The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing nationalism

Left-wing nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is original research and does not provide any source that "left-wing nationalism" is a known term with any specific definition. I posted my suggestion for deletion on the discussion page and on the article creator's talk page, but have received no reply. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just to start, i added two refs in different geographic areas and historic periods. there's a lot more. The article does need some work, but I think what's there is documentableDGG (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG - you must show that it is a commonly used defined term, not just a neologism that someone used in a book or article. Has anyone written a book about "left-wing nationalism" per se, or can it be found in a political dictionary or encyclopedia? The sources show that it was used in the title of books about Quebec and South American politics, but one of the sources you added, Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, does not use the term at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no WP guideline stating that articles must only be for "commonly used" terms, only that it be notable and supplied with proper cites. Is it notable? Clearly yes. Are there reliable sources used? Clearly yes. Is it "original research"? Clearly not. [1] is not about Quebec, but uses the term. As does [2] referring to Argentina and Cuba. [3] for Spain. [4] for Africa. [5] China. [6] India. And several hundred more. Referred to in the New York Times [7] [8] about Flanders. [9] James Connolley was a Marxist Irish nationalist. So we have hundreds of scholarly references for this article, and lots of newspaper refeences as well. I would suggest that this be found to be a "speedy keep" as a result. Collect (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could reply to the questions I have placed to DGG. Other than leftists who happen to be nationalists or nationalists who happen to be leftists, is there any agreed definition and is there any study of this phenomenon other than using it as a neologism in studies of individual states or groups of states? None of the sources you provide give a definition of "left-wing nationalism". What is the specific definition of "left-wing"? Who is the world's foremost scholar of "left-wing nationalism"? Do any groups call themselves "left-wing nationalists"?
BTW I could not find the term "left-wing nationalism" used in your sources for James Connolly or in the NYT articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for a debate on what left wing nationalism is -- I have shown it is notable, is found in articles and books about many places other than Quebec, and that it is found in the New York Times articles. "He was therefore a heaven-sent (so to speak) gift to left-wing Irishmen in search of (and in need of) national credentials. Connolly could be seen as having welded together, in the last months of his life, the ideals of international Socialism and Irish nationalism." appears to be quite succinct, even though you seem to argue that it says nothing about him being a left wing nationalist. And woith over six hundred books using the term, forgive me for not asserting one person as the "foremost scholar" on the topic. Probalby several hundred could lay claim. As to it being a neologism" that is absurd on its face. The books which use the term go back quite a few years now. So Speedy Keep it is. Collect (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to debate what "left-wing nationalism" is, just asking whether there is an accepted definition at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
although perhaps i might spend my time more usefully doing it than spending my time here, I am not about to rewrite all articles in need of expansion. It's enough that I indicate there are sources for expansion. The extent to which the term is used in such circumstances as a title or chapter heading is indicative: i did not pick my examples from random phrases. DGG (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of the MoS -- and refers to "neologisms" -- in this case we do not have a neologism but a phrase used in literally hundreds of major books. "Neologism" requires newness, of all things. Where a term has been used for eighty years, it is highly unlikely to fit that claim. [10] "Left-Wing Nationalism The third force is left-wing nationalism inspired from Cairo" from 1940. [11] from 1930 "for what may be held to be a semi-official statement of the disconnection of Left Wing Nationalism with ..." Where the term is applied to movements of the 1920s and before, it is unlikely to be a neologism. Where a phrase has been used in the New York Times for five decades, and found in articles for six or more decades [12] "the stormily nationalist political left wing", it is unlikely to be a neologism. Collect (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the links provided and none return the term "left-wing nationalism". The Four Deuces (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting as I cut-and-pasted from the New York Times itself. Still insist a 79 year old usage is a neologism? Collect (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I haven't heard of the term "left-wing nationalism" being specifically used in political literature, as far as I know, leftist or socialist nationalism is definitely an ideology that's been advocated by a lot of leftists (e.g. Slobodan Milosevic, Nelson Mandela). Perhaps we should rename the article, or just work harder on finding sources to back the information. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Re-direct - I should not have listed this on Good Friday, because it has received little response. The term is just a combination of "left-wing" and "nationalism". It is not a recognized term and does not appear in political dictionaries or encyclopedias. There is no article for Right-wing nationalism. The article includes parties that are both "left-wing" and "nationalist", e.g., the Israeli Labor Party and Fatah, the terrorist FLQ and mainstream PQ in Quebec, and Sinn Fein and the SDLP in Northern Ireland. The only reference given is The Decolonization of Quebec: An Analysis of Left-Wing Nationalism. The authors of that book stated that they were using the term to describe a phenomenon in Quebec and gave no previous reference to the term having been used. Several editors have mentioned the hits obtained using google or google scholar searches, but most of these return books or articles that contain both the terms "left-wing" and "nationalism" but not usually used together. Try googling "stupid liberals" or "fat conservatives" or vice versa and you will get similar results. None of these articles claim that left-wing nationalism is an agreed term. I note that the article "Left-wing terrorism" was deleted and now redirects to "Terrorism". This is an obvious example of original research and should be deleted consistent with the treatment of similar articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've argued that left-wing nationalism isn't recognized in dictionaries and political encyclopedias; as far as I know, neither is left-wing fascism, yet it still describes a political position opposite to that of traditional left-wing doctrines. I think the same goes with left-wing nationalism. Why isn't it recognized in political dictionaries? Because it's a hybrid; a mixture of nationalism and socialism. Therefore, general political literature isn't too acquainted with the term. It wasn't created by anyone, it doesn't have a specific Manifesto - it's a political orientation put to use by people who attempted to combine the two ideologies. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left-wing fascism is, unlike left-wing nationalism, a term with a specific definition used consistently by various writers. It is used to describe "neo-fascist groups (who are extreme right-wing) [and] disguise themselves as leftists". I demonstrated this on Talk:Left-wing fascism#Request Deletion when another editor requested deletion and expect the article Left-wing nationalism to be held to the same standard. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A specific definition? I took a better look at the left-wing fascism article, and the people that were listed as having used the term have quite divergent understandings of the term. Juergen Habermas used it as an attempt to separate Marxists from left-wing "terrorists" (which is a blatant, biased Marxist philosophy of calling social democrats and other fellow leftists "fascists" or "social fascists"). That fact alone proves that the term left fascism is erroneous, as Habermas is, apparently, described as the foremost advocate of the term. Horowitz describes it as an American rejection of democracy (which is another very general description which could basically be applied to any radical, non-democratic movement). Wolin describes it as "an anti-enlightenment movement advocated by leftist intellectuals" (granted his description also reflects that of Horowitz's, but is divergent in other respects), and Levy describes it as neo-progressive, red fascist and barbaric. Thus, do four different opinions make up a specific definition? Left-wing nationalism doesn't have a specific definition, either, yet is still used by a number of sociologists, teachers and historians in some publications. Unless left fascism and left nationalism are only differentiated by the notability of the people who used the terms, I fail to see the obvious difference between the two. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Habermas (who was a member of the Frankfurt School) and Wolin used the term "left fascism" to describe the philosophy of George Bataille, and later Habermas seeing a similarity with some radicals in the 1960s applied the term to them "to distance the neo-Marxist perspectives of the Frankfurt school from the violence and authoritarianism of left-wing terrorists" (as quoted in the WP article). However, Horowitz connected these radicals, which he called "left-wing fascists", with "what might be called the later Frankfurt school, which emphasized in an uneasy mix the early Marx and the late Hegel which was most frequently...identified with the works of Adorno". Winners and Losers(p.210) Other writers have drawn parallels between the ideas of Bataille and the late Frankfurt School. I have not read Levy's book but he appears to be building on Horowitz's ideas, and he shares with Horowitz the concept of "Islamofascism".
There is an agreement that the term applies to radical groups who appear to be leftist but reject modernism. They are "Marxists without Marx". There may be dispute about the intellectual origins, but not their basic ideology or even membership, or at least no more than would be expected. There are of course other concepts, e.g., "social fascism", "liberal fascism" that are unrelated. All these writers are writing about the same thing. In the "left-wing nationalism" article however we are supposed to believe that Golda Meir and Yasser Arafat shared the same philosophy. Interesting thesis, but Wikipedia should not be first to publish it.
The Four Deuces (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I still find left fascism and left nationalism are somewhat identical in that they don't have a very well-determined definition. While left fascism has been penned by contemporary writers (who can cross-reference their works), left nationalism is advocated by politicians who, due to their individual nations' diverse traditions, had more localized agendas. That said, I'm sure the article can be fixed in order to avoid the error of believing that, as you said, Arafat and Meir have similar agendas. Just reword the article and delete any confusing sentences, but certainly don't delete it. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You nommed it for deletion -- I think we all know your position on deletion. With literally hundreds of RS books and articles, I would suggest that your claim of "bad timing" is not the reason why the article will get kept. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on your talk page (User_talk:Collect#3RR) The Four Deuces (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That response accused me of following you on WP -- I use a watchlist, so the comment is extraordinarily irrelevant here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a systematic political force, nationalism began with the left in the French Revolution. The revolutionaries used nationalist themes to rally the French people to the cause of the Revolution. As with so many other things in the modern world, however, something that started with the left eventually found its way to the right. Today, nationalism is overwhelmingly identified with right-wing movements and ideologies, partly because the left often sees it as corrosive and disruptive. However, I would not go so far as to argue that nationalism is the bailiwick of the right. Leftists still make use of it sporadically.UberCryxic (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Left-wing_nationalism
No tags for this post.