Wikipedia:Third opinion

"WP:3" redirects here. For You may be looking for Wikipedia:Trifecta or Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, see WP:3 (disambiguation).

Third opinion is a means to request an uninvolved opinion regarding a content discussion involving two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors in the discussion.

This page is for resolving conflicting viewpoints involving only two editors. The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process.

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work.

How to list a dispute

Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here. If, after significant discussion, no agreement has been reached and only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

1. Begin a new entry with a # symbol below earlier entries to preserve the numbering and chronological order of the list.
2. Provide a section link to the specific talk page section followed by a brief neutral description of the dispute.
3. Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.

Do not discuss on this page: confine the discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Example entry:

# [[Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up]]. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. ~~~~~

Example displayed:

1. Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also consider adding {{3O}} to the top of the article. List of tagged articles.

Active disagreements

After reading the above instructions, add your dispute here. If you provide a third opinion, please remove the entry from this list.

1. Talk:Gulf War syndrome#Article Rewrite. Disagreement about deletion of several secondary peer reviewed sources, along with the dispute tag on the article. 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

   Note, this request was removed due to edit warring but it is being replaced, even though Gulf War syndrome is currently still ripe for a 3RR report because I wish to attempt to de-escalate this conflict. 16:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Mary Dimmick Harrison. To header or not header, that is the question. The "Biography" header seems to be standard in biographical articles, it sets apart the lede of the story, and lets the reader know that the chronology is going to restart, usually with the birth of the person. Some articles can fool you that don't have a main header because the lede is multiple paragraphs. Does anyone else think the "Biography" header should be restored. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Talk:Mary_Boleyn#Descendants. Disagreement about whether current-day entertainment celebs should be listed among historical person's descendants.20:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Providing third opinions

• Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
• Read the arguments of the disputants.
• Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
• Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
• The {{3OR}} template is handy for inserting a third opinion on the talk page. Usage: {{subst:3OR | <your response> }}.
• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
• If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} on the talk page of the article.
• For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.
• When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort.
• Check the article for a {{3O}} tag. Be sure to remove this tag from the article and/or talk page.

If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page.

Active contributors (those who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries) may add themselves to the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians.