Talk:Swastika/Archive 7

RfC: Nazi symbol as swastika or variant of swastika
Should Wikipedia say that the Nazi symbol was the swastika, or that it was a variant of the swastika, for instance hakenkreuz or "hooked cross"?

Affected articles include Swastika, Nazi symbolism, Flag of Nazi Germany, Mein Kampf, Strafgesetzbuch section 86a, Nazi punk, etc. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Swastika, not variant. The swastika is still a swastika no matter if it is standing flat on one arm or angled at 45 degrees. The swastika is still a swastika regardless of whether the arms are pointing left or right. (Some authors call the left-facing version the "sauwastika", but the term is not widely used, and most observers accept that all the graphic representations of the symbol are collectively the swastika.) Regarding Hitler, the literature is clear that he adopted the pre-Christian swastika which was already in use by German Aryanists to stand for notional "Aryan" racial purity. To serve as the symbol of Nazism, Hitler imbued the swastika with pro-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-Marxist characteristics, to fit his political aims. He represented the symbol as having a Christian origin, but it was demonstrably in use many centuries before Christ. All of this is treated in Malcolm Quinn's 1994 The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol. Regarding the difference between the English and German languages, the English loan word swastika is by far the most common term for the symbol in the English-speaking world. The German word for the same symbol is hakenkreuz, which translates literally to "hooked cross". Literal translations are interesting for the reader but not definitive. The definitive semantic translation in the English language has always been swastika. For many years, under the careful attention of the late User:Paul Barlow and other topic experts, this article has supplied the German word hakenkreuz in two or three places, as an entry in lists along with French and other language translations, or when a specific German law is mentioned. This is the proper way to represent the German term, as a part of the global picture. The wrong way to represent the German term is to prop it up prominently as the primary English term for the Nazi symbol. Recent edits have attempted to do just that. Activists and others have also come to this article many times to try and separate the positive aspects of the swastika from the poison of Nazism, a form of trying to Right Great Wrongs. These editors often use the tactic of changing "swastika" to "hakenkreuz" as if the two words meant two different symbols. These efforts have been reverted in every case. Very often, the activist editors have a history of editing in Hindu topics, for instance Toshi2k2 who was blocked for WP:NOTHERE. They have been trying to use Wikipedia as a tool to establish two different symbols, so that the ancient swastika is no longer saddled with Nazi toxicity. But this is wishful thinking! Steven Heller describes this problem in depth in his book, The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption?, writing about how the swastika in Western usage has become a symbol of the rejection of civil order, or it is employed simply to shock the observer. The Nazi connection persists in the swastika today. Let's not try to rewrite history and ignore the damage from Hitler. Rather, let's tell the reader about all of these aspects, but in proper balance. The Nazi symbol has always been a swastika. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support — As per the lengthy discussion above concerning this, and various sources that are quoted in support, including Malcolm Quinn's 1994 The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol, it is inevitably essential to include the Nazi Party's variation of the swastika as Hakenkreuz, i.e. "hooked cross", since grouping them all together is inaccurate; and saying a "swastika" is a swastika no matter turned left or down is just like saying a Christian cross—pointing straight—is same as Cross of Saint Peter and has nothing to with Christophobia even if it was turned upside down as a "cross is a cross", and calling it "anti-Christian" is rewriting history since it symbolically represents crucified Saint Peter. Discussion concerning this is already stated above, and I don't want to repeat it here. Linking WP:RGW is irrelevant as no one denies the fact that Hakenkreuz is a form of a swastika. This article, as mentioned above, is about "Swastika" as a subject, so, it's important to be accurate and univocal. Linking to previous diffs of WP:INCOMPETENT editors who cluelessly changed "swastika" to "Hakenkreuz" isn't helping either since my edits are based on stronger academic sources. It's peculiar that Binksternet claims that accurately articulating the Nazi Party's version of Swastika as "Hakenkreuz" is an act of historical revisionism when I myself against "find-and-replace". To other editors, please look into my previous discussion above and current revisions of Swastika and Nazi symbolism. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 21:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lengthy and useless, because your cites don't support the thing you are trying to do. I brought up the string of past hakenkreuz editors because you and they share the goal of inserting a step of separation between the ancient symbol and the 20th century symbol commandeered by the Nazis. Such a separation is not indicated by any new scholarship on the topic. The main thrust of current scholarship is that the Nazi symbol is the swastika, despite whatever local languages were used, or whatever literal translations. The difference between you and the "incompetent" editors is that you are using a scalpel rather than a blunt club, but your extra cleverness does not justify your activity here. Nothing in the literature points the way toward a new revision of the topic, with a step of separation inserted. No new scholarly works have been written about how the Nazi symbol is not really the swastika. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You WP:DONTGETIT, do you? When did I ever mention Hakenkreuz has nothing to do with the swastika? Quote that statement of mine back, if you ever find one. The swastika used by the Nazi Party is not inseparably distinct from the swastikas used by various Asian religions, rather a modified form of that ancient iconography—this doesn't mean both are unequivocally different things. Why is a Latin cross not indisputably same as Cross of Saint Peter? It's all "cross" anyway and the latter just got rotated 180°, just as an example. Scholarships did mention Nazi Party's swastika as Hakenkreuz (the name Nazis gave) and its translation as "hooked cross", why don't you go back to the start and read the quotations in the green boxes? Or, just visit each individual inline citation on the article and read the academic journal for yourself? A loanword—by definition—means that incorporated language also holds the same meaning as that of donor language. However, that's evidently not the case with Hakenkreuz, since it does not translate as "swastika" when that supposed loanword gets translated to the English language, so calling it a loanword is provably incorrect. Given this, my citations indeed do visibly support my intention. I already mentioned this multiple times and do not want to WP:REPEAT, but here you go: no one here—including me, scholarships I cited, or my edits (at talkpage or mainspace)—blatantly claim that Nazi Hakenkreuz is not really a swastika, or it has nothing to do with the swastika; rather, a distinctly modified (or misappropriated) form of a swastika used by the Nazi Party was Hakenkreuz, i.e. "hooked cross", and it is indeed a variant of the swastika—not the one used by those ancient religions, but a form filched by the Nazi Party honed to suit their narrative. It's lengthy and useless to you because your claims like Hakenkreuz being a loanword or Hakenkreuz not translated as "hooked cross" is erroneous, to begin with, and runs contrary to what the sources say. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 00:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be extremely helpful, to me, at least, if you could each be specific in the concrete changes you would like or not? Binksternet, I know you want hakenkreuz out of the lead, what else?  And WikiLinuz, are you happy with the current state of the article? Dumuzid (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I previously stated, the current revision of the article falls in line with what the scholarly sources say; one mention in the body of the article, and the other in the lead in adherence with WP:LEAD. I'm not replacing all the instances of swastika, rather making a vital mention, like I already did. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 01:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Swastika - The Nazis did not really use only one particular orientation of the swastika. The version on the front of their flag was a tilted counter-clockwise version with straight arms. However we show plenty of examples of them using it flat on this very page, and since at least some of their flags were printed through and through presumably anyone at the time would have recognized the clockwise version as also being a Nazi symbol. Loki (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Loki, thank you for your inputs. I have disambiguated what the RfC proposal is all about under the "Note to the participants of RfC" section (above). Would be helpful if you could rephrase and register your response in accordance with that. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 02:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote is unchanged. I don't think we should call it [word that means swastika in English], I think we should call it a swastika. We don't call the Iron Cross the Eisernes Kreuz. I think on some articles it'd be useful to mention that the Nazis called it a Hakenkreuz, but certainly not this one. Loki (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hakenkreuz doesn't mean swastika in English; Hakenkreuz—the original Nazi emblem—in English translation means "hooked cross". WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 03:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. The English word is swastika. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Swastika. This is the English name for this symbol, regardless of slight differences in angle or direction. I do think it should be noted parenthetically, where appropriate, that the Nazi symbol has a particular name in German – so for example, "the Nazi Party adopted the swastika (Hakenkreuz) as their logo" – but not in the lead of this article, where the German name is already mentioned further down along with other foreign-language equivalents. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear what we're talking about here. If the question is whether or not to merely mention the hakenkreuz aspect somewhere within the prose generally, then I don't see why that is a particularly controversial argument: whether one considers the question one of mere metonymy or a more significant conceptual distinction, this seems like entirely relevant discussion of nomenclature that would be of use to a substantial portion of the likely readers of this article, particularly if it helps to contextualize the distinction between the longer standing meaning ascribed to the symbol and it's lamentable association with Nazism. On the other hand, if the suggestion is that every mention of the symbol in this article with regard to the Nazism and other far-right racist/ultranationalist creeds with 'hakenkreuz', then I think that is clearly not editorially called for here: the common name for the symbol in English sources, is clearly 'swastika', regardless of the pseudo-separate etiologies and a lack of accord with the parallel usage in German, even if it's possible that difference in terminology has a semiotic difference in impression attached to it.


 * Unfortunately, like others here, I find the RfC very poorly approached in almost every respect and have no idea which of these two outlooks (if not a separate question altogether) I am being asked to endorse. But it's my hope that by addressing both likely possibilities as I have above, the general thrust of my !vote should be discernible if the confusion here ever gets disentangled and someone is struggling to capture consensus here with their closure. Of course, the devil is in the details, and there may very well be a more nuanced question buried here under the previous discussion on this talk page and the inartful use of the RfC process. If it's ultimately a question of whether to make a brief mention of the hakenkreuz distinction in the lede, I would say that doesn't strike me as inappropriate or out of scale to the importance of the varying terminology, particularly as foregrounding matter of nomenclature is one of the foremost functions of a lede which covers controversial subject matter.  But it's also probably not outright essential: as a general rule, I feel, upon reviewing this article, that it does a decent job in a difficult circumstance of explaining the complicated and divergent meanings associate with the symbol in question here. It can't have been an easy balance to strike, so it should be remarked that the regular editors here, whoever they may be, deserve some credit for that. SnowRise let's rap 10:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Swastika per Binksternet. This is Hindutva agendas spilling into unanticipated areas. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Swastika, per the outstanding argument made by Binksternet. The Nazi symbol is most well-known to laypeople as a swastika, and described as such by academics. It is rare but possible for two congruent shapes to have different names—the only example I can think of is that "diamond" and "lozenge" describe rhombi with particular rotations (but they are still a type of rhombi)—however, in this case the distinction is not widely made. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Swastika. Do not use the word "hakenkreuz" at all anywhere in the text except perhaps a single parenthetical mention in the body as the German word for Swastika (it should not be in the lead, since it is trivia with only marginal coverage even for the relevance of that bare fact); at least based on the current sourcing, absolutely no text should indicate or imply that there is any meaningful distinction meant by that or any significance to the word beyond that, and absolutely no text should say, imply, or indicate that it is a "variant" or "version" or that anyone believes this to be the case. At most a single sentence saying it is the German word for Swastika, with the precise meaning of "Swastika", fullstop, nothing else.  In the English language Swastika is the term used by all sources; the attempt to use hakenkreuz as an alternative term to discuss it is marginal to the point of being WP:FRINGE (a quick search for sources suggests it's almost entirely limited to WP:USERGENERATED sites; scholarly usage of it in English is nearly nonexistent, especially given how massively the larger topic is covered.)  The sources presented in support of it, as far as I can tell, almost uniformly say only that hakenkreuz is the German word for Swastika, and nothing else; the scant sources that could maybe be interpreted otherwise are largely passing mentions or are overtly worded in ways that make it clear that the authors know their views are not accepted.  This is insufficient to actually support the idea that there is any serious controversy or discussion about this beyond that among WP:RSes, to the point of rendering the distinction people are trying to make here WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Not sure, I fully understand the question. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We are deciding whether the Nazi symbol is a swastika (full stop), or is not quite a swastika – some other form of swastika, a modification of the swastika, or a variant of the swastika. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly most identified with Nazism. Place it on one's usepage & see how quick it'll be deleted by others. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The way you phrased that proposal sounds strange. The RfC is rather regarding "mention of Hakenkreuz at the article text, and subsequently in the lead in adherence with WP:LEAD". No one is suggesting total replacement of swastika with its "variant"; it's about a mention. Please rephrase your proposal as such; because, your proposal doesn't seem to reflect the discussion. WikiLinuz ( talk ) 02:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are trying to conceal and misinterpreting my actual intention with regards to mentioning Hakenkreuz. Your proposal doesn't reflect the actual discussion. If you do not self-revert this edit, you will be taken to WP:ANI. WikiLinuz  ( talk ) 04:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What was the article's status quo? -- GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The RfC is regarding mentioning an instance of "Hakenkreuz"—the original term used by the Nazi Party—in the article body, and subsequently a single mention in the lead section in adherence with WP:MOSLEAD. The current revisions of Swastika & Swastika and Nazi symbolism & Nazi_symbolism does exactly that: a single mention in lead, and a single mention in the article body. The RfC is NOT regarding replacing every instance of swastika with Hakenkreuz i.e. it's NOT about "find-and-replace" of swastika with Hakenkreuz, rather about a single mention of Hakenkreuz. It's preferable if editors could "support" or "oppose" this decision regarding mentioning Hakenkreuz. Please have a look at the previous discussion concerning Hakenkreuz. WikiLinuz ( talk ) 02:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What this RfC is about?
 * What this RfC is NOT about?
 * Preferred response submission

Trying to clarify this for myself and others – the debate seems to be not so much about whether the Nazi symbol was a swastika or a variant of a swastika (as the RfC question currently states), but about whether it should be primarily referred to as a "swastika" or a "Hakenkreuz". So this version of the article is the status quo, and this is WikiLinuz's preferred version (see specifically the second paragraph of the lead, and the first paragraph of the "Use in Nazism" section). And the consensus here will affect similar changes at related articles. , is this a correct statement of the situation? If so, I'd recommend altering the RfC question, to something along the lines of "Should Wikipedia primarily refer to the Nazi symbol as a 'swastika' or a 'Hakenkreuz'?", with maybe those two diffs as examples. Dan from A.P. (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was intending to see whether the community agreed to confirm the swastika as the Nazi symbol as opposed to any other conceivable term including hakenkreuz, hooked cross, angled cross, crooked cross, tetragrammadion, etc. I'm leery of refactoring the RfC at this point because I opposed a similar attempt by WikiLinuz. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still feel a bit at sea here, since while I agree that Swastika is the general term and should be employed as such, I think noting hakenkreuz in a limited way is entirely appropriate, as I think WikiLinuz has agreed above. So then, the gravamen of the dispute is exactly where/how often to note the German term--I think?  I would remove it from the lead, myself, but I confess, this is all very difficult for an old brain to follow.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think refactoring your own RfC would be okay, especially at this early stage when there hasn't been much input. But okay, I'll !vote on the proposal as it stands. I see your point about multiple possible replacement terms. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I do think that the RfC is not quite neutral nor sufficiently clear about the dispute at issue, and would prefer: The Nazis called the symbol on their flag a "Hakenkreutz". Does this word mean: A. Swastika B. A particular Nazi-specific variant of the swastika C. Something else? Loki (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I too, am confused by the RFC question. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Is it not possible to say that the symbol was “a” swastika? I think I, too, may be a bit confused by the question here. postleft ✍ (Arugula)  ☞ say hello!  22:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I too am confused by the RFC. But does it matter that the Nazis called it something else and gave a post-hoc justification? Everybody else says that the symbol which they adopted was "the Swastika". The article is Swastika, not Nazi iconography. So it seems to obvious that the lead should say no more that the Nazis adopted, a little on why they adopted it, but their renaming of it is incidental and doesn't merit a mention in the lead. Yes, wp:lead says that the lead should summarise the key points of the body: the swastika has been around as a symbol for thousands of year but to give undue prominence to 20 years of that history is, well, wp:undue. So IMO the lead must indeed mention the Nazi appropriation of it but no more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive the pedantry, but I think we should be careful about mixing our policy terminology and our broader perspectives here, and I don't think that's a useful reference to WP:UNDUE; what we perceive to be an "undue" association as a historical or sociological matter is quite separate from what is WP:UNDUE in terms of our policies and the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. Some may suspect that temporal proximity and social factors have pushed the Nazi association into too much prominence, relative to the symbol's usage in the extreme longterm and the rather substantial cultural currency of that original meaning; others may argue compellingly that the scale of the impact of the consequences of the Nazi regime have left their mark on the world in rather a substantial and immutable fashion, and that you can't un-ring the bell that now ties the symbol to some of the worst atrocities and institutions in the entirety of the human story. But whether we approve of the focus the overall corpus of sources places on the Nazi use of the symbol is really somewhat irrelevant under policy: we are here to determine what the available WP:RS say on the topic, in relative proportion to the different aspects covered, not to judge whether those proportions right in the circumstances and adjust the content according to our concepts of where they "should" place their focus. Sn<b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 10:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Hitler chose the 'swastika' and the other elements, the colors and framimg, of the Nazi Party symbol. No matter the meaning or association of the swastika prior to the rise of facism in Germany, it is the emblem of evil and destruction for the twentieth-century. This is the primary content for the first line of the lede—the first appearance of similar in form symbols belong later. No rehabilation for the symbol of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany is possible. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with every element of what you say here, but that's a very western-centric view you are pushing on the whole. For the adherents of religious and cultural traditions which have used this symbol with an entirely different meaning for millenia, and continue to view it through that lens in contemporary practice, not only may some of them view it as entirely appropriate and reasonable to attempt to rehabilitate the symbol's meaning in the west, but (more to the point) most of them would probably object to suggestion that the meaning associated with Nazism should be perceived to automatically take prominence over the traditional meaning associated with the symbol.


 * Of course, as per my comments to John above, the question is not what we think is the dominant meaning that "ought" to be associated with the swastika, due to our own subjective idiosyncratic views, no matter how globally consequential the facts which influence those outlooks. Rather, what is called for here is that we summarize how reliable sources treat the subject, giving due WP:PROPORTION to how the various aspects of the topic are treated in said sources. In those terms, I think the article presently strikes a good balance, considering the difficulties in parsing the relative cultural weight given to fiercely competing (and almost directly antithetical) meanings for the symbol.  I can't pretend to entirely understand the editorial history here, due in part to the problematic way the RfC was approached, but the open question here seems to turn on whether to mention the hakenkreuz in the lede--and if so, in what way? I don't think the proposal to rewrite the lede as you propose, to place emphasis foremost on the Nazi use of the symbol (which itself would first involve rewriting the entire article to match that approach) is at all on the table in the present discussion, or that it was the intent of this discussion.  Though honestly, any respondent is entitled to be uncertain as to just what the intent is. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 10:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you are missing the point. Neither of us are saying that the Nazi appropriation is not significant. That is a straw man, of course it is highly significant and unquestionably should feature prominently in the lead. What we are saying is that the Nazi Party's post-hoc attempt to redefine it (as something else) is a second order effect. It is close to an assertion that the Nazi symbol was not a swastika at all, that it is misnomer, an application of the common name in English (which took it from India) to something that – purely coincidentally (!) – happened to look the same. Now if there were any truth in that assertion (and I don't suggest that you are making it), then yes it probably would merit inclusion in the lead, But there is none, which leaves the Nazi renaming as a rather trivial and incidental detail and so not worthy of mention in the lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did understand what you were trying to say the first time around with regard to all of that. But with respect, you may be the one that is not quite tracking what I am saying about how policy governs here, because you can have all the well-reasoned arguments in the world for why one aspect of a topic is the "important" information (and every editor here could agree with you in that analysis as regards our personal opinion on the matter), but that would still constitute WP:Original research under this project's content policies.  What matters is not our own opinions as to what should be foregrounded (no matter how well founded); rather for our purposes here we need to summarize what WP:reliable sources say on the topic, including mapping WP:PROPORTION accordingly.  And honestly, from your comments here, I'm not sure you've read the article itself, because the lead already discusses the Nazi utilization of the symbol at some length, and changing that status quo is outside the scope of this particular discussion, which is focused on a much, much narrower issue.  Personally, I can't fathom a version of the lead that accords with WP:WEIGHT that doesn't discuss both the broader spiritual use of the symbol and its role as the defining symbol of the Nazi state and ideology, but regardless, that matter is a broader issue than this RfC was created to address.


 * And just as a side note, though it's not centrally important to the editorial determination here, it is not really remotely accurate to say that the Nazis landed on the symbol by "pure coincidence"; the swastika as a spiritual symbol enjoyed widespread usage throughout Eurasia, including Germany, right up until the advent of Nazism. And Nazi ideology always had one foot firmly in syncranistic occultism (this goes back to earliest days before Hitler was even associated with the DAP and owes particularly, though hardly exclusively, to Eckart's bizarre historical theories), leading to a deep preoccupation with eastern spiritual symbology in the Nazi movement. Hitler and the other senior Nazi theorists and propagandists absolutely knew what a swastika was, and the appropriation of its meaning and cultural implications was quite knowing and intentional, as part of the mysticism and historiographic myth they engineered (half by canny design and half by quack historical research that numerous of the early leading figures seem to have genuinely believed) for the supposed origins of the Aryan race, as they saw it.  The fact that the symbol had some particularized nuances in central European symbolic traditions (or that it had an alternative name in the German language) doesn't really change any of those facts.  The Nazis did not coincidentally pull the symbol from thin air by any means. Now you and I might agree that the appropriation was a gross perversion, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to how we need to present the complicated history of that borrowing to the reader.


 * All of that said, there are numerous factors (factual, policy, and pragmatic) influencing where and how to discuss the appropriation of the symbol, and the resulting dominant interpretation of the symbol for the average individual in the contemporary western world. For my opinions on that, you can get a general sense from my !vote above. But again, the narrow issue being considered here concerns the nomenclature we use to describe the symbol in the fascistic context. If you want to argue that any mention of that topic altogether should be ommitted from the lead, I suggest you start a separate discussion.  But given that there seems to have been a longstanding balance struck for that content (presumably with a lot of argument, compromise and consensus building over years) and the fact that this topic is under discretionary sanctions, and the further fact that I think the article actually does a decent job, considering the constraints and complications, of striking that balance, I would say you'd be looking at an uphill and slow process. And for a certainty, it would have to be based on how the topic is parsed in reliable sources, not original research (no matter how well reasoned the arguments).  <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 20:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part of of course it [the Nazi appropriation] is highly significant and unquestionably should feature prominently in the lead. did you not understand? And where did you find it is not really remotely accurate to say that the Nazis landed on the symbol by "pure coincidence" in anything I wrote? And where did I give you the idea that I might want to argue that any mention of that topic altogether should be ommitted from the lead? I wrote a very short paragraph, it might have been better had you read what I did say and not written a wall of text 'responding' to what I did not say. Had you done so, we might be further forward. But in all honesty, I don't see that further debate would be fruitful: this is an RFC and I have stated my opinion below. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I oppose mention of Hakenkreuz in the lead of this article, in the light of the explanation above. (Whereas it is highly relevant to, and should indeed be in, the lead of Nazi symbolism.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s[4] when the German Nazi Party adopted a right-facing form and used it as an emblem of the Aryan race. The party gets a mention in the florid prose above, the second sentence, but if a tattooist refuses then just quote the first one. ~ cygnis insignis 18:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well since you insist that your "sardonic" remark belongs in this RFC discussion, clearly you consider it relevant. The RFC is whether the fact that the Nazi party called it Hakenkreuz has sufficient significance to merit inclusion in the lead. Given that introduction to the RFC clearly says that it is not about the fact that the Nazi party adopted the swastika as its emblem (since no-one disputes that this is an essential element of the lead), how is your remark relevant? Please enlighten us. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Swastika and hakenkreuz are different, Swastika is symbol of peace in Hinduism and hakenkreuz is a hooked cross from Christianity.
Everyone must learn that truth. Sonubondre (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that? Britmax (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Replacement of "swastika" with "gammadian"
In the earlier version "gammadian" was mentioned 6 times. The version by User:Peyushgoel, whose only edits so far have been to this article, mentioned it 140 times. The article itself makes it clear that "By the 19th century, the term swastika was adopted into the English lexicon, replacing gammadion from Greek γαμμάδιον." This is the English language encyclopedia, thus we should use the common English word. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes we should, yes we do, and thanks for your reverts. And yes; 's account should probably be restricted if they continue the tendentious editing.  SN54129  09:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gammadian is archaic, I agree.-- Mvqr (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Swastika was never used by people outside asia until 1950. The term is never used in any of the articles published during Nazi regime but only afterward. Swastika is related to hindu and budhist beliefs and Hitler was a ardant cristian follower. I don't want to go into unprovable conspiracy theories but truth should be mentioned. The term 'Swastik' was never mentioned outside asia before Nazi rule. Gammadian was the term which was used and hitler's versiion is known as hakenkreuz, as also mentioned in the articles published by germans themselves during Nazi regime. I don't understand why people are trying to dilute history. I can share articles proving my theory and its very easy to find. --Peyush Goel (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2022 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peyushgoel (talk • contribs)
 * Then please share the articles. Again, I am sympathetic to trying to remove the symbol from the hateful use for which it was co-opted, but it seems to me that this artificial division is the one doing a disservice to history.  Happy to be proven wrong, however.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Swastika was never used by people outside asia until 1950": that's easily shown to be incorrect. Just one easily found example: "EX-KAISER JOINS FASCISTI.; Presents Guests at Doorn With a Silver Swastika." New York Times, May 19, 1924. Another, Nov 1, 1923: "Their air fleet consists of twelve fast planes sporting the swastika on their wings." I don't know where this is coming from, but it's unfounded. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * in any case we based our articles on reliable sources, and in fact you changed sourced text that used the word swastika, not gammadian. Irrelevant point to this discussion, Hitler wasn't an ardent Christian, see Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Doug Weller  talk 07:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tendentiousness continues, indistinguishable from troll-like engagement with users who 'are here …' ~ cygnis insignis 12:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you be tendentious with only three article edits and one talk page edit? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, and they haven't tried to edit again. Ironically I'm being called an anti-Semite for reverting the editor, see User talk:Doug Weller Doug Weller  talk 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, cygnis can speak for themselves, but I interpreted the 'tendentiousness' to refer to the entire course of conduct on the article, with regard to several editors. I would agree vis-a-vis this editor in isolation that there is no WP:TE.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested I don't comment, perhaps for my hopeless ability to diagnose species of trolling / just-jokin' / meme-economy: what is the term for talk pages assertions beginning "Swastika was never used by people outside asia until 1950."? The temptation to adopt this confused newb and explore their depths is not one I share, no insult to anyone that gravitates toward topics that also attract an understanding ear with an arm over the shoulder from mature and experienced users willing to groom a new user. ~ cygnis insignis 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected! And I would quibble only mildly insofar as I separate "tendentiousness" from "silly ignorance."  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, they went to ANI to complain about my alleged anti-Semitism. Not a wise move and it was over quickly. Doug Weller  talk 17:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oddly, that is not vitriolic as 'at least as bad as antisemitism' ~ cygnis insignis 17:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021
change the line "In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s[4] when the German Nazi Party adopted a right-facing form and used it as an emblem of the Aryan race" to "In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s[4] when the German Nazi Party adopted a hooked cross which is a christian symbol which looks like the "Swastika" and used it as an emblem of the Aryan race" 2405:201:401C:B0BB:B911:1F70:48D:53FA (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed ad infinitum. Though certainly based on spurious and baseless theories, the Nazis were using a swastika.  It was not somehow an independent symbol.  I have sympathy for trying to separate the traditional use from the awful Nazi use, but this, to me, is a false distinction.  Just my opinion.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Sceptre (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur.
 * BTW, I was about to direct the requester to the article Nazi symbolism where of course the alternative explanation can be found. Only it isn't there. The Hakenkreuz is not even mentioned. Could it be that no-one has ever found a wp:reliable source to provide supporting evidence? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the requester is thinking of the German Faith Movement? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * if hooked cross and swastika are same then Christianity was also derived from Hinduism like Buddhism and Sikhism, because many ancient churches were using that symbol. 117.194.219.240 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Not that it has anything to do with this article anyway. Britmax (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022
This symbol is at the core of Hinduism and Hitler had no connection to Hinduism nor did he ever mentioned this in any of his writing. The symbol is a rotated cross where as SWASTIKA is not rotated. He has never mentioned the word SWASTIKA in his lifetime of speeches or writing. Hence the symbol should be presented as Hakenkreuz strictly in German terms and not be interpreted as SWASTIKA to avoid confusion and incosistencies. 220.240.96.17 (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌. The article states very clearly that the symbol continues to be valued in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and others, with a meaning that is positive. It also says that it has an extensive use in pre-Christian Europe, with a similar meaning. This is the English language Wikipedia and Swastika is the WP:common name in English. It doesn't matter what Hitler or the Nazi Party called it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The symbol used by Hitler and the Nazi party was the Hakenkreuz, or the hooked cross, which has no relation with the Hindu symbol Swastika. The difference between both is, the Hakenkreuz is at an angle of 45° clockwise with the ground, and is a Christian symbol, has nothing to do with Hinduism or the Swastika. The whole confusion is created by the wrong translation, improper research and it's wrong usage by the media. Anonymous User 9567 (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand the point and desire to differentiate the uses, but the Nazis (due to racism and terrible research) thought they were using the ancient symbol and that it related to Indo-European origins and their concept of "Aryans". They thought it was the same, hence the usage in this article.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate your input. I researched this subject for a Master's in Holocaust and Genocide studies and my thesis topic was on the hakenkreuz and swastika. What we have found in fairly recent years with a great deal of intensive research on the subject, is that in fact the Nazi's did not believe that the swastika was in fact the same as the hakenkreuz. The Nazis based their thinking on prior research of Archaeologists and Historians, including Heinrich Schliemann and Philologist Sam Mueller to name some of the most prominent, as I quote in a letter between these two pioneers on the subject:

♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 20:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Schliemann ignored Mueller's advice. The Nazi symbol is the Swastika. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Th78blue, this is a persuasive source as to Mueller's interpretation, but it confirms that the misunderstanding was something he believed Schliemann suffered from, and thus, seems to back up my point that this interpretation--wrong though it was--existed, and later was influential in Nazi circles. You may very well be right, but I haven't seen the applicable source, and this one, while useful, doesn't get us there (strictly in my opinion, of course).  If you had something like this from a high-ranking Nazi official, that would seem to me more meaningful; but it would not necessarily indicate anything about the common 'take' on the symbol.  Thanks for the interesting source either way, and feel free to present anymore you think relevant.  Dumuzid (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I appreciate this engaging conversation, but please forgive if there is delay in some of my responses. As I am actually traveling the next few days as well, so will not be doing any editing. That said, I just wanted to kickstart this conversation and my aim is to truly vet out each and every response in time. Here is a segment from the book called, The Buddhist Swastika and Hitler's Cross: Rescuing a Symbol of Peace from the Forces of Hate by T.K. Nakagaki, pp 140–141:

♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross) vs. Swastika
Hello all,

Per the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy, we are now in the Discuss phase! I recently attempted to make a number of meaningful edits to this page to reflect a more global perspective, as opposed to a purely western perspective. The edits that I made were reverted by on the basis of their being such a "major change" that I should first discuss them on the talk page.

In essence, my edits are based around a wide diversity of opinion from a number of RS that reflect the more recent academic (and more commonly conventional) opinion that the swastika is in fact a distinct symbol from that of the hakenkreuz, and that a NPOV encyclopedic article should reflect this fact as such. Here are my sources for this:

Magazines, Newspapers (in no particular order)

 * https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29644591
 * https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210816-the-ancient-symbol-that-was-hijacked-by-evil
 * https://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/the-daily-heller-anti-hate-symbol-law-will-foster-more-hate/
 * https://theconversation.com/how-nazis-twisted-the-swastika-into-a-symbol-of-hate-83020
 * https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/vertical/archive/undefined/entry/swastika-hinduism_n_6582828
 * https://qz.com/1757244/can-the-swastika-ever-reclaim-its-original-meaning/

Books

 * Nakagaki, T. K. (2018). The Buddhist Swastika and Hitler's Cross : Rescuing a Symbol of Peace from the Forces of Hate. Berkeley, CA: Stone Bridge Press. pp. 137–150. ISBN 978-1-61172-045-7
 * Heller, Steven (2019). The swastika and symbols of hate : extremist iconography today. New York: Allworth Press. pp. 169–180. ISBN 1-62153-719-6.

Among others many other sources, but these were some of the latest, most authoritative and paint some of the picture that I was attempting to neutrally outline as best I could with the usage of hakenkreuz (hooked cross) and as separate and distinct, as the Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, communities, as well as the continent of Asia and so called "Eastern world" understand the distinction. For example, one point that I made that was cited from various secondary sources both (so this is by no means original research), was that the swastika and the hakenkreuz are already well established different words, as well as symbols, in Japan and the East broadly. The word for swastika is manji in Japanese, whereas the word for hakenkreuz, is hakenkroitsu. Furthermore, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain communities consider it incorrect and downright offensive that much of the Western world sometimes (but increasingly less so) fails to make such a distinction. My edits do not take preference for one "world view" or another, but pointed out where the word is used in one manner and which, and where the other word predominates. Ultimately, there is no "righting of great wrongs" here, but a "righting of encyclopedic error" or perhaps an encyclopedic delay in translating the current academic and journalistic consensus (see above) to the wikipedia article on this topic.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will also be working on a draft article called Draft:Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross) at the same time that I changed some sections of this article to reflect these facts consistently across all relevant pages of the encyclopedia.

Thank you, and looking forward to any feedback on this matter. Since a great deal of work went into building these edits out, I would appreciate if we decide to revert the last revert if a consensus is reached to move forward representing the facts as I presented them. However, as always in the interest of harmony, I will not be making any further edits on this page and topic until such consensus has been reached. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 20:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Explain how, for example, your first source reflects the more recent academic...opinion that the swastika is in fact a distinct symbol from that of the hakenkreuz please.  Tewdar   20:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion forks here

 * Thank you for the question, If I may quote some segments, "The swastika remained a popular embroidery motif in Eastern Europe and Russia right up to World War Two. A Russian author called Pavel Kutenkov has identified nearly 200 variations across the region. But the hakenkreuz remains a highly charged symbol." (The understanding in Germany, and Eastern European countries is that there are two different words used even today, Hakenkreuz and swastika. Swastika is used when referring to the Buddhist, Jain, or Hindu symbol, hakenkreuz is the German word for the Nazi symbol and literally translates to "Hooked Cross", or I have consulted with some German academics on this subject when doing my research that believe that in fact "Hook-Cross" as a hyphenated word is the most appropriate and correct translation. Another quote from the article, "The swastika is a symbol of love and Hitler abused it. We're not trying to reclaim the hakenkreuz. That would be impossible. Nor is it something we want people to forget" Separate and distinct again. No one wants to "reclaim the hakenkreuz", but the close aesthetic connection made to the swastika is something that many realize today is traumatic and damaging to the cultures of Buddhist, Jain, and Hindu peoples. I will stop for now, because if I don't someone else my chime in and my response may be lost. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 20:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The impression I get is that the BBC, and the tattooist they interview, consider the hakenkreuz to be a particular type of swastika. The The swastika...But the hakenkreuz... quote gives me the impression that these terms are being used as synonyms, rather than distinct.  Tewdar   20:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was not familiar with the "yo" ping, but I like it. . Anyway, as far as my research from my M.A. led me on this topic, they are in some regards related to be sure, one even might be considered perhaps derivative from the other (hakenkreuz derivative from swastika, and not the other way around), but they are still distinct. What I sometimes find most confusing for some that are new to the hakenkreuz/swastika discussion, is that since they both have a similar shape, it is hard to distinguish that from symbol. In the so called "West", I think it is fair to say that there might still be an open debate about this, however this is not fair to say the same for the "East." In India, Japan, and many other very large and heavily populated nations, the two symbols are in no way even remotely related either in shape or wording (because the East recognizes uniqueness to "tilting" of a swastika as well as color schemes etc.). I feel that we are doing a disservice to NPOV to not at least give due weight to both of those equally valid, but geographically disparate views. Also, the fact is that this dichotomy itself is too simplistic. Since there are of course numerous Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and others that respect and revere the swastika (and that despise the hakenkreuz for besmirching the swastika in their view) that live in the "West". Many that are multi-generational even. So this NPOV standpoint is somewhat unbalanced even if we gave swastika and hakenkreuz this split view of "East/West", but it would be a significant improvement over the article as it reads now with its Euro-centric POV and lack of taking account of any of the sort of notable source material that I have cited thus far. I believe the encyclopedia is meant to take a global account of the secondary sources on any given topic or article. Thank you for reading my comment! ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 00:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources you provided seem to establish pretty clearly that they are differing names for the same symbol. The QZ source even quotes Nakagaki as saying "To reclaim the symbol means reclaiming part of history" (emphasis added). CMD (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your ping didn't work! There are lots of rules for using the 'ping' template (much like Wikipedia itself) - perhaps you didn't include a signature in the same edit as the ping? Anyway, I am not a complete newbie to this topic, and I do appreciate the shape/symbol difference you mention (I transcribe documents with 2 instead of ꝛ sometimes when I'm feeling lazy...) I'll try and take a look at the books you listed later on, and see if I can find anything else. My view right now, though, is that they are the same symbol. All the best,  Tewdar   08:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, at first glance... surely your MA had some better sources than the ones you list above?  Tewdar   08:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do not know why the "yo" does not work for me, but I will stick with "pings" alone then for now. Here is the complete body of my bibliography used for my MA Thesis which covered the Hakenkreuz and Swastika:

Bibliography ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 12:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Aniagolu, Emeka. The Hood & Swastika: A Comparative Study of the Ku Klux Klan & Nazi Germany. Minna, Nigeria.: AMAB Books & Publishing, 2016.
 * Brower, Autumn. Hate Groups and Fear, Vol. 66, No. 2, ETC: A Review of General Semantics. New York, NY.: Institute of General Semantics, 2009.
 * Brown, Jerome F. Anti-Semitism On Campus: The Swastika of N.M.S.U., Vol. 4, No. 2, Shofar. West Lafayette, IN.: Perdue University Press, 1986.
 * Butts, Edward. The Swastika: Statement No. 1. Kansas City, MO.: Self-published, 1908.
 * Butz, David A. National Symbols as Agents of Psychological and Social Change, Vol. 30, No. 5, Political Psychology. Columbus, NC.: International Society of Political Psychology, 2009.
 * Dugdale, Edgar T.S. My Battle. Boston, MA.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1933.
 * Friedlander, Saul. Nazi Germany and the Jews Volume I: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939. New York, NY.: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997.
 * Healey, Tim. The Symbolism of the Cross in Sacred and Secular Art, Vol. 10, No. 4, Leonardo. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press, 1977.
 * Heller, Steven. The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption?. New York, NY.: Allworth Press, 2000.
 * Heller, Steven. The Swastika and Symbols of Hate: Extremist Iconography Today. New York, NY.: Allworth Press, 2019.
 * Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston, MA.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943.
 * Jensen, Robin M. The Cross: History, Art, and Controversy. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 2017.
 * Lee, Jason. Nazism and Neo-Nazism in Film and Media. Amsterdam, Netherlands.: Amsterdam University Press, 2018.
 * Leidig, Don and Samir S. Patel. Swastika or Bent Cross?, Vol. 66, No. 2, Archaeology. Boston, MA.: Archaeological Institute of America, 2013.
 * Longenecker, Bruce W. The Cross Before Constantine: The Early Life of a Christian Symbol. Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2015.
 * Nakagaki, T.K. The Buddhist Swastika and Hitler's Cross: Rescuing a Symbol of Peace from the Forces of Hate. Berkeley, CA.: Stone Bridge Press, 2017.
 * Parthasarathy, D. The NRI Becomes Aggressive: Swastika Controversy and Beyond, Vol. 40, No. 11, Economic and Political Weekly. New Delhi, India.: Economic and Political Weekly, 2005.
 * Quinn, Malcolm. The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol. New York, NY.: Routledge, 1994.
 * Rancour-Laferriere, Daniel. The Sign of the Cross: From Golgotha to Genocide. New York, NY.: Transaction Publishers, 2011.
 * Scott, Ridley, director. Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut Roadshow Version). 20th Century Fox, 2005. 3 hr., 14 min.
 * Srivastava, Satyendra. Swastika, No. 212, Ambit. London, UK.: Ambit Magazine, 2013.
 * Thomas, George C. Power of Swastika, Vol. 40, No. 16, Economic and Political Weekly. New Delhi, India.: Economic and Political Weekly, 2005.
 * Ullrich, Volker. Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939. Translated by Jefferson Chase. New York, NY.: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.
 * Ullrich, Volker. Hitler: Downfall 1939-1945. Translated by Jefferson Chase. New York, NY.: Alfred A. Knopf, 2020.
 * Wang, Ping. Swastika Symbolism, Vol. 58, No. 2, Archaeology. Boston, MA.: Archaeological Institute of America, 2005.
 * Wilson, Thomas. The Swastika: The Earliest Known Symbol, and its Migrations with Observations on the Migration of Certain Industries in Pre-Historic Times. Washington, D.C.: Judd & Detweiler Printers, 1898.
 * @ - thanks a lot, I'll try and take a look at the ones I haven't read.  Tewdar   19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion fork continues here

 * The two books [Nagaki and Heller] you list are both self-published. They are not history books but instead are activist books intended to change the mainstream way of dealing with the swastika in English. These are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I do not believe it is correct to label Steven Heller (design writer) as an activist at all, at least not on this issue. He is a well respected and aware winning graphic design professor and has won awards in his field. He has written many books on the subject, I cited merely the most recent. In fact, he wrote against the very point that I am currently addressing, but in his most recent book, points out how he was wrong to believe that the swastika was a "symbol beyond redemption" (as his first book was arguing...that in fact it was). Heller is also a resident of New York City, and expressed sympathy with a mainstream contemporary view that the swastika was all there is, that the hakenkreuz was no different. However, after this talk that he engaged in with Nakagaki just prior to the pandemic beginning, he has decided that his view was far too provincial, and not representative of a global and inclusive enough POV. This is very rare, and admirable when an authority on this topic changes their minds (or any topic if I am not mistaken?!). It was truly one of the watershed moments I believe that has come to change the world view that there are in fact two distinct symbols. The swastika, and the hakenkreuz. Thank you for your comment. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 20:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Any aspirational work that describes a hoped-for situation is not going to help us set the standard here. Wikipedia is not here to apply leverage to English language usage. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Stone Bridge Press is not a self published source. I believe that he may have self-published an earlier first draft. But this was taken from a New York Theological Seminary doctoral dissertation, and then later accepted for publication in English as well as Japanese by Stone Bridge Press. This is right in the source, but let me know if you want to see any other details on that. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 20:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing written by Nakagaki will be useful here. He's an activist who wishes to change the way that mainstream English works. Wikipedia mainstream usage. 21:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if that is the case, that still leaves extensive work by Heller, and the other cited sources that I provided that include numerous RS such as BBC to say nothing of the others. That said, besides not having an article himself, I feel that it is unfair to categorically describe Nakagaki as an "activist." Where would you see this description as described in a reliable secondary source of his work? Regarding Heller, he initially was in disagreement with Nakagaki, but has since stated that he was persuaded by Nakagaki's arguments demonstrating that the view that the swastika-and-hakenkreuz-as-the-same-symbol, neglects to take a global POV, and is especially heavy on being Eurocentric. Heller's views in this article are very helpful before we proceed further. All should please read this piece from PRINT magazine: https://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/the-daily-heller-anti-hate-symbol-law-will-foster-more-hate/  ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 00:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That article by Heller is quite clear that the symbol is called a swastika, and that the desire for a different name is an attempt to linguistically isolate the Nazi symbol from other swastikas in order to highlight other existing meanings (and thus does not suggest there are two different symbols). Its primary aim, as stated in the final paragraph, is to distinguish "the spiritual and eclectic swastika from the Nazi cross" and to call for greater education as to the other meanings of the swastika. This article already does these things. CMD (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also wish to address the point about, "Wikipedia follows mainstream usage." I of course agree with this sentiment, but the point regarding "mainstream usage" must incorporate viewpoints of the globe, even if this is the English language Wikipedia. See WP:Global There are persons from all over the Earth that have immigrated to the UK, USA, and many other places collectively considered "the West." Millions including Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, among countless others of course, not to mention the many indigenous peoples of nearly every continent that see the swastika as a symbol of auspiciousness and separate out the hakenkreuz as a loathed symbol distinct from their own symbol that they love. I might add that I have no personal vested interest in this discussion, as I am neither Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, nor a member of any other group that sees the swastika in this auspicious light. I know that personal views do not matter, we are here building the encyclopedia and are supposed to leave any personal views at the door, but I just wanted to add this early on in the conversation. Thank you for reading my comments and hopefully reading the sources and watching the Heller/Nakagaki Vimeo link that I shared. With respect. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 01:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "That article by Heller is quite clear that the symbol is called a swastika...", only in the "West", Heller fully acknowledges that this is changing in the West even, and furthermore that this was not, and is not the view in "Eastern" countries. He teaches in NY and in an email correspondence with him has even said this of the issue, "We're at a difficult time. I have many Chinese (PRC and Taiwan and US born) students... I think Germanizing the Hitler/Nazi Cross as Hakenkreuz is the best alternative at the moment. But education is the foremost challenge. The sound of words as well as the meaning of words have powerful implications... It is linguistically called 'borrowing.' " ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 01:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this sort of effort, and don't doubt what you're saying is true. But you have to move the mainstream of society before it is reflected on Wikipedia.  I agree with your other interlocutors here; what you're talking about is aspirational, whereas Wikipedia is a descriptive endeavor.  I wish you all the best in this, but I don't see it as persuasive as to how Wikipedia should depict the current state of affairs.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I would urge you to try and look at this from a global perspective as much as possible. Is it equally "aspirational" in London as it is in Tokyo? In New York as Mumbai? And so on. As Heller mentions, he had to confront his own bias as a researcher based in NYC that kept him from seeing the rights of "billions" being silenced in the "West" as it relates to their view of the swastika as holy and as a distinct symbol. I think we must at minimum account for both of these views with due weight. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 12:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We cover a large variety of different views in this article already, including sections for Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and many more. CMD (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs
While recognising 's good faith in raising this issue, there is a risk of falling into the trap of wp:righting great wrongs. Wikipedia follows common use in English-language media and the German word has not yet gained acceptance. The lead as currently written seems to me to reflect fairly the differing perspectives. But I can see a case for an additional section at the end of the article that describes contemporary efforts to reappraise and reframe this 20th century usage in a more world-wide perspective. It seems me that this would be a more productive way forward than trying to change the existing text significantly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful words . I would add that I would like to ask the community how we are to consider English speakers from regions with large populations that do in fact refer to these two symbols as distinct today? India is perhaps the best example, because while Japan does in fact distinguish between hakenkreuz and swastika, they obviously are not an English speaking nation. India of course is not an English-only nation, but English is certainly spoken by millions there, and is a major, if not entirely "official language". To the millions (billions?) the swastika article as it is now, I do not believe is weighted fairly, and I do believe the lead section exhibits some Eurocentrism or predominance. Also, to Hindu, Jains, and Buddhist in the UK and USA the swastika/hakenkreuz distinction is also made, though these groups in these regions are sometimes less public about discussing the distinction due to some of the historical misunderstandings that got us here in the first place. There are cases each year of minor hostile interactions between mostly new immigrants in the UK/USA that have benign swastikas painted over their doors, or on their motorcycles or what have you, ignorant of the possibility of being confronted by locals as if the symbol were a hakenkreuz. I appreciate the risk of "righting great wrongs", yet I believe further delay does a disservice to the sources from 2017–2021 that I cited. We are already following, not leading, the situation as it stands today. The biggest differences of opinion here I feel will be based on our own geographically disparate POVs. If however, we must add only a smaller change in the meantime, I can help write that up, and I can work on larger edits in due time when the community feels that it is appropriate. The remaining question I would ask, is when do we know that that time has come? I am of the belief that there is enough supporting secondary source material to say that we are there now, but I am open to hearing more on that sort of requirement so that we meet the standard the community has set forth. Thank you all for your time, and for reading my comments. Also, please see the bibliography list I included above, and check out any of those books if you have the time. I especially believe that Nakagaki and Heller's work is crucial to this continued discussion, but those are by no means the only sources on this matter, just what I would consider to be some of the most thorough, and thus authoritative. I'll be offline the next few days, but can respond to questions and further comment when I return. Thanks again. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 15:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, Th7blue, we will know that the time has come when the general usage of the term is as you wish it to be. You are on the forefront of the curve.  And I, personally, think your goals worthwhile, but Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, if you will.  You don't change Wikipedia in order to change society, you change society and Wikipedia will follow some time afterward (with much argument, probably).  Sources that say "this is how things should be" don't really help us here.  We need sources that say "this is how things are."  And while you're right, that India is an Anglophone country (if a somewhat sui generis one), we need to balance the coverage.  Give us more sources that show the usage in English in India, and I, for one, will promise to consider them.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree but equally the perspectives on reassessment are significant enough to merit coverage. As is the fact that the current practice in the West (which is what en.wikipedia substantially follows) is offensive to many. The challenge is to make the coverage wp:DUE, which is why I invite Th78blue to write a new section that addresses these issues. As I've already said, I think that this will be more productive than trying to 'correct' the current text. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and good idea. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Yes' to a new section discussing this issue. Such a section would sufficiently cover the issue, retaining the important context to this topic, and it would obviate the draft-in-progress Draft:Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross). Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article currently has a "Post-World War II stigmatisation" section. Discussion on de-stigmatisation, including attempts to linguistically redefine the nazi symbol, would fit there well. CMD (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I will try and get to this over the next couple of days. Just returning from a work trip and I am a bit tired. Thanks for the vote of confidence though, it is much appreciated. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 15:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The way you have described hooked cross( Haken kreuz) as Swastika is wrong and I strongly condemns it.
It is spreading bad image of Hinduism and as it also shows that Christianity is inferior than Hinduism.. 2402:3A80:165A:3D6B:0:1C:A4DF:2801 (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the cross was hijacked by the Nazis. Annoying, but there it is. Hinduism is not made to look bad because one of its symbols was stolen, and Christianity does not figure at all. Britmax (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I was sympathetic until a religious superiority claim entered somewhat arbitrarily. Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022
Hi Team, This page requires editing because it is portraying our holy swastika symbol as Nazi Hakenkreuz symbol which are totally different. Our community is getting hatred due to this misrepresentation of symbol. In our religion swastika is a symbol of peace and prosperity.

Request you to please remove Nazi references from this. Dhirajadvani081991 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. This page acknowledges and covers both the religious and Nazi uses of the swastika. <b style="color:MediumBlue">Spinning</b><b style="DarkSlateGray">Ceres</b> 20:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , see Swastika, which is about this specific issue. Wikipedia is not responsible for Nazism's appropriation of the symbol, but we do have to report the reality that they used it. EN.WIKIPEDIA is written in English: "swastika" has been the word for the symbol in the English language for about two hundred years. The German language word Hakencreuz has not become the wp:common name in English yet: when it does, Wikipedia will adopt it, but not before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How very relevant. . I will continue to monitor this and see what sources might develop on this issue over time as well. I think the issue is that there is a confusion of "shape" versus "symbol" made by many as well. The shape is without question the same for both the hakenkreuz and the swastika. Some argue that the hakenkreuz is tilted always 45 degrees (and this is mostly true, except for Hitler's personal Standard). However for the swastika, anything goes. There are tilted swastikas, left facing "legs" and right facing. There are black, red, yellow, you name it. However, I admit that as far as this encyclopedia is concerned, and the "lagging indicator" vs. "leading indicator" argument, I am at least partially convinced that more time must pass before this article is written as I feel it will be one day. Even if that day is 5+ years out or more. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 04:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022
Swastika and Hakenkreuz (hooked cross) are two different symbol.Hakenkreuz (hooked cross) symbol used by the Nazi Party in Germany, and later by the Third Reich. Adolf Hitler chose it as the symbol of the German Workers Party after he joined where Swastika is a totally different than Hakenkreuz (hooked cross). It is belong to hindu, buddiest and jain religion. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. 103.133.123.160 (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nazi use Hooked Cross and not Swastika
I have strong opposition on the line. The swastika symbol, 卐 or 卍, today primarily recognized in the West for its use by the Nazi party,[1] is an ancient religious icon in various Eurasian cultures. What Nazi party used was Hooked Cross and not Swastika. Swastika is one of the holy symbol of Hinduism and it represent Sun. I think this page should be update with this information. Following are some references supporting this data. 192.55.18.36 (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That source treats them as the same symbol. CMD (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you IP 192.55.18.36, but as it stands, there is still more work to be done in terms of public sentiment in the Western world, before Wikipedia updates this to reflect the global view. See the thread above for a thorough conversation on this matter. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 02:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could I point out that even if perceptions of the Swasitka change, you would need wishful thinking or a time machine to change the central fact: that the symbol the NAZI's use from the 1930's to 1945 was a swsatika, and so will always be a swastika. Unfortunate. but wishful thinking will not change this. Britmax (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing will change that, and the claim from academia on the matter is not making that claim. The research is stating that a one-sided, Eurocentric view is not globally inclusive, and as a result is considered by more scholars each year to be outdated (TK Nakagaki and Steven Heller just two of the most recently vocal). A view that accounts for both points of view, is a view that rightfully continues to condemn the hakenkreuz (Nazi symbol translated as "hooked-cross"), and the swastika (symbol of millions if not billions of Buddhists, Jains, Hindus, and dozens of indigenous persons from around the globe). The discrepancy arises of course on the lagging fact of modern Western world media sources on this, which I believe is almost guaranteed to change its point of view over time. When that happens, and only after that happens, wikipedia will follow. I understand that now, but that is why I believe there is abundant frustration articulated by many commenters on this page, and that isn't going to stop until this situation is fixed by Western media outlets adapting to a global point of view. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 20:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)