Talk:Swastika

This article needs to be fixed

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

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

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

Nazi symbol is Hakenkruez not Swastika.

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not here to correct something you think is wrong. Rather, Wikipedia summarizes the mainstream literature about a topic. Your request has no chance of happening. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You should think twice before giving your lecture here it's clearly mention in every German document that Swastika is different and German Nazi symbol hakenkruez is different just because it belongs to Christianity that's why you are not accepting it we have prove and documented old 1930 document and newspaper articles and German published real document on internet sites you can find it easily so I believe Wikipedia good correct it if you don't have information then take it from my account and email you the information then uploaded on Wikipedia don't give miss information about Swastika and hakenkruez

Just 100 years ago, in an article dated Nov 21, 1922, the New York Times, in its first ever coverage of Hitler, called his movement the “Hakenkreuz Movement” and referred to his followers as “Hakenkreuzlers.Another 1934 New York Times article, even reported about the Nazi Newspaper, accurately calling it the Hakenkreuz Banner, versus anything related to Swastika.New York Times’ March 1933 coverage of Hitler’s “Hooked Cross.”The popularization of "Swastika" in Media TerminologyHakenkreuzbanner, The Nazi NewspaperIn a similar vein, 1925 edition of The Jewish Daily Bulletin Index (page 14-15), made repeated references to Hitler’s followers as the “Hakenkreuzlers,” documenting their attacks on Jews, women’s groups and more. 18 mentions of this word can be found in the paper.We can also look at the records of the Nazis themselves, who published their own paper in Mannheim from 1931- 1945. Not surprisingly, the paper was known as the “Hakenkreuzbanner”, and not any word related even remotely to “Swastika 2409:40C4:28:4FD4:D82C:465A:8DC2:EB9B (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I sympathize. I honestly do. It is terrible that we have ended up in this place where the Swastika is associated with evil. Were Swatika and hakenkreuz different and distinguishable at some point in time? Quite possibly. But the sad fact is that the term Swastika is the one used in the vast majority of English sources to date. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not leading. I am all for the various efforts to educate people and distinguish the symbols. But until such efforts take hold, Wikipedia should remain the way it is. Change the world, and Wikipedia will surely follow. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It is amazing that English speaking Christians in western world could not find a Kosher English word for the German word Hakenkreuz used by Hitler and his Nazis.

For any educated and sensible person it would be simple "Crooked Cross", but as Hitler and Nazis were all true Christians and followed the same sacred cross as their enemies, it would be unthinkable to tarnish our Christian Cross.

So the most convenient thing was to associate our enemy's Christian Crooked Cross with an ancient alien culture and pick their Sanskrit language word "Sawastika"(Holy and auspicious) which was used in most of the temples and scriptures of Buddist, Hindu and Jain religion.

Most English speaking population would have never heard of it.

Therefore it was not Hitler but the English speaking Christians who translated "Hakenkreuz" to Sanskrit word Sawastika rather than two simple english words "Crooked CROSS"

Let's please be honest and acknowledge the real meaning of Hakenkreuz and give back Sawastika to the real peaceful ancient religions worldwide. Koshswstka (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What are your sources for English speaking Christians being responsible? Adolf Hitler pretended to be a Christian but actually despised Christianity. I don't know how many senior Nazis were Christian. This is a waste of time without reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

... and if you actually read the article, you would know that the British Empire adopted the Sanskrit word (and it association with good fortune) at least one hundred years before the German Volksich group adopted it independently from ancient Nordic culture. No translation involved. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And that's the nub of the issue. The swastika and the hakenkreuz are visually indistinguishable even if they represent very different things. The swastika (symbol and term) was well known in the western world well before the Nazis. What else were they going to call it, especially the British elite with their background in the Raj? Certainly not some German word favoured by the Nazis. Can you imagine Churchill et al. saying to themselves "we must respect Nazi sensitivities and use the word they have allocated to this symbol and forget what we learnt for our Cambridge tripos". DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is confusing

I have been hearing more and more that the Swastika has been appropriated by the Nazis from the Hindus. This clashed with my previous knowledge that it was actually the adoption of a similar symbol that had been developed in parallel in Europe. So I came to this article to get a bit of clarity on the matter.

The article mentions the cultural appropriation in the lead, but then fails to mention it in the body. The body actually seems to support my previous knowledge of parallel development by describing all the places where the swastika has appeared (including northern europe) and even mentions that the earliest known swastika is from 10,000 BCE and was found in the Ukraine. So what is the right answer?

This article should either develop further the culture appropriation issue in the body, explaining the historical link between the Hindu swastika and the Nazi swastika, or eliminate it from the lead. As it is, it seems confusing and even contradictory. Shadowphoenixpt (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to emphasize the following terms found in the Swastika § Etymology and nomenclature section with respect to their use in the Third Reich:

• hooked cross (German: Hakenkreuz), angled cross (Winkelkreuz), or crooked cross (Krummkreuz)

The primary manifestation of the Nazi use of the swastika was turned on the diagonal, which I believe was very unusual, if existant at all, in other cultures. Perhaps we can call out this distinctive feature. I speculate that other cultures / religions may consider the 45° rotation of the swastika to be a perversion of the symbol itself. Does anyone have any citations for this? Peaceray (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shadowphoenixpt: you informants are confusing two things. The word swastika was appropriated from Sanskrit, but it was by the British Empire, not the Nazis. The symbol itself has a long history in northern Europe too (as the article describes). Our use of the word appropriation is the sense of "taking it for themselves to the exclusion of all others" (which they didn't really do, just everybody else backed away).

@Peaceray: The diagonal form was used on the Nazi flag but the vertical form was extensively used by them too; you would need an RS that considers the distinction notable. German: Hakencreuz is just that, German. The terms gammadion and fylfot have also been used but this is the English language wikipedia and the only word that has ever been used in English is Swastika. In the light of subsequent developments, this is more than unfortunate but it is not our role to WP:Right great wrongs. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I get it now. But maybe it should be explained in the lead that it was the name that was actually appropriated, not the symbol, to avoid confusion. As it currently stands, it states "German Nazi Party who appropriated it from Asian cultures starting in the early 20th century" which it's easy to misunderstand. Shadowphoenixpt (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the whole symbol was appropriated. See the FAQ at the top of this talk page which quotes Hitler describing how the Nazi symbol was previously seen in India and Asia on temple walls, etc. It wasn't just the name. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the vertical form was used, but it is almost self-evident that the primary form was on the diagonal. I will see what RS can be found. Peaceray (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Upadate Referncies. 57. "Right-Facing Svasti Sign" link http://unicode-table.com/en/0FD5/ is redirected to https://symbl.cc/en/0FD5/ Res0lution (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I replaced this reference with an archived copy, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Direction of movement, Vinča & modern use

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

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

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