Talk:Swastika/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2023

Can you please change the word Swastika to Hakenkruez? Nazis did not use the swastika as there's a difference between them this Wikipedia page is spreading misleading a lot of people into thinking that the Swastika(in my Hindu culture it's a sign of welcome) is some kind of cult or nazi thing that shouldn't be used. Hakenkruez is a sign tilted 45 degrees to the left from the top and is of black colour with square endings while Swastika is a sacred Hindu symbol symbolizing surya or sun welcome it with prosperity and good luck its straight '卐' with 4 dots and it's in red colour Hindus draw this with red colour in front of their houses to welcome good luck and good omen. This is cultural appropriation can you please look forward to my request and make changes to this page? Heerhira (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, but this has been discussed ad infinitem before. Consensus thus far has been to retain this as the hakenkreuz/swastika split is not well-established in English (though perhaps emerging). Most English sources use swastika for both (German is of course a different matter), I won't decline the request now, in case consensus has changed, but I don't think there's a great chance of it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As has been said many times before, German: Hakencreuz is German, not English. Yes, English appropriated the Hindi word but not the German word. We have well over two hundred years' worth of books, newspapers, reports and documents that use the word swastika. This question has been debated to death. Nothing has changed since the last time it was debated. WP:SNOWCLOSE. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And most precede the misappropriation of the symbol by the Nazis. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs of the lead

Do we really need to have a list of the name for the Swastika in other languages? This isn't a foreign language dictionary, it's uncited and it's a bizarre detail for the lead. If we need it at all it should be in the body not lead. The last paragraph is so vague as to be meaningless. Earlier in the lead we've covered the West v Asia differences, what does this single sentence paragraph add, or even mean? I'm referring to:

In various European languages, it is known as the fylfot, gammadion, tetraskelion, or cross cramponnée (a term in Anglo-Norman heraldry); German: Hakenkreuz; French: croix gammée; Italian: croce uncinata; Latvian: ugunskrusts. In Mongolian it is called хас (khas) and mainly used in seals. In Chinese it is called 卍字 (wànzì), pronounced manji in Japanese, manja (만자) in Korean and vạn tự or chữ vạn in Vietnamese. In Balti/Tibetan language it is called yung drung.[citation needed]

Reverence for the symbol in Asian cultures, in contrast to the stigma attached to it in the West, has led to misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

I propose deleting. DeCausa (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong in the lead (per WP:LEAD) and support removal. Is there a home for it in the body? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess the foreign language names would fit as the last paragraph of the Etymology and Nomenclature section. The current single sentence last paragraph of the lead should just be deleted. DeCausa (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No need for all the language versions in the lead section. But the statement "Reverence for the symbol in Asian cultures, in contrast to the stigma attached to it in the West, has led to misinterpretations and misunderstandings" is an accurate summary of article body text. Some form of that statement should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to what exactly is it summarising in the text? The lead already describes the divergence between Western and Asian usage and how the symbol is used differently. What exactly are the "misinterpretations and misunderstandings"? If that is in the text then it should be explained rather than leaving a cryptic hint. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see now how the "misunderstandings" sentence is redundant and unneeded. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've amended lead accordingly. @Binksternet: thanks for the more prominent Hakenkreuz notice. It's interesting to note (but no more than that) that on German Wikipedia the article is entitled Swastika and Hakenkreuz is just a redirect to the Swastika article. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

It wasn't appropriated by Nazi it was confused by the Christian symbol of hekincruz by the masses it has no relation what do ever with the nazis 43.231.59.84 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 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. CMD (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

The whole content about swastika being a Nazi symbol is completely incorrect. Our symbol is over 5,000 years old and not associated with the Nazi symbol. Swastika is a Hindu religious symbol with 4 dots and not the diagonal one that nazis used without any dots. Stop insulting the Hindu religion and stating misfacts. I would like it removed with immediate effect. Wikipedia should be stating facts not lies to support a propaganda of some sort. 88.202.153.225 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Nazi "appropriation"

A couple of times now, editors have tried to link the word "appropriation" to cultural appropriation. IMO, that is not a reasonable association. That article begins:

Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity.

The Nazis genuinely believed that the swastika to be an Aryan symbol with a long history of use in Northern Europe (as this article explains). I suspect that they didn't know (and if they did, didn't care) about its use in the Indian sub-continent. There is no reason to believe that they adopted it from that other culture: in their world view, it was their own culture, albeit after a gap in historical continuity. It was part of the same ideological mind set that underpins Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen in which "the works are based loosely on characters from Germanic heroic legend, namely Norse legendary sagas and the Nibelungenlied."

Does anyone disagree? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We should look to the sources on that I think. Certainly none of the sources cited against the sentence where it was being added reference cultural appropriation. Looking at Google books I didn't see much where it was unambiguously discussed although this source does refer to is as cultural appropriation by the Nazis. But the general point is, I think, we shouldn't make our own determination of what is or isn't cultural appropriation - it should be sourced and WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that something should be changed. As it is now, people – myself included – that don’t know much about the topic (which is often why people look up something in the first place), will interpret appropriation as cultural appropriation, or at least that the Nazi party took/stole the symbol from other cultures. Therefore, I think it should either be linked to cultural appropriation or some other article to make it clear what is meant by that word, or “appropriation” should be removed if the Nazi party didn’t “steal” it from anyone. Rogalendingen (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

JMF, I would respectfully disagree. For me, the inappropriateness in this case comes from the anthropological and ethnological surmises behind the adoption of the symbol--ideas which were widely held to be wrong at the time. Imagine if an American of European descent began dressing in native regalia because he discovered an ancestor who was nicknamed "Chief." The belief might be genuine, but I would still consider that cultural appropriation. Now, there were various (wildly incorrect) theories about the Aryan race, including that they came from Northern Europe, but a key informational touchstone for all the theories was the Rig Veda. For that reason alone, I think it's fair to call the Nazis' adoption of "Aryan" ideology and its presumed associated symbols cultural appropriation As ever, reasonable minds can differ. Dumuzid (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Dumuzid, I can see merit in your argument though your example is rather less convincing because the Nazis would have a stronger claim to continuity than that. Had your hypothetical American discovered from a DNA analysis that his 9-times-great grandmother- was Cherokee, that would be closer to the Nazi claim.

Rogalendingen, yes I agree with that analysis. So if "appropriation" is the wrong word, can we find a better one? "Adoption" is too feeble. Which takes us nicely to ...

DeCausa's point, with which I agree. We can't be first to have encountered this semantic difficulty. What do the RSs use? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I see I may well be in the minority here, which is fine, but I need to make one last point, and then I will stop belaboring the issue. While it is true that swastikas are incredibly widespread and found from prehistory onward, the Nazi association of Swastika/Aryan goes inexorably through the Rig Veda. Couple that with the importance of Schliemann's work at Troy, and I think it appropriation. That is, the Swastika was not adopted because it had been found occasionally in Northern Europe, but because it was associated with other places where the supposed "Aryan" race had been (Turkey and the Northern Asian Subcontinent). Anyway, as I say, I will cease my kvetching and happily go wherever consensus leads! Cheers, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself, I think it's about the sources and what the RS say rather than our own ORish analysis. In answer to JMF's question, when I looked at Google books I had actually expected to find a fair bit along the lines of what Dumuzid has been saying. But in fact I found very little - only the source I linked to earler. Is that my research skills or reflective of the RS position? DeCausa (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Dumzid, it doesn't do to expect too much intellectual rigour behind the Nazi's mythical Aryan valhalla. The extreme racist nationalism came first, the decorative tinsel followed. So to trace it all back to the Rig Veda presupposes a rather more solid ground than the actual cess-pit that exised in reality.

DeCausa, to save me repeating what you have just done, is "appropriation" the consensus word in the sources? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Cultural appropriation" is a relatively recent term in mainstream discourse, so I'm not surprised that citations are relatively few. However, I think it is the right term. I find it being used to describe the Nazi use of the swastika by news articles [1], in Germanic Myths in the Audiovisual Culture 2020 (mentioned by De Causa above), and most importantly in [https://www.google.de/books/edition/Borrowed_Power/BhAhb2lf49oC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=swastika+%22cultural+appropriation%22&pg=PA12&printsec=frontcover Ziff & Rao, Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation (1997), p. 12, an influential book on cultural appropriation , which gives the swastika as a key example in its introduction. Furius (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa is of course correct that we should stick to the RSes, and I apologize for being a bit tangential. I agree with Furius (no surprise) that it does seem relevant. For instance in The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption? by Steven Heller. It takes appropriation basically as a given (and uses the term). It also is often used that way in non-book sources, such as The BBC, in which Heller's book is cited; The Holocaust Museum; ABC Australia; CTV News Canada; and an interesting power point I found from a Canadian professor (for what that's worth). Just some more food for thought. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It does seem that the RS consensus is for "cultural appropriation", so I concede. I will reinstate Rogalendingen's edit. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone compose a bit of prose about cultural appropriation and place it into the article body? Without that, the presence of that term in the lead section is unsupported. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Nazi usage

1)can anyone please make a dedicated page of nazi usage of this symbol, name of article should be “Hooked Cross” direct translation of Hakkencruez in english. and then transfer all matter in this article about nazi usage to that one. (i've read talk page that you all cannot use german word fir article but can use english translation of it.) 2) Swastik itself is a Sanskrit word, when sanskrit word are translated to English an “a” is added to it's end so add language translation of it in devnagri script.

reason for 1st) the one we here are talking should mainly be about hinduism. Relating such a sacred symbol of good luck to nazi and hitler hurts feeling of hindus like me. so a new page should be created as fast as possible. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

i agree here. Swastika is different from nazi used Hooked cross (hakenkreuz). It should have different page. Rahil1610 (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read the very first, very dramatically coloured section at the top of this page. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

the name swastika a sanskrit word itself suggest that the symbol we are describing is of dharmic religions so it is clear that usage in other mythologies and other things should be side topics of article RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The first problem with your request is that the English word for the symbol is "swastika", even when used by the Nazis. That has been the case since the 19th century. The Nazis definitely used the swastika for their hated symbol. You will not be able to re-define the symbol as a "hooked cross", because that is not supported by WP:Reliable sources.

The second problem with your suggestion is that Wikipedia does not change its facts because of hurt feelings.

The third problem is that your theory about other usages being peripheral is just that: your own theory. Wikipedia is supposed to convey a summary of published thought, not the notions of individual Wikipedia editors. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hooked cross, Swastika and Hakenkreuz all refer to the same symbol and this hoax that Nazis used some other symbol, needs to end. Read this for better understanding of this hoax and why precisely this is a hoax. 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:7A26:2B0C:C903:591F (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to attach the link Curious case of Swastika and Hakenkreuz 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:E770:64A:524B:C6BE (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not regard medium as a reliable source and cannot be used. Equine-man (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

wasn't the point. The point is to end the hoax. 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:2DED:277F:5D0E:57D8 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

Change swastika to nazi symbol this spread false information and brings hate and shame towards the swastika it is a symbol for good fortune and wellbeing Saurabh.Gaur2099 (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done please see the note at the top of the page and extensive talk archive discussing this. I agree it's unfortunate that a positive symbol was co-opted this way, but co-opted it was. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nazi mention in swastika lead is not appropriate.

As per Hitler's biography, he never mentioned swastika to nazi symbol. It was Hooked-cross (hakenkreuz). And importance of swastika in Asia is more than than. Hakenkreuz should have different page. And it should not be mentioned in lead. Lead should be its actual importance. Rahil1610 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read the very first, very dramatically coloured section at the top of this page. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

now it's widely known as Nazi symbol, there's is the problem. It is known as Nazi symbol only in Europe and USA and Canada. And that's not swastika (which is a Sanskrit world) and it's defaming it. That is Nazi symbol hakenkreuz. There should be another leading page for nazi symbol hakenkreuz as so called and labelled as swastika. Article should be NPOV. Rahil1610 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you it's known as a swastika in far more places than Europe, the USA and Canada. Certainly here in Australia, and New Zealand, and many more countries. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

In 2005, The Times of India was under the impression that the swastika was "the symbol of Nazi Germany".[2]. But that's before the Only-In-The-West POV got fully underway. DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This idea that Hitler used a symbol called Hakenkreuz which was different from Swastika, is a modern hoax which unfortunately has gained traction mostly due to political reasons and poor speculative research. Read the full Hitler speech of August 13, 1920 and you'll realize that even though he called the symbol Hakenkreuz, he was always talking about the Swastika because after all, which other symbol could it be, which looks like the Hakenkreuz but can be found in "temples of India and Japan"? Pontolal (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Even more to the point, he was speaking in German, not English, so of course he said hakenkreuz – why would he use the English word? He also said "Deutchland", not "Germany" and "volk", not "people". Et cetera. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)

It's interesting that for our friends over at German Wikipedia Hakenreuz is merely a redirect to Swastika. DeCausa (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Salient point! Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It is appropriate. In the west, at least, it is very much associated with the Nazis. And while it's unfortunate, it needs to be here. 172.4.66.98 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Petition to add a mention of "hakenkreuz" in the lead

Look, people have got to know that the swastika terminology originates from sanskrit, and that the nazi swastika is a different concept entirely.

Please! 96.227.223.203 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read the big red notice at the top of this page. "Hakenkreuz" is not employed for the symbol in English. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I did read it. It would be hard to miss it. But the term is not even mentioned in the lede at all. It would be useful to make at least a mention of the term in the lede, as it was one of the primary terms used for the Nazi symbol at the time of its use, which is currently one of the most well known uses of the swastika in the West in recent history. 96.227.223.203 (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Then please read the article, which mentions the term only in translation, and briefly in the section "Swastika as distinct from Hakenkreuz debate." I would suggest that adding the "hakenkreuz" translation so prominently just gives extra emphasis to the Nazi use of the symbol, which seems to me to be at odds with what the perennial advocates for adoption of the word in English desire. Also, please read the talkpage archives. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Quit insinuating that I have not read the article and portions of pages related to it. 96.227.223.203 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body of the article. The body of the article scarcely mentions the matter. It appeared to me that you did not know that. It also appeared to me that you had not read the big red notice. It is a perennial frustration that we get requests that are already addressed by big red notices on this and other pages, and a perennial frustration that people demand edits to leads that are not supported in the article text or by references. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Get off my case. The notice says "Please do not request that "swastika" be changed to "Hakenkreuz": any such request will be denied." I did NOT request that the term be changed. I requested that the term was to be simply MENTIONED. Maybe if you LISTENED, you would not see this issue as a perennial FRUSTRATION, but maybe a perennial NEED. 96.227.223.203 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I know what you asked for, it's just a watered-down version of changing it. Bluster is not an argument. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hakencreuz is German. This is the English language Wikipedia. Unlike the Sanskrit word, which has long been absorbed into English, the German word has not. If and when it ever does, en.wiki will follow. Don't hold your breath.

You say it was one of the primary terms used for the Nazi symbol at the time of its use. Yes, it was, when writing in German. At the same time, texts in English only ever used the word Swastika. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC) extended and revised --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

Drm19761976 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to edit this page.

You are saying do not use German words because this page wikipedia in englush, then how can you use Sanskrit word Swastika for Germnan Hakenkreuz or english word hookedcross. This page should be Hookedcross and not swastika.

 Not done: see section immediately above Cannolis (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, This is the English language Wikipedia. Unlike the Sanskrit word, which has long been absorbed into English, the German word has not. If and when it ever does, en.wiki will follow. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Nazi symbol

get ur facts straight the nazi symbol IS NOT SWASTIKA, it's Hakenkreuz Sushena07 (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ at top. DeCausa (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"... when the German Nazi Party adopted the swastika as an emblem of the Aryan race."

The lead currently makes this statement but it is not cited. Specifically what needs a citation is the "as an emblem of the Aryan race". Anyone? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

and in "Early 20th century" we have (also uncited)

Schliemann's work soon became intertwined with the political völkisch movements, which used the swastika as a symbol for the "Aryan race" – a concept that theorists such as Alfred Rosenberg equated with a Nordic master race originating in northern Europe.

.

More searching required. I don't have time right now. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The Myth Of The 20th Century : Alfred Rosenberg : Internet Archive

Page 38

The Nordic gods were figures of light with spear and radiant cross and swastika, the symbols of the sun, of fertile ascending life. Pontolal (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

could you supply the archive.org URL for that, please, it may be easily accessible in your browser's search history. Better still, why not update the article? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Article is semi protected so can't do it myself. But here is the link Archive Pontolal (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Now we have a more serious problem because (a) the phrase "master race" does not appear in Rosenberg's book; (b) while Rosenberg does say that the Nordic gods were symbolised by the "spear and radiant cross and swastika", nowhere does he say "as an emblem of the Aryan race", let alone that "the political völkisch movements" adopted it as such. So the current text is a deliberate misrepresentation of the source, so I must delete it now. It can be reinstated if done with an honest and accurate report of an unambiguous statement in a reliable source. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's dishonest though. If you read the note on Alfred Rosenburg's wiki page, it explains it clearly

1. Though Rosenberg does not use the word "master race". He uses the word "Herrenvolk" (i.e. ruling people) twice in his book The Myth, first referring to the Amorites (saying that Sayce described them as fair skinned and blue eyed) and secondly quoting Victor Wallace Germains' description of the English in "The Truth about Kitchener". ("The Myth of the Twentieth Century") - Pages 26, 660 - 1930

Also, there is a secondary source that clearly states that Von List calls Swastika the symbol of Aryan race. The source is also cited on another wiki article "Order of the New Templars"

[3]https://ia800201.us.archive.org/0/items/TheOccultRootsOfNazism_201602/The%20Occult%20Roots%20of%20Nazism.pdf Pontolal (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Archive.org search function can't find the words "herrenvolk" anywhere in The Myth??? (Not that it matters, I think. Do we need it?)

Yes, he does declare that "Together with these primeval Aryan Atlantic memories appear those cult allegories, costumes, carvings which are understandable only in terms of Nordic origin". So that just about provides a citation for the second (elaborating) phrase. But we still have nothing that supports the political völkisch movements, which used the swastika as a symbol for the "Aryan race", which is really the key item needed for this article. That is what we need to support with a citation. In all probability it is true as there is no doubt that the Nazi Party adopted the swastika and declared it to be an Aryan symbol. But the provenance is still missing. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The word "herrenvolk" is indeed used in the original German language version of the book.

Today the word does translate to "master race"

Here's the German version of the book

[4]https://archive.org/details/DerMythusDes20Jahrhunderts/mode/2up?q=herrenvolk Pontolal (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "Swastika as a symbol for Aryan race",

Quoting from the book "The Occult Roots of Nazism" (link in my previous comment). This is a secondary source but I think it's good. The "List" mentioned below is Guido Von List

The first indication that List knew the work of Sebaldt occurs in his unsigned article 'Germanischer Lichtdienst', published in 1899 in Der Scherer [The Mole-Catcher], a satirical Tyrolean monthly magazine loosely associated with the Austrian Pan-German movement. Discussing the religious significance of pagan solstice fires, List suggested that this ritual symbolized the original birth of the sun. He also claimed that the swastika was a holy Aryan symbol, since it derived from the Feuerquirl (fire whisk) with which Mundelfori had initially twirled the cosmos into being. Pontolal (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The author of this book is a reputed historian

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke Pontolal (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no argument with that, but it doesn't directly address the point. We have both ends of the chain (yes, the Swastika was regarded as a holy symbol of the so-called Aryans; yes, the Nazis used the swastika; yes, the Nazis declared themselves to be the representatives of Aryanism) but we don't have the bit in the middle and (per WP:SYNTH) we can't just infer it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok I hope we're discussing the same thing. Swastika as a Symbol of Aryan race is being used by list the occultist and the order of the new templers, both part of volkisch movements. The evidence for Swastika as symbol of Aryan will only come from specific individuals belonging to volkisch movements.

Are you looking for some reference where a 3rd party has already connected these dots and made the inference? In lieu of that, could we still modify the article to just provide the 2 examples cited above? Pontolal (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I hope we are. I would certainly like to see the gap bridged and something sensible go back in the article.

• Swastika as a Symbol of Aryan race is being used by list the occultist and the order of the new templars Yes, we have a good citation for that. I don't think we really need to get sidetracked into the volksich movement unless we need to show that the Nazi Party arose from it. (Showing my ignorance here, sorry.)
• evidence for Swastika as symbol of Aryanist ideology: yes, we have citations for that too.

But we still don't have any provenance for the Nazi Party's adoption of it (which must exist, it was their party flag!). That is the bit where we need a third party source connecting the dots. Ideally, one that would track through their adoption of (or identification with) Aryanism and thus its "sacred symbols". I appreciate that all this may seem obvious: they were Aryanists, they believed in its fantasies, they adopted its trappings: we know this to be true – but we are still required to provide a reliable source that says so. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hitler

https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1968_4_5_phelps.pdf

The above link contains Hitler's entire speech in German where he says

Sie finden dieses Kreuz als Hackenkreuz nicht nur hier, sondern genau so in Indien und Japan in den Tempelpfosten eingemeißelt. Es ist das Hackenkreuz der einst von arischer Kultur gegründeten Gemeinwesen.

which translates to

You will find this cross carved into the temple post as a swastika not only here, but in exactly the same way in India and Japan. It is the swastika of the communities once founded by Aryan culture. Pontolal (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, this states that that Hitler asserted that it is an aryan symbol, but that doesn't support the text I questioned above (and am about to delete). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong and misleading information especially attacking, disrespecting the Hindu race.

The symbol of Swastik was not appropriated by Nazis and Hitler, instead the Swastik symbol was an inspiration for creating their own "logo-design". The nazi symbol shouldn't even be in this article. This article is spreading racial hate using false and manipulated facts. Charvim (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ at top of this page. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

The swastika was used by the Icelandic Eimskip shipping company to at least 1989, on papers and advertisements in newspapers and magazines and merchandise. 194.144.178.143 (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I went hunting and found this. Are you referring to the symbol on the front of the building in the 1966-2000 image? HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I know a good place to look for it: Wikipedia. Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century#Iceland. Nice ship pic - see front. But what does the IP want? DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Although this is clearer. DeCausa (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. We already have enough example images. In fact, we went through a big pruning recently because the page was too bloated. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

Please note that the Nazi and Swastik symbols have different looks and meanings on this page. Millions of Hindus are offended when they hear that these are the same emblems. Sumitjoshi77 (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. See the FAQ which explains how the Nazis specifically appropriated the symbol as seen in "India and Japan, carved in the temple pillars", rather than choosing a different symbol. It sucks, but that's how it is. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

Please mention in 5he first line that Swastik and Nazi symbol are totally different thing and with different purposes, they are not related to eachother 45.113.106.124 (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: they're clearly not totally different things, but our article goes into great detail on the various uses of this symbol and current wording is fine Cannolis (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Images

@JMF I don't understand why, if it is thought that the images are too numerous, that images crucial to the history of the swastika and its historical interpretation should be removed while miscellaneous images of this or that swastika in use in this or that context should be retained without any sources. It would be better to remove the existing overabundance. Please restore the Buddha footprints cited by Schliemann and Wilson. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

We recently went through a huge pruning of images. If you want to add an image, gain consensus first. The Buddha's footprint image contains one small low-contrast swastika which is difficult to see through all the decorative carvings. The German potsherds lithograph is also troublesome because there is no obvious swastika—the reader isn't helped by this image. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

First, I don't own this article, I am just relaying previous consensus. Nor am I making any qualitative judgement about the particular picture that you want to add, simply that there are already just too many images (and that is after a big clear out last year – see Talk:Swastika/Archive 8#Still overloaded with images). As I said then, think of the average reader using a mobile phone screen on a limited downloads contract. Each image has to pass the "a picture is worth a thousand words" test and be indispensable for the adjacent text to make sense. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet, @JMF the images of the potsherds from Germany and the Buddha's footprints from Amaravati are both necessary for the article because they illustrate the way in which Schliemann made the connection between archaeologists' artefacts in Germany and the orientalists' artefacts in India, giving the Indian name to what he accepted was a pan-Aryan symbol. The reader is very much helped by the image, because it reveals that Schliemann had a very broad definition of what he was calling "swastika".

Unlike the footprints (which in fact have three swastikas on each foot, please look again!), the Bishop's Island potsherds were not published by Schliemann, so the public was presumably more accepting of his (quite tenuous) conclusion about its being the same as the Indian swastika portrayed on the Buddha footprints. The accompanying text (I hope) makes it clear that Schliemann's opinion of the Bishop's Island potsherd was crucial in forming his and his contemporaries' view on the symbol, a fact which is amply attested by secondary sources.

As I say above, the best thing would be to remove less relevant images, rather than refuse to accept images which are of eminent importance to understanding how the swastika's scholarly interpretation in the 19th century led to its being classed not only as an Aryan symbol, but as the Aryan symbol. I found that discussion of the 19th-century view of the swastika sorely lacking, and I have added a whole section which the article (worryingly) managed to completely ignore thitherto. Many of the images belong (and are indeed repeated at) the separate article on the 20th-century use of the swastika, and should be removed to there. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree about the importance of telling the reader that Schliemann made a leap of logic to connect Germanic and Indo-Persian symbols. This can be described to satisfaction in prose. Unclear images don't advance the argument. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit more sympathetic because a few months ago I identified the narrative weakness in the article that described how the the Nazis identified the swastika as representing their Aryan supremacy. Not that I expected any intellectual rigour in how they got there but we at least needed to say how it happened. TwfiC has resolved that issue, thank you. But to earn a place in the article, in effect to show that they are more important than the images that must be deleted to make way for them, they really must be critical to understanding what the text is saying. That is not obvious, especially when the image quality is so poor. Could it go in Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a little confused: @Binksternet says an image is "unclear"; @JMF says "the image quality is so poor". Which image is being talked about here? None of them seem bad to me. Are you referring to File:Las huellas de Buda, British Museum.jpg, or to File:Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 3.1871, Taf. VI (cropped).png? If it's the Amaravati footprints, would File:Buddha footprint from Amaravati.jpg be better? If it's the potsherds image, would a cropped image of the relevant pot bottom be better? Neither of these images has anything to do with the early 20th-century West, and are necessarily part of the 19th-century scholarly and popular interpretation of the swastika, so relegating them to an irrelevant article (Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century) is not suitable.

Binksternet has removed the illustration of the swastika from Schliemann's house, even though it is explicitly mentioned in the text, is of obvious relevance to the subject generally, and is clearly of more historical importance than the three (!) illustrations of the Finnish military's swastikas, the banal image of the Latvian Air Force roundel (it's just a red swastika …), and the swathes of wholly unsourced text which simply lists appearances of swastika motifs in various commercial and sporting contexts, all of which belongs in Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century and not in this main article. There are, for instance, two photographs of North American sports teams, neither of which can possibly be more important than the images of Schliemann's house, or the images of the objects Schliemann and his contemporaries used to interpret the swastika.

To this end, I want to include a gallery in the 19th century section displaying the images Schliemann (and perhaps others, like Burnouf) cited in particular as inspiring their interpretation of the swastika, namely: the sarcophagus of Stilicho (Schliemann calls it the pulpit of the Basilica Sant'Ambrogio, though the mediaeval pulpit was built around the late Roman sarcophagus); the Anglo-Saxon funerary urn from Shropham (Schliemann calls it "Celtic") which was also cited by Thomas Wilson's 1896 The Swastika, the Earliest Known Symbol, and Its Migration from John Burley Waring's 1874 Ceramic Art in Remote Ages; the classical coins of Lefkada (Leucas); an example from the Roman catacombs; and if possible the archaic Attic vases in the possession of Athanasios Rhousopoulos (the English translation misspells his name as "Professor Kusopulos", but the German has "Rusopulos", and one of the vases may be in Graz, a skyphos with lid noted in the Corpus vasorum antiquorum as having come from Rhousopoulos's collection (page 36–37 & plate 12)) and the Corinthian vases Schliemann himself owned (one of these may among those Schliemann gave to Oscar II and which the king later gave to the then Ethnographical Museum of the University of Oslo, now the Museum of Cultural History, Oslo, with inventory number C41803, with the swastika on the bottom as seen in figure 13b of Seeberg 2017). The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet, @JMF, I have not got a reply from either of you. Would you please respond to my questions? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree in theory that some of the images here could be moved to Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century. However, that article is also getting overloaded with images. Perhaps we decline to show them, and just let Commons host them. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet Thanks for the reply. Many of the images (and much besides) are already duplicated at Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century, and those which are repeated here can simply be deleted. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure I recall a policy that explicitly deprecates burying an article in images and galleries, that says that this is the function of Commons, not Wikipedia. So I have asked at wp:Teahouse#Image overload policy for a reminder. IMO, the article need a drastic spring-clean.

But it also occurs to me, @The wisest fool in Christendom, that Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century would provide a more accommodating space for your material, indeed give it the space it deserves because it is critically important in that context. In this article, it can best be summarised and linked with a {{main}}. The images you have identified should absolutely be included in a Wikipedia article; the only debate is about which one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@JMF I cannot agree that any of the material I have added belongs (exclusively) at Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century. Everything I have added concerns the 19th century's scholarly interpretation of the swastika. Schliemann, for example, died in 1890 and can have nothing to do with the 20th century. Conversely, while von List died in 1919, it was his 19th-century interpretation of the swastika which is of relevance to the 19th-century use of the swastika in general and its particular use in that period as a symbol of pan-Germanism and antisemitism. Since the article "Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century" seems to exclude this theme and deals with the non-Nazi usage exclusively, and since there is no article devoted to swastikas in Nazism, or to swastikas in pre-Nazi pan-German nationalism generally, it is certainly the job of the main article (this one) to deal with the evolution of swastikas' interpretation among 19th-century scholars. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@The wisest fool in Christendom:, no, I certainly did not and so not suggest that it belongs exclusively there. On the contrary, I said that a summary of it belongs at Swastika and the full exposition can be given the space it needs at "Western use". I hadn't spotted that the Western Use article currently has next to nothing about Nazi use: that is an extraordinary omission that needs immediate rectification.

there is no article devoted to swastikas in Nazism, or to swastikas in pre-Nazi pan-German nationalism generally Well as you have all but written it already, why not go ahead and create it? You have proper sourcing so it should have no obstacles to going live. If so, then it will be the one that is summarised in both articles (so don't waste your time trying to add substantially to the Western Use article.)

In wikipedia, when articles get too long (as this one has), sub-articles get spawned off and they are summarised at the main article. This is a standard technique. A "South Asian use" daughter article could be created in the same way. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@JMF My position is that the 19th-century interpretations are not of exclusive relevance to the "Western use", still less in the early 20th century. Rather, the interpretations and scholarly exegesis of the swastika during the 19th century is and remains the most significant and widespread set of views on it. The interpretation of the swastika as an Aryan symbol, or as the symbol of the Aryans, is, for example, not at all limited to the West, but is also relevant, for example, in India. My point in saying that "there is no article devoted to swastikas in Nazism, or to swastikas in pre-Nazi pan-German nationalism generally" is to emphasize the centrality of this topic to the main article (this one). As I see it, there are and have been broadly three schools of thought on the swastika:

1. a decorative motif or symbol with more-or-less universal implications of good luck and wellbeing with vaguely cyclical or solar inferences, used in all periods and on all continents;
2. a symbol of various interpretations in various religions, including in particular Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism (as the most visible living religions in the present day) but also employed by Christians, Jews, Mithraicists, by Germanic and Graeco-Roman pagans, and others; and
3. a symbol of particular interpretation, developed in the 19th century, that the swastika had a particular Indo-European derivation and significance (usually related to fire or the sun) and was representative of historic and prehistoric Aryan civilization in general and of either German or Hindu culture in particular, with the usual corollary that being exclusive to (these) Aryan nations, the swastika was alien to non-Aryans and hence a political symbol of anti-Semitism (broadly construed as opposing Semitic peoples or Semitic religions).

I argue that № 3 is as important historically as the other two, and that this main article is the place to discuss all three interpretations. My position is that a detailed and (importantly) fully illustrated discussion of how № 1 and № 2 led to № 3 is indispensable to this article. Apart from anything else, it is № 3 that caused one regional name (swastika) to predominate over other names in English, as well as in other Western languages. It is not a summary of № 3 that is required here at swastika, but the full treatment. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

First, I thought that I had acknowledged that the "Western use" article is not the appropriate place for this material; if that was not clear, then let me affirm it now.

Second, I still think that you have shown that the material deserves its own article, but if you do not want to pursue that option, that is up to you. Certainly it must be over a year since I asked that someone fill the information gaps in the sequence that resulted in the Nazi appropriation, so of course I agree that this is essential information. So if you are content to squeeze it into this article (where it will be a needle in a haystack), then go ahead. But I invite you to read Wikipedia:Article size, especially WP:TOOBIG: the article is currently 63,231 words long, more than four times larger that the advised maximum. And it still leaves us with the problem of image overload: previously you said that your illustrations were essential – can you manage without them? The majority of readers of Wikipedia do so using a mobile: have you actually tried this yourself? It is a chastening experience.

I suspect that all this comes across as obstructive but that is emphatically not the intent. We are trying to find solutions here and in all honesty just bloating the article even more than its current morbid obesity does nobody any favours. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Consider replacing "appropriation" with "misappropriation" or using both with /

under the nazi hooked-cross image part of the text reads "appropriation", indisputably and in hindsight this appropriation is also a clear example of "misappropriation" and the page would present a clearer picture of what the original usage is and is not.

so proud of the veterans in my family that took out fascists.

Talonx77.191.128.84 (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I can see your logic but to my mind, "misappropriate" would have less impact. According to Wiktionary (in summary), "misappropriate" means "embezzle" whereas "appropriate" (v) means "To take to oneself; to claim or use, especially as by an exclusive right". A better definition of the sense we are using it is at wikt:cultural appropriation The exploitative or oppressive cooption of elements of one culture by members of a different culture. Even that is problematic because the glyph had millennia of use in northern Europe so (within the warped logic of the Nazis and their antecedents) they were using a symbol of their own culture; that it was also important to Asian cultures was [to them] incidental.

The second issue is the word swastika itself and here we have a double problem. It was the British Empire that "culturally appropriated" the Sanskrit word. As many have pointed out, the Nazis never used that name because it had not been absorbed into German as it was into English. In the English language Wikipedia, we use the word used in English; if German: hakencreuz had become absorbed into English, we would use that instead, but it hasn't.

So in my opinion at least, your suggestion (although a reasonable one) would not be an improvement. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)