 | This is anessay onNeutral point of view. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered apersonal attack or otherwise aggravate the dispute. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Editing Wikipedia for the purpose of advocating for, or "to tell the truth about", a national or ethnic issue is not constructive. |
Having aneutral point of view (NPOV) is a core principle of Wikipedia. This means thatadvocacy for national, ethnic, or similar points of view (or any other points of view) over competing points of view is inappropriate for an editor. If you find that you've come here for the primary purpose of making articles related to a nation or ethnic group that is involved in a dispute more "correct" you may benot here to build an encyclopedia. Editors of this nature often have asingle-purpose account and focus exclusively on thenationalism- or identity-related topics.
This includes being here to promote ideas, withoutreliable sources anddue weight, that:
And behaviors such as:
This type of editor often accuses the other editors of being nationalistic or biased, and may genuinely believe they are fighting against nationalism. It is still the same type of editing to take either side of a dispute without proper reliable sources and due weight. Often times,nationalistic editors are the ones who make baseless claims of nationalism towards other editors.
Describing a nationalistic position held by a notable person or organization as reported by a citedreliable source is not nationalist editing. Neither is being in the minority inlocal consensus. Nationalistic editing is primarily based on promoting fringe points of view about national or ethnic groups using fringe sources. Editing on a single topic is not in violation of policy. Having an interest in ethnic groups, nations or countries is not inherently a conflict. Many editors are proud of the place they live in, which means that they make many constructive and well sourced contributions about an ethnic group, nation or country. Oftentimes editors in poorly covered regions are uniquely placed to improve critical articles. Just because an editor only makes edits to articles about a country, or topics related to certain place, does not mean they are breaking policy. There are many editors and administrators on Wikipedia who contribute to articles about countries and ethnic groups in a way that is properly supported by reliable sources and that adheres to Wikipedia's neutral point of view.
Editing about the nationality, citizenship, religion, or ethnicity of a person must conform to Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy (WP:BLP). Subjects of a biography should remain individuals, distinguishable from their ethnicity, nationality, or place of residence. Individuals uninvolved with politics should not be linked to national political decisions. There should beno original research to review the national loyalties of a non-political person.
The policy requires conservative, impartial editing. Theprivacy of the subject should be respected. In many cases, the ancestry, religion, or citizenship of a person is not disclosed yet is subject to speculation or presumption. For example, a famous person's attendance at a church service does not confirm the religion of the person. Presumptions regarding citizenship may involve breaches of privacy and create undue speculation about a person's legal obligations, such as to pay taxes or performnational service.
Edits that are unsourced, poorly-sourced, questionable, debatable, or otherwise in breach of BLP policy should be immediately removed without prior discussion. Doing so is anexception to the three-revert rule. Discussion to re-insert edits may continue on the talk page.
To respect Wikipedia policies, the following may provide guidance:
If you have been doing this, encountering this information is an opportunity for you to decide if you are here to promote a point of view, or are here to build an encyclopedia. Consider editing different topics than the one that drew you here or that you feel passionately about. Consider also approaching any topic from the standpoint of combining reliable sources with due weight regardless of what opinions the field of study may have, even if contrary to your own.
If you suspect someone of advocacy, it is important to patiently explain the problem rather than be confrontational or abusive. As always,assume good faith – and be civil. Inform editors about policy and engage in discussion. Do not accuse editors of nationalist editing without cause. New editors may simply not understand how things work here, so you may want to provide links to relevant policy, guideline and essay pages. If they continue after being warned, or violate discretionary sanctions after being warned, you may wish to seek sanctions such as an official warning, topic ban, or a block, atthe administrator's noticeboard for incidents.
Take advantage ofdispute resolution and look for reasonable compromise.
If you are new to Wikipedia or if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing criteria, please read very carefully the following policy and information pages: