Talk:Swastika

"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)

The article states that "In Poland, public display of Nazi symbols, including the Nazi swastika, is a criminal offence punishable by up to eight years of imprisonment. The use of the swastika as a religious symbol is legal." This seems incorrect. The source provided doesn't support any of that, only claiming that "[...] the Polish government hopes that tighter legislation will crack down on the trade in materials bearing Nazi emblems. Markets in western Poland have profited from German neo-fascists buying Third-Reich memorabilia such as swastikas and pictures of Hitler that are prohibited under their own country's stringent regulations." All I could find is Article 256 of Polish Penal Code, which states that anyone who "produces, records or imports, obtains, distributes, offers, stores, owns, presents, transports or sends print, recording, or other item, containing [...] nazist, communist, facist, or other totalitatian symbolism, used in a manner of propagation of content defined in § 1 or 1a" faces upwards of 3 years imprisonment - not 8. Noskillbutstill (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

in 2026, still claiming that the Hakenkreuz and the swastika are somehow related and should be in the same page is ignorant and cultural theft of the term. The nazis never used the term "swastika," nor did they ever use a swastika. It is a hooked cross, and they need to be differentiated in order to begin the process of restoring the name of a sacred symbol to its adherents ~2026-21772-38 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The symbol is eternal, it has different names is different languages. Read the FAQ at the top of this page. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion archives, I find myself entirely unconvinced of the rationale to put the Hindu/Jain/Dharmic-in-general, cultural context Swastika and the Nazi, hate symbol Swastika on the same page. By putting the two concepts together, even if Hitler referred to the Hindu symbol as equivalent to the Nazi usage, does nothing but blackwash the cultural symbol.

In my opinion, Swastika itself should NEVER have a primary topic because of the extreme difference in usage. Any attempt at putting the two together will only serve to further ostracise any cultural usage of the swastika. Even if today the Nazi Swastika is the primary association in the west, this represents only approximately 1-1.5 billion people, only as many as those who primarily associate the Swastika with Hinduism, Jainism, and other Dharmic/East Asian religions. Putting these two concepts in the same article has the same effect as saying "your religion is Nazism" to a Hindu or Jain.

The only appropriate namespace for Swastika as an article is as a disambiguation between Swastika (religious/cultural symbol) and Swastika (Nazi symbol). Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is not the same as is found in the mainstream literature about the topic. A majority of sources discuss the swastika's two different aspects in the same breath. I fear that splitting the two aspects into different pages would whitewash the Nazi aspect. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem here is that having both primary topics shared in the same article, alongside how the FAQ is provided, means that we concede to Hitler that yes, the Dharmic religious symbol is a symbol of hate. Splitting the article in three, leaving this page as an overview of the Swastika itself (while leaving absolutely no ambiguity or possible whitewashing by stating in the overview article that the symbol was used by the Nazi Party), should be how it goes because otherwise the same discussions will only repeat themselves. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 20:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It is also very important to inform readers who visit the article with particular national preconceived ideas that the topic is much wider. People from the west need to know that it is a religious and auspicious symbol in the east (as it was also in the west before 1935). People in the east need to know why it is a badge of vicious racism in the west since the 1920s and continues to be so. All need to know that its usage long predates any culture extant today. The article documents recent cases where people in the west have taken offence at the symbol being used as a good-luck motif on toys imported from the far east.

The swastika is a symbol in worldwide use and thus the article must have a worldwide perspective. So this is a strong oppose to your proposal. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Am I also to take it that you oppose creating fork articles that document the Swastika's use as a religious/cultural symbol and as a hate symbol respectively? Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 21:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you are not. Indeed, if I recall correctly, I was one of those who "encouraged" creation of Western use of the swastika in the early 20th century, because the material had become WP:UNDUE and disproportionate in this article. Like much of the rest of Wikipedia, we have and need a solid top-level article that sets out the principle perspectives and provides hooks for more detailed articles that explore specific aspects. But it needs to be more than a simple wp:broad concept article, because it is not abstract and because it does not cover the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)