Wikipedia:Nationalist editing

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.

Shortcuts

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 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

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Referring to or describing an individual or ethnic group through outdated or discredited racial terminology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

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 is not nationalist editing

Describing a nationalistic position held by a notable person or organization as reported by a cited reliable source is not nationalist editing. Neither is being in the minority in local 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.

Applying Biography of Living Persons policy

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 be no original research to review the national loyalties of a non-political person.

The policy requires conservative, impartial editing. The privacy 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 perform national 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 an exception 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:

Understand the difference between nationality, ethnicity, and group identity.
Do not insert presumptions about the nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, or group identity of a living person based on a simple or compound demonym or their appearance, name, birthplace, spoken accent, ancestry, or religion.
A person's parents, ancestry, position, or place of residence does not confirm a person's current nationality or citizenship.
A source referring to a person by a demonym is not confirming nationality, citizenship, or ethnicity. For example, a source stating "Tamar is a Georgian singer" may be referring to a nationality, ethnicity, musical style, or an American state.
A person who lived in more than one country will usually not make their citizenship publicly known. A person born in one country to parents from another country is not automatically a dual citizen. Citizenship may not be determinable; attempted to do so often involves legal reasoning or some other form of original research. A person is not required to disclose any change of citizenship.
Do not use fractional descriptors, such as "half-French half-Indonesian".
In cases of any doubt, the "nationality" field in an infobox should not be used. The "citizenship" field should only be used when both necessary and relevant to the biography, as per MOS:INFONAT.
A source making any of the above presumptions or not qualified to come to conclusions about ethnicity, nationality, or citizenship should be regarded as not reliable for such a question.

What to do

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.