Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two ors. When two ors do not agree, either or may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both ors 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 ors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, ors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.

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 ors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two ors with an extra or having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

It is recommended that the filing or notifies the second or about the post here. If the second or disagrees with this process, the first or still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second or is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.

In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, ors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.

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


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:

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—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.

If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer.

Active disagreements[]

After reading the above instructions, add your dispute to this section, below this message. If you provide a third opinion, please remove the entry from this list.
Example entry
# [[Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement in countries where fair use does not exist]]. Disagreement about relevance of section and sources. ~~~~~
  1. Talk:Homeland League § Notability. Disagreement whether news media sources that do not list full names of authors in bylines (or rely on other such media in their reporting) are reliable sources with additional disagreements regarding overall notability and which content is notable/should be included (additional relevant information may be found on AfD discussion page that one party to dispute lodged separately). Note that one party to the dispute has recently removed most content of the article in question. 09:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Talk:China–United States trade war § Third opinion request. A few issues: (a) whether to include videos from Voice of America, (b) which of Scott Paul's views to mention in the article, and (c) how to order the country subsections. 14:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Providing third opinions[]

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 {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|your message}} on their user talk page. It can also be given once for diligent service to this project which is generally any volunteer who has more than 50 s to this page. For more information see its documentation and Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log.

Adding {{Wikipedia:Third opinion}} to your dashboard or userpage will produce or transclude only the active disagreements for viewing. Sample code with additional links: Third opinion disputes {{Wikipedia:Third Opinion}}<small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Third opinion|action=&section=3}} update], {{purge}}</small>

Active contributors who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions. If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page, which automatically adds you to this category.

Declining requests[]

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 have the following characteristics: