Wikipedia:Third opinion

This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process by which editors interested in lending a hand on content disputes can meet those that need such help, and those that seek that help can advertise their need for assistance.

Wikipedia:Third opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. When editors cannot reach a compromise and need a third opinion, they may list a dispute here. The third-opinion process requires good faith on both sides of the dispute.

This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. More complex disputes should be worked out on article talk pages or by following the dispute resolution process.

Listing a dispute

Please discuss the dispute on the talk page before coming here.

1. If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute here. Otherwise, follow other parts of the dispute resolution process.
2. Provide a short, neutral description of the disagreement, with links to the specific section of the talk page where it is discussed.
3. Sign with five tildes ("~~~~~") to add the date without your name.
   
   → Example:
   "Talk:Style guide#"Descriptive" style guides: Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive style guides. 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"
   
   

• Do not discuss on this page. Leave the discussion to the linked talk page.
• Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed.

Providing third opinions

• Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page.

• Read the arguments of the disputants.

• Do not provide third opinions recklessly. In some cases your opinion is a tie-breaker, while in others both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both.

• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgemental way.

• Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously 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.

• 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.

• After providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page with a brief edit summary.

Third opinion project

• The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes. If you are a third opinion provider, you are part of the project and are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with or without the {{User Third opinion}} userbox, as you prefer) to your userpage.

Active disagreements

Reminders:

Description must be neutral.

Do not discuss dispute here.

Link talk page discussion section.

Add date only: no signature.

• Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#remove_OR disagreement over whether a certain paragraph is Original Research. 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Ante Starčević repeated reversing without trying to reach a compromise or acknowledge contributions made. 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:David Loren Cunningham See "disputed" "background" and "filmography" sections. I believe that the films, if they ever were in fact made, are not notable. added "dubious" tag. I think the films should be removed. other author repeatedly removed tag. 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Reparative_therapy disagreements on a variety of topics, including the nature of the debate within medical organizations, whether fluid sexuality is a real theory, interpretation of official guidelines, goals of reparative therapy, reliability of sources, and relationship to ex-gay groups.16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations -- Should citations from reputable secondary sources be allowed in the Lead section, to show usage of the term "Large Group Awareness Training", in the article List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations ? 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
• Talk:List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations Does a LIST of organizations need to have a lengthy and overly biased description of LGAT included in the article's Lead, 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations Is it necessary and/or pejorative to state that items in this list meet WP:RS, given that they could not stay in the list without meeting such qualifications? 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations Given that it is a controversial topic, is it potentially misleading to cite academics and psychologists use the term, without giving an indication as to their background and how/when they used the term (e.g. anti-cult)? 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations Given that LGAT has no universally accepted definition, is it reasonable to include that fact in the article lead? Or, is it reasonable to state that each author defines the term for themselves or references someone else's definition? 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations Given that, although the term has been used by professionals to different degrees, the term is most often used by anti-cult groups who cannot be 'cited', is it fair and unbiased to cite a litany of references to make the term appear more popular/legitimate than it perhaps is? 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Holiday Magic Is it prejudicial and a violation of WP:RS and/or WP:OR to use the term "controversial" in the article to describe Holiday Magic? 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)