| Revision as of 07:51, 2 January 2008 editElrondaragorn (talk | contribs)91 edits →Active disagreements← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:02, 2 January 2008 edit undoTheRingess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,992 edits Undid revision 181560460 by Elrondaragorn (talk) another editor already discussed this on user talk pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| # | # | ||
| # | # | ||
| problem | |||
| I have no way of retrieving previously removed content of "Silent scream" in order to begin a discussion asking why it was removed. Without a reference point, they can just deny they did it-and I don't even know who did it, but it's happened several times and the supposedly non-neutral material is no more biased than the planned parenthood opinion currently left in the article. The non-neutral planned parenthood content seems to be allowed, though my non neutral content isn't, and yet mine brings balance to the non-neutrality of planned parenthood's opinion, while removing it is a clear attempt to slant the article in favor of planned parenthood's bias. Furthermore, I've reviewed other articles on other subjects like "Richard Hoagland", where the author of the article has a clear bias against Mr. Hoagland's opinions that are clearly allowed. My non-neutrality was no worse than his in trying to give evidence of planned parenthood's deceptive and biased practices, and yet because it hurts planned parenthood, and not Mr. Hoagland, it doesn't seem to be allowed no matter what sources I cite to prove my case. The author of the Hoagland article cites sources and is allowed to keep his imput, however. Also, planned parenthood's evaluation of the movie silent scream isn't a neutral one. It is also not properly cited for verification as fact, but no one seems to care about moving that from the article-only my comments, that give the article more balance in the provision of facts from sources that contradict the opinions already expressed. Am I obligated to enter a discussion with people any time I make an edit to any article? I don't understand how this works-I've edited other things before, and to my knowledge, I've never been reverted before, so are there only certain circumstances in which you must open a discussion to change something? I would really like you to investigate what happened with the edits on this article, because frankly, the critics of what I tried to post seem to have a bias against anyone who questions planned parenthood-regardless of whether they cite sources to prove the claims they are making. I've noticed no Hoagland fans have been allowed to get away with this regarding material unfavorable to his position. ----dave m.d. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrondaragorn (talk • contribs) | |||
| Hi, have you looked at the latest version of the article? I think the changes made may address some of your concerns. You can retrieve past versions of articles and differences between revisions by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the article and finding dates of the changes in question (or just by looking at each one using the "last" links). | |||
| You're right that non-neutral info is not allowed. If you think the article is not neutral, you'll have to discuss it with other users until you can find a compromise. Honestly, the article in its current state looks pretty neutral to me; it's merely stating facts. It's acceptable to report that so-and-so notable party argued such-and-such, as long as you have a reliable source. Your info should not be removed without discussion if it is reliably sourced (note that an advocacy website is not a reliable source; go for a news piece about the advocacy group's argument). If someone has done that, you should address it with them, either on the article's talk page or the user's, and go through dispute resolution if necessary. Peace, delldot talk 07:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| with all due respect | |||
| With all due respect, the article is not reporting facts. I know for a fact that what planned parenthood says about its scientific research on the article isn't true, and I have not been allowed to post or cite that proof. This is not a neutral presentation of the facts where both sides are heard. -Dave M.D | |||
| ==Providing third opinions== | ==Providing third opinions== | ||
Revision as of 08:02, 2 January 2008
|
This page is not an official policy or a guideline. It is a non-binding informal process through which editors who are currently in content disputes can request assistance from those involved with this project. | Shortcuts |
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute.
This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.
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 and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work.
If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians (with the option of a {{User Third opinion}} userbox) to your user page.
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. Follow these instructions to make your post:
- If, after discussion, 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.
- Provide a concise and neutral description of the disagreement, with a wikilink to the article's talk page. Including the most significant diffs may be helpful, too.
- Use a section link to the specific section that contains the dispute.
- Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.
- No discussion on this page. Confine the discussion to the relevant talk pages.
- To preserve formatting, start your entry with a number sign/hash directly below the last entry and avoid any excessive cosmetic formatting.
| An example entry before wiki-formatting: |
| # ]. Disagreement about the existence of nonprescriptive ]s. ~~~~~ |
| This will be displayed as: |
| 1. Talk:Style guide#"Descriptive" style guides. Disagreement about existence of the nonprescriptive style guides. 17:54, 27 October 2004 (UTC) |
Active disagreements
| After reading the above instructions, add your dispute here. |
Providing third opinions
- 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.
- 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.
- When providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. This is best done before responding so that other editors are unlikely to respond at the same time as you and duplicate your effort unnecessarily.
- 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: ~~~~.
- Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgemental 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.
- 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}}.