of the topic. Such removal will be controversial, however, since this topic tends to attract extreme opinions. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. 60+ image files! May be we start by setting a target of about 30, and welcoming creative ideas to address the troublesome scatter. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Source removal, image POV issues and other edits
Please do not remove sources and sourced content as you did here and here, etc. Further, please note that NPOV is a binding community agreed content policy, and this article is no place to push a POV-y Hindu or Jain iconography. The collage was not available in the past, and the collage does include the previous lead image as one of the four representations. It does not matter if the article has or has not used a particular icon for a while. Therefore I have reverted your edit.

You also re-added unsourced content, one non-RS, and a fringe part with 11,000 year claim. Such edits do not meet wikipedia's verifiability and RS guidelines.

Please explain your concerns in accordance with wikipedia content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I fail to understand your rationale behind being against identifying modern usage of the Swastika with Indic religions. That is the only context in which they are culturally used today. If identifying the Swastika with Indic religions violates NPOV, then what about the Christian cross? Or the Crucifix? Stating a fact is not a violation of NPOV.


 * Contemporary usage of the Swastika needs to be distinguished from extinct cultures that once used it. If you are in favour of de-linking religious symbols from their respective cultures, then by all means, do so - I look forward to seeing you apply the same standard across the board, starting with the Christian-centric articles I have linked above. Tiger7253 (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not the only context in which the Swastika is used today. Saying so is disingenious at least.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As always, you are welcome to provide us with references and sources to back up your claim that there are contemporary religions and cultures, other than Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, in which the Swastika is used in the 21st century. Tiger7253 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure it is not a Hindu, Buddhist or Jain who painted one on the trashbin over at the station here in my village in Denmark.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Maunus is right. It is in use outside Indian religions context in the contemporary times. Read the article and the sources cited therein, such as the part on Odinism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate, ? Are you referring to the act of a neo-Nazi spray-painting a Hakenkreuz as a hate symbol, or are you referring to a symbol of some extinct pagan Scandinavian culture being spray-painted on a dustbin? If it is the former, this article already discusses Nazism. If it is the latter, 'Odinism' is a fringe movement that is neither a major religious group or a culture as notable as the hegemonic faiths of the world today. The context of the Swastika within Odinism, if such a thing even exists, is hardly as notable as a Hindu or a Buddhist Swastika, which is notable on a global scale. Similar things can be said about the relationship of the crucifix to Christianity. To put the so-called 'Odinism', whatever that is, on an equal pedestal with Hinduism is fallacious. Tiger7253 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Tiger7253: What you added is fringe theory: swastika migrating "11,000 years ago Ancient India" to Americas. Odinism is not fringe (do read the sources already cited). Please also read WP:FRINGE, to understand what wikipedia community considers fringe, the part that discusses "mainstream views and reliable sources". NPOV means all significant viewpoints in RS are summarized in wiki articles. It is puzzling that you fail to understand Maunus' comment. Do we really need to belabor the point that swastika is being used (or accused of being in contemporaneous use) by hate / radical groups in Europe, Americas etc? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * I believe that your revision as of 29 April 2017 is the fairest and most balanced version. Major edits have been made to this article since your revision, without any prior consultation with any of us who have had a stake in editing this article over the last few months. My attempt to revert these edits so that we can start from scratch with our input has been rebuked as 'disruptive', which is thoroughly unfair, given that I have agreed with a number of constructive edits on this article (including yours). I am hoping that we can roll back the edits to your revision and work our way up if that is what would prefer. I am not in favour of a lead paragraph that diminishes the importance of the Swastika in contemporary Indic religions, putting them on a pedestal with traditions that otherwise died out centuries ago. The latter simply aren't as notable as the former to be given such importance in the lead.

It is particularly appalling to see that the Indian hypothesis of the symbol's origin (courtesy of the IIT) has been removed, making that section highly Eurocentric and dare I say, biased. Tiger7253 (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Tiger7253: The current lead does not diminish the importance of Indian religions context. It simply follows the WP:LEAD and NPOV guidelines. Consensus is not needed to remove unsourced or fringe content such as 11,000 year theory based on a mention in a blog/newspaper/tabloid. You must not remove reliable sources and sourced content as you did here, as that is disruption. I would welcome any content, but it must cite peer-reviewed reliable sources such as mainstream scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I shall do what I can do find peer-reviewed Indian scholarly work that supports my position, although that in itself is rather challenging, given that Indian historians and anthropologists are routinely chastised by American and European scholars for differing from the Western academic norm. Furthermore, the term 'mainstream' has problematic (ethnocentric) connotations - it implies that the only reputable academic sources come from a certain demographic. The bias against Indian scholars makes it tough to find sources and references that would be considered as credible as those coming from the West. I however believe that this will improve with time, and that Wikipedia will become a fairer and less Eurocentric place. Until then, I might have to let this rest (for now). Tiger7253 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The current lead is in the same spirit as my version, and I don't see any major problems with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with . Also, while the problem of the previous versions saying that the symbol originated in India seems to have been resolved, the current lede says that the symbol is found in "every culture" of the planet, which is not true either (it is mostly found throughout the northern emisphere, specifically Eurasia) As discussed in a section hereinabove, I propose to add the theories about origins and meaning of the symbol advanced by European scholars, namely Eugène Goblet d'Alviella and Danish historian Ludvig Müller (1809-1891) quoted by d'Alviella, who in his book Det saakaldte Hagekors's Anvendelse og Betydning i Oldtiden. Avec un resume en francais (Kjobnhavn, 1887, p. 107) says that the swastika is the sign of theos, equivalent of the Mesopotamian dingir, and in its highest meaning it is the "emblem of the divinity who comprehended all the gods [...] of the omnipotent God of the universe".--87.13.111.190 (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the lede should be corrected where it says that in Buddhism the swastika represents the footprints of the Buddha. In most cases the swastika is represented on the chest of the Buddha and it represents his heart and consciousness of all phenomena.--87.13.111.190 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reworded the lead sentence to reflect what the Britannica source does support. The Buddha's footprints is supported in WP:RS. We can also mention the Buddha's heart POV, but please first find a peer reviewed scholarly source that states so. Only then can we add that to this article per wikipedia's content verifiability guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems very odd to me that the use of the swastika as the symbol of Nazism which lingers with great potency throughout the western world, is only hesitantly mentioned. As a balanced article, this should be in the lede paragraph, although certainly as part of a balanced discussion. Bear in mind that lots of people will be coming here to find out about the symbol's meaning within that western context, and while it is great to discuss the historic and continuing use as a religious symbol in India and elsewhere, to simply not discuss its power as a symbol of extreme racial prejudice in the West seems at best disingenuous. On a recent Facebook page it was (incorrectly, I assume from reading this page) proposed that the lack of discussion was itself a matter of neo-Aryanist, neo-Nazi influence. I suggest it would be good to counter that by treating its major use int he 20th century with a less subordinate position.Natcase (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007453 Natcase (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, although this is one of those articles that I'm too chicken to touch because it's so easy to inadvertently imply something horrible. It's weird not to mention Nazi usage in the first or second paragraph of the introduction; anything else seems like a deliberate attempt to convey a message. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit break
Something like: The swastika (as a character 卐 or 卍) is an ancient religious symbol used in the Indian subcontinent, East Asia and Southeast Asia. It is an icon widely found in human history and the modern world.[2][3] It is known outside Asia as the Hakenkreuz, gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, croix gammée, fylfot, or tetraskelion. A swastika generally takes the form of a symmetrically arranged equilateral cross with four legs each bent at 90 degrees.[4][5] It is found in the archeological remains of the Indus Valley Civilization and Mesopotamia, as well as in early Byzantine and Christian artwork.[2][3] In the 20th Century, the swastika was the official symbol of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party and of the Third Reich government of Germany. As a result, it was adopted in Europe and later in other parts of the Western world after World War II as a symbol of Aryan, or white, supremacy and specifically anti-Semitism, and is used as a highly-charged symbol for those points of view by both proponents and opponents. I'd add a link to the URL above, and add links of course.Natcase (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * DavidWBrooks: I share your concerns, but I am unclear on an NPOV improvement. Should the article present the reality and symbolism in Swastika true for some 3+ billion people in South Asia / East Asia / Southeast Asia, or the reality and symbolism for some 1 billion in Europe / North America, when both sides are well supported in the secondary and tertiary reliable sources? Weighing too much of either side raises concerns about balance. One approach can be that we strengthen the third para a bit more? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I find the version by to be acceptable. Regarding sensitivity of the issue, I believe that a bit of cross-cultural awareness is helpful, as it might prevent insidents such as the "Zara swastika handbag" in the future. :-)  K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't find it balanced, jumping as it does from Indus Valley Civilization to 20th century and pretending as if the West is the only thing of importance to the 20th century. I support MSW's proposal to strengthen the third paragraph. But a brief mention can also be added to the first paragraph, something along the lines of "However, in the 20th century Western context, it has come to be associated with Aryan supremacism" or something along the lines. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging for his input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand the concern about making this a page focusing primarily on the Nazi usage, and the section down-page about that usage is solid. My concern is that in the opening, to slide references of that usage all the way to the end, and make them oblique, looks a lot like whitewashing, though I understand that was not the intent. For controversial subjects, I would argue it is best to state the controversy as clearly as possible, noting the sides. The fact that there are two controversies here makes it complicated: (1) the controversy over the swastika's hijacking by Aryanist and white-nationalist groups, erasing its history as a religious symbol, and (2) the controversy pro and con about the content of the views that the swastika represents in a post-Third-Reich world. The Nazi use, while not the only or even numerically dominant use, is a historically and culturally deeply significant one. To argue that it should be highly subordinate to the Asian religious use ignores the depth of its significance. It needs to be mentioned in the lede.Natcase (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Natcase: Your concerns are well intentioned and noted. Please do note that non-Nazi use of this symbol in those Asian cultures is also a "historically and culturally deeply significant one". We can't take sides per NPOV. Yes, we can try to explain it a bit better while keeping "lead is a summary/introduction" guideline. How about you propose one or more sentences that would help better summarize "the depth of its significance" in the Western world? We can then try to reach a consensus on how and where to incorporate your suggestions best in the lead. Assume that the Asian summary in lead remains sort of similar, after some rearrangement if necessary and appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Natcase that the nazi-usage of the Swastika requires a more prominent place in the lead. Sorry to say, but this is the English Wikipedia. Most readers will come here to find out more about the swastika knowing that it is a Nazi-symbol; many will be surprised to find out about it's origins, and about it's opposite, religious meaning in Asian countries. In western Europe, the swastika is possibly the most offensive symbol in existence; in each city in western and eastern Europe which was occupied by the Nazi's you will find memorials for the millions of victims of this regime. There are no exact numbers, but think about 50,000,000 death. Talk with any person in Europe above c.75, and you'll get heart-breaking stories about the war and the Nazi-victims. That's a living reality here in Europe. It's tragic that this religious symbol was hijacked by the Nazi's, which is an eternal offense to Asian cultures, but it is a fact that the Nazi-usage is the prominent meaning in the western world, so it needs to be in the top of the lead. Something like [optional]:

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I concur we should mention the Nazi-link to the lead sentence, not just the overall lead. Since square brackets are confusing in the lead without context!, how about the lead sentence being:


 * Natcase/others: Would JJ's/above proposal work? Anything else you will like to add to lead? DavidWBrooks: you have watched this article for quite a while it seems, any wisdom/suggestions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommended breaking sentence there. Let me make it clear. The Asians view the racism as a western problem, made all the more despicable by using eastern symbols for its exercise. They want to have no association with it, for or against. Cross-cultural understanding needs to go both ways. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is, alas, plenty of racism in all cultures, Asian, North American, South American, African, European and anything else you can think of - and most people in the west would like to have no association with the Nazis, either. The sentence proposed above seems fine to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think noting/suggesting that the Nazi use was a borrowing/theft of the symbol will help to clarify the relationship or rather the lack thereof, and I'm not clear it has to be in the first demarcated sentence—in fact, I'd suggest separating the two by a period might also help emphasize the distance between the uses, and the chronology of which came first. How about:.
 * I should also add that I intentionally removed the dates, as the symbol was used in Nazism's predecessor movements, and remains a symbol for neonazis today. And also thank you all for your considered tone and thoughtfulness in working this through. It's greatly appreciated.Natcase (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Natcase: Some of what you propose repeats parts of the 3rd lead para. Putting too much Nazi stuff in the 1st lead para, beyond 1 or 2 sentence each for the Asian view and the Western view, raises NPOV issues. It swings the pendulum too far on the other side. Perhaps we can bulk up the third para a bit, plus avoid repetition. Like so:
 * Would that be better than the current lead? and a compromise? Please note, given the sensitivity of this subject, the words we use and what we state must be closely verifiable in a high quality RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we are very close. Suggest combining the first two sentences, more compactly saying the same thing. I don't think it's quite right to call it an ideological emblem: it was a political emblem and the national symbol, so it's somewhat broader than that. I think emblem alone is enough. I also think it is important to specifically mention Aryanism. It's fine to have it repeated in paragraph 3, somewhat more spelled out, but if that needs to be altered too, that's fine. I want to get a one-sentence snapshot of the specific history, with specific names, that engendered that current sense of the symbol in the west in the wake of Nazism. There is a lot of intentional misunderstanding and misinformation out there. Pointing to the well-documented specifics of that part of the article will be more helpful than generalities.
 * And actually, you could take out the second part of the next-to-last sentence and get essentially the same meaning:
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natcase (talk • contribs)
 * And actually, you could take out the second part of the next-to-last sentence and get essentially the same meaning:
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natcase (talk • contribs)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natcase (talk • contribs)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natcase (talk • contribs)

You and I are getting close indeed. Let us avoid repetition because it is unnecessary, unencyclopedic and because it leads to one-sided overemphasis and NPOV issues. How about:

I favor shorter, simpler, direct language. Your comments? Let us give others a few days to suggest further improvements / comments, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, I liked the mention of the "Aryan race" identity in the first paragraph, because it explicates the cultural theft that Natcase earlier alluded to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fine mentioning it in either the first para or the third para. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we are getting close, I implemented some of the suggestions of Natcase, Kautilya3, DavidWBrooks etc into the lead. It is meant as an iterative improvement. We can refine it further, if and where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not edit war with. Please see the discussion above, from the beginning, and share any concerns you have. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that the lead paragraph: The swastika (as a character 卐 or 卍) is an ancient religious icon used in the Indian subcontinent, East Asia and Southeast Asia, where it has been and remains a symbol of spiritual principles and values.   In the Western world, it was historically a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck. It was adopted by the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party in early 20th-century as an emblem of Aryan race identity and became highly stigmatized in the West with hate and mass murder.  The Swastika is an icon widely found in human history and the modern world. It is known outside Asia as the Hakenkreuz, gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, croix gammée, fylfot, or tetraskelion. A swastika generally takes the form of a symmetrically arranged equilateral cross with four legs each bent at 90 degrees. It is found in the archeological remains of the Indus Valley Civilization and Mesopotamia, as well as in early Byzantine and Christian artwork.  be rephrased as:  The swastika (as a character 卐 or 卍) is an ancient religious icon used in the Indian subcontinent, East Asia and Southeast Asia, where it has been and remains a symbol of spiritual principles and values.   The Swastika is an icon widely found in human history and the modern world. It is known outside Asia as the Hakenkreuz, gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, croix gammée, fylfot, or tetraskelion. A swastika generally takes the form of a symmetrically arranged equilateral cross with four legs each bent at 90 degrees. It is found in the archeological remains of the Indus Valley Civilization and Mesopotamia, as well as in early Byzantine and Christian artwork. In the Western world, it was historically a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck. It was adopted by the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party in early 20th-century as an emblem of Aryan race identity and became highly stigmatized in the West with hate and mass murder.   I have swapped a few sentences around without erasing anything. The text flows better this way. The previous iteration is all muddled up. Tiger7253 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Tiger7253: Difficult subject this is. I am not sure you addressed the concerns of, and others above. Please give them time to comment, and be prepared for a collaborative compromise if necessary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. At some point, collective editing produces the camel instead of a horse and more fiddling just makes it worse. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This I think is a step back. the point here was to not minimize the Nazi usage, given its importance in much of the Western world. I do not see a fundamental problem with the paragraph Ms Sarah Welch suggests. The first three sentences lay out the origins, spread, and specific prominent use of the symbol, and answer the fundamental question, "what is a swastika?" in a way that both clearly acknowledges its root origin and meaning and clearly references the way it is used in situations many Western readers will be wondering about. The second option, by pushing the Nazi and post-Nazi Western use into the last sentence, well past the "what is it and why should I care" part of the paragraph, implies the Nazi use is trivial and minor. While the legitimacy of that use is clearly up for debate (and the history of Nazi cultural misappropriation is made clear further down in the article), I hope we are not debating the significance of that use. As the article I referenced above makes clear, that use of the symbol still looms very large in Western culture.
 * If anything, I think we could move the last two sentences into later paragraphs. It is customary to put alternate names and spellings in the first paragraph, so it makes sense to leave that sentence here.
 * Does it make sense to do a more thorough analysis of what we want each paragraph of the introduction to accomplish? This might clarify the whole thing. Natcase (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Natcase: Tiger7253's proposal for "pushing the Nazi and post-Nazi Western use into the last sentence, well past the 'what is it and why should I care' part of the paragraph, implies the Nazi use is trivial and minor" may be a step back, but both of you and we all can now appreciate the challenge in bringing balance acceptable to all editors, the conflicting sides this article has to accommodate. The "what is" part, the shape etc seems necessary somewhere in the first para, but let us meditate on it a bit. DavidWBrooks is spot on, in some cases such as this "more fiddling just makes it worse". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree on the more fiddling. I thought your paragraph worked fine. Moving Nazis to the end of the para is not OK. Third sentence is just about right, and I say that as an attempt to be reasonable and balanced. The impact of what that symbol means in the wake of the Third Reich is not trivial, regardless of how you feel about its use. Third sentence placement IS my "step back".Natcase (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I just stumbled upon this article, read the lede, and the first paragraph seemed really strangely organized. So I went ahead and edited it in order to place the information in (what seemed to me) a more logical order. Then I went to the Talk page, noticed this discussion, and self-reverted my re-organization of the first paragraph because it's obviously a contentious issue.

I don't want to jump into your discussion at this late stage, but I want to offer my perspective as an uninvolved editor: I think starting by mentioning the historical and religious use of the swastika in Asia, then talking about the Nazis, and then jumping back to historical and religious uses, doesn't make for a very good first paragraph. My first thought when seeing the first paragraph was that I should put the information in chronological order, and that meant the historical uses first and the 20th century uses second. Then I read the arguments above which say that the Nazi use of the swastika is extremely important and shouldn't be pushed down, and I agree, but the fact remains that if I hadn't seen the Talk page I would have just assumed the first paragraph was badly written.

An easy way to solve this would be to split the first paragraph in two, with the break occurring in between the mention of the Nazi use and the sentence "The swastika is also known outside Asia as the Hakenkreuz, gammadion cross..." This would have the disadvantage of placing alternative names in the second paragraph, but it would fix the problem I mentioned above, as it would no longer look like the first paragraph is just mentioning things at random.

In any case, I know the importance of consensus, so if the current organization of the first paragraph is the only thing that could gain consensus support, then that is understandable. I don't mean to re-open a can of worms. Ohff (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting. I actually think in principle that reorganizing the first section in general would be good, but it's more than I wanted to take on given my workload at the moment. In principle, a shorter, simpler first paragraph is fine, just so if we mention its Asian roots we also mention the Nazi use adjacently. But that could be done more abbreviatedly in both counts, to be filled out in subsequent paragraphs. And, I just reverted the first para to Ms Sarah Welch's version, from an edit by Edit2020.Natcase (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also don't want to take on the task of reorganizing the first section, for similar reasons (too much other work to do at the moment). However, without changing the order in which ideas are presented, I made some small improvements to the phrasing of the version that you reverted to. It feels like it was originally written in haste. I hope my edits are acceptable. Ohff (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I like your rephrasing a lot. I especially like the "but" as a way of linking the Nazi piece in: it really makes the point that there was a kind of perversion in play, without diminishing the influence and importance that the perversion has had. Nicely done.67.220.16.97 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

mistake in the lead
The lead says: "but in the 1930s, it became the main feature of Nazi symbolism" and as source it lists the Holocaust Encyclopedia. The mistake is that it became a main feature of Nazi symbolism in the 1930s while it already was a main feature of not only the National Socialists in the 1920s but also the Völkisch Movement and paramilitary groups like the Freikorps. In fact, it was already used at the end of World War I by several right-wing movements, who btw, used it because the swastika in a circular/round design has been used since the late 1880s, mainly because there have been archeological finds earlier connected to germanic tribes using the swastika. If nobody minds, i'd like to correct the lead and add one of the many reliable sources for it. But since i'm new here, is it okay to use german language sources on english wikipedia? Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is allowed, . But its is good practice to translate the title of the German book or work, and put the translated title between brackets.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"Allahu Ackbar" on second paragraph
Does anyone else see the "Allahu Ackbar" right at the start of the article or am I going crazy? I tried to go to edit but it's not where it is in the article.


 * It was edited out already - apparent vandalism. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

wrong claim
"The first attested use of the word swastika in a European text is found in 1871 with the publications of Heinrich Schliemann" (with citations that I haven't examined). As commonly with such claims, a quick visit to Google Books uncovers several much earlier examples. I think this reference to Schliemann should be simply removed. Zerotalk 12:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have legitimate counter-examples, I agree that you should remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Swastika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040521150446/http://romanbristol.tripod.com/avon/tockington.html to http://romanbristol.tripod.com/avon/tockington.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419080636/http://www.ruskolan.xpomo.com/liter/kolovrat.htm to http://ruskolan.xpomo.com/liter/kolovrat.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120801224433/http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1889-99t.htm to http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1889-99t.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20110720194040/http://www.tpk.fi/public/default.aspx?nodeid=41443&culture=en-US&contentlan=2 to http://www.tpk.fi/public/default.aspx?nodeid=41443&culture=en-US&contentlan=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060118021210/http://www.royalsaskmuseum.ca/research/faqs/ex_8.shtml to http://www.royalsaskmuseum.ca/research/faqs/ex_8.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630200335/http://www.fotw.us/flags/pa-nat.html to http://www.fotw.us/flags/pa-nat.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113164205/http://www.tageblatt.de/main.cfm?DID=747071 to http://www.tageblatt.de/main.cfm?DID=747071
 * Added tag to http://www.nepalnews.com/today/frontpic/2008/mar/mar30.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Restore to stable version
User:Beyond My Ken, we've been through this before. Restore to stable/status quo ante is not a valid revert reason. As you can restore to your version, anybody else can restore to the version before your flurry of recent (bad) edits and call it the "last good version" or "status quo ante" or "stable version".

Your edits are against MOS, and unless you have consensus, for example, to put images out of their appropriate section or put images above section headers, then you cannot simply revert edits that correct these ugly, unsightly mistakes and follow broad Wikipedia consensus. Bright☀ 03:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: image placement
(1) Sould the tessellation image be in the lead or in the section discussing tessellation? (2) Should the images throughout the article be above the header of their sections or inside their related section? (3) Should text be sandwiched between images in the subsection East and Southeast Asia? Bright☀ 03:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey
On (1) and (3), no opinion. On (2), they should definitely be inside a relevant section and not at the bottom of a (potentially) unrelated section, per WP:ACCIM item 5 and MOS:IMAGES. It does not matter whether they are at the top of the relevant section or part-way down it, but shouldn't be at the bottom. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
There is no coear question here and the whole RfC stinks of a vendetta against BMK. Legacypac (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which of the three questions isn't clear? Bright☀ 02:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Unnamed foreign languages in the lead.

 * Our lead currently states:
 * It is alternatively known in various European languages as the Hakenkreuz, gammadion, cross cramponnée, croix gammée, fylfot, or tetraskelion, and in Japan as the Manji.


 * Readers (including me) need to be told what these languages are.
 * Hakenkreuz is German (but may well also be other languages)
 * croix gammée is French (but may well also be other languages)
 * cross cramponnée appears to be an erroneous mixture of English and French (but for all I know may well be valid)
 * fylfot seems to be English (but may well also be other languages)
 * gammadion seems to be English (but may well also be other languages, especially French)
 * tetraskelion sounds Greek but may well be English and/or other languages.


 * Meanwhile non-European languages seem seriously under-represented (per WP:WORLDWIDE, etc) given the symbol's widespread use in Asia according to the article.
 * Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY (among several other reasons), I probably will not be attempting to fix this myself (or at least not anytime soon), but I still thought I should mention it here anyway so that others more interested and/or better qualified might fix it, per the current last paragraph of WP:CAREFUL (that paragraph has now been given the new shortcut WP:BNO).
 * Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swastika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221232818/http://www.rautasormus.fi/ to http://rautasormus.fi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Too many pictures?
The article has a too many photos banner at the top. It says
 * This contains too many pictures, charts or diagrams for its overall length.
 * Please help to [ improve this article] in accordance with the Manual of Style on use of images.

The MOS (Manual of Style) says on this subject
 * However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.

and
 * Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.

This article certainly needs images, since it's about an image type and its various forms. Since the forms are various, and since there are so many of them, the number of images is (imho) not excessive. Nor are they of marginal value: they are all distinct and have names of their own. It's not as if there were twenty assorted images of the Nazi flag.

The MOS also addresses considerations of download size: But that would defeat much of the point of the article, which is to describe the many kinds of swastika and tell their background. That bullet point might apply to, say, 15 portraits of monarchs in an article about monarchy, where the images are primarily decorative, but here they are intrinsic to the content. (In fact, Monarchy includes 11 portraits. It is a long article (40,899 bytes) with many sections, one including two portraits and the rest only one or none at all.)
 * Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikimedia Commons instead.

I've been interested in geometric designs for over fifty years, and many of these I'd never encountered before, let alone their names and origins. I am removing the banner. --Thnidu (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Scrolling nightmare on mobile view.... WP:IG lot here not explained in text format.--Moxy (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Any image that does not have an accompanying text discussing the image should be removed. Bright☀ 09:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good way to help decide which pix to keep. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I started looking for further information on these. So far I've only got this draft footnote for the double-arm swastika:
 * I haven't got the footnote working yet, and I have to get to bed an hour ago. If you delete pix from the article, please save them here, so they can be reinstated when they can be given a proper explanation. --Thnidu (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't got the footnote working yet, and I have to get to bed an hour ago. If you delete pix from the article, please save them here, so they can be reinstated when they can be given a proper explanation. --Thnidu (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"no consensus" revert again
User:Beyond My Ken, you have been that images belong below the header of the section that relates to them, not above. This consensus is reflected in Wikipedia guidelines and if you disagree with it, the onus to achieve a new consensus is on you. Similarly the discussion above, in which you apparently chose not to participate, has everyone agreeing that images should be placed next to the text describing them, again per MOS. Your usual arguments ("no consensus", "wasn't discussed", "not mandatory", "drive-by edit" and so on) are all indications of ownership behavior. Additionally: This all indicates you're not interested in improving the article or listening to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus, and you're trying to force your preferred version over the one supported by Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and consensus. Bright☀ 09:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You replaced properly formatted references with bare URLs.
 * You removed the protection template notice despite the protection still being in effect.
 * You replaced https URLS with http URLs
 * You reverted some grammar and spelling corrections (for example you replaced "unknown provenance" with "unknown provision")

New sub section of Historical use: Indigenous American
There is a lack of any details regarding the long historical use of the symbol among native peoples, prior to large scale European contact. The Diné peoples among others have a very long history of using it as a 'good luck', especially for children and for healing ceremonies where they refer to the symbol as "rolling logs" or "swirling longs". This contrasts with the per-Columbian use by native peoples such as Kuna, Hopi, Lakota, Passamaquoddy, and others; each with a differing understandings of the symbol, that sometimes differed greatly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section
I feel the first sentence of the article does not adequately sum up the Nazi connotations of the swastika, which to many western audiences is the main meaning of the symbol. This is an issue because it is only the first sentence that appears when linked to on the mobile app or searched on Google. I suggest therefore that the opening few lines be subtly rewritten. Levitating Scot (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been the subject of much discussion: how to weight the symbol's much, much longer pre-Nazi usage vs. the shorter but, in much of the world, better-known modern connotation. There is no obvious right answer. What would your suggestion be for a subtle rewrite of the first sentence? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Same image
The two flags in "Nazism" look identical. הראש (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The circle is slightly off-center (to the left) in the lower flag. Hard to spot if you're looking at it on a small screen - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kindly remove the Nazi reference. The Nazis called their symbol the haken kreuz (hooked cross). Their inspiration was from a Christian monatery and had nothing to do with the Hindu swastika. Kinly put the Nazi symbol in a separate page and do not link it to Hinduism. The Nazis inspiration was the Catholic church and their hatred was inspired by Christianity not Hinduism. Even the Aryan theory they subscribed to is not Hindu but Colonial European supremacist propaganda  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.49.174.129 (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (The anonymous IP comment "Kindly remove...", of 12:47, 28 January 2019, was displayed as unformatted text because it began with a space. I have changed that to two colons to provide proper indentation and formatting.)
 * And that commenter (whom I would ping here if they had signed the comment) was off-base about the scope of this article. It is not about Hindu (and other religions') use of the swastika, but about the swastika shape itself, and therefore the Nazis' use of it is perfectly appropriate content in this article. --Thnidu (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thailand: irrelevant
From :
 * In Thailand, the word Sawaddi is normally used as a greeting that simply means "hello"; Sawaddi-ka (feminine) and Sawaddi-krup (masculine). Sawaddi derives from the Sanskrit word swasti and its meaning is a combination of the words prosperity, luck, security, glory, and good.

Besides being unreferenced, this text is about a similar-sounding (and probably related) word. It does not mention any Thai use of the swastika shape, which is the subject of the article. Deleted.--Thnidu (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that information is correct. But it is probably not quite relevant anyway.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"most cultures of the world"
This extremely broad phrase was in the short description for the earlier, specific "Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism" by. It is unreferenced, at least in-line, and therefore is considered original research (and in my personal, equally OR opinion completely baseless). I have it. The edit comment was "m (subst. (Wikidata also changed))", but I am not familiar with editing Wikidata and am going to request assistance on the Teahouse. --Thnidu (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Restored description is also unreferenced - if you doesn't see, it's based on whole article. I highly recommended to read just table of contents, where list of continents with swastika's presence is available. I restored wider version. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The "wider version" of the short description is too wide. True, the article mentions use of the swastika in all inhabited continents except Australia and South America. North America has two mentioned uses, of which one (on Arizona road signs) is certainly derived from the other. Africa has just one, and while the Ashanti people are certainly significant, they are only one of the very many peoples of Africa.
 * "Most X" means "more than 50% of X". Unless either
 * you've got a list of all the world's cultures and whether they use the swastika, or
 * you know (with a reference) how many cultures there are in the world, and you know (with a reference) that more than half that number use it,
 * "most cultures of the world" is undocumented.
 * Do you have a reference for either of these options? If not, the phrase should be changed, both here and in Wikidata, to "many of the world's cultures", which the article certainly supports. --Thnidu (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's been eight days with no response from or anyone else on this topic. I've re-reverted his overly broad and unsupported "most religions" assertion. The relevant text in the short description now reads
 * used as a religious symbol in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and other religions, and it is and has been used in numerous cultures, whether religiously or otherwise
 * --Thnidu (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Edited Wikidata (and added Esperanto version) --Thnidu (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Seicho-no-Ie ?
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USVA_headstone_emb-23.svg Zezen (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikilink: File:USVA_headstone_emb-23.svg --Thnidu (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "personal websites, etc. are not reliable sources". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sauvastika
Is the term "savaustika" really commonly used, and should it be used to heavily in the opening paragraphs? The article on Sauwastika itself makes it seem like a much less accepted word, "sometimes used to distinguish the left-facing from the right-facing swastika symbol, a meaning which developed in 19th-century scholarship" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.239.69.162 (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nazism use
Since I have a good feeling for language, my suggestion for what I consider to be unclean translations. Just as in Wikipedia Neuordnung ("Reordering") became New Order, "hooked cross" is also wrong. Hakenkreuz would have to be translated as hooks-cross, although it is not clear whether it is singular or plural, since Haken contains both. In my view, plural. So if one were to translate "hooked cross" back into German, it would read "Hakiges Kreuz" or "Gebücktes / Gebeugtes Kreuz" (Bent Cross). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:F99D:EB08:83B0:87B5 (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)