Wikipedia:Third opinion

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

Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between 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 during the discussion in order to be successful.

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 such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.

Some disputes may involve both content issues as well as issues regarding the conduct of an editor. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard or a request for comment on user conduct. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.

How to list a dispute

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute.

If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate. Please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

No discussion of the issue should take place here – this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

• Begin a new entry in the Active Disagreements section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
• Your entry should contain the following:
  • a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion
  • a brief neutral description of the dispute – no more than a line or two, and without trying to argue for or against either side
  • A five tilde signature (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and edit history.)
• Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.

Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion.

Active disagreements

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

Example entry

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

1. Talk:Turkish_people. Since August, there has been an ongoing dispute about to what extent the ancient inhabitants of Anatolia should be mentioned in an article on the dominantly Turkic peoples of the modern nation-state Turkey. (See the last four or five sections of the talk pages.) A few tempers have flared and I think the discussion could benefit greatly from a neutral third opinion. 20:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks#Synthesis_in_the_Media_section Is it synthesis to assert that a number of US commentators with known isolationist or non-interventionist foreign policy positions have raised the possibility of a "false flag" in the ongoing Syria chemical attacks story, citing Ron Paul, his son, and Pat Buchananan? 21:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unneccessary Japanese A certain someone is constantly putting in pointless Japanese translations for game terms (most of which are English to begin with) with the rather childish argument that 'articles about Japanese games NEED to have Japanese text everywhere' when, as evidenced by several other articles about Japan-made games, this is clearly not true. It just feels the editor has a bias towards Japan (often providing most of the debates surrounding various anime/sentai articles). Wonchop (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2013 (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 that 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 in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
• The {{3OR}} template is handy for inserting a third opinion on the talk page. For a shorter alternative, {{3ORshort}} can also be used. Usage: {{subst:3OR | <your response> }} or {{subst:3ORshort | <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. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.
• 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 before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain.

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. If a respondent's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{The Third Opinion Award}} on their user talk page.

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

Active contributors who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions.

Declining requests for third opinions

If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should:

• Be civil and assume the request was made in good faith.
• Explain why the request was declined (e.g. "There are too many people involved already.")
• Suggest alternatives (e.g. "Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.")