Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Swastika/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Swastika

Swastika

edit

Seldom do I find a page that so thoroughly addresses almost all my questions. Nuanced, detailed, richly endowed with images, and many helpful external links integrated into the main article text. Fishal 20:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support - my only concern is that the article may not be appropriate as a 'Today's featured article' because we would then end up with a swastika on the Main Page. Other than that an excellent article--Enceladus 20:37, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • That concern is not actionable (and you are supporting, after all). I don't think it is a problem to feature it on the main page either. People are intelligent enough to read the accompanying text and to realize that it is not used to support nazism. — David Remahl 21:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • As long as we don't use Nazi one, I don't see the problem. The Hindu one looks quite nice, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • In any case they are completely separate issues. Just because an article is a FA does not mean it will get on the main page. They are both called "featured" which is why this is sucha common confusion, but they are separate. The main page articles are picked from among featured articles. - Taxman 23:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • It would not be a problem to use the nazi one either. I guess (perhaps incorrectly) that it is the version that the highest number of people world wide through accumulated through all times have came in contact with. — David Remahl 12:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Covers the ground it needs, and will perhaps help to remove the stigma from an ancient symbol. Denni☯ 20:51, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Support: Interesting article, but still causes a shiver. Giano 21:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Needs more than one reference. References are a FA requirement. I could go on about pieces of flair, but I'll save that. :) It appears some of the external links are being used as references, but then those that have actually been used to reference material in the text need to be formatted as on the page I linked to in a section called 'References'. 2.) I really feel the intro needs to explicitly state that the swastika is not just what nearly 100% of English speaking readers will associate it with. But because that is such an overwhelming association, ignoring it seems very odd. Otherwise seems very well written and complete. Nice work. - Taxman 23:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • There are still only 2 print references, neither particularly relevant to most of the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I don't think the Unicode code points deserve to be in the lead section. The lead section needs to mention the use of the symbol by Nazi Germany since that is a very common understanding of the symbol today. Also, "Allegedly, the Nazis believed that ... Aryans ... were the prototypical white invaders." Did they or didn't they? Who alleges this? Does anyone dispute it? References definitely needed here. Gdr 00:48, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
    • I fixed the lead section part. Johnleemk | Talk 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I trust that this objection has been addressed - the Chinese unicode has moved lower doen, but some Sanskrit is there (quite properly, I think). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: the lead is still inadequate. At the moment it seems to be a repository for trivia; it should be a summary of the most important points of the article. Mark1 06:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I moved the Unicode trivia, but the rest of the info is relevant: it describes the symbol, briefly states who it was used by, and tells the source of its name. Fishal 19:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The lead is not the place to tell us that a swastika is an "irregular icosagon"; that tells us something about icosagons, but nothing about a swastika. And the lead still makes no attempt to summarise the article: see Wikipedia:Lead_section#Lead_section. Mark1 01:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • This objection has been addressed, I think: I can't see any "trivia" there now. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely, a well done article on a controversial subject. Zerbey 01:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. For the main page, the Aryan pic with the dots rather than the tilted Nazi version should be used. Add a couple of references though. Chameleon 12:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A good NPOV article on a controversial subject - and it is important (and interesting) to know that the symbol is not only a Nazi one. A few more references wouldn't hurt, although there is quite a few in the external link sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tuf-Kat 21:10, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Andre (talk) 21:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dbiv 01:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article includes the sentence, "The swastika symbol was found extensively in the ruins of the ancient city of Troy." There was no city called Troy - though often Ilium is the city to which this term refers; more importantly, this city has not yet been discovered. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 02:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you're getting at here. "Troy" and "Ilion"/"Ilium" are different names for the same place. The link you gave redirects to Troy. Proteus (Talk) 19:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. In general, I find the article a bit disorganised, and it reads like a huge collection of "swastika facts" rather than an encyclopedia article. The article should become far more coherent, and remove redundant parts. Some additional, specific objections: 1) The first section and the lead section have a lot of overlap. 2) The article has a lot of "single sentence facts", which bear little relation with the preceding or following paragraphs, and it reads like a list at times. The "Jainism" subsection is an extreme example of this. 3) The "worldwide taboo" section repeats itself a bit, and actually shows the taboo is not worldwide, making the title inappropriate. 4) References should preferably be organised according to the WP:MOS, and I would really like to see more books; even if just as further reading. 5) The article's subdivision is partially chronological, partially geographical, and partially by means of use, and this is not done consistently. For example, the use in religion/mythology results in works of art, and the Indians in North America also used it as a religious symbol. It seems that the geographical approach would work best, using chronological order within these sections. 6) The "origin of the swastika" section gives only one explanation apart from the "no idea" explanation (the reference to the book should (re)appear in the reference sections, by the way) It is not clear whether there are more theories. Jeronimo 20:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Objection challenged: The categorical structure makes sense, and it makes more sense now that I have moved the section I had added (in the wrong place) about its use in Native American religion. The article talks about its decorative uses, its religious uses, and finally its use in modern times. Fishal 05:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Only one part of my objection is "challenged" here. I'm not saying the categorical structure does not make sense, I'm only saying it isn't applied consistently, and it still isn't. The sections art&architecture and religion&mythology are largely overlapping, since the reason for its use in art is mostly religion (most of the buildings mentioned are temples of some sort). This leads to duplication, and I think duplication is undesirable and, in this case, unnecessary. Furthermore, "modern use" is not a categorical classification, but a chronological one. So again, this is inconsistent. Another minor error I spotted: a synagogue is mentioned under the "Christianity" section. Jeronimo 07:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • nice article, but I have to object until the following (minor?) gripes are satisfied: (a) either merge or expand the 1-sentence "Jainism" section; (b) the entire "Early Indo-European traditions" section reads like neo-pagan internet myths. either remove, or give sources (excavations, manuscripts...). remove the proto-indo-european part altogether (this is complete speculation). Where and in what contexts was a swsatika ever referred to as "Thor's hammer"?? dab 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • removed it myself. reluctant support as long as nobody re-introduces it without references. dab 10:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting article about widespread and longtime use of what is now a reviled symbol. A2Kafir 17:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - could still do with more proper references. --ZayZayEM 04:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - I also agree that it should have more references --Alex Krupp 06:19, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object: Missing source info, copyright tags, or insufficiently justified copyright tags, on some images: Image:Swastikapistols.jpg, Image:Whirling log.jpg, Image:ASEA logo pre 1933.jpg, Image:Lotta Svärd.jpg, Image:Swastika.jpg. —Steven G. Johnson 01:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh dear - in extremis, I suppose these could be deleted? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! Interesting and well written. Exigentsky
  • Comment: maybe we should start over? The article has been substantially rewritten since the vote started. dab 15:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there a procedure for that? Fishal 22:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • well, we could argue that there are unaddressed objections, so the article failed to reach FA consensus for now, but rather than wait a couple of weeks, we could just archive this discussion and re-add it to the top of this page immediately (as it seems consensus is just around the corner, really). I don't think there is really an official procedure for this: it's my suggestion, and if others agree, just do it. dab 09:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually, the article has changed so much since its nomination, it seems to be experiencing growing pains. I propose taking it off this list and re-nominating it once all the new matrerial is sorted out better. Fishal 04:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • agree. there is no hurry. dab 20:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Swastika/archive1&oldid=1083676423"