Talk:Swastika/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Carlsberg, Proably the best Swastikas in the World

No mention of Carlsbergs Use of the Swastika?

Apart from that I've got to say this is a particularly good article! Well done! As far as the swastika is concerned I suspect that this was already used by the earlier Indians or the Pre-Aryans of India.I suspect that this may have been used by the Harrappa and MohenjoDaro civilization of the Indus valley.This was the first and earliest known civilzation of India.Unfortunatley they did not leave much written record to say who they were but the archaelogical excavations have proved this.But the marketing later civilisation likes to take credit for swastika.

Carlsberg and Harappa? You may want to give us some reference as to what you mean. I don't know who 'claims credit' for the swastika: it's too ancient to tell, certainly neolithic, if not older. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Carlsberg brewery used the swastika as its registered trademark 1881-1938: see the image at http://www.wongoz.com/images/tr-copenhagen-carlsbergbottles.jpg -- Picapica 09:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Corn Palace

In 1995 my family and I were on vacation in South Dakota when we visited the Corn Palace in Mitchell, South Dakota. While I was in the palace I noticed a picture of the building that had been taken in the early 20th century. The design featured a swastika on one of the towers. I don't remember the year the design was on the building, or how many swastika's were on the building even.
JesseG 20:15, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ranting Hitler likes Colours;

this article is nicely written so i dont want to insert this randomly and mess up the flow

but some nice discussion might be about how in 'mein kampf' hitler goes on for pages about why he likes red black and white, and how he theorizes about its propaganda value, from a sort of perverted marketing perspective, and how little he thinks of the 'masses' that he is leading, ie he feels that he can easily suade them to anything with certain symbols and colors because he feels they are stupid. odd thing that chapter.


the other thing about the swastika is that there is this guy named 'manwoman' who has swastikas tatooed all over his body. he currently resides in cranbrook, british columbia, canada. ---


In Christianity, it has been used as an alternative to the traditional cross. It also symbolizes the pain of Christ on the cross. Statements of 'meanings' of symbols always need a reference showing to whom that symbol was meaningful in that particular way. Especially oddball remarks about the 'meanings' of contentious symbols, eh? Notice the use of the passive voice: Legend has it that... etc etc Wetman 04:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Those Romans and Greeks, what'll they think of next?!

i think that indoeuropeans used swastika as sign of sun: Romans and Greeks did use it, didn't they? szopen

I was unaware that the Nazi swastika was a trademark. Is the "TM" in the image correct? Brion VIBBER

I am not aware Romans did use it, I heard once it effectively was the symbol of sun, perhaps in south-eastern Asia.
"TM" seems to be the initials of the author of the .png file, the sign in itself should be of public domain. Otherwise, I would like to know who could have the taste to use it as a commercial logo...
Well, apparently the Bavarian government owns the copyright to Mein Kampf in order to forbid anyone from reprinting it... Perhaps it's something like that. :) After all, who could have the taste to initial their drawing of a Nazi-style swastika? (Well, other than Nazis, obviously.) Damian, where did these images come from? Brion VIBBER
I made them. The "TM" thing was a jab at TSR (see these pages]). In any case, I've removed the TM and re-uploaded the images.
Ah, I see. Cute, but not really appropriate. Thanks for fixing them!

IIRC, the Swastika is found on some Roman mosaics, at least, in one in France that i know of.

I believe Greek Geometeric art used swastikas

The hills are alive with the sound of Spider Swastika's

In The Sound of Music, the youngest daughter called the swastika a "spider" and speculated that having to wear that symbol might be the cause of the Nazis' acting so cross all the time.

Occasionally, people who don't know the non-Nazi used of the swastika will complain when it appears on a temple (Buddhist? Hindu?) in the West.

Those Japanese, what'll they think of next?!

In Japan, the swastika is called the "manji" and is quite thoroughly unrelated to racism. It's also used throughout the ancient world -- visit Rome and look at some classical floor mosaics, for instance.

Could you kindly indicate me, please, where in Rome the swastika is in some mosaic? (talking about ancient ones, obviously) Gianfranco
I've seen quite a few swastikas, coloured like that of nazi's, in roman mosaics at Tarragona.
See Figures 2 and 4 on this site: http://romanbristol.tripod.com/avon/tockington.html

Homogenous cultures wouldn't be very likely to have problems with "racism." But as far as the article's concerned, there should be some way to organize this a little better. I'll do some reading and see if I can contribute something here. RL Barrett 03:27 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Those Isle of Manians and Sicilians, what'll they think of next?!

The three- legged badge of the Isle of Man, which is believed to share its roots with the swastika. I removed this. This image is also the ancient symbol of Sicily, the Trinacria or Triskelion. Sicily was occupied by Celtic tribes of Siceli and Sicani before the Carthaginians even arrived. Solar disk with three running legs. Later with a gorgon's head. Very interesting. But how can anyone connect this with a swastika? Wetman 02:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's not as far fetched as it may seem at first glance. Spinning motifs are found in various cultures on various continents. That isn't to say that all such motifs have a common origin; it probably has something to do with human perception -- motifs with rotational and folding symmetry seem static, while ones with rotational symmetry only seem to turn. Anyway, I've seen at least one catalog of swastika-like motifs -- I'll see what I can find at the library next time I'm there. At the very least it seems appropriate to list some other swastika-like motifs, without going into speculations. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 05:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Psueds Corner

Swastika means swa...self,astika...existance,in equally divided four parts of the world time cycle.as per shreemat bhagvat geeta kalpa age is 5000years.equally divided into four parts of satya yug,treta yug,dwapar yug and kalah yug.in this chakra souls have come from the soul world at diff times,example ebrahim 2500 years,christ 2000,buddha 2250,mohammad paigamber 1400...and so on..in the end the liberator paramatma shiv has come to liberate all the souls trapped in bodyconciousness to the original form of the soul conciousness,liberate from all sins,bounds and re establish the aadi sanatan devidevata dharma[detism] which has no address to date.as soul undergoes the process of rebirth called sato,rajo,and tamo[golden,silver,copper,iron stages ]paramatma shiva is telling THROUGH medium of prajapita brahma [corporel] the right meaning of swastika know your self...who am i? where i have come from?where/when i will go back? what is my part in this world drama? what is my relation with param atma shiv[heavanly god father]? what do i get from him? what i have lost?.....for more detailed information on swastika... you may cotact...BRHMA KUMARIS..world wide..

'swazi'

I have never heard of the swastika referred to as the 'swazi'. Even if it is, why do we have to point out that it's unrelated to the Swazi people? I mean, has anyojne ever made that confusion? I'm taking this passage Italic textoff --XmarkX 13:00, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stormie improperly censored even an external link that he didn't "like" in order to prevent others from seeing http://members.ij.net/rex/swastikanews.html and new ideas about interpreting the swastika.

Rex, if you want to peddle your opinions concerning Nazism and Socialism, go to Nazism#Nazism_and_socialism and try to work out a concensus there. Don't do it by inserting links to your personal rant site under the misleading heading "The Swastika origin and meaning". —Stormie 00:01, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Use of swastika in early Christianity

Hello. An anonymous editor added a statement [1] to the effect that the swastika was used as a substitute cross by early Christians. I can't find any substantiation for this, aside from several web pages (themselves unsubstantiated) which make the same assertion. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia [2] says the swastika perhaps owes its not infrequent adoption by Christians to its resemblance to the cross; at least this resemblance may have made the adoption easier.... If someone has something to back up the assertion that the swastika was specifically used as a crux dissimulata, then go ahead and restore the text, with a suitable reference. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Its the Gammadian (sp?) cross, made from four Greek gammas (hence it usualy only points the one way). Shows up in some medival churches, and on the floor of the Cathedral of Amiens. Its been around since the early church days, but remained relativly obscure.

Proposal for wording change re: "predates...anti-Semitism"

In the Heraldy section is the sentence: "It predates and has nothing to do with Nazism or anti-Semitism." Predates anti-Semitism? hmmm. I propose to reword this: "It predates Nazism and has no Nazi or anti-Semitic connotations" ... I will do this if I see no counterproposals within a few days. (Would have just done it, but for the obvious sensitivity of the subject). Sharkford 20:33, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Well, according to the article, the swastika dates at least to the Vedas, which in turn are dated to at least 1500 BC. I don't think it can be argued that anti-semitism originated any earlier than the Hellenistic era, so "It predates Nazism and anti-Semitism" seems correct. Of course perhaps the text can be polished but that's a lesser issue. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I object. Your proposal sentence: " "It predates Nazism and has no Nazi or anti-Semitic connotations " is even more problematic (imo, of course). Obviously, the first clause is fine, since it does indeed predate Nazism. However the second is in the present tense, and doesn't make sense with WWII. We should be clear about this, since it's a sensitive issue to many Hindus, Buddhists and Japanese religionists. I would prefer something more explicit, like: "The swastika's origin and use as a religious sigil long predate Nazism and until World War II had no Nazi or anti-Semitic overtones. In modern times the swastika is viewed in a perspectival dichotomy: many people following Eastern religions still see it as a religious emblem while most Westerners identify it with the Holocaust." You can take out my second sentence as having been stated elsewhere, but I think my objections (and proposed remedies) are hereby made clear. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:08, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Your proposed clarification is entirely sensible. The only minor change I would suggest is to substitute "Westerners identify it with the Nazis" for "Westerners identify it with the Holocaust". I guess I would also substitute "symbol" for "sigil". Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would actually disagree with "Holocaust" over "Nazis" there - David Gerard 08:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In fact, the sentence refers specifically to the Heraldic fylfot, definitely not the swastika. And my proposal was based not on an analysis of exactly when the fylfot came into use but rather the sense that anti-semitism is not so much a movement that had a beginning but rather an abstraction like Evil or Hatred (though obviously it cannot be said to have existed before Judaism), so the sentence has a dissonance at a conceptual level.
I was definitely not proposing to say "...has no anti-Semitic connotations" of the Swastika, I ought to have made it clear that it was the fylfot sentence I was pointing to. How about "The fylfot [repeating the subject, in case a reader scans the sentence out-of-context] pre-dates Nazism and was not used with any anti-Semitic connotation."
Sharkford 13:09, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
Good by me - David Gerard 14:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the context. Now I understand that you (Sharkford) were speaking of the fylfot specifically. Since we're on the topic, I'll mention that the fylfot is somewhat problematic. I'll start a new thread on that topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Made the change - but now I see WEH's comments on the fylfot, so perhaps the whole small section will disappear, or need to be replaced ... ah well. Sharkford 16:17, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Fylfot -- conjectural

The claim is made in swastika that the swastika was used as a heraldic device called a fylfot. No specific references are given to substantiate that claim. It is true that many web pages make the same claim, but none of them have any substantiation either. In the entry in OED on fylfot (quoted at [3]) there is only one instance of "fylfot" before the 19th c. -- The sole authority on which this word has been accepted by modern antiquaries as the name of the mark in question is the passage from the Lansdowne MS. quoted below. Consider also what Merriam-Webster has to say [4] -- Etymology: Middle English, device used to fill the lower part of a painted glass window (from a conjectural manuscript reading). Given that there's no evidence for fylfot as a common term for a swastika figure, I suggest we strike out the stuff about "fylfot", or (perhaps) replace it with a discussion of how there's no substantiation for claiming fylfot == swastika. I don't mean to claim that a swastika was never used in heraldry, but if it was, it was called something other than "fylfot". Wile E. Heresiarch 15:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've removed references to "fylfot" from swastika, since the term "fylfot" as a synonym for swastika has not been substantiated. It could be useful to put in a disclaimer of the form "it has been suggested that fylfot == swastika, but there's no evidence for that" to forestall the reappearance of the removed text. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A note a long time after the fact (10 Septmber 2004) to say that I restored "fylfot" on the grounds that - however shakey the pedigree - it is a term that is nowadays used to describe a swastika. But with a note to the effect that it may be spurious. --81.144.220.5 17:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Problematic statements in "Origins" section

Hello. Recently a section titled "Origins" was added [5]. The statements in that section seem problematic. (1) One statement is that swastika means "auspicious sign" in Sanskrit. This isn't consistent with the statement at the top of the article, which says swastika means "well-being" or "it is good" in Sanskrit. (2) The other statement repeats Carl Sagan's speculation about the origin of the swastika. Now I like Carl Sagan, but he had absolutely no evidence whatsoever for his comet hypothesis. The statement about the comet could be struck out immediately as ungrounded speculation, except that its association with Sagan lends it a certain cachet. -- I'm inclined to strike out both statements. Comments? Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 01:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Swastika when broken down in Sanskrit has the 's(a)(u)' prefix which means good, well, or blessed and 'astika' is essentially form, character, or figure. The other meanings given are derivative functions of its use in Hindu ceremony and philosophy, its contextual meaning. But in reality, the name means only auspicious form or blessed sign (or any permutation thereof). As for Carl Sagan, he's got a lot of dubious ideas, regardless of his reputation. I, like you, don't think his statement should be there. If it is, then it should be preceded by statements of people who actually know what they're talking about (point being Sagan should stick to physics and not speculate on cultural history and symbolism). --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I have struck out the "Origins" section. It mentioned the Vedas and Sanskrit meaning, both of which are addressed at the top of the article, and it mentioned Sagan's speculation, which has been removed from the article. Maybe Sagan's theory could be mentioned in Carl Sagan. -- I have a related question about etymology. I'll start a new thread. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Etymology

Hello. At present the article has this etymology: Sanskrit "good luck" or "well-being", literally "blessed form". I guess I am a little confused by this. There are a variety of etymologies stated in web pages, which, I'm guessing, are not reliable. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary [6] states Skt svastika, from svasti well-being, from su- well + as- to be; akin to Sanskrit asti he is, Old English is; from its being regarded as a good luck symbol. Britannica Online [7] says The word is derived from the Sanskrit svastika, meaning ?conducive to well-being.?. These two suggest that "well-being" is a literal meaning, and "good luck" and "auspicious form" are figurative meanings. That's pretty much the same as the statements above by User:LordSuryaofShropshire although not quite the same. Would someone like to comment on the differences? Given the controversies surrounding the swastika, it seems useful to seek an etymology from an authoritative source (and to cite the source in the article). A well-regarded English-Sanskrit dictionary would be appropriate, for example. Thanks for any information, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the etymology given may still be improved. The word is morphologically segmentet su-as-ti-ka. "su" is correctly explained as cognate to "eu-", meaning "well-". "asti" is "being", the verbal root is "as", cognate to English "is". the "ti" forms a verbal abstract. it is not related to the personal ending in asti "he is". So, svasti- means "well-being". the -ka is a diminutive suffix. I.e. the entire word means "little well-being", or "little thing associated with well-being". "blessed form" is therefore not a literal translation. The sign is only one among several meanings og the word, see Monier-Williams. dab 12:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sagan's swastika theory revisited

Hello. Carl Sagan's swastika theory has reappeared in swastika. I've moved it to Carl Sagan. Since the theory is unsubstantiated it seems inappropriate to give it any prominence in swastika; Carl Sagan seems like its natural home. I've left a bare mention of the theory in swastika with a wikilink to Carl Sagan; hopefully this will forestall its reappearance. I'd omit it entirely but the theory seems to have some popularity by association with Sagan. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. What do you mean about "unsubstantiated"? Sam [Spade] 17:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is a bad decision. Anyone who is idly wondering where the image of the swastika came from will no longer find any information on the swastika page. Instead, they will instead have to randomly stumble across it on the Carl Sagan page. Forgive me, but that seems silly. Sagan's theory may well be unsubstantiated, but it's not impossible either, and, more to the point, it's entirely harmless. The solution is to hide it, but to simply point out in the text that it is not proven, and is merely a theory. Put it back. The Singing Badger 18:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of whether swastika should describe Sagan's theory, let me point out that unsubstantiated, plausible speculations are not harmless. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What's the "harm" in letting people know there's an idea out there? The idea's referenced, too; it's not just stated baldly as fact or otherwise asserted unfairly. A2Kafir 00:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought the way I put it in made it clear it was speculation. That's why I pointed out that the symbol is symmetric and simple (and so may have arisen multiple times independently). A2Kafir 20:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it was clearly labeled a conjecture. However, the notability of the conjecture rests entirely on its association with Sagan. Sagan was notable, but his notability is not inherited by every one of his opinions. I could be convinced otherwise about this conjecture -- for example, has it been widely repeated and credited to Sagan? Let me note also that the allusion to symmetry and simplicity is another conjecture, and, so long as it is the conjecture of one or more Wikipedia editors, it is not notable either. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article notes that the symbol was used by many cultures worldwide for centuries for a variety of meanings, with no explanation as to why this might be. All this does is give one explanation, clearly labeled as speculation with some evidence behind it. The reader can go to the library and take out Comet if they want to follow up on it.
Put this another way: the Zia symbol, used on the state flag of New Mexico, isn't a "universal" symbol in the same way; it was NOT widely used in cultures worldwide, despite its simplicity and symmetry. Why was the pre-Nazi swastika different? Ol' Carl had an interesting idea as to why. A2Kafir 23:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And it must not be left out, nor reduced in size or importance. Sagan is as expert on this subject. Sam [Spade] 00:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sagan is an intelligent man, and he may be an expert on comets. But does that make him an expert on swastikas? Nobody disputes that there are in fact comets with swastika-like tails, it's just the idea that they are somehow involved with the origin of the sign that is of questionable noteworthiness. I must say the idea strikes me as ad-hoc and rather silly, and it is certainly not one of Sagan's brighter ideas. But I agree that it is not harmful, and it doesn't take much space, so we may as well mention it, as long as we make clear that this is pure, 100% speculation. dab 12:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Swastika vs sauwastika

Under "meanings" the idea that the left-facing Swastika is different from the Sauvastika is played down significantly. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, it says the following: "A clear distinction is made between the right-hand swastika, (…) and the left-hand swastika (more correctly called the sauvastika), which moves in a counterclockwise direction. The right-hand swastika is considered a solar symbol and imitates in the rotation of its arms the course taken daily by the Sun. (…) The left-hand swastika more often stands for night, the terrifying goddess Kālī, and magical practices." Who is right? Is EB only keeping the falsehood alive? In that case, this would be a case for the Wikipedia is better than EB page :-). — David Remahl 00:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sauvastika is a regular sanskrit "vrddhi" formation, meaning "related to the svastika". Monier-Williams gives a meaning "benedictive, salutatory" for the word sauvastika. If it was ever used for Kali etc., we would need to clearly state when, where and by whom. dab 10:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


the sauwastika paragraph is getting out of hand. We need a separate Sauwastika article, and only link to that from here. dab 20:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You beat me to it! --Ant 00:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

273 Squadron RAF

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960612/debtext/60612-41.htm search down to 273. There is/was an issue about this not being granted because they used a fylfot copied off a local temple that resembled the Swastika. http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h273.html Dunc|☺ 12:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indo-European

Can somebody do something about the horribly hearsay (no sources or specifications) "Indo-European" section? If not, I'll just remove it. dab 10:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the subsection, moving Sun cross and Brigid's cross to the "see alsos". I could find no evidence supporting the rest of this subsection. There is this site: [8] but that's hardly a source. dab 19:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

btw, here is a nice image of a 1907 greeting card. dab 19:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your recent edit removing "Early Indo-European traditions". We can restore the text when someone finds substantial citations for these statements. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:19, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Geometry

The geometry section is... well-meaning. But isn't it slightly over the top? (I mean, five images explaining the geometry of the swastika??). Couldn't some of it be exported, maybe? dab 18:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it much of a loss if the section on the terms "clockwise" and "counter-clockwise" were to be removed, along with its two attendant images. The rest of the geometry section is closer to Wikipedia style. Factitious 01:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
well, it's true that the (anti)-clockwise characterization is common, but ambiguous. The point needs to be made, and the images help. It just clogs up the flow of the article. Either export or move further down. Or leave in place, I don't know.... dab 08:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I contributed this! I understand your concern that it disrupts the flow of the article. But the ambiguity needs to be noted early in the article. What I'm saying is, "Avoid ambiguous terms like 'clockwise' or 'right-handed' in this article," and "Take care when someone says, e.g., 'clockwise' if there's no image to confirm the sense." (Counter)clockwise is used later with respect to Hindu swastikas, but I can't find an external source that indicates in which sense, so I can't change it... Cw/ccw are also used wrt the Nazi swastika where the sense is carefully described, but that could be made more succinct by saying left/right-facing. I'll undertake to trim the dry description to the bare bones. But there's also more to add about the rotation regarding the swastika as a solar symbol, which belongs early in the article. And to firm up the discussion of sauwastika (which needs careful definition which way the symbol faces). --Ant 09:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comets

I removed the parts that don't directly concern the swastika, and npoved the remaining phrasings somewhat, but that doesn't imply my endorsement of what is left behind; somebody else should look it over, too. [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 16:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

removed some more bits either not dealing with the swastika directly, or proposing misleading etymology. Probably the whole Mahabharata reference should go, as the connection bird-comet-swastika is etremely tenuous, and hardly substantiated in that text (bird-comet maybe more than bird-swastika, but this should go to an article on ancient comet observations). dab (T) 10:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Swastika as mnemonic device

The swastika is also a mnemonic device for remembering the actual name of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" because the swastika resembles two overlapping "S" letters and "S" is the first letter in the word "socialism." New graphic evidence suggests that the swastika came to have that meaning and representation.

The discovery answers the long-standing question of why the swastika was used by the National Socialist German Workers' Party as its symbol.

Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, one of the reasons that it was chosen and/or maintained by the National Socialist German Workers' Party is because it resembles the "sig rune" (a letter of an ancient Germanic alphabet shown below) which was used as a letter "S."

The double sig rune was also used side-by-side as a symbol of the "SS" division of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and for other words beginning with the letter "S" (see graphic illustrations). The swastika is also a double sig rune, but it is overlapping and not side-by-side.

An internet image search for "double sig rune" or "sig rune" or "sieg rune" or "sowilo" provides more examples.

It started in 1919, when Hitler joined the German Workers' Party, a socialist group. The group sought a new name that would attract socialists in other groups. Other German socialist groups used terms like ?National? and ?Socialist? in their titles, and the German Workers' Party adopted ?National Socialist German Workers? Party.?

The swastika was chosen with the same goal as the new name, to symbolize socialists joining together as the National Socialist German Workers' Party with the intertwined letter ?S? shapes for ?Socialism? unified, or "Socialist Solidarity" or "Socialist Struggle" for "Socialist Victory" (Sieg Socialistiche) for the "Socialist Swastika."

A fan writes "....the sieg rune is an ancient symbol of victory that Hitler stole from scandinavian mythology to symbolize the victory of the NSDAP (the National Socialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei ). The word 'Sieg' literally means 'victory' in German. (or segerruna as it's called in Swedish)."

And the sieg rune also corresponds with the letter 's' in the ancient alphabet. That provides more support for the swastika as overlapping "S" letters for "Sieg Socialistiche" (Socialist Victory).

The choice is still clouded in mystery because about the only thing Hitler ever said concerning the swastika was in 1920, when he decided that the National Socialist German Workers' Party needed its own insignia. For Hitler, the new flag had to be "a symbol of our own struggle" as well as "highly effective as a poster." (Mein Kampf, pg. 495). On August 7, 1920, at the Salzburg Congress, this flag became the official emblem of the horrid party. In Mein Kampf, Hitler described the Nazis' new flag: "In red we see the social idea of the movement, in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic." (pg. 496-497)

The red color and the "social idea of the movement" ties into socialism for which Hitler claimed he was struggling for victory.

1. The socialist swastika's arms reach clockwise. Before modern times the most common representation of swastikas was with arms that reached counter-clockwise. The reason that the National Socialist German Workers' Party turned their swastika's arms to reach clockwise was to highlight the letter ?S? shape for ?socialism.?

2. The Socialist Swastika is turned 45 degrees to the horizontal. The reason that the National Socialist German Workers' Party turned their swastika 45 degrees to the horizontal was to highlight the letter ?S? shape.

The "S is for Socialism" symbol is a mnemonic device today because a hackneyed abbreviation for "National Socialist German Workers' Party" is used exclusively by media and government schools so that most people who use the abbreviation do not know what the abbreviation abbreviates (National Socialist German Workers' Party).

The images shown at [link removed]) are photos or representations of actual banners and flags used by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Two of the flags show the name "National Socialist German Workers' Party" or "National Socialist" incircling or surrounding the swastika. Both swastikas have been turned or face the right to accentuate the "S" shape (turned by the National Socialist German Workers' Party). One of the banners includes an additional word that begins with the letter "S," (Sturmabteilung).

Another banner shows how the National Socialist German Workers' Party used other stylized "S" letters, similar to the stylizing of the swastika. In the banner the swastika itself is overlayed with two additional "S" letters in the common lightning-bolt style of the runes.

Another banner shows a single letter "S" in the lightning-bolt style of the runes, sometimes used for youth organizations.

There is a pennant with heavily stylized "SA" letters, deliberately designed to evoke the overlapping letter "S" shapes of the swastika.

The swastika was used with different meanings long before the National Socialist German Workers' Party. As an even earlier symbol in Sanskrit, the swastika means "good luck," literally "it is good" (Sanskrit is the oldest extant Indo-Aryan language retained in India) and that fit the National Socialist view of merging all socialist groups into one large organization.

In ancient times, the symbol might have also represented the sun or a wheel, thus giving rise to the modern terms "socialist sun" and "wheel of socialism" and the "circle of socialism" for the swastika of socialism.

[ User:66.234.65.212 ]

I've split this comment as there are two issues that shouldn't be conflated; the second point is below.
I've got to take issue with your comment above that "Before modern times the most common representation of swastikas was with arms that reached counter-clockwise." This is simply not true! The article itself makes this clear: the right-facing (clockwise) swastika is the more common throughout history. And it's certainly not just the Nazis that used it in this orientation in modern times: see, for example, "Johnny" Walker's page [9]. All but one of the images - the Excelsior medallion, the good-luck card, the Coca-Cola medallion, the spine of Kim, the Scout "thanks" badge, the card sent by Baden-Powell - show the right-facing swastika.
It does seem to be the case that the Nazi's originated the 45° orientation - but even that they didn't use consistently.
This could be because of the crossed sigel/sol runes. Certainly the graphic resonance is highly suggestive... but it is not compelling! In fact, one of the flags you cite about argues against this thesis: if the swastika itself comprises two S's, why overlay two additional S's?
It occurs to me that Hitler would have had no reason not to mention this idea if it had been in his mind: why not allude to the hoped-for socialist victory as well as the ostensible Aryan supremacy? If that idea had been in his mind, could his ego not have mentioned it?
In short, this is simply an ill-informed diatribe.
--Ant 23:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cover-ups on wikipedia

There are some people on Wikipedia who knowingly cover-up for the horrid Nazis, and delete even linnks (and definintely any text) to anyone who tells the truth. They include the top media cover ups: They cover up for the swastika and its use as a sick socialist symbol [link removed] They cover up for the socialist trio of atrocities. [link removed] They cover up the fact that socialists helped start WWII with the National Socialist German Workers' Party & the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as allies. [link removed] They cover up for and are deniers of the socialist Wholecaust, of which the monstrous Holocaust was part [link removed] They cover up for the National Socialist German Worker's Party and always try to use the hackneyed shorthand "Nazi" [link removed] They cover up many historic photos the Pledge of Allegiance showing the original straight-arm salute [link removed] and the fact that the Pledge's author was a National Socialist, and that the Pledge's straight arm salute was the origin of the salute of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) [link removed] As part of their cover-up they perpetuate the Roman Salute myth. [link removed] And the use the oath of the horatii as an absurd support for a Roman connection [link removed] They repeat the most common cover-ups of the media [link removed] and [link removed] And they cover up the newer U.S. Supreme Court case that exposes the socialist history of the Pledge [link removed]

As an example, most of the "Roman Salute" page on Wikipedia is pure poppycock, especially near the top "The Roman salute is a closed finger, flat-palm-down hand raised at an angle (usually 45 degrees) and was used by the Roman Republic. It was also the historical civilian salute of the United States, from 1787?-1934?, known since 1892 as the Bellamy salute. It was also the historical salute among armies of the Middle East and South America. When the Nazi party of Germany adopted the Roman salute from the Italian fascists." The foregoing is all incorrect and of course without any attribution nor support on the Wikipedia page because there is no support. It is not a Roman salute and never was.

Similar criticisms apply to the Wikipedia pages on Francis Bellamy, Edward Bellamy and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Whenever someone tries to point out the constant cover-ups they engage in personal attacks, deletions, and threats to ban anyone who exposes the cover-ups because they are unwilling to engage in reasoned discussion. [ User:66.234.65.212 ]

wtf? dab (ᛏ) 11:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rex is just this guy who likes to insert links to his personal rants into Wikipedia articles. Of course, they instantly get removed, since they are basically spam and not remotely encyclopedic; but every few months he notices and re-inserts them, along with various ramblings about censorship and conspiracy on the part of the editors who removed them - generally, some random person who happened to see his edits on Recent Changes and say, as you did, "wtf?". —Stormie 08:44, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hitler's bedroom

removed part saying Hitler as a child could see a swastika from his bedroom. No reference, sounds like a hoax. I could find [10]

Hitler took the symbol, which is believed to have been part of the carvings in the Catholic Church he attended in Linz

which is somehow more credible, but I'd still like to know who 'believes' that. Not that it's terribly relevant anyway, of course. dab (ᛏ) 09:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BBC

Following the recent kerfuffle regarding Prince Harry's choice of fancy dress costume, the BBC has done this short piece on the origins of the swastika which is a nice précis of (and refers to) this article. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yeah, they should donate!
arh, but they got the etymology quite wrong, and what's this
Indo-European culture it was a mark made on people or objects
I thought we cut the "Indo-European" from the article months ago :o\ dab (ᛏ) 19:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And now the article refers back to the BBC - all very self-referential :/ -- ALoan (Talk) 19:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not just a precis - they actually lift some phrases straight out of the article, see e.g. the para starting "The British author Rudyard Kipling". The only way they can legally do so would be if they explicitly publish their piece under the terms of the GFDL... someone should contact them, not to rant at them, but to politely request this.
  • well, they did link to us. just lifting a few phrases is not blatant plagiarism, we know there is plenty of that on WP, too. Paraphrasing WP and selling it as your work is not a sign of good journalism, though, I agree (hey, some phrases of mine were on BBC :) . dab (ᛏ) 09:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

cut anon addition

If one looks closely at the ceiling of the famous Hofbrauhaus ( http://www.hofbraeuhaus.de/ )in Munich, swastikas can still be clearly seen. They appear as four blue and white Bavarian flags, as if waving in the breeze emanating from a central point, each flag folded over in the middle to make the 90 degree angle.

I fear this goes a bit far in a Rorschach inkblot test direction (if we mention individual swastikas, they should at least have some notability). If this case is notable, well, sorry, put it back, then. dab (ᛏ) 19:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Veda??

who wrote "it was first mentioned in the Vedas"? Meaning the svastika? I am afraid it is only mentioned in the epos (Ramayana). The word does not exist in Vedic Sanskrit, see [11]. dab (ᛏ) 13:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sanskrit character order

I corrected the Sanskrit character order. The Unicode standard 4.0.0, section 9.1 says: "In a text sequence, these [Devanagari] characters are stored in logical (phonetic) order." So, I should be entered after TA, not before. T42 00:45, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

The Sanskrit Spelling of Swastik is wrong!!!

Can any body correct the Sanskrit spelling, it reads "Swastakey" the "e-kar" should be on "ta" not "ka".

did you not note the preceding comment? I think your browser renders the correct encoding incorrectly. We don't need the Devanagari spelling, though, because we have the correct, equivalent Sanskrit transliteration, svastika. I opt for removing the devanagari altogether, because half of the browsers don't render it correctly, and people keep changing it to and fro. dab (ᛏ) 14:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My vote

I say that, since there are display problems with Devanagari even for modern browsers, someone whose computer can display it correctly should take a screenshot of it, crop it, upload it as a .png image, and stick in on this page so we can all see it. Then we won't need the Devanagari encoding (though it should be replaced as soon as browsers start to commonly support it). Chamaeleon 15:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the devanagari is a read herring. As you can read on Sanskrit there is no particular historical association of Sanskrit with Devanagari. We could just as well spell the word in a dozen other scripts. It does not add any information: it is completely equivalent to svastika. Don't create an image, just remove it. dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recommend to demolish this article to a mere stub and link from there

I hereby recommend to reduce the current (otherwise big mess) swastika article on Wikipedia to a mere stub and instead branch it into three separate articles, as in "Swastika in the eastern hemisphere", "Swastika in the western hemisphere" and "Swastika in the natural world" (for comet-like stuff).

The current situation where the entire swastika-verse is stuffed into a single article is plain unacceptable. Religious hindu, shintoist and buddhist people are offended. There are more than two-hundred-million english-speaking people in India and more and more of them have access to the Internet (see outsourcing). They have nothing to do with nazism and you torment them by forcing them to shift through Hitler-related material. Also, jewish people will feel very bad learning that Japanese kids like to play with little swastika paper flags. The japanese feel unjust to take blame, because there are no jews living in Japan and Hitler is little reality for their world.

Thus, separate articles linked to a common mere stub would allow each visitor to read the tratise relevant to his/her culture and beliefs. Of course if he/she feels like it, the other article is there to read for him/her, but he/she is not forced to do so and any emotinal distress can be avoided. Stop coercing.

I hereby recommend to reduce the swastika wikipedia article to a mere stub, that says this and nothing more:

"The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit language and describes a cross with arms, angled 90 degrees to either right or left. It is usually oriented horizontally or at a 45 degrees angle. The swastika appears in the nature as well in art and design throughout human history, symbolising many different things.

The meaning humans attached to the swastika is inconcileably different in the eastern (asian) and western (european-originated) cultures. In the _brackets_ european and atlantic sphere swastika _brackets_ has taken on an entirely condemnable meaning due to 20th century historical events. In _brackets_ asian cultures swastika _brackets_ has been a predominantly religious symbol of holy-ness and good luck for several millenia.

Because of such inconcileable differences this Wikipedia article is intentionally kept as a stub and visitors are advised to proceed by reading any of the above linked articles which shall correspond to their own cultural background. Visitors may also check the other culture's viewpoint if they wish so, but Wikipedia forewarns visitors that they may be offended."

Then these three articles should be created and linked with the titles: - Swastika in the nature - Swastika in the eastern hemisphere - Swastika in the western hemisphere

Obviously the relevant info should be relocated from the current swastika "salad" article into these new articles.

The madness of a failed painter shall not defamate thousand years of religious tradition and the holy meaning attached to a symbol should not overshadow the gassing death of millions.

Thanks for your attention, Sincerely: Tamas Feher "etomcat@freemail.hu"

Wikipedia F-A-C

P.S.: I guess once the splitting into three parts is done, it would be much easier to pass the swastika topic as a Wikipedia Featured Article of good community work.

If you keep the stuff in one lump, it will always be controversial and never gets approved. — 12:04, 17 Feb 2005 User:195.70.48.242

I respectfully disagree. The different connotations of the symbol are tied up inseparably, and must be explained in relation to one another. The article does not seem to be controversial at the moment. The talk page has been quiet for a while, at any rate, and I do think the article has consolidated. We need to clean up the 'origins' section a bit, possibly, but apart from that I'm quite happy with it. dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bug Report

Your 'Hindus in Britain launch campaign to revive the Swastika' link is broken. I think it's especially important as the German government are trying to get the Swastika banned throughout the European Union. The more people who know that the swastika pre-dates Herr Schickelgruber and his cronies by about 5000 years the better.Conch Shell 11:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A link to an alternative story (indiainfo.com) has been provided - the original Australian ABC story has now expired. -- Arwel 15:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Germans are pathetic so I'm not even going to address them trying to ban the symbol. I think every Hindu should have a right to wear a swastika anywhere they damn well please and if they can't I think that the people who opposed them should be charged with hate crimes.

Ramayana and Mahabharata epics

Hello. I wonder if we might expand the reference to the Sanskrit epics. At present we have The word first appears in the Classical Sanskrit (in the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics). Do we want to cite chapter and verse here? (Does "swastika" appear just once or twice, or lots of times?) Also, does "swastika" have the same meaning in the epics as it does in contemporary Hinduism, or has that changed over time? Dunno if we really want to go into more detail here, but it seems worth it to bring it up. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had collected the actual occurrences at sa:, but it was deleted. Can't be bothered to collect it again. It was something like a dozen occurrences. I thinks it means "lucky charm" more generally, there and does not necessarily refer to the crooked cross. regards, dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, that's interesting, thanks for the info. Can we say something about when the word "swastika" was first associated with the figure now called the swastika? best, Wile E. Heresiarch 18:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


according to Monier-Williams [12], the term meant:

  • a dish of a particular form, in Ramayana and Mahabharata
  • a bard, in Ramayana
  • the crossing of the arms or hands on the breast, in Mahabharata
  • any lucky object, and 'especially' the 'mystical' crooked cross, in Harivamsa, Kavya literature, Puranas.

it will be impossible to say if a given occurrence of the term as a symbol refers to the crooked cross, or a different shape. The earliest date of the meaning of the crooked cross symbol among other meanings is in Classical (not Vedic) Sanskrit, almost certainly less than 2000, and almost certainly more than 1000 years ago. dab (ᛏ) 11:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I grepped the Mbh. and Ram. occurrences again, after all. There are 13. I didn't translate, but apparently they do all not refer to the crooked cross. They're just the oldest testimony of the word itself.

Mahabharata:
2.19.9.c: svastikasya_aalayash ca_atra  |  ma.ni-naagasya ca_uttama.h /9/
3.146.66.a: baahu-svastika vinyasta  |  piina-hrasva-shiro dharam /
4.63.27.a: shrutvaa tu tad vacana.m paarthivasya  |  sarve puna.h svastika-paa.nayash ca /
5.101.5.a: ma.ni-svastika cakra_a~Nkaa.h  |  kama.n.daluka lak.sa.naa.h /
7.58.19.a: svastikaan vardhamaanaa.msh ca  |  nandy-aavartaa.msh ca kaa~ncanaa /
9.44.60.c: aanandash ca pramodash ca  |  svastiko dhruvakas tathaa /60/ 60
12.40.7.c: svastikaan ak.sataan bhuumi.m  |  suvar.na.m rajata.m ma.niin /7/


Ramayana:
2.14.26.b: pura.hsarai.h svastika-suuta-maagadhai.h  |   pura.hsarai.h svastika-suuta-maagadhai.h / {Gem}
2.83.11.a: anyaa.h svastika-vij~neyaa  |  mahaa-gha.n.daa dharaa varaa.h /
2.83.12.a: tata.h svastika-vij~neyaa.m  |  paa.n.du-kambala-sa.mv.rtaam /
5.1.17.a: shirobhi.h p.rthubhi.h sarpaa  |  vyakta-svastika-lak.sa.nai.h /
5.3.22.c: sita_abhra-sad.rshaish citrai.h  |  padma-svastika-sa.msthitai.h /
6.116.34.a: sa puro-gaamibhis tuuryais  |  taala-svastika-paa.nibhi.h /

dab (ᛏ) 11:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


images

we really have to decide on some guidelines as to which images are notable. There are simply too many images of swastikas floating around to pile them all up here. Some were removed now, I supposed the punk image, and also the cuba image were not absolutely necessary. but which are? the ruble-note should go, imho, the swastika is not even visible in the thumbnail. also, the desecrated cemetary is certainly necessary in the 20th century section, but now the raelian logo is the only image presented beside it. surely the raelians are not notable enough to warrant that? I'd just like to hear a few opinions on where we should go from here. dab (ᛏ) 08:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, you may not have realised, but this article is currently up for FA status (see top of page). Secondly, I agree with you about the images. It certainly was a mess when I first came across it. I'll remove the picture of the note, as it's not really either illustrative or even good. In addition, I don't think the issue of the Raelians' notability is actually important. The image is excellent, and highly illustrative of the effect that the Nazi use has had. I guess we could introduce that photo of the front page of the Sun on Prince Harry's page... What do you reckon? Smoddy (tgeck) 09:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
whoops, I thought that was still the old nomination banner hanging around. I don't see how the Raelian logo is supposed to illustrate anything about the Nazis, though, and no, I definitely object to Harry's image (is it even fair use?) -- that's perfectly non-notable, and will be forgotten in a year or two. dab (ᛏ) 08:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that it illustrates the effect that the Nazis had on the perception of the swastika, in that they were forced to alter it. Smoddy (tgeck) 09:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)