Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Case unassigned

As of today, Andrevan has relinquished his status as mediator to this case. I will leave it to him to comment if he wishes as to his reasons for doing so. We are presently advertising for another mediator to take over the case, but as the committee currently has three other unassigned cases it clearly may be some time before one becomes available. In the interim this case will remain listed as on-hold. It is regrettable that it has come to this over what I see to be some easily reconcilable differences between the approach of Andrevan and the approach of the parties, but life goes on I guess. Thank you all for your continued patience. AGK 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are we?

Assuming another mediator will be assigned eventually, I think it would be helpful to have a list of issues that we would like resolved. Without trying to resolve anything (please no arguing, requests for clarification would be OK), I suggest we create a very brief description of specific remaining issues (one per subsection below) we'd like to discuss in the context of mediation. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Article outline

IMO, Martin's move of the "Aids to understanding" section [1] has created a structural POV in favor of the "simple" solutions. Compared to the version following the last FAR ([2]) which I believe Glkanter and Martin argue takes the POV that the simple solutions are wrong or incomplete, with Martin's change my opinion is the article now takes the opposite POV. I would like to discuss whether the version as of the last FAR is NPOV or not regarding this issue, and whether we can agree on a single solution section - like this one, or this one (in the "show/hide" section). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of Rick's version, be it I like to propose minor changes. Nijdam (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is combining doors a solution or an aid to understanding?

Some point since the last FAR, the "Combining doors" section was moved from the "Aids to understanding" section to the "Popular solution" section. This so-called solution is almost explicitly an aid to understanding. I would like to discuss moving this back to "Aids to understanding". -- Rick Block (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

To me it may be considered to be some way of understanding. Strictly speaking it is equivalent to the simple solution.Nijdam (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer in "Probabilistic solution" section

The current version of the article [3] includes a disclaimer at the beginning of the "Probabilistic solution" section that IMO strongly implies only "some sources" approach the problem conditionally - as if this is a rare or unusual approach. This relates to the article outline issue above, and IMO serves to reinforce the POV that the simple solutions are generally considered to be the "correct" approach while approaching the problem conditionally is a rare alternative. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If Rick's version of presenting the solution(s) is chosen, the disclaimer in this form is not needed. Nijdam (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Update

I have sent to the Committee mailing list an urgent request for a mediator for this case. If one is not forthcoming within one week, I will defer the case to the community and ask them to draw together some mediators. In the interim I would thank all the parties for their patience to this point (with a delay that frankly has been inexcusable) and ask them to refrain from editing the article itself (by way of giving the dispute some "breathing room").

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Further update (new mediators)

Two committee mediators, User:Will Beback and User:Sunray, have agreed to be assigned this case. Both are highly experienced with complex content disputes. Thanks to them both for their time, and again to the parties for their continued patience. AGK 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Restarting mediation

Thanks to everyone for being patient. The first step here is probably to see if the list of primary and secondary issues on the mediation page is still current. Have any issues been settled or become stale? Are there any new issues that are pressing?   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just happen to have posted this today. [4] Glkanter (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything's been settled - possibly the 4th item listed under primary issues. There's been recent edit warring regarding the 1st and 2nd items (resulting in the article being protected), and additional (but less recent) edit warring over an image resulting in a couple of 3RR blocks. IMO, the general level of civility of the talk page has deteriorated as well (frustrations boiling over). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@Will Beback: nice nick--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW - there's an outstanding request related to one of the issues at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV complaints about Monty Hall problem, which so far has generated no comments, and multiple active threads on the talk page related to a variety of the issues Talk:Monty Hall problem#Proposed NPOV solution section, Talk:Monty Hall problem#Let us discuss the sources then, Talk:Monty Hall problem#Controversal section, Talk:Monty Hall problem#A Proposal Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem#A Proposal [Brought Forward From The MHP Talk Page]. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Groundrules

In most of the successful mediations I've been involved with, there is a transition from dispute to collaboration. The best mediations involve learning. One thing we can all learn more about is how to navigate through the maze of WP policies. It is usually beneficial to agree on some "first principles" that will promote a shift to collaborative editing. In my opinion it will improve our chances of a successful outcome if all participants sign their agreement to the following principles:

• Focus on content rather than the contributor. Note: This is to be interpreted literally, as worded.
• Be guided by WP content policies, particularly WP:V and WP:NPOV
• Commit to being as economical as possible in posts to this discussion page.
• Work towards consensus in editorial decisions.

Easy right? If you have any questions or comments, by all means start a new section below the signatures. Please signify your agreement below:

• Agree Rick Block (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Glkanter (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Colincbn (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Nijdam (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree glopk (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Gerhardvalentin (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Gill110951 (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How important is it to notify editors?

There were about 10 or 12 active editors when the request for the Mediation Cabal was first filed, may months ago. Does Formal Mediation rely on all these editors being involved, or does it make any difference? Specifically, who all is expected to agree to the pledge? Glkanter (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This mediation will include only those named in the mediation case: Wikipedia: Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem. Sunray (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Under the heading "Parties' agreement to mediation" we haven't heard from 6,7, or 9 in a while, and 8 very, very, rarely. Have they been notified? Should they be notified? Glkanter (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your pointing that out. I will notify them. Sunray (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)  Done

Hi everyone, yes I only add comments rarely. It seems to me a lot of the discussion involves intricacies of statistics and probability which are not my strong points. I have already said how I feel about most of the issues I understand and I don't want to endlessly repeat myself nor add unhelpful opinions on content I'm not qualified to interpret. I have been following the discussions however. Colincbn (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I was on vacation - like, in the "real world". Moreover I have still not managed to get wikipedia messages to me to be forwarded to a real email address. But I'm getting back to business and agree fulheartedly with the principles of mediation. BTW I'm an English maths professor from the Netherlands well known for his arrogance and insensitivity and long words and long sentences. Sorry about that. Gill110951 (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for inclusion in the mediation

Hello, I am an active editor of the article and have been involved in/affected by the controversies surrounding this article since well before the request for mediation. However, when the mediation was requested I chose not to be involved for lack of time. I would now (respectfully, belatedly) request to be involved in the restarted mediation. glopk (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Please add yourself to the list on the mediation page, and sign the groundrules above.   Will Beback  talk  20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Back from abroad, I ask you respectfully to be admitted to this mediation. The relevant sources presented and their underlying assumptions require careful and clear distinction and explication of the exact question they answer. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, you do seem to have been an active participant. As above, please add your name to the main page, sign the groundrules, and engage in the "Explaining opposing views" exercise below.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting me to be involved in this mediation. --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we ask Coffee2theorems as well? He's been as active as Gerhard, and (similarly) was not around when the mediation was started. Looking through the last 500 edits to the article (I eyeballed this - but I don't think I missed anyone) I think Coffee2theorems is the only editor other than folks who are already here who's made more than one or two edits to the article. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that Gerhardvalentin was notified about this mediation by another participant. WP:CANVAS states, in a nutshell: "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Too many participants can make a mediation unwieldy. I will invite Coffee2theorems. Then, unless there are compelling reasons for including additional participants and consensus to do so, we should not be adding further participants. Sunray (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Continue discussions on the talk page, or not?

There's still some ongoing discussions between parties to this mediation at talk:Monty Hall problem. I've just suggested moving at least one of those discussions here. Any recommendations for whether to continue using the article talk page as opposed to this one? I guess more generally, how will we be proceeding here? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It'd be best if discussions of the "issues to be mediated" took place mainly in the context of the mediation. An important part of mediation are the supervised and structured discussions aimed at bringing polarized editors together. If there are arguments going on elsewhere on the same issues that'd be counterproductive. Less contentious issues, such as formatting or citation issues, can proceed outside of mediation.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspected as much. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've archived the talk page. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Timezones

Just an FYI to the mediators - the parties are in widely varying timezones. I know for a fact we have parties in at least the following: US MDT (UTC-6), UK summer time (UTC+1), Central European Time (probably summer time, UTC+2), and Japan Standard Time (UTC+9).

And I'll bet you thought there was a 2 out of 3 chance this was going to be easy :). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that background. Since this is a long-term dispute, I don't think we'll be rushing through this.   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Explaining opposing views

Per Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent, it's very useful for editors in a dispute to try to explain the opposing side's views as clearly and fairly as possible. Let's have each participant in the mediation begin by writing a concise description of one of the contested issues from the other point of view. Each editor should limit their section to 300 words, and it'd be most helpful if the editors with similar views picked different issues but that's not necessary. I've posted a sample section subheading to show the format to follow; editor name and issue being explained. Let's take a day or two for this before moving to the next step. Remember, try to describe the opposing view in a fair, sympathetic manner.   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Garry Kanter: Simple solutions must be accompanied by criticisms

Some editors feel the readers must, without doubt, be made aware that there are reliable sources that state some (all?) reliably sourced simple solutions do not properly address the question as posed in vos Savant's column. To do otherwise is an intellectual disservice to the reader, and violates NPOV unless criticisms, warnings, discussions of 'before or after', 'host bias', and discussions of 'variants' accompany any (most) mentions of the simple solutions. And these same criticisms, etc. of the simple solutions must accompany the conditional solution in the article as well. Only mathematics professionals who meet our standard will be allowed to edit the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. Glkanter (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Glkanter (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin: The conditional solution is the only correct one

In the MHP the player is asked to choose whether to swap or no after the host has opened a door. In this circumstance it is possible that information about the probability that the car is behind the originally chosen door might be revealed by the number of the door opened by the host, even if this is not always the case. Any solution must therefore always consider which door the host has opened. To not show this host choice explicitly, as is the case for the simple solutions, presents an argument that is incomplete. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Block: The first and main section of the article should focus exclusively on simple solutions

The popular solutions presented by vos Savant and others are simple and easy to understand. Per WP:TECHNICAL, these should therefore be presented first. Since the correct answer is difficult to believe (the MHP is the world's most contentious probability puzzle), we should fully explain these solutions including all relevant "aids to understanding" before mentioning any criticisms of these solutions or anything about more advanced topics our readers may not be able to understand like conditional probability. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Glopk: The simple solutions present a complete and rigorous answer to the problem, everything else adds unnecessary detail

The popular solutions presented by vos Savant and others provide the correct answer for the common interpretation of the problem. They are also rigorous when augmented with an assumption of symmetry that is so simple, obvious, and intuitive that needs not be made explicit, and which can be inferred from the sources even where not explicitly stated. Hundreds of sources, including academic ones from psychology-related disciplines, only present a simple solution. Therefore adding further mathematical baggage to the article is arguably unnecessary, and possibly harmful to the lay readers, and its presentation should in any case be deferred to later sections of the article, after the simple solutions only are thoroughly presented and explained. glopk (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam: MHP has to be treated with game theory

(rephrased) Some people consider the MHP to be a kind of game, which may well be treated with simple game theory, understandable for the common reader. Nijdam (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gerhardvalentin: The MHP is not the question: 'Should the contestant stick or switch?', but 'What is the conditional probability?'

Marilyn vos Savant's answer to the question "Should the contestant stick or switch?" is incorrect, because she better had answered to quite another, to our question: "What is the conditional probability to win by switching?". She answered "The contestant should switch", obviously and evidently assuming that the host, if he has the choice, will show one of his two goats uniformly at random, not giving away any evidence of the actual particular constellation, i.e. “we’ve learned nothing to allow us to revise the odds on the door initially chosen by the guest”.
But we preferred to invent a biased telltale host who does give away such clear evidence, by not opening uniformly at random if he has the choice, and by that providing for a new "condition" in opening a door. Our host is allowed to be biased, because of some idiosyncratic reason of his own, toward opening one of his two doors (and each and every guest knows about that bias). He is free to always open this one whenever he can. Considering that act, the probability that the car is hidden behind the door initially chosen by the guest suddenly rises from l/3 to l/2, and the probability of the second closed door drops from 2/3 to 1/2. This will be the case in 2/3 of all games. If, however, the host opens his unfavored and avoided door (this will be in 1/3 of all games), you know that the car is behind his preferred door, and the probability that it is behind the guest's door drops to zero, and the probability to win by switching rises from 2/3 to 1. — Admittedly, that's not the MHP, and the actual constellation cannot be changed by our host, neither the overall Pws of 2/3. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Gill: MHP is a problem from Statistics 101

MHP belongs in an elementary statistics class and essentially has one and only one correct and complete and unambiguous math formulation. This is called "The Standard MHP" - standard math assumptions of equal probabilities are inserted where possible. The Standard MHP, which one could say in this context is "The Right Question", asks you to find a conditional probability. Since it's the "Right Question" there is one and only one "Right Answer", and it's "2/3". The "Right Way" to get that solution is by direct computations using the math tools available at the minimal level needed to formulate the Right Question and get the Right Answer.

Standard statistics and probability textbooks largely agree on this, and papers in journals in those fields, written by/for teachers of such classes, largely agree on this too. Many readers of the Wikipedia page are likely to be students of such a course.

From this starting point one can draw a lot of conclusions. I wrote out a few on my talk page, for clarification and discussion, here [5]. Gill110951 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Determining issues to be mediated

Questions regarding the above section.

1. Are there other issues that need to be included?
2. Should any of these be excluded? If, so why?
3. Are these all the topics at issue?

From this we can begin to formulate an agenda. Sunray (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I regret my error. I seem to misunderstand items #1 and #3, above. Perhaps you could clarify these for me? Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It simply wasn't clear to me what you were doing. If there are other issues, if you could state them briefly, that would be fine. Sunray (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I just re-post? I'm not clear on how I wasn't clear and brief. Glkanter (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, can I re-post my additional issues? Glkanter (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In regard to issues to be included or excluded, I should like that Glkanter clarified his statement above: Only mathematics professionals who meet our standard will be allowed to edit the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. Is Glkanter intimating that this be an issue within the scope of the mediation? If so, what exactly is the issue? glopk (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, should I respond? Glkanter (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Sunray (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam advocated for ignoring basic Wikipedia policies in these two postings. Rick Block, an admin, stated he supported Nijdam's positions. As they are such gross distortions of Wikipedia policy, I'd like the BS to stop, and be ruled as 'disruptive' with immediate discipline if they happen again on the MHP talk pages:

"All is said over and over. The only serious opponent of the expert discussiants is Martin. I, and others, have tried to convince him of the error in the simple solution, but some of his answers show Martin does not have a consistent idea of the problem and the solutions. My suggestion is, we stop discussing. We present in the article the standard form of the problem, give the right solution, and in a subsequent section mention the simple solutions, with a note of their alleged shortcoming, but that they may be understood as a way of understanding. Anyone may then add other aspect, other forms, other solutions, as long as they are well sourced. I don't take any notice of remarks made by glkanter or GerardValentin; they are laymen with no understanding of probability.Nijdam (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)" [6]

"As I said before, the only reason why I started (restarted as I soon learned) this discussion on the MHP is because the so called simple solution, which is no more then a way of understanding, is INCORRECT. Some sources have recognized this, fortunately.There is no source calling the conditional appraoch incorrect (how in the world would that be possible). So the conditional approach is at least impeccable, undiscussed correct. It should be first in the article. If the simple explanation has to come first, any reader should be aware of its shortcoming. I noticed that the MHP is a favorite problem, especially in the not exact area. Almost everywhere there the simple explanation is taken for granted, used as a solution, which it is NOT. What do most people know about this area. Should wikipedia leave them in the dark? I say NO. Even in more exact areas, the MHP is dicussed over and over and students come to consider the simple explanation as a solution. Especially they should take notice of the right solution, but not only they, everyone should know what the right solution is (even Devlin!). So ther is no consensus, what ever that may mean. And Martin, really, you are in no position to judge here.Nijdam (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)" [7]

Glkanter (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Glkanter, by writing those words about maths professionals you are implying, if you are following the instructions our respected mediator has given us (as I understand them), that that is a position which you think some of editors took in the past and as far as you know, still do. And you are trying to honestly give your most sympathetic possible understanding of the reasons you think that such editors might hold such views. I think. It doesn't matter whether some people really do think that or not, and for whatever reason. I think the idea is to clear the air by exposing our hidden understandings of other people's, to us, incomprehensible positions, even when we do our utmost best to try to take them in a constructive way. Is that right, @Sunray? Gill110951 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Sunray (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'm kinda lost now. Where exactly is the list of issues that is supposed to be mediated now? And I don't quite get the reference to the section above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is understandable. We are trying to identify the core issues collaboratively. Messy, at firt, perhaps, but hopefully we will now be able to clarify matters. Sunray (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe my question was not clear enough. I'm referring to "Are there other issues that need to be included?". I'm asking issues other than what?. I can't find a listing of issues here. The section above contains (assumed) viewpoints not issues. Or did you mean to the issues listed on the original mediation. Or am I just blind overlooking a current listing?

If this is meant to simply collect issues again, then we should start enumerating them in a separate prominent listing on this page to separate the agreed/accepted issues from longer comments/general chatter.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin's answers to Sunray's #1, #2, #3

My answers to Sunray's questions:

1. I cannot think of any other issues that should be included although some may arise naturally in discussion.
2. I see no reason to exclude any topics.
3. The comments above seem to cover all the topics at issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Gill: issues to be mediated

I am missing one and only one issue, and what's been brought up so far can stay, AFAIAC.

I'm missing a meta-issue or an issue about issues. I think the article should be focussed on the meta-MHP, or if you prefer the words, the MH Problem -Problem. I think that if we editors could agree that the article is about the M-MHP (or MHP-P as you like), most issues on our plate dissolve. In other words, the question is not "what is the answer", but the question is, "what is the question". All this follows from taking vos Savant's written words (allegedly Craig Whitaker's) as starting point for the article, just as her article is focal point in the MHP eco-system. I've put supporting arguments here [8] (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things struck me in your essay on the meta-MHP.[9]

(A) One was your comment about "The ambiguity of vos Savant's words..." In reading various participants comments, it seems that much of the discussion has been about interpretation (and not only of vos Savant's words). Is this a fair statement?

(B) You also made a plea "to celebrate and reflect the richness of the phenomenon which we are writing about in order to produce a balanced article which addresses the diverse needs of the diverse people who will come to it." Would this be a goal that other participants could agree to as well? Sunray (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter responded to Sunray:

(A) The only thing different between Selvin's (the originator) MHP, and Whitaker/vos Savant's (who made it popular) MHP are Selvin talked about boxes 1 & 2, while vos Savant uses doors 1 & 3. While vos Savant was careless with her premises, Selvin's 2nd letter (19 years prior) removes all ambiguity. Anything beyond this is a contrivance, and is not the MHP. There is an 'agreed interpretation' discussed in the article. Glkanter (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(B) There's no 'rainbows and unicorns' if we can't get the basic issues resolved, like the ones Martin & I describe above, and a few more. Glkanter (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gill110951 responded to Sunray:

(A) Yes, I indeed think that much of the discussion has been about interpretation, since a big part of the discussion has been (I think) about converting a story about a game show into a math problem. Here I am sneekily pushing my POV by deliberately focussing on Marilyn vos Savant's exact wording (which always was, BTW, right at the top of the article!). That focus places the reader in same situation in which they find themselves when someone makes them a bet on this problem after a long unresolved late night discussion in a bar and then go to Wikipedia to find the answer; not exclusively in the situation when they are studying for Statistics 101 and are faced with the problem in an exercise sheet and then go to Wikipedia to find the answer. Moreover I don't want the reader to be told that the MHP primarily, let alone exclusively, belongs in Statistics 101. It certainly started life there and still has a lot of life there, but that's not the only place where it is alive and kicking, interesting and thought-provoking. And many of those other places might well be of more interest to many readers. Gill110951 (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(B) Sunray's new question (B) in response to my answer to his #1, #2, #3, is a question to all the other guys, so if it is important it should perhaps be reposted elsewhere. Gill110951 (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Block responded to Sunray and Gill110951 putting forward a different meta-issue:

(A) & (B) I think we're talking about God, motherhood, and apple pie here. Of course the problem was popularized by vos Savant. Of course there's a usual way the ambiguities in the problem statement that appeared in Parade are resolved making the answer that you double your chances by switching (so, should switch). In addition, of course there's now a wealth of literature that examines the problem from every conceivable angle (including a quantum version!). This is all already in the article and has been for years, it is after all a featured article that has been through two FARCs. I don't think any of this is in the least controversial.

The question becomes, why are we here - i.e. what are we actually arguing about that has filled up 20 pages of talk page archives and has led to edit warring and the article having to be protected?

I have been suggesting for some time that we have a POV issue and that we're actually arguing about

1) whether the article (as of the last FARC or even currently) is NPOV or whether it endorses the POV of the "conditionalists" (those sources who argue that the simple solutions typically presented are not quite responsive to the question).

2) whether the structure of the article should be to focus first and foremost on presenting the simple solutions in an attempt to convince the reader that the chance of winning by switching given the standard interpretation is indeed 2/3 and not 1/2, or whether doing this creates a structural POV effectively saying these solutions are the correct and proper way to understand the problem (i.e. endorses this POV).

I think these are the main issues of contention and nearly all of the arguing is fundamentally about one of these two issues. Note that these both apply primarily to how the article presents the solution to the standard interpretation of the problem. Indeed, a series of edits to the lead and problem description (resulting in this version of the article) were completely uncontested. The question is what comes next? And, because the article is about math which is generally objectively correct or incorrect, I think some editors want the article to express the Truth (as they see it) regardless of what published sources have to say. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's a POV issue but it is not resolved by the formulations (1) and (2). I think there is a third path which is both/neither. It follows by realising that there is not one unique Good and Proper Way. To put it another way, formulations (1) and (2) beg the meta-issue or deny the meta-issue which I see, which follows from accepting that there is not a unique good and proper solution.

The notion that the article should be structured so as to respect The One Unique Good and Proper Way is itself a point of view. This is born out by the mere existence of the controversy between the conditionalists and the non-conditionalists, both here and in the reliable literature. In controversies fundamentalists of any persuasion tend to make the most noise and get the most attention. But we need understand that they tend to have blind spots to sound arguments of their opponents. Finally, they have a blind spot to the opinion of people operating at the level where there can be a coexistence and even a synthesis as well as yet more "fundamentalist" or "pure" or "narrow" solutions. See [10] Gill110951 (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that interpretation, particularly of Whitaker's question, is an important issue. I do not claim that one particular interpretation is the correct one, my point is exactly the opposite. The statement is clearly open to different interpretations, some of which may represent different problems and require different solutions. Some of the possible interpretations are relevant to Rick's questions above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to M.H. concerning The Truth, on personal talk page [[11]] Gill110951 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to R.B. concerning relevance of The Truth at a meta level while respecting WP, on a personal talk page [[12]] Gill110951 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Selvin's problem statement is unambiguous, and he solves it with a simple solution. vos Savant argued at length with Morgan that she is (in my words) describing the same problem as Selvin, and she, too solves it with a simple solution. These two sources (and many, many more) represent one of the various reliably sourced POVs on the MHP. As I interpret Wikipedia policy, there is no justification for the article to take a POV that these two sources are wrong. Citing reliable sources who say they are wrong (although how Selvin can be 'wrong' about a problem he devised escapes me) is appropriate, provided the article itself does not promote such a POV. Which the article currently does, and has done for some time. Glkanter (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Folks may pursue the "Truth" on their own time. When we're Wikipedia editors we are concerned with what is verifiable rather than what is true. See WP:V and WP:TRUTH.

I suggest that editors here avoid referring to each other by name. We're just here to address content issues. So instead of writing, "Why did Will add 'x=2'?" let's try to write something more like "Why are we saying 'x=2'?" That'll keep of focused on the content rather than each other.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter's Response to Sunray's #1 and #3

1. The word 'probability' needs to be removed from the first sentence of the article:

"The Monty Hall problem is a probability puzzle loosely based..."

This falsely promotes the mistaken belief that only formal probability solutions are acceptable. Glkanter (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

2. What is Morgan, et al saying in their 2nd letter? Have Morgan, et al disqualified their paper as a 'reliable source'?

"Response

"Our kind thanks to Mr. Hogbin and Dr. Nijdam for correcting our mistake. We will add that should the player have observed any previous plays of the game, those data, too, will modify the prior, and can produce posterior calculations other than 2/3 even with a symmetric prior. This, of course, is something else that we should have pursued. In any case, it should not distract from the essential fact that 1/(1 + q) ≥ 1/2 regardless of q. Simply put, if the host must show a goat, the player should switch. We take this opportunity to address another issue related to our article, one that arose in vos Savant’s (1991) reply and in Bell’s (1992) letter, and has come up many times since. To wit, had we adopted conditions implicit in the problem, the answer is 2/3, period."

3. Is this table derived from Carlton's solution as per Wikipedia policy, or is it OR? And, since Rick Block just said he wants to continue arguing the math, is this correct?

"As long as you initially pick a goat prize, you can't lose: Monty Hall must reveal the location of the other goat, and you switch to the remaining door - the car. In fact, the only way you can lose is if you guessed the car's location correctly in the first place and then switched away. Hence, whether the strategy works just depends on whether you initially picked a goat (2 chances out of 3) or the car (1 chance out of 3)." (Carlton 2005).

Decision Tree Showing Results and Probabilities As Per Carlton's (2005) Simple Solution to Whitaker's Question in vos Savant's Column.

• Carlton, Matthew (2005). "Pedigrees, Prizes, and Prisoners: The Misuse of Conditional Probability". Journal of Statistics Education [online]. 13 (2). Retrieved 2010-05-29.

Glkanter (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in discussions of the actual issues here. This thread just concerns which issues to mediate. Let's keep the list as compact as we can, otherwise we'll never get to everything. Please keep responses short and direct.   Will Beback  talk  18:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Glkanter you change the picture to something like this:

Decision Tree Showing Results and Probabilities As Per Carlton's (2005) Simple Solution to Whitaker's Question in vos Savant's Column; Decision Tree Own Research by Glkanter and Gill110951.

The door numbers are irrelevant hence there is no reason to condition on them. If you do, you have more computations to do, and at the end you merely discover what you already knew: the door numbers don't change the answer. On the other hand, I don't propose adding the picture to the article - that would be overkill. I just want to argue that the simple solution is complete and completely rigorous within its interpretation of the problem, which is as legitimate as any other. Now Glkanter just needs to find a reliable source who supports this point of view.Gill110951 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That tree is derived from Carlton's solution, Whitaker's question as per vos Savant's column, and simple math. This is all within Wikipedia policy. It is not OR. (ps You get billing for removing door #s?)

Carlton is a reliable source, published in a reliable journal who provided the simple solution quoted much earlier. It is contrary to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia to eliminate his work from the article's Solution section because a 'consensus' of editors claim it is being used out of context. That's not how NPOV works. Glkanter (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious how many of the opposition editors, who are interpreting Carlton's intent as being contrary to the quote, are native speakers of English? I believe this topic was brought up previously by another editor. Glkanter (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam: issues to be mediated

1. Is the widely accepted formulation of the MHP the one in which the player knows which door she has chosen and which door has been opened.
2. If yes, should a solution use this information.
3. Is it widely accepted that the MHP is a probability puzzle.
4. If the answer to 1, 2 and 3 is yes, should the so-called "conditional solution" be the first solution to show.
5. Should the criticism on the so-called "simple solution" be clearly mentioned.
6. The answers to these questions influence also the showing of (correct) diagrams and other sections of the article, like other simple solutions, the many doors solution, the simulation, and may be more. Nijdam (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We already have a list of issues to be mediated. We'll do well to get through a few items there. Unless the items on this list here have been the subject of intractable disputes we should leave them out. Could you please add links to the previous talk page discussion on these topics?   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is useful to link to the overwhelming discussion about the issues I mentioned. I think these issues are the basic ones to be mediated. Nijdam (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is of any help in the mediation process:

There are two main interpretations (or equivalent) of the MHP:

F1: The player is asked to switch even before she picks a door.

F2: The player is asked to switch after she picked a door and the host opened another.

There are two main solutions (or equivalent) of the MHP considered as a probability puzzle:

S1: The simple solution, stating without any further arguing that sticking wins the car in 1/3 of the cases, and hence switches results in 2/3 chance getting the car.

S2: The solution based on the conditional (or if you like: posterior) probability given the picked door and the opened door.

Facts:

S1 solves F1

S2 solves F2

S1 does not solve F2

S2 does not solve F1

Although it seems quite obvious to me that F2 is the favoured interpretation, as F2 is not solved by S1, there is a tendency to defend F1.

Some editors seem to try finding evidence in sources that S1 solves F2. The problem is that most sources that support S1 do not clearly specify whether they consider F1 or F2.

Nijdam (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW: in searching the sources, don't forget the letter Martin Hogbin and I wrote in reaction on Morgan's article. In the letter the MHP and its solution is presented in a nutshell. It is (peer) reviewed and published, and in this quality definitely reliable, much more reliable than some of the other mentioned sources, like Devlin, which are no more than unreviewed own ideas in popular magazines.

• Martin Hogbin, W. Nijdam. [13] The American Statistician. May 1, 2010, 64(2): 193-194. doi:10.1198/tast.2010.09227.

Nijdam (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, @Nijdam, that S1 does not solve F2. Recall that the question is: "should you switch?" and that the player knows in advance what the sequence of moves will be: host (hides car in advance), player (chooses door), host (opens other door revealing goat), player (stays or switches). You just don't know in advance which door numbers will be involved. Since Carlton and Glkanter's prior beliefs as to location of car and actions of the host are totally neutral regarding the door-numbers (all we have are Whitaker / vos Savant's words), the actual door-numbers of the door you chose and of the door opened by host and hence of the remaining door are irrelevant. You only are interested in the unconditional probability, 2/3, that the remaining door has the car. Of course the conditional probability that the remaining door has the car given you chose Door 1 and host opens Door 3 is equal to the unconditional probability 2/3. It has to be the same, we are not interested in it because we know in advance that the actual door numbers are irrelevant. People don't give this argument in introductory statistics courses in the chapter on Bayes theorem, because in that chaper they want the student to play with Bayes theorem. The primary aim is to learn how to compute with Bayes, not how to solve the MHP most efficiently. People understand intuitively (and correctly) that the actual door numbers are irrelevant and hence are (correctly) totally satisfied with the simple solution.

If however we would be considering many real repetitions of the game rather than our initial beliefs about one single instance, then the assumptions of equal probabilities of each door and of equal probabilities for the host's choice would have to be justified explicitly, by somehow knowing that the host and his team use fair random generators to make their choices, every time.

Really clever players will choose their initial door number by a fair random generator, in advance. That way their unconditional probability 2/3 is guaranteed to be true, without having to make any assumptions, and it is universally true for everyone, it is not just a matter of subjective belief. This is where the economics and game theory literature has a new slant on the problem which the elementary statistics literature ignores. Gill110951 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Gill: you need again a lot of words, but do you anyhow understand the meaning of F2? Nijdam (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I need a lot of words because I think you keep asking the wrong questions. Of course I understand the meaning of F2. It does not change the fact that a) the player knows he will be asked this question in advance and b) he may as well decide what he will do in all scenarios, in advance, c) he does not have to decide an optimal strategy by computing a posterior probability at the moment of choice. But if so, he has to decide whether he is more interested in his subjective probability expressing his degree of belief at that moment, or an objective probability according to a frequentist picture of the problem. In the latter case he probably does not even know the necessary probabilities, so can't compute it anyway. In the former case he will probably have no prior preference for any doors, ie, his prior beliefs are invariant under permutations of the door numbers. Hence the door numbers are irrelevant to his decision process and he may as well compute an unconditional subjective probability. If he is really smart he won't rely on intuition but will outsmart any cunning quizmaster by choosing his initial door completely at random and thereafter switching. He does not need to know any other probabilities at all in order to know that this is the best possible strategy. He'll win with probability 2/3 and the conditional probability of winning is both uninteresting and unknowable. I would recommend any future player to do an elementary course in game theory, not an elementary course in statistics. But my opinions and your opinions are irrelevant to editing the wikipedia pages. What do the reliable sources say? On the other hand it's our job as academic mathematicians to produce reliable sources for the future. Gill110951 (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite curious what you mean by: b) he may as well decide what he will do in all scenarios, in advance? And then: I do not want to discuss here all the scientific ins and outs, but just what is appropriate for the article. Nijdam (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

=> S1 solves F2 if no "host's bias" exists and is known to exist. (Falk) --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Gerhardvalentin: issues to be mediated

1. The widely accepted formulation of the MHP is the one in which the player knows which door she has chosen and which door has been opened by the host, showing a goat.
2. Knowing which one of his two doors has been opened by the host, showing a goat, does not provide for any new "condition" as long as some "host's bias" is only presumed but not exactly known (Falk). Any "conditional" approach "per se" never is helpful nor necessary as long as the extent of such a "real existing host's bias" isn't explicitly given and known. Opening of one of two doors by an unbiased host does not provide for any "new relevant information" that could become a new condition. We should be careful not to confusingly mix cabbage and turnips.
3. Criticism on the "simple solution" is only justified if the host's bias in advance is known to be given (Falk).
4. We should carefully distinguish the "unbiased" opening of a door by an unbiased host (as per vos Savant's basis) and the opening of a door by a host whose "bias" in advance is already clearly known. So, to be careful not to confuse, the "conditional solution" should only be presented in connection with a sound "condition", i.e. in connection with a "bias" of the host that is known in advance. The conditional approach is neither necessary nor helpful but confusing without such explicit and sound basis. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
5. The "conditional" approach, in an adequate manner (that means in one short paragraph presenting the essential steps of treating the odds}, necessary to show the correct answer, is necessary and helpful, but never favoring any mistaken approach/assumptions. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We already have a list of issues to be mediated. We'll do well to get through a few items there. Unless the items on this list here have been the subject of intractable disputes we should leave them out. Could you please add links to the previous talk page discussion on these topics?   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the core of the problem, the heart of the dispute over years. The conditional approach per se, refusing to name the very foundation of any conditional approach, ie a new condition / relevant information leading to "closer results" for the actual given situation: Any known bias of the host that has expressly to be mentioned when presenting any "conditional solution", what constantly is rejected. Just "opening of one door" by an unbiased host never is a relevant "new condition". Gerhardvalentin (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well where is that list?--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now there are many suggestions as to what the issues are. Next, we could engage in a process that will result in a number of (say 5-6) issues that participants agree are the ones to be dealt with in this mediation. I appreciate the efforts of several participants to suggest a short list. We (mediators) could propose a list of issues which we would distill from what has been discussed on this page. Does this make sense? Sunray (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The current list is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Monty_Hall_problem#Issues_to_be_mediated, but as Sunray says we can compile a new list with suggestions from the parties.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think having the mediators propose a list of what they've heard the issues to be would be a good idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes as I posted before, it might be a good idea to collect the issues prominently in a separate section or redirect prominently the original mediation page. Otherwise we have way too much noise and side discussion. Currently by just looking at this page it seems always like guesswork to me, what the real issues are.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The concern of conditionalists: In the article, the "Conditional probability solution", not at all being helpful to solve the "MHP 50:50 paradoxon", for years has unnecessarily been overloaded with some less important "biased" side aspects, for years prominently showing unnecessary conditional probability analysis in detail and in depth, favored just by some sources of less significance. Ignoring that any door preference of a biased host can easily and clearly be explained, without needing Bayes and without overcrowding mathematical conditional probability analysis. This less important side aspect should be reduced to an appropriate reasonable extent, not dominating the MHP paradoxon. Mediation should deal with this permanent problem. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn: issues to be mediated

In response Sunray's Question #1: The main issue I have been concerned about is covered in the points above. Also I essentially agree with Gill's points about the meta-issue of the MHP-P as well. In response to Rick above I do not entirely agree with the stance "the article is about math". Of course math is big part of it. But we do not have articles for every possible math problem. The reason that this particular mathematical construct has a name and an article in WP is solely because of the way humans interpret it psychologically. So in my mind the MHP is not at heart a "math problem" but is in fact a "psychology problem". Colincbn (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Glopk: issues to be mediated

The current list of issues to be mediated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Monty_Hall_problem#Issues_to_be_mediated looks still valid to me, and I am rather wary of enlarging it - I believe a measure of success for this mediation will be whether it proves to be timely, and keeping the list of issues short and concrete is a necessary precondition for timeliness. That list also seems to me quite congruent with the opponent's views written by the parties above - in the sense that those views reflect with fair approximation the background convictions with which the parties have so far addressed the issues under mediation.

However, if the other parties agree, I would add Glkanter's point about whether the picture he drew from Carlton's paper is OR or not and (separately) whether it is worth of inclusion in the article. This for practical reasons - I feel that this particular issue needs resolution, as it has resulted in repeated reverts, an edit warring ban and two recent edit locks on the article. However, again for practical reasons, I suggest that it be left as the last item to discuss on the agenda - thus giving enough time for the personal bruisings to heal and cool-mindedness to work. Last, I am strongly opposed to including in this mediation the last point Glkanter has (somewhat confusedly) proposed, that is (my paraphrasis) whether the professional background in mathematics of some editors should be excised from the discussion in the talk pages. The examples he showed above may or may not be violations of WP policy requirements on editors' interaction on the talk pages: if they are, there are already appropriate WP forums for addressing such grievances. In any case, they have precious little to do with the article's content, and I'd much rather we got to work on the article itself. glopk (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty typical of this mob. I'm defending, using diffs that demonstrate the offenses, my Wikipedia privileges to edit, discuss and participate fully in, the MHP. It gets turned around that I'm advocating for 'experts' to be excluded. I suggest/advocate that comments such as I copied are disruptive and those editors who make such misguided 'contributions' should be excluded. Not on the basis of their education, but on their insistence of ignoring basic Wikipedia policies regarding 'who can edit' and a lack of showing 'good faith' in these discussions. Glkanter (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The description of Carlton's decision tree causing the recent edit warring is unfounded. I have not edited that into the article since July 4, 2010. Since then, there has been edit warring on:

Using Carlton's quote vs a paraphrasing

2 paragraphs of text at the beginning of the Conditional solution

Falk's paragraph in the Sources of Confusion

Whether the Conditional solution should come before Aids to Understanding and Sources of confusion

But NOT Carlton's decision tree. And for the record, Glkanter did not participate in the 3rd or 4th items on the above list. Glkanter (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'd be grateful if you'd avoid such expressions as this mob when referring to fellow editors engaged in this mediation - it is unnecessary and happens to be very offensive in my culture. My opposition to including in this mediation any personal grievances arising from interaction on talk pages stands: I do not see anything useful coming from it. glopk (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess misunderstandings like that can happen with a multi-national website like Wikipedia. Likewise, I find your intentional distortions of my postings and the erroneous attribution of the entire edit warring as my fault rather offensive. I noticed you did not respond to the substance of my response. Perhaps you could delete your offensive, erroneous, unsupported post, in which case I would, of course, remove the response that you found offensive. Glkanter (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your guess, I hope we can avoid such misunderstandings in the future. I am afraid the other points are wrong. Or maybe it is another misunderstanding, this time concerning the meaning of the words "attribution", "recent" and "warring"- surely a honest mistake. First, I did not attribute the edit warring to anyone. Kindly re-read my paragraph: I wrote that "this particular issue", namely "Glkanter's point about whether the picture etc.", has "resulted in repeated reverts, an edit warring ban and two recent edit locks on the article" - notice how I was focusing on the content and not the contributor, as we have all agreed to do in this mediation? Is there any fault attributed to any editor? Next, was this a fair assessment? Let's see: the last time the "Carlton's decision tree" picture was inserted was on July 29th (not July 4th, see here), immediately after the expiration of the first of two recent edit locks, and it was immediately reverted. Prior to that, it was inserted and reverted on July 4th (see here), immediately before the same edit lock. Prior to that it was inserted and reverted once on July 3rd (see here), three times on July 2nd (see here and here and here), once on July 1st (here), twice on June 30th (here and here), and there I stop. It is my considered opinion that this pattern of repeated insertion and reverts in a brief period of time was, in fact, edit warring, and it did mightly contribute to causing at least one protective lock.

I do hope that this opinion and the above timeline will not be regarded as offensive, erroneous or unsupported as well. In any case, I am not interested in re-parsing the edit history of the article any longer, it is a boring and fruitless exercise, and I have engaged in it once here just to correct a honest mistake. As I said, I am all in favor of having included in this mediation the issues related to the picture in question, as Glkanter has requested glopk (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I did, indeed add Carlton's decision tree once subsequent to July 4, 2010, on July 29, 2010 as you pointed out. The rest of my comments stand. Glkanter (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, I find remarks such as the following unnecessarily personal:

• "... pretty typical of this mob",
• "... your intentional distortions of my postings and the erroneous attribution of the entire edit warring..."
• "... your offensive, erroneous, unsupported post...

These breach the groundrule about dealing in content, not the contributor. Would you be willing to keep your remarks within the spirit of the groundrule? Sunray (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Glkanter (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Expound on Will's point above

Will said above: "When we're Wikipedia editors we are concerned with what is verifiable rather than what is true. See WP:V and WP:TRUTH." It actually goes a little further - we're concerned with the prevailing opinion (or opinions) expressed by reliable sources. We're scribes, not original thinkers. When writing articles here, we're presenting the opinions of reliable sources not our own. It's like the exercise of writing for the opponent. We need to determine what opinion or opinions are expressed by reliable sources, and write those, regardless of what we think.

This is simple in cases where there is universal or near universal agreement (among sources) about the truth, as is often the case in math and science - meaning what a rational person thinks of as the truth and what sources say is the truth match, so writing what you think is the truth is the same thing as writing what sources say is the truth. In cases where the truth is more slippery, like say history or philosophy or any of the arts, there is a distinct chance that what any individual person believes (no matter how "rational" that person may be) does not match the prevailing opinion of sources. In these cases we must put aside our personal opinions and write what the sources say, whether we agree or not. Deep expertise in a topic often interferes with this, which is why writing about oneself is highly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). The point is usually expressed in terms of bias, but it is just as much an inability to distinguish what you know to be the truth from what has been published. This is equally the case in any area where you have deep personal expertise.

What all this means to the article here about the MHP is that no matter how brilliantly insightful it may be we simply cannot present any argument that is fundamentally novel. The question the article is addressing is not "what is the best approach", but "what are the approaches presented by reliable sources". It's a "meta" approach, focused on prevalence of opinion (among reliable sources). After reading the article you should be able to draw a pie chart showing the differing views (as slices) sized roughly in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing from the Mediators on this interpretation of a 'prevalence' theory vis-a-vis the pie chart. I'm curious how this theory of greater 'prominence' can be put into practice without becoming an NPOV violation, and do they consider the current MHP article an example of this theory being applied properly? Glkanter (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to the Mediators: The two sides have already demonstrated that we don't even agree on which reliable sources are on which side of the argument. Amazing? Yes. True? Yes.

So, if we're going to follow the 'prominence' theory, a new issue is 'which reliable sources are on which side?' One editor had begun such a survey on his talk pages a few months ago. Good luck! Glkanter (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We can start addressing sources shortly. Regarding this policy issue, WP:NPOV says:

• ... all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

So we need to include all significant views, whether common or uncommon, but the more common views deserve the greatest weight. Is there any question about that?   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Do the Mediators consider the current article to be conforming to the above bullet point? How do the editors determine the relative commonness of the various POVs? I can tell you from experience that like most everything else related to the MHP, there was no consensus whatsoever as to which sources even chose a side, and then which side they chose. This 'prominence' item alone, if allowed to, could consume endless time and effort. Glkanter (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The role of mediators is not to pass judgement on the article and particularly not on its technical elements. If we think policy is being violated, we may comment, but it will be up to the article editors to decide what to include, or not include in the article. Sunray (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So, the opposing sides of the MHP are encouraged to find consensus (my own words follow), with the guidance, help and sometimes, intervention of the Mediators? But the Mediators specifically will not make judgments or offer opinions as to the reliably sourced content or structure of the article, unless Wikipedia policy is being violated? And even then, the editors' consensus will still be the deciding factor? But isn't that the crux of the dispute? That the two sides have widely divergent views of how the Wikipedia NPOV policy, and a few others, are to be reflected in the article? With all due respect, this sounds very much like what has taken place for many years, although the Mediators will keep the tone of the discussions more civil during the mediation. Glkanter (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Mediators explained it is outside of their role to respond to the question:

"...do they consider the current MHP article an example of this (prevalence) theory being applied properly?"

On the other hand, the Mediators will:

"If we think policy is being violated, we may comment..."

If the two sides are unable to come to an editorial consensus resolving the items that are on the finalized list of issues, how will the Mediation end? Will the Mediators have any comment at that point on the current article, with respect to Wikipedia policy? Glkanter (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the message of the lead essay of "Expound on Will's point above" that MHP is a topic where truth is slippery. I think it's not about mathematics. I think it is primarily (ie 95% of the piechart) about mathematization. Mathematization is an art, not a science. Different artists paint different pictures of the same scene. And MHP-P is mathematization at the play school level. Everyone can join in, no need to be a maths professor (in many senses, better not to be a maths professor). Different kids build different sandcastles with the same sand. cf. MHP

I disagree however with the notion that people with deep expertise should keep away. Yes they should keep a low profile, assume more than average humility, be more than well aware of Wikipedia policies. But I hope scribes take notice when a logical inconsistency or a hidden assumption is pointed out. This is not rocket science. If the same reliable source says "A" and "not A" and another says both "B" and "not B" (e.g.: Selvin, Morgan, ..) and scribes transcribe *all* the reliably sourced but manifestly contradictory "facts" we'll end up with the Bible, not with a Wikipedia. By the way, we Wikipedia editors do do Own Research at the meta level. We organize and synthesize material "out there". If we were scribes we would only be copying and possibly merging existing encyclopeadias. Mathematical insight into the relationships between different approaches is a great meta-tool for wikipedia editors on topics like this, I believe.

Finally and most importantly, I don't see any fundamental novel approaches being "pushed" here by anyone right now. Do you have a specific approach in mind? Gill110951 (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The main point is not that truth is slippery, but that truth is not the issue so there is absolutely no need to argue about it. What is the issue is accurately presenting the views of reliable sources in rough proportion to their prevalence within the body of literature about the topic. Period.

I don't think experts should keep away, in fact quite the opposite. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. These are not saying experts need to keep away, but rather that experts need to make sure their own biases do not interfere with the editing process. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the concept of NPOV is accepted by everyone the problem is how to interpret it. It is not even clear that the simple solutions and the conditional solutions represent different POVs. Giving one specific solution to a problem does not necessarily mean that you think other solutions are wrong. There is one clear exception to this which is the Morgan paper, which describes some solutions as 'false', although even in that case, and bearing in mind their latest responses, it is not clear that they consider the simple solution to be incorrect for the standard (well-defined, completely symmetrical) formulation of the problem.

The main dispute seems to me to be about how to present the solutions in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the simple solutions are incomplete, or address the wrong problem, or are based on faulty reasoning is not uniquely the POV of just one source (Morgan et al). It is expressed in varying degrees by numerous other sources as well. Characterizing this as the POV of one source, and suggesting that Morgan et al. have retracted their criticism of simple solutions, is (IMO) simply incorrect. We'll presumably be talking about sources soon, so it is premature to argue about this here - I just want to make it absolutely clear that these points are not uncontested. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin's point about how to present the solutions does seem to be central. So we will want to carefully consider the best way to do that, right? Sunray (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm simply disputing (for the record) the claims that the POV that the "simple solutions" are in some sense inadequate is that of a single source and that the source mentioned has recanted this criticism. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful with a word like "solution". Is "the solution to a problem" the answer you find, or the route you took to find it? Moreover, it depends on what is the problem I am adressing. For instance I could say

The answer is 2/3

You ask me how I got it. I say

It was obviously a trick question, so the answer 1/2 must be wrong, 1/3 makes no sense, so I guessed 2/3.

In that case the question by implication has specifically asked for a probability. If it asks for an action, I would have said

The answer is "switch"

You ask me how I got it. I say

It was obviously a trick question, so the answer "it doesn't make a difference so I'll stay" is obviously wrong.

I'm just trying to say that we have problems at many levels and solutions at many levels so no wonder we keep getting confused. Gill110951 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughness Of This Mediation

Will Beback remarked in a response to Nijdam, "We already have a list of issues to be mediated. We'll do well to get through a few items there."

I would like to make the observation/suggestion that the editors have demonstrated we cannot resolve our conflicts on our own. I think the article protections and editor blocks due to edit warring are indicative of this. As is our being in Formal Mediation. This dispute has gone on for over six years, maybe seven, and seems intractable.

Accordingly, I would like to suggest that we try to be as inclusive as possible with the issues list in this mediation. If am issue is inappropriate for mediation for some reason, then it would not be included. Otherwise, I believe that for any legitimate issue that doesn't get resolved here, we would be right back where we were on the discussion pages. Which is 'getting nowhere, fast'. I understand the Mediators may desire a speedy mediation rather than a long drawn out one, but unless we resolve issues here, they are unlikely to ever be resolved. All of the editors in this mediation have invested a great deal of time in the discussion on the various talk pages, and we still have a lot we don't agree on. I think the editors' future time investment (near term, anyways) is more constructively spent in this mediation than on talk pages. Glkanter (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As Glkanter has introduced some historical perspective ("This dispute has gone on for over six years, maybe seven...") I am adding the following additional perspective. This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 23, 2005. Then as the result of a Featured article review the article was kept as featured (06:14, 29 January 2007). Then again as the result of a Featured article review the article was again kept as featured (20:43, 18 May 2008). hydnjo (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're clarifying the history, the controversy over the conditional vs. unconditional approach actually started with a thread on the talk page in Feb 2008, [14] with an anonymous user complaining about this version of the article - about two and a half years ago, not six or seven. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Block and Hydnjo are correct. The article began in 2001 and prior to Feb, 2008, a simple solution was the only solution provided under the heading 'Solutions', and without the discussions of 'host bias'. It appears to me that the original FA version of the article and the January, 2007 FA review version bore no resemblance whatsoever to the current article in terms of prevalence of the conditional solution or criticisms of the simple solutions.

In the May 18, 2008 version of the article, The Solution section began with this sentence:

"The overall probability of winning by switching is determined by the location of the car."

It had eliminated the earlier simple solution in favor of an overly complex diagram (perhaps supporting the above statement), which looks to be the much the same as the conditional decision tree also included in the Solution section. The Solution section also included discussion of the conditional solutions, the conditional tree, and has a discussion of 'different questions'. There was no direct criticism of the simple solutions in the Solution section, as the simple solutions had been eliminated entirely from the Solution section. Glkanter (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Question For Nijdam

In the section of this page titled "Nijdam: issues to be mediated", you wrote the following in regard to the letter Martin and you had published in American Statistican:

"It is refereed and published, and in this quality definitely reliable, much more reliable than some of the other mentioned sources, like Devlin, which are no more than unrefereed own ideas in popular magazines."

[Note to the reader: Nijdam had made this reply to a version of the above paragraph that did not include my introductory sentence:]

The text I deleted was not written here by me. Nijdam (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[Resuming my original post, without further edit:]

Not so much, really. Then why was it necessary for Martin and you to write a letter correcting an elementary probability error in Morgan's paper that the journal published in 1991? I'm not aware of any other MHP sources that have had (refereed!) letters correcting their mistakes. Just Morgan's paper in American Statistician. Glkanter (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam, I see you have changed 'refereed' to 'peer reviewed'. This does not change the apparent fallacy of your argument. Could you please respond? Glkanter (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A refereed letter? That'd be something new. However, you'd be surprised at how often very valuable articles have published corrections, and remain very valuable nevertheless. The best example on top of my head is by Enrico Fermi in Nature 1934, with the celebrated correction by Ida Noddak. Yet Fermi won his Nobel expressly for the work that was in part reported in the Nature article :-) glopk (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't originate the 'refereed letter' claim. That was posted earlier, by a different editor. A portion of which is copied at the beginning of this section. Morgan, et al, = Fermi? It's so obvious once you mention it. Glkanter (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Will said above we'll be addressing sources shortly. Can we please defer this conversation until then? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your suggestion would be equally valuable, maybe more so, if posted following the original posting on this topic, that I was responding to? Glkanter (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the two points of view?

I had a look at the main article and it explained quite clearly what the Monty Hall problem is. It also seemed to be putting forward the viewpoint that the probability of benefitting by switching doors is not 1/2 as many people would tend to instinctively believe. So is that what the argument is all about? Are there some people who think that it is 1/2, or is it that everybody accepts that it is not 1/2 and that they are all arguing over the reasons why it is not 1/2? I had a look at this 'request for mediation' to see if it might shed some light on the matter which is to be mediated. But it didn't. David Tombe (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, my two cents is that's it's all about NPOV, reliable sources and related issues. One side says that certain solutions are criticized by reliable sources, and this criticism must be prominent in the article. The other side recognizes that the criticisms that come from reliable sources are to be reflected in the article, but not in a manner that promotes a POV. It is my opinion that the article has in the past, and continues to, promote a POV. And that this POV adds no value to the reader's experience. Quite the opposite, really. While no editors claim it's 50/50, some claim certain 'simple' solutions do not properly solve the 2/3 - 1/3 result. Glkanter (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, Thanks very much for clarifying what the dispute is about. I've wondered about it for some time. You have now confirmed my suspicions. Everybody is agreed on something, but they disagree on why they agree. So let's have a look at the issue in question. There are only two case scenarios. The first is that door 1 has a car, in which case it would be to his disadvantage to change doors. The second is that door 1 has a goat, in which case it would be to his advantage to change doors. But somehow, you have all managed to duplicate the second case scenario on the basis of which of the other two doors has the car and which has the goat. That shouldn't matter, and the duplication is a mistake in my opinion. The man who is controlling the show will simply open the door with the goat. The fact that the goat might have been at either door 2 or door 3 doesn't duplicate the probability factor.

The article states how most people assume that the answer is 50/50, but that in fact, based on the sources, it is not 50/50. Well I will have to side with the most people who assume that it is 50/50. My own view would be that the reason why there is so much disagreement at this article is because all the participants are wrong about what they agree in common. They are all agreeing about something that is wrong, and so we have a recipe for eternal argument as to the reasons why they all agree with each other on the core point. That's my two cents. It will be interesting to see if this matter is ever resolved. David Tombe (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your response really follows from my answer. It's the reliable sources that count. Hopefully, arguments over the math will no longer occur on the Wikipedia MHP talk pages. Glkanter (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think David's post above clearly shows that the article needs to be focused on presenting the MHP in a way that allows non-mathematicians to see why the answer is, in fact, not 1/2. He has read the article and still thinks that you have a 50/50 chance regardless of whether or not you switch. Which is obviously incorrect. Colincbn (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, The comments on my talk page focused my attention on the importance of considering the initial probability that the man chooses the car. There is a 2/3 chance that he will not choose the car, and this is the crucial fact in the analysis which I overlooked. It would seem then that you are all right after all. And if he doesn't choose the car, the controller then exposes a goat, hence making it a certainty that he will choose the car if he switches on those 2/3 of occasions. So why this initial hunch on the part of most people, including myself, that it should be 1/2? I can only speak for myself here, but my error was that I disregarded the initial probability and focused on the problem beginning at the point in time when he was offered the choice to switch. But the odds actually begin when he chooses his door in the first place. Having said all that, I hope that you can get this dispute resolved because it is an interesting article. It seems strange that there should be such a prolonged argument between people who are agreed on the basics. Maybe it's because those who have correctly realized that the answer is 2/3 still can't fully explain why it isn't 1/2. Whatever the final outcome is, try and keep the first few sections of the article basic and leave all the conflicting opinions to sections lower down in the article. David Tombe (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What a delightful turnaround! Yes, you described the beauty of the paradox, in your own words, in an excellent way. And yes, my side of the dispute is trying very hard to make the first sections of the Article clear, concise, and unambiguous, very much like you describe. Explanations should be left to the reliable sources (or discussions on user pages). Putting them in a coherent, NPOV order is the reponsibilty of the editors. Thanks for your interest! Glkanter (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, from what Rick tells me on my talk page, it seems that there are actually two different case scenarios. That means that there are two different problems to be treated in two separate sections. Rick tells me that there is a version in which the guest is offered a switch prior to any doors being open. That is certainly a different problem. Is the answer supposed to be 2/3 for that as well? I would have my doubts, but I may be wrong just like yesterday. As it stands now, I instinctively think that in this latter scenario, the second choice will be no better than the first choice. Can you please enlighten me. David Tombe (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not be drawn into this argument. The reliable sources is the point, and presenting them in a way that specifically does NOT choose sides is what a Wikipedia editor is charged with doing. You described the paradox perfectly: why is it 2/3 - 1/3 and not 50/50? Your exact answer is well documented in the reliable literature. ALL of the reliable sources claim they are answering Whitaker's question as printed by Marilyn vos Savant. Except Selvin, who originated the problem 18 years earlier, and asked it in a nearly identical way. So, as per the reliable sources, there are NOT 2 different problems being asked or solved. What else is there to say from a Wikipedia standpoint? Glkanter (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources that are being criticized for not solving the 'right' problem give no indication that they are not doing so. They refer to Whitaker & vos Savant, and come up with 2/3 - 1/3. Just like the other guys. This is the POV that they are doing nothing wrong. As it is the reliable source 'critics' who say those sources are doing something wrong, that becomes a second POV. One that is not espoused by the very sources they are criticizing. For the article to take one side or the other in an UNDUE fashion is a NPOV violation. Which the article currently suffers from. Glkanter (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, As a total outsider, I would tend to agree with you. I have just read through the MHP main article and I can see nothing at all about another case scenario. It strikes me that it's a plain and simple case of three doors, one with a prize behind it. There will be a 2/3 chance that you don't choose the prize. If the host opens another door to expose no prize, then you will have a 2/3 chance of winning if you switch doors. It seems to me that the article contains far too many overly complicated attempts to explain this problem, and that these attempts are merely confusing the issue. The only bits of the article which I found interesting were the introduction and the discussions about why most people initially think that the answer is 50/50. I didn't find any useful information in the article as regards convincing me that the answer is 2/3. But I did read with interest how most people, including academics, on being shown their error will dig in, unlike pigeons. At some stage, I would hope that alot of the explanatory sections could be drastically cut down in size, and that any explanations should be based on convincing a sceptic, and that the key point is to emphasize the fact that the odds are 2:1 against the contestant sitting on a prize after choosing a door. David Tombe (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume you're Dave Tombe. Great, we agree on about 99% of what you wrote. I don't think it's in Wikipedia's mission statement to be "convincing a skeptic", yet that is the article's current, clumsy, approach. Clearly presenting all the material, yes. "Convincing" anybody, no. Glkanter (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, Rick seems to be telling me that there are sources in existence which criticize the 'simple solution' and claim that it is in reality addressing the case scenario in which the person is being offered the choice to switch prior to the host opening any doors. If such sources exist, I would be inclined to disagree with those sources. But if such sources do exist, then I can see that you have got a big problem. Conflicting sources exist in every branch of academia. Very often good wikipedia articles are ruined by people who have no comprehension of the subject matter but who know how to hide behind sources. The result is usually an incoherent mess of quotes from faulty sources. So I don't know what the solution would be here. It's a typical wikipedia type problem which recalls the age old saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. David Tombe (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What'd that take, a little over 12 hours? You're lucky. Many of us have been at this for over 2 years. Glkanter (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, I suspect that many of you have been at this for two years BECAUSE it is a 'sources against sources' conflict. Such restrictions undermine rational argument and make it destined to go on forever. I thought that I finally understood the topic, but as you can see on my talk page, all kinds of extra complications are being fed in. We are now dealing with 'secret flashings of information'. At any rate, can you please tell me the line up. Who are the main players on each side? You are obviously on one side. Who are your allies and who are your opponents? If I know that, it might make it easier for me to establish what the conflict is actually about. But as it stands now, it is so complicated that I can't even work out the sides from reading the edits, because it all seems to have drifted off into multi-decker peripherals. And what do you think about changing doors prior to any action? Would it make any difference? David Tombe (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

David, this is a mediation. You are welcome to observe and to discuss particular issues on your or various participants' talk pages. However, general discussions about the article do not belong here. As to ways of solving the conflict, thanks for your suggestions. Would you be willing to leave that to the mediators? Thanks. Sunray (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunray, No problem. I'll leave it to the mediators. David Tombe (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

Anyone who would like to better understand how the discussions on the MHP article have gone on for so long, and for no benefit, is encouraged to take a peek at David Tombe's talk page. This is a 2-day version of what has been going on for years now. Glkanter (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Picking a starting point

First I must apologize for being more absent than present on this page. I confess to being overwhelmed. When I opened a new section about "Determining issues to be mediated," I had no idea what I was getting into. 32kb later, the mediators had a problem. There was no way we were going to be able to do any reasonable analysis of the issues. Will said, quite rightly that the issues had already been stated on the project page.

So I guess I asked the wrong question(s). Here's another approach: What issue should we work on first?

Note: Please play close attention to the groundrule on brevity. There are many participants and we won't get far if everyone pontificates. So let's have some proposals on where to begin, brief discussion and then get consensus. Sunray (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Gerhardvalentin's response to: What issue should we work on first?

My demand where to begin Up to this day, the main focus of the MHP article is on ancillary conditions, on a meaningless sideshow of casting some additional light on the current actual secret position of the car, even though all of that could be mentioned in one short paragraph. But, for such trifle, excessively showing mathematical probability theory. Notable: concealing what "condition" they really are addressing to. Ideas of some "host's bias" and less important side scenes may briefly be discussed at the end of the article, not dominating it, leaving a washy presentation of the world famous 50:50 paradox. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter's response to: What issue should we work on first?

Eliminate POV from the article. Remove all criticisms, warnings, discussions of 'before or after', 'host bias', and discussions of 'variants' that accompany any (most) mentions of the simple solutions or that are in the Conditional Solution section or the Sources of Confusion section. Put these criticisms, etc., as well as the arguments against them, in a later section called 'Controversies section'. Glkanter (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam

The first issue should be the interpretation of Whitaker's question. Some sources say the number of the door picked and of the door opened are known to the player. Other seem to discard this information, some implicitly, other explicitly. Much of the further issues depend on this. Nijdam (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Gill

The first issue is whether the interpretation of Whitaker's question is an issue which needs to be resolved or not. In my opinion, interpretation of Whitaker's question is not an issue. The *interpretations* of the question are topics, "the interpretations" are a theme, of the wikipedia page on MHP.

There are reliably sourced interpretations according to which the answer is "switch" and the reasoning for the answer involves "2/3", which are both simple and intuitive, and mathematically sound. Gill110951 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin

The validity of the simple solutions. Taking everything into consideration, are the simple solutions valid solutions to the Monty Hall Problem? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Block

Since I believe this boils down to a POV issue, before we get much of anywhere I think we're going to have to talk about sources. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

A Request For A Master List Of Issue In Priority Order

I think a complete Issues list in priority order is needed. Without this, every other issue will creep into each current issue's discussion due to each editor lacking confidence that his 'important' issue will otherwise be addressed. Glkanter (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. Would anyone be willing to compile such a list? Sunray (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to make the first draft, with the expectation that I will be too inclusive. Actually, what I would do is simply combine into a single list, without any editing, each issue. I would attempt to lump like issues together. I will list them in order as they appear on the page currently. Glkanter (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to summarize each issue in a few words? Sunray (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe each editor should be asked to provide a summary with his issue that doesn't exceed [# of words]. Whether the editors' names should accompany the summary also needs to be decided. Glkanter (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this covers most of the issues. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)