Talk:Left-wing nationalism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Left-wing nationalism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Socialism High‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Arab Socialism

Perhaps "arab socialism" (nasserism, baathism) should be mentioned in the article? It is probably the best and most known example of trying to combine nationalism and socialism (even if some fringe far-right circles in Europe also idolize these regimes). MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that adding in some Kurdish nationalist movements could work as examples of left wing nationalism such as The PKK Darkdeath0123 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several glaring issues:

The definition of the "left-wing nationalism" in the lead is taken from multiple authors but not attributed.
The majority of this article is unsourced, with most paragraphs having no citations.
Several paragraphs are unsourced justifications of the label's use, leading me to believe it is one or multiple editors' personal interpretations, hence the lack of sources.
Most of the list of parties is unsourced, echoing the OR issues.
See also section is being used as a glossary.