Template talk:Hindu Links

message: Take a look at these templates:
* (top left)
* (bottom)
* (top right)
* (top right)
* (left)
with the :Image:HinduSwastika.svg displayed prominently. Honestly, of all of Hinduism's symbols' did this one have to get "headline" billing on these templates? Alternatives are aplenty if one were to look around on articles listed on  where there are dozens of less offensive symbols that could be chosen for the same purpose. While the swastika may be ok with some Hindus, it should not be flashed around "in all innocence" because for the rest of the world that was caught up in World War II it was the symbol of literal EVIL, DEATH and DESTRUCTION emanating from the Nazis. It was Hitler's personal diabolical "symbol of choice" and for that reason it is VERY far from neutral, no matter in what context it is used. It violates Wikipedia:Civility to have it displayed in such an "in your face" fashion on these Hindu templates, giving it a dubious "place of pride" it does not deserve. Need one say more? IZAK 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find the above comment offensive. The swastika used in these templates is of a form used for millennia in Hindu contexts, and to this day widely displayed in India. To deny Hindu people the use of their religious symbolism is POV, and given the fact that Hindus are overwhelmingly of Indian ethnicity, could be racist also. DuncanHill 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are offended?, how do you think the Holocaust dead and their families and people feel? Can you prove that this symbol has to be "the" symbol of Hinduism on Wikipedia when it is such a vast religion with so many symbols. There must be better choices that will not press others' red buttons? IZAK 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny Swastika

message: As per the (current) consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hinduism it is felt that while Swastika is an important symbol for Hinduism, using it in the welcome template leaves open the possibility of it being displayed on user-pages where the user/other viewers may mistakenly identify it with the similar but distinct Nazi Swastika. Since the latter is highly hurtful to some people, and the welcome template may not provide the context necessary for a casual viewer to appreciate the differences between the design and associations of the two swastikas, it was thought considerate to replace the symbol with the red Aum image in this template. 
At the same time, it is (currently) considered appropriate to display the Hindu Swastika sign on other Hindu project templates since they appear in mainspace attached to a Hinduism related article - and this distinction should prevent the reader from misidentifying the symbol. Abecedare 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: now it just looks bloated.--D-Boy 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are images even necessary? I wonder if they help in recruiting Wikipedians to WikiProject Hinduism. That huge discussion has made me think whether any Hindu symbol is truly needed on the templates. GizzaChat © 05:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this as well as a possible solution. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christians and muslims have the cross, arabic, and the cresent as their decorations I see no reason to change.--D-Boy 14:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  (a) There are no two different Swastikas, just like Arial and Times New Roman are not two different scripts.  (b) This removal sets a bad precedent on wikipedia, I hope we don't see such things repeated over and over again on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification