Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Archive 3

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion]] 

message: Hi: Since we are centralizing the discussion here, the following is posted here for other views on the subject:
From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Funny Swastika:
Take a look at these templates:
* (top left)
* (bottom)
* (top right)
* (top right)
* (left)
with the  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 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a religious symbol, plain and simple. Not everyone in the world are racist or a Nazi. I understand that your hatred for what Hitler did is very passionate, but you need to stop looking at everything like it’s a plot against the Jewish people on Wikipedia. I'll admit that it's not a traditional-looking swastika which normally opens to the left. This is a Buddhist symbol.(Ghostexorcist 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm: So what about the guy who posted  one of the templates () on my talk page, what the heck did I do to deserve a "welcoming swastika"  -- a totally absurd move -- either the guy lacks total perspective and he's clue-less or he is verging on truly "Dangerours" behaviour (note his user name: User:Dangerous-Boy -- obscured with "D-Boy"). Have you ever heard of the Holocaust many people associatete that, and not Hindusim, with the swastika, any swastika, so would it make sense to plaster an image like the one below on Hindu-related pages and templates? Tactless, pointless, and bound to create ill-feeling, right? Or what do you say, swastikas are like cute stickers? IZAK 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, I think I understand and somewhat share your feelings, but IMHO you are overreacting here. Nazi swastika looked different and symbolized something very different. More importantly, I don't see an evidence of their intention to offend, and they seem to simply celebrate their religion. Perhaps more education/reconciliation is in order. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Humus: Thanks for your input, but for most people, even intelligent ones, "a swastika, is a swastika, is a swastika" -- I am not saying that the intention was deliberate, I am saying that this symbol is "too hot to handle" and that if they have better alternatives they should use it, as not everyone can stay calm and get educated about the nuances of swastikas when about 65 yeears ago their ancestors were murdered by the millions with hazy ("warm and fuzzy") swastikas fluttering all over the place... It's a two-way street, as we take our time getting educated (it may take about two thousand years) they also need to get educated about what it means to some other people who hate it for very good reasons. IZAK 01:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, the swastika is widely used in India.  Religious books quite often have a swastika in the front pages.  Many Hindus are quite naturally proud of their heritage and the thus wish to proudly display the symbolism that is associated with that heritage.  Although there is a possibility that placing the swastika on your page was intended to offend, I think it is a stretch to assume that this possibility is what definitely occured.  But the intent of the editor who left the template on your page aside, yes, I agree that it would be best to use a symbol which is not so inflammatory.  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I am not saying that this symbol should be banned, on the contrary, let there be articles about it that explain what it means. Many people recall that it was the symbol of the Nazi Third Reich and all the pain, suffering and trauma that the world suffered under that symbol. Hindus are free to choose many symbols, they believe in many gods, I don't believe the swastika is the symbol of Hinduism and I do not think that it is in their interests to present themselves to the world (to many other non-Hindus) under such a horrible and horrid symbol of modern Fascism. IZAK 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that the swastika was the symbol of Hinduism.  However, it is one of the symbols of Hinduism and is widely used.  It is unnecessary for us to decide whether "it is in [Hindus] interests to present themselves to the world under under such a horrible and horrid symbol of modern Fascism."   It is only necessary to decide whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have swastikas which do not contribute to the encyclopedic purpose of providing a source of information.  --BostonMA talk 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sounds reasonable. As long as they change it soon on all those templates. IZAK 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk of over-reaction. And don't misquote me! I didn't "pretty much" say anything the way you report. Here is what I said  "And I was also right that civilization cannot wait 2000 years to get educated. Some things are too painful and should not be abused or covered up with "education needed" that is the way all totalitarians reacted, they sent people for "re"-education"...IZAK 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then I called you a Bigot and a racist!(Ghostexorcist 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you see I am not mad at you! Stick to the points of the discussion and be rational. I need to do some shopping for Shabbat now. See ya! IZAK 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, keep them in, they bring credit and admiration for Hunduism... IZAK 02:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Swastika in the template does bring credit and admiration. What are you implying with your ellipses? --Eqdoktor 08:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The cross is the UNIVERSAL symbol of Christianity that no-one disputes and everyone knows it was from (Roman) wood of two beams crossed to crucify people (so you are dreaming if you think it's a "dagger"), can you say the same thing about this Hindu swastika?, maybe someone wants to push that one more than a hundred other ones. No good pictures of golden Indian statues with six arms that are far more POSITIVELY indentified with Hinduism? IZAK 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cross is the representation of an ancient torture/execution implement used by the Romans (which has been pointed out as an irony by numerous philosophers). There are certain christian sects (Jehovah's Witnesses) that eschews the use of the cross, so its by no means "THE" universal symbol of christianity - just the most common. Also, like the swastika, the Christian cross also has numerous variations - for example the coptic cross. Hinduism is not the only religion in which the Swastika is a respected symbol, Buddhism and Shintoism for example. --Eqdoktor 08:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Arjun: That is what the articles are for teach away. But to make it the official symbol of Hindusim on so may templates is not fair or honest when it is not "the" main symbol of that religion and it's offensive to most Jews and to Judaism, AFAIK. When I got a message  with that hated symbol on my talk page, it was a shock. I am not about to get re-educated about a symbol that was used by the mass-killers during the Holocaust. So it's a two-way street, you also need to get "educated" that this symbol, in any way it's depicted is despised by many people because, for better or worse, Hitler adopted it for the Nazis and then they flew it on their flag as they almost destroyed the civilized world. Do you want to be associated with that, or don't you care? It is not so simple as "religious this and religious that" excuses.IZAK 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure IZAK realizes that. MetsFan76 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh hi MetsFan: Fancy meeting you here! IZAK 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh trust me...there is nothing fancy going on here.  I actually enjoy watching your rants.  It's  better than FOX News which probably isn't saying much. MetsFan76 03:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cmon Mets, I know you have me on your watch list! What you call a rant others call brilliance! ;-} IZAK 03:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I have you on my watchlist.  There's nothing I like better than coming home from a long day at work and tuning in to the IZAK Channel.  I think it should be made available to Cablevision subscribers.  That way, everyone can see ignorance at its best. MetsFan76 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mets: It's easy to sit around waiting for another guy to stick his neck out for something he really cares about and then play the caring outsider. So far, I haven't seen that you care about much of anything except you come around to discussions that I am involved with and start acting like some sort of self-appointed umpire. Go write something and edit articles you know something about instead of wikistalking me for no good reason. IZAK 06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
replies: text: Yes, I am offended - and I'm not Hindu. I haven't said that the Swastika should be "the" symbol of Hinduism - please don't distort what I have said. Most of my Jewish relatives lost family during the Holocaust, and yet they all seem able to understand that the Hindu use of the Swastika is unrelated to its use by the Nazis. Please try to remember IZAK, that Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia, and not a vehicle for your POV on religions other than your own. The form of Swastika used on the Hinduism templates is significantly different in form from that used by the Nazis. Hinduism is indeed a vast religion with many symbols, but speaking from my experiences in India, the Swastika is very widely used, in some areas it is much more common than the Aum, in some areas less common. Perhaps if you learned a little more about the history of the Swastika as a symbol you would be able to understand that for billions of people over thousands of years it has had nothing to do with the atrocities of 12 years of Naziism. DuncanHill 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish talk objections

message: This section contains an archived straw poll that was decided to be a very bad idea. Please do not modify it.
Please remember, it is ultimately the Hindu project's decision to remove or keep the Swastika. No amount of "questionable" citations or objections will change that. However, I suggest that we hold an informal survey to show who thinks what should stay.
We will let this poll go for about 3 days. I suggest we keep an open eye out for people who might spread the wrong impression of the swastika to other users who may not now the difference between that utilized by the Nazis and Hindus. We wouldn't want a mountain of votes from people thinking the Hindus are Nazis. But, again, if the Project wants to keep it, they will. All in favor of...
Keeping the Swastika
#(Ghostexorcist 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I 2nd.  All in favor say "aye", opposed "nay"?  Tomertalk 06:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loudly thirded. I removed it once, only to be reverted by the poll's creator. *sigh*. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The irony of using Robert's Rules of Order to remove a bad straw poll per WP:DDV is killing me... --tjstrf talk 07:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No it's not. Removing an invalid poll is not vandalism. Putting nonsense or blanking valid content is. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: This section contains yet another archived straw poll that was decided to be a bad idea. Please do not modify it.
Maybe the best way to approach this is to formally move to determine what the consensus is. On that basis, I propose the following question below. Other editors should feel free to add other similar questions, as they arise, immediately afterword. Badbilltucker 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your proposal, bob.--D-Boy 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am reading here seems to indicate that this might offend many more Hindus just to assuage the feelings of one Jewish editor. Hmm...It sure sounds to me that this is not a good idea to support then. If this continues, I will withdraw my support--Filll 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you truly believe this is about Hindus vs. Jews, you shouldn't support this consensus. I am hopeful you will realize that this is not the case. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is exactly what has happened. All that discussion poisoned by an insipid idea to misuse a poll. A classic bad idea (despite the warning), or an intentional attempt to prevent ANY modification of the use of a swastika on Hinduism pages, regardless of that symbol's overall encyclopedic value on that template. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: User's sixth edit. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, I'll remove the word from the headers. However, they were unnecessary and at least the first one was definitely set up as a vote, not a discussion poll. --tjstrf talk 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another patent misuse of polls. Polls are not discussion and have decidedly different results, often exacerbating problems when used incorrectly. WP:POLLS, Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another straw poll

message: My honest thanks for a spirited debate - and my honest wishes for good faith and happiness for everyone who has participated - no matter their POV. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For all the editors here

message: I tried moving the swastika to the bottom of the welcome template and adding some text, see this version of the template near the bottom.  I don't like it much (text is too long-winded among other things) and would rather that the template just not have swastikas.  Anyway feel free to revert or modify, I just put it up as a possible approach to look into, including for other related templates. 67.117.130.181 07:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad as a compromise move if removing the swastikas from the welcome template fails to gain consensus. --tjstrf talk 07:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit  is good. 67.117.130.181 08:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I tried adding some context to the template

message: My thought is this, since some viewers may be shocked to see the Swastika, why not just remove it from the welcome template. That way they will not be shocked or offended when they see they have a new message, as for the rest of the templates keep the way they are. In a nutshell remove the Swastika from the Welcome to Hinduism related content template. — Arjun 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. This is the same reasonable proposal that a significant number of editors have supported. Hopefully, a few vehement 'oppose' statements (based apparently in a desire 'not' to compromise) won't derail this as well. Good idea, Arjun. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Support for the third time, though I see no indication that this oft-repeated proposal will have any more success this time around. Dbratton 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose Did you not read the discussion on top?!--D-Boy 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we've already gone over this one. I'm fine with it if it stops the arguing. Though I don't think it really has any additional advantage beyond the already made change (ironically proposed by an IP editor...) of simply adding a small note explaining the symbols on Template:Hindu Links. --tjstrf talk 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Commment I'd like to suggest an addition to Arjun's Proposal, if it's approved. Let's add a link to the template that is something like "About Hinduism and its symbols" or just "Hindu Symbols" that would point to an article (to be written) that discusses Hinduism and/or the main Hindu symbols. I believe that education is still the answer to the problem here, and we obviously need to help people understand that the swastika is, and always has been, a Hindu religious symbol. I think we all want to eradicate fear, ignorance, and intolerance over this symbol of Hinduism, and so we need to be thinking of educating people now - perhaps moreso than being 'right'. I also want to say that the willingness of many Hindus here to cooperate with another religion, and even remove one of its sacred symbols in even a small context - says alot about the warm-heartedness of Hindus and Hinduism. I have a hard time seeing other religions willing to remove their symbol in the same way. It's no wonder that so many in the world are embracing Hinduism, many of them over the religion they were brought up in. ॐ Priyanath  talk 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is an article on Hindu iconography (forked from Hinduism) which itself serves as a summary for specialized articles on Aum, Swastika, Yantra, tilaka, vibhuti ... I invite all editors here to take a look and improve it further. Maybe some good will come out of this discussion after all :-) Abecedare 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose Though I have not contributed much to this (besides a few comments to IZAK), I have been reading this closely.  While everyone has contributed many thoughtful ideas to the debate, I have to oppose this current proposal.   I have yet to have read a compelling reasoning as to why I should support this (even though they have all been well worth the read!).  Changing a symbol because its disagreeable to some is not very productive, even though the symbol has been warped by a madman.  As to the idea of a "compromise," I noticed that the proposal would remove the symbol.  I don't think that is much of a compromise.  If I am mistaken, there was a proposal to leave the swastika in, but have a caption underneath explaining the meaning of it.  I strongly feel that would best educate people in that the swastika represents something else to other religions and cultures and that it is not just a symbol of hate.  While I do agree that it can be perceived by some as offensive, I would think that the educated person would want to know why this symbol is being used and read up on it.  Isn't that the idea of WP?  Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone here with my thoughts but I just felt the need to share them.MetsFan76 19:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the image from the 'welcome template' alone, to better welcome users who might not understand the swastika (but who are interested in contributing) does indeed seem like a true and fair compromise. The symbol's meaning to Hindus is a wonderful thing, and a deep part of tradition that should be celebrated... but you don't have to do so on a welcome template where such images are already optional and the Aum symbol represents Hinduism well. I hope you'll reconsider in the interests of building collaboration between different peoples with different histories regarding the swastika. In any case, you're just as welcome to your opinion as anyone else and you have my respect. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Ms. Freisling for the respect. =)  I will think about that one. MetsFan76 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arjun's Proposal 

message: This is a straw poll which I consider suitable as in the middle of all the off topic talks between everyone we really need to see what people believe clearly. People above have indicated they are confused now, so here we can solve it. There are three choices: Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 06:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: can we indicate a preference for more than one option? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's not an exclusive choice of course. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Hey Tomer...talk about counterproductive contributions.  That's ridiculous what you just did. MetsFan76 06:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also we are talking about only the Welcome template, right ? Abecedare 06:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not at all counterproductive.  It quite succinctly expresses my disgust with the attempt to raise, for the 3rd time in 3 days, a "poll" to resolve this issue.  What's ridiculous is the constant polling.  Tomertalk 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I start a poll to see who wants Tomer to go to bed? =) MetsFan76 06:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop it - that's uncivil and unproductive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm being uncivil????  Tomer voting in every option just b/c he is fed up with the polls is unproductive. MetsFan76 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I want Tomer to go to bed.  For further record, the word is "incivil", not "uncivil", the extent of the incivility notwithstanding.  Finally, this poll is no more productive than any of those that preceded it.  I can give far better-argued reasons for supporting and for opposing each and every one of the proposed resolutions proffered here...none of which are even remotely "new" to this discussion.  Ultimately, however, this discussion has shown a remarkably abiding ability to survive polling specifically because it is immune to polling.  The only resolution is going to come by agreement among the editors involved, not by a poll, as has been demonstrated not only by the insane length to which this discussion has gone, but by the abject failure of previous polls to gain any traction among the editors most centrally involved in the discussion.  Swaggering in in the middle and saying "hey!  I'll conduct a poll and resolve this for y'all" is silly and misguided.  Deleting statements in each of the sections of your pompous poll with which you disagree does nothing to support your flagrant hubris, it only weakens your attempts to present yourself as a neutral arbiter in this discussion.  Thanks for erasing any doubts tho.  Tomertalk 06:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good night Tomer. MetsFan76 06:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I find your comments odious. You arent even trying to understand significance of Swastika in Dhramic religions.  Amey Aryan DaBrood© 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That above comment, by Lance6968 is plain ill-mannered and offensive. Imc 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I second the opinion of Imc.  --BostonMA talk 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also, along with the 'odious' (thanks AMbroodEY) description of the comments by IZAK. This place is absolutely starting to stink with religious bigotry and ignorance, and even hatred (calling Hinduism 'evil', as Lance just did) - against Hinduism. I propose we accept consensus, and close and archive this disgusting discussion as soon as possible. ॐ Priyanath  talk 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think failing to respect the holy symbols of another culture can argued as evil regardless of what they were used for in other parts of the world. GizzaChat © 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with those opposing Lance's comments, but I do support the removal of the image from the welcome template, as people are already quite aware. Lance's reasons, however, seem to me to be deeply offensive and not at all accurate. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: Option A: Include Swastika and Aum with a educatory note accompanying Swastika
*Support per above. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 06:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option A

message: Option B: Delete Swastika as it could cause distress amongst some in the Wikicommunity
*Oh for the love of God.  As though enough misbegotten polls haven't already been begun in the course of this exchange?!  Tomertalk 06:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find your comments odious. You arent even trying to understand significance of Swastika in Dhramic religions.  Amey Aryan DaBrood© 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That above comment, by Lance6968 is plain ill-mannered and offensive. Imc 22:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I second the opinion of Imc.  --BostonMA talk 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also, along with the 'odious' (thanks AMbroodEY) description of the comments by IZAK. This place is absolutely starting to stink with religious bigotry and ignorance, and even hatred (calling Hinduism 'evil', as Lance just did) - against Hinduism. I propose we accept consensus, and close and archive this disgusting discussion as soon as possible. ॐ Priyanath  talk 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think failing to respect the holy symbols of another culture can argued as evil regardless of what they were used for in other parts of the world. GizzaChat © 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with those opposing Lance's comments, but I do support the removal of the image from the welcome template, as people are already quite aware. Lance's reasons, however, seem to me to be deeply offensive and not at all accurate. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option B

message: Option C: Delete both Swastika and Aum
*Oh for the love of God.  As though enough misbegotten polls haven't already been begun in the course of this exchange?!  Tomertalk 06:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option C

message: Option D: I disagree with all three above options and have my own idea
*Oh for the love of God.  As though enough misbegotten polls haven't already been begun in the course of this exchange?!  Tomertalk 06:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option D

message: Image:Swastik4.GIF
I haven't gone to sleep entirely! The same objections should be applied to the swastika on the Jainism pages, see . This one looks like it came straight out of the Third Reich deep freeze! See the cute "summary" at :Image:Swastik4.GIF#Summary. Thanks, IZAK 07:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh brother..... MetsFan76 07:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "cute summary" at :Image:Swastik4.GIF#Summary is the work of two vandals (on 21 and 22 Dec 2006) that I have since reverted out. Are you truly that ignorant of the history of the Swastika and the Third Reich, the perversion of that symbol by the Nazis or are you just being disingenous here? --Eqdoktor 10:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Eqdoktor: I had absolutely no knowledge of the history of those comments, I was reporting them here somewhat tongue in cheek, letting others decide what to make of it, and evidently you knew more about it than I did. Thanks. IZAK 17:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Abecedare: That was not my point, I was pointing out that there seems to be a great ignorance about the offensive nature of the swastika in another forum. That's it. Feel free to bring others into the discussion. Thanks, IZAK 17:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely not the venue to be bringing this up. MetsFan76 07:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, the subject here is the swastika isn't it? IZAK 17:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Luckily, the Jainism articles fall under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism, and it is at best inappropriate and at worst useless to raise the issue here. You do know Jainism is an entirely different religion, right?Badbilltucker 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does anyone know why IZAK posted this here? MetsFan76 14:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say something but it wouldn't be nice.--D-Boy 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Join the club. :) Badbilltucker 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an Italian guy from the Bronx with a mouth a mile wide.  I have no scruples saying something to him lol. MetsFan76 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blech. Using swastikas intending to provoke people into anger = Bad. :( -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware you were able to determine other people's intentions. I've heard legends about real psychics, of course... :) Badbilltucker 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I won't claim to be a psychic, but I know agents provocateurs when I see 'em. There's been a lot of contentious contributions here from IZAK as well as his arch-nemesis Metsfan. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So, who would you say was the insitigating agent provocateur here?  I don't know French, I hope I got that right? Badbilltucker 16:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, IZAK is my arch-nemesis.  An arch-nemesis is usually the bad guy in comic books and I'm sweet as a lemon =) MetsFan76 16:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh its about time some people stopped parading their ignorance. You can bully us into removing swastika but i'd like to see you try for Jains, its their only symbol. I wish User:Hkelkar was here he is a Hindu-Jewish guy currently serving a 1 year block for POV-warring with Islamists.  Amey Aryan DaBrood© 17:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He got a one year block because he was a troll and used socks to evade other blocks he had on his original account. He wasn't a Hindu-Jewish guy btw, just someone interested in Zionism. And are you sure he is no longer editing?
Amazing how a very serious issue -- the appropriateness of using swastikas, any swastikas, on Wikipedia as part of templates about other religions, given the history of the swastika's use by the Nazis and the negative associations that go with that for many millions of civilized people (with memories and knowledge of Nazism, World War II, and The Holocaust) -- and the best most people here can come up with is a "kill the messenger" because you don't like the message response. Sure it's easy to avoid discussing serious challenges (how to put the swastika, not Hindus/Hinduism or Jainists/Jainism, in its place) by scapegoating someone you don't like instead. Let's focus on the subject at hand and not get sidetracked. Just a few more points: Feel free to let the Wikipedian Jainists know that they are pushing an image that many people will automatically be offended by. The swastika is not the predominant symbol of Hinduism, a religion with many symbols, whereas the cross (for Christianity), the crescent (for Islam), and the star of David (for Judaism) are basically the only universal symbols for those religions. Hindus and Jainists deserve a better deal, no sane marketing strategy for a religion can work using the swastika as a logo. The last time a "product" with that logo was used in the world, the world almost went up in flames forever. IZAK 17:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are basically implying that we arent civilized? Stop being so obtuse. This is not about "marketing" or anything, Hinduism for one doesnt even encourage conversion. Do you realise that this symbol has been holy for us (Hindus,Buddhists & Jains) for over 2500 years? The fact that one deranged bastard approrpiated it doesnbt take away its symbolism for me. My people Marathas founght and died under the banner of swastika resisting Islamic invasions.
The swastika is not the predominant symbol of Hinduism, a religion with many symbols, Thanks for letting me know. Very illuminating really... Maybe you and Ryan could lecture me on my parent's religion sometime.  Amey Aryan DaBrood© 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did know that Jainism is in fact a completely different Dharmic religion than Hinduism, though, didn't you, IZAK? You did check the articles in advance? You know, that's the kind of thing they teach in secondary school. You have been to secondary school, right? Badbilltucker 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: IZAk, WE'RE NOT FREAKING NAZIS!  get it in your head.--D-Boy 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently, it isn't important that a significant group of people here were "automatically" offended by someone posting a message which is completely and utterly irrelevant to this project. Or the fact that someone might not have even bothered to find out anything substantive before making clearly inflammatory comments here. And the implication that the use of the swastika in the symbol of Jainism for wikipedia is so clearly and patently absurd and actually incomprehensible that I won't bother to respond directly to it. Badbilltucker 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think part of the issue here regrettably might be the insensitivity and ignorance of persons who choose to raise issues despite having either no knowledge of or concern with the relevant facts. Regrettably, such things are the kind of things wikipedia was created to help eliminate, not promulgate. Badbilltucker 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as regrettable to me are the ongoing attacks (like AMbrood's) upon me - an editor who brings factual citations and conducts her argument with respect and intellectual intensity. I cannot see how people can look at what I have actually said and then proceed to take any of my posts as personal or religious slights. I have been very gracious as I have weathered a lot of unearned abuse in this process, and yet my respect for the Hindu faith remains as strong as ever. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. My apologies if you feel that I have done so myself, by the way. Badbilltucker 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that way about your conduct, or really that of anyone else in particular, since I try not to hold onto such feelings (they poison the soul in a medium like this where you can't look your 'opponent' in the eye, see their soul and apprehend your shared humanity). I do wish the dialogue here was about how best to welcome strangers to topics of HInduism, rather than substantiating the value (uncontested by me) of a symbol, bt I understand issues of pride and religious identity and the passions they can arouse. I'm very grateful for your comment nonetheless, and the positive 'lilt' it gives the conversation, however long it lasts before another attack is leveled :) . -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a right to an opinion so back off.  I have made some interesting points in this discussion and yes, some of which were not in "good faith," but for IZAK to come in here and start talking about things he has no idea about, then people are going to react, some are more passionate than others.  If you have nothing to say regarding the use of the symbol, then please refrain from any other useless comments. MetsFan76 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You pretty much acknowledge my accusation about making bad faith comments and then you tell me to "back off" with my "useless comments", funny.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I never once said that some of my comments were not constructive.  But as a whole, I am attempting to understand the reasoning as to why the symbol cannot be used.  Your comments are useless in the sense that they do not add anything to the discussion besides attempting to defend a delusional individual. MetsFan76 01:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the fact that he is choosing to here, in a place which is completely and utterly wrong for this particular complaint, can be seen by others to show that he is himself acting less than completely laudably. I know myself that the Jainism Project banner is actually on the talk pages of the articles using the Jainism sidebar, not the Hinduism Project banner(s). The swastika is also even on the Jainism project banner itself. The fact that he apparently never bothered to look and decided to come here to voice a second complaint, this one completely and utterly irrelevant to this project, for whatever reason, comes far short of showing his own behavior in a good light. Badbilltucker 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An overall response:  If I have offended anyone here with some of my points and views, then I want to apologize.  I respect everyone's opinion as I hope mine are as well.  My reasoning for off-color remarks to IZAK was because I was extremely upset that he had the audacity to say that the symbol should be removed.  Nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do.  The symbol has been revered by Hindus for many years before Hitler corrupted it.  However, that does not mean the symbol is corrupt to the Hindus.  People need to respect that and if they have a problem with it, then they need to better educate themselves and simply, grow up.  MetsFan76 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the Aum/Swastika in Hinduism, in Jainism the Swastika is easily the most important symbol in their religion. I will support it being removed if the Judaism template removes its Star of David, Christianity template removes its cross and Islam remove their mosque. GizzaChat © 23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell IZAK to read up on WP:POINT and WP:TROLL.Bakaman 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Ryan i apologise for those sarcastic remarks directed at you. I must ephasize those remarks were made in a *anger* at IZAK's insensitive insinuations. Sorry once again for losing my temper.  Amey Aryan DaBrood© 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries and your apology is of course accepted. I know how high passions can run when people feel that they or their faith is being attacked. Thank you for your comment and I'm hopeful we can all focus on our goal - increasing understanding between different peoples with respect and mutual compassion. Have a lovely evening, it's bedtime here on the Eastern Seaboard! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it your clearly inflammatory and inherently objectionable and ill-informed language like "it came straight out of Hiler's deep freeze" is something you consider reasaonable conversation? :) Badbilltucker 14:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If this was the only possible image to represent jainism really then I wouldn't have any problem of it but I don't think it's true. It seems most websites about jainism don't have this symbol at all.   , just my observation. so it's possibly not necessary in a Jainism template if it's not in the main official websites. It also doens't appear on book covers, but this seems the most common image and could possibly be used instead ?  Amoruso 07:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this on the Jainism page. Do not discuss it here. (Ghostexorcist 07:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same problem with the swastika on Jainism articles 

message: What are you all still here for? 
Any useful encyclopedic discussion has long since left the building, took the 5 o'clock bus home and is now taking a long relaxing nap (thats an extended metaphor for you). So now, people are concerned about Hinduism because Swastikas "attract the wrong sort of people". So now for the next act in this despicable show, we are setting up crosshairs on Jainism to keep the Trolls amused? There is no point anymore to discuss scholarly interpretations and historical analysis of the Swastika - this so called "discussion" has long ago rotted away to rubbish.
* Trolls have shown up taking potshots at the Swastikas and "the man with the deck brush tache". Hey its easy and fun to bash Nazis... No matter what the context...
* Hinduism, other Eastern religions and their holy symbols are caught up and held up in great disrespect in the manner in which they are discussed.
* Trolls are taking random potshots at Hinduism and other religions disguised as debate and because they can
* Bleeding hearts have taken upon themselves (in their condescending paternalistic, Western ethnocentric way) to go out of their way to appease trolls and make excuses for Hinduism, Jainism and other religions when none are needed or asked for.
* Real racists/bigots have shown up for the show and having a good laugh - there is nothing subtle about a lot of the above comments anymore.
Its gone far beyond amusing. True Wikipedian Trolls are a cleverer and more subtle species. They hide themselves behind the guise of assumption of good faith. They do just enough to fall under the radar of WP:POINT and WP:TROLL. They throw out jibes, insults and bigoted remarks and disingenuously feign good intentions (ref those supposed bleeding hearts also). Take a good look at WP:TROLL#Types_of_trolling, heed the cautionary, AND FOR GOODNESS SAKE, DO NOT KEEP FEEDING THE TROLLS!. --Eqdoktor 08:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they aren't trolls per se. However, IZAK, by making that complaint here, in what is clearly the completely wrong place, is himself displaying the lack of cultural sensitivity and awareness that seems to be the reason he is giving for removing the image. Badbilltucker 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) IZAK and co. aren't trolls as such. They were merely making a point. Yes sometimes with sentences such as Why don't Hindus reject the evil Swastikathey went over the top but Wikipedians assume good faith. Wikipedia follows Neutral Point of View, which means we will try not to offend the 14 million Jews and the billion or so Hindus. Most users have agreed the removing the Swastika completely is an insult to Hindus while keeping it exactly the way it was will be offesive towards the Jews. That is why we find a middle path and that is why the discussion goes on. GizzaChat © 09:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Gizza: I took a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism page and lo and behold no swastika, just this good symbol (by the way, it's also used by many Sephardi Jewish Kabbalists -- The first sign of any commonality that I have seen thus far in any way):  IZAK 09:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeding Trolls with bleeding hearts - STOP IT ALREADY! 

message: I have only one thing to say on this: Please, please learn to distinguish between Wikipedia content disputes and Wikipedia talk/user/meta/icons/bells-and-whistles shiny template stuff. I am all for defending the swatika's place as a notable and bona fide Hindu symbol in article namespace, per WP:ENC, WP:NOT, etc. The rules for talk/user-templates are completely different. They are purely functional. They are not encyclopedic. They do not need any images at all. All decisions on these should be purely pragmatic. If people complain about their size, colour or image adorments, strip them down to the minumum. It is pointless to have a lengthy discussion about anything that is not content related. The default solution for user/talk issues is, if in doubt, strip it and move on. The main namespace Hindu templates should obviously not be affected by any sort of "evil symbol" concerns. The talk namespace stuff should be stripped to a minimum as soon as somebody complains. Apart from this, I fully concur with Eqdoktor, there is nothing to discuss here, you should all just drop it and work on articles, Thank you, dab (𒁳) 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be so good as to tell us where these rules for templates are to be found? Badbilltucker 14:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your POV on this issue, and I share your view of the superfluous role of images, etc. on user/talk templates. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually more or less agree myself. They are not necessary, but the banners have as one of their primary functions being "eye-grabbers" for the project in question. Also, unfortunately, many individuals simply won't use one which they don't consider aesthetically pleasing to them, which rules out a lot of those without images. So, while not in any way necessary, they do fulfill a function in that they help the template do one of its jobs, getting the attention of the person looking at the page. Badbilltucker 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When an 'eye-grabber' is also a possible 'heart-stopper' (and it's superfluous to boot) I think a good host wouldn't use it for a welcome. As demonstrated above, some people are not aware of the impact that symbols associated with Nazism have for Europeans, North Americans and Africans - so it may be hard for them to understand the pain such an image can cause. As I mentioned above, I wouldn't want to receive such an image and as users have no control whether a welcome template is placed on their page, the use of a swastika in such an instance seems to me to be unnecessary and therefore a generally bad idea. Again, this is not to diminish the importance of the swastika or the Aum to Hindus. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do have to think that you may have used a bit of exaggeration there. Heart-stobber? Really. And, for what it's worth, I'm in St. Louis, Missouri, which is definitely in North America. While I acknowledge that some people, by dint of their own upbringing, may have developed objections to particular symbols, and I can myself acknowledge that the swastika could be removed from the welcome template, I could also argue that the Star of David be removed from the :Template:WikiProject Judaism, the cross be removed from the :Template:ChristianityWikiProject, and, for that matter, that all the flags be removed from the banners of the various national projects. Would you agree to these proposals as well? Badbilltucker 15:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Really'? Really. It is no exaggeration... the symbol is banned in Germany for that very reason (not that I agree with 'banning' a symbol). I will resist viewing your effort to quate it to the Cross or the Star of David (neither of which have been co-opted by 20th century nations for genocidal war resulting in the imprisonment and extermination of millions upon millions) and your attempt to diminish its impact upon me as disrespect. Just last night you were expressing a desire not to insult with your views, but dismissals of others' views like that as 'exaggeration' are indeed capable of causing insult. However, I'm more thick-skinned than that. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I believe it is not at this point an exaggeration, but is today a factual, and probably knowing, misstatement. I believe the symbol was banned in Germany initially on that basis years ago. The reason it is still banned is because Germans, including those of German ancestry, like me, are tired of people thinking of Germany in those terms. By the way, I spend two years in Germany studying, so on that basis I think I am better qualified to deal with this subject than you, unless you can point to similar credentials yourself. It is also the reason, more recently, the German Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has banned any WWII movies from getting their best picture award. I mention that only to show the continuing distaste for the swastika in Germany. And I did point out to you above the inherent fallacies as I perceive them in your own arguments. Please do not continue to try to duck those points by simply rephrasing your own comments. Badbilltucker 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More combativeness. 'more qualified than you'? Highly unproductive. 'Inherent fallacies'? 'ducking points'? Which, exactly, besides repeatedly equating the swastika illogically to the Cross and the Star of David (and in so doing ignoring the Aum completely)? Seriously, saying I'm knowingly misstating my views is the personification of bad faith. I'm not, and I have not demonstrated any such behavior. I'll remind you of WP policy and the very contents of the heading of this page - be polite, avoid personal attacks, assume good faith, be welcoming... in one post you've violated all of them. I continue to make my points respectfully and you continue to attack, seemingly wishing to position yourself as a 'higher authority'. You don't know my personal history and I don't feel the need to provide qualifications to you in order to avoid your bad faith attacks. please avoid such attacks and bad faith. We are here to determine the content of a welcome template - the last item on the heading says 'be welcoming' - and willing insistence on the superfluous use of a symbol known to offend many in a deep way is hardly being polite and welcoming. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And presumably you would call your own conduct polite. If I was wrong in assuming you knew more about the reasons why the swastika is still banned in Germany, my apologies. Also, I did assume good faith and that is why I pointed out to you in the above section that the people who are only responding emotionally are almost exclusively those who learned to hate the swastika from their elders, not those who are themselves direct victims of the Nazis. Again, as I pointed out above in the last post in the thread :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Hinduism and perceptions of Nazism, there have been genocidal wars, even later than WWII, involving Christianity, specifically in Yugoslavia. Also, any individuals who had direct reason to hate the swastika are at least in their sixties, and few if any of those people use the computers to access locations such as these. I notice you still haven't responded to those, by the way. Instead, you restated your earlier, I believe I can now say, fallacious statement, in a slightly different form. I would welcome a direct response to those points, by the way. Badbilltucker 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't believe this