This is an essay on Neutral 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 of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

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.

Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack, or otherwise aggravate the dispute.

Having a neutral point of view (NPOV) is a core principle of Wikipedia. This means that advocacy 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 be not here to build an encyclopedia. Editors of this nature often have a single-purpose account and focus exclusively on the nationalism- or identity-related topics.

Examples[edit]

This includes being here to promote ideas, without reliable sources and due weight, that:

Ethnic group, nation, language or dialects do or do not exist
Ethnic group is or is not the "true" group
Ethnic group does or does not stem from another ethnic group
Borders of nation are or are not the "true" historical border
Nation did or did not commit war crimes, massacres, crimes against humanity, genocide or other forms of violent actions
Famous person is or is not a member of group
Nation did or did not make or break a treaty or other agreement
Nation is more or less populated, successful by some measure, expansive, etc., than reliable sources say
Group did or did not originate invention, language, script, etc.
Ethnic group, religion, nation or country is "superior" or "inferior" to others
Group has or hasn't been under threat from or subverted by other groups, ideologies, forces, conspiracies, etc.

And behaviors such as:

Referring to or describing an individual or ethnic group through outdated or discredited racial terminology
Stating it is exigent or morally necessary to represent a view in favor of or against a group
Using fringe or discredited sources to advocate, promote or spread a certain national or historic narrative
Manipulating or cherry picking what sources say for content to promote or spread a certain national or historical narrative
Focusing on the (perceived) ethnic background or identity of editors in talkpage discussions or other edits
Canvassing or asking for assistance from other editors on "patriotic" grounds
Calling or implying that other editors perceived to be from the same ethnic group, but who do not agree with a certain viewpoint are "sellouts", "traitors" or other similar terminology
Insisting that derogatory words, terms or slurs for a certain ethnic group are not offensive and acceptable to use, due to common usage by their or another ethnic group
Whitewashing characterizations documented to reliable sources

Anti-nationalism[edit]

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.

What nationalist editing is not[edit]

Nationalist editing is not promoting a view based on reliable sources that another editor disagrees with, or being in the minority in local consensus. Instead, 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.

What to do[edit]

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, at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents.

Take advantage of dispute resolution and look for reasonable compromise.

See also[edit]

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:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not — what is acceptable or unacceptable use
Wikipedia:Five pillars — the editing foundations of Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — the core policy that informs how pages are to be approached
Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing
Wikipedia:Bombardment
Point of view (POV) forks - POV forks arise when editors disagree about the content of one article, and instead of resolving that disagreement they create another article on the same subject according to a particular point of view.
Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry — the core policy covering both users with multiple accounts, and multiple users working together on one "viewpoint" in a debate
Wikipedia:No personal attacks — some new users may find the "nationalist editing" label to be insulting
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers — new members to the project are often unfamiliar with the complexities and culture of Wikipedia, and often become valuable contributors with time and coaching — don't scare people away by immediately assuming bad faith or imposing draconian standards
Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers — go a step further and try to help the newcomers
Wikipedia:Right great wrongs — we are not here to right great wrongs
Wikipedia:No Nazis - Racists will be blocked indefinitely. Report them on sight.

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia clichés Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression Please don't bite the newcomers POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard