Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 21

To clearly distinguish between different directions of view really could encourage perspective and perceptibility of the article.
In treating the sources, different aspects should not indistinctly and confusingly be mixed with one another:

• The 2/3 "overall" probability, being an unchangeable and unvarying constant, not modifiable by Morgan.
  And also Morgan not even varying the probability of every definite event, as long as
• no unexpected (if needed be assumed) "additional information" whatsoever about the actual constellation could eventuelly be flashing up (potentially revealed by some assumed hypothetic bias of the host, e.g.), and by that providing for a new "condition" then, telling more about the actual constellation only, varying the "2/3" to max. 1/1 (in 1/3 of cases) and to min. 1/2 (in 2/3 of cases), confirming the overall 2/3.
  

This is made far too little clear, evident and obvious. And the article suffers from that, from the beginning to the end. Important: To clearly distinguish different viewing directions of the sources could really help this article, elucidating what it's all about. Regards, --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially: The MHP often is misinterpreted as being "a problem solvable by mathematics only". But the real problem is: Unclear and differing arbitrary suppositions and unclear assumptions yield to confusing dramatics. By clearly showing and distinguishing first the different underlying assumptions/points of view, above all, the specific answers/response will be obvious, then.

E.g. Morgans assumption of an extremely biased Host, in one third of the games offering a clear 1/1 chance by switching, and, by doing so, in that third of the games showing the contents of all three doors altogether, then. - Such an assumed host's telltale-bias obviously never having been intended in the "Ask Marilyn" column. --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Any "hypothetic telltale-behavior", allegedly "telling a more accurate picture of the current situation", unable to show that switching ever can be worse, never was of assistance for answering the fundamental question of the MHP, but just remains a crooked "hypothetic assumption" and a meaningless illusion. An illusion not addressing the MHP, but just addressing students in prob.theory. Without any sound relevance for the MHP. The article broadly suffers from that crooked illusion and from "passing it off as the MHP". Please help to improve and to distinguish facts from not helpful hypothetic assumptions and not helpful illusions. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, he could. If he can communicate things to the contestant, why can't he just shake his head, meaning 'no - don't do it', when he offers the switch, when the contestant has chosen the car? It makes as much sense as the contestant being aware of any 'host bias' on a game show. Glkanter (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. But the topic in the "Ask Marilyn" column obviously and evidently did not provide for any such "additional telltale information" given away by the host's behavior. Quite the contrary: the "Ask Marilyn" column clearly and without any ambiguity implying a strict "no telltale behavior/bias whatsoever". That's one thing. Even more important: No host's crooked bias will ever be enough to "make switching worse" in any game. Thus, considering a "biased host" is a totally worthless suggestion indeed, as switching never is disadvantageous: You should switch. The article suffers from not distinguishing relevant views on the fundamental question from a worthless endeavor, "passing it off as the MHP". Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid those 'worthless endeavors' are reliable sourced. They should be included where appropriate, per Wikipedia policy, without editorial comment. They should not be used to disparage other viewpoints, however. Glkanter (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, you're right. But the article should, from the beginning to the end, make clear what it's all about, clearly distinguishing the various aspects. The article is nebulizing e.g. by misapplying the "conditional" on the "number" of the door opened, instead on the underlying "assumed host's bias" when he opens that door. Not accounting for (assuming an unbiased host) opening of a door means "NO new condition". But presenting excessive math homeworks in probability theory, instead of just clearly showing all respective different underlying assumptions. And lacks to present the clear result of any trial:
Assumed initially all three doors are equally likely, the guest cannot strictly improve the overall success-rate by staying instead of switching, in each case separately. The probability for the car behind the second door, assumed "no host's bias whatsoever", is 2/3, and even with an assumed "extreme host's bias" will always be at least 1/2, and she'll win unconditionally on average 2/3 of the time. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir, I'm afraid. Glkanter (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm hoping "not only to the choir", too, commending the words of Falk: "the correct solution depends on explication of underlying assumptions". And progress in the effort to clarity in dealing with statements of the sources is noticeable. Especially words of the last days were a relief indeed and will help to avoid the vague blur of differences of perspective, and I appreciate: "cannot be considered as 'obvious' and simply skipped for the reader, but they require a careful explanation" . . ."each solution needs to be precise regarding what question it actually answers and under what conditions" . . ."the exact question it answers and under which conditions or assumptions. . .The issue is about not describing the exact circumstances and their meaning to the reader" e.g., and I friendly welcome this change. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Rick and Glopk, one hypothetical question, I'd like to know what you think: In case some remark would have been added to Marylin's answer or even to the well-known statement of the problem that has been published in Marilyn vos Savant's "Ask Marilyn" column in Parade magazine in 1990 (as per Whitaker/vos Savant 1990):
"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, 'Do you want to pick door No. 2?' Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?"
added with the following or a similar remark (for clarification that this was what she meant to be the basis for her answer):
"Supposed/given the car is initially placed uniformly at random and the host chooses a goat door uniformly at random, if he has the choice from two goat-hiding doors, and he always offers to switch ... '
In case this clarification had originally been added by vos Savant, and if she had said: "No news, he always can open one goat-hiding door and it does not matter which one if he has the choice between two goats, because he will chose uniformly at random, so you should switch, yes it always will be wise to switch", would conditionalists nevertheless say "her answer is numerically right, but it does not reflect the conditional problem that asks for the probability P(win by switching AND player initially picks door Y AND host opens door Z)"? I would be glad if you could give your comment to this (my hypothetical) question. Thank you! Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gerhard, this hypothetical properly belongs to the Argument page. I have added a comment in a new section entitled "Gerhard's question" therein. glopk (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this requires some clarification. Imho almost all people here in particular the "conditional camp" as well support the simple solution. The issue starts with passing off the simple solution of vos Savant as a complete solution to the conditional problem, that is were Martin is almost alone and that's for a good reason. Note that there is not even much of a disagreement (aside from possible sourcing issues for the moment) that the simple solution can be extended or augmented into a full solution of the conditional problem for the standard MHP (no news and symmetry arguments), but those cannot be considered as "obvious" and simply skipped for the reader, but they require a careful explanation. So far in much of his arguments Martin seems to attempt to provide the careful explanation on the discussion page only to justify passing off the original simple solution as complete in the article and that's basically bullshitting the readers hence a no-go for many other editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I obviously can't speak to whether any solution is complete or not. For me it has been mainly an issue with the flow of the article. I think that most of my issues are covered by the current layout. I imagine Martin will have something to say about his feelings on the solutions being complete or not. But I most likely wont be able to add anything constructive to that particular debate. I simply feel that leading with the simple and the psychology and then delving into conditional is the best layout. I also don't think there should be an attempt to minimize or discredit either view, other than pointing out what sources do so in the context of that particular source's opinon or view. Colincbn (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The flow of the article is another point of conflict in particular between Martin and Rick, though that imho a less important issue (personally i don't really care much about the order/organization). Nevertheless it has been a constant point of conflict with no compromise in sight so far.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no special conflict between myself and Rick. There are two groups of editors here, one group which includes myself, Glkanter, Gill, Gerhard, and others, supports giving more prominence to the simple solutions; the other group, which includes Rick, Nijdam, KmhKmh, and Glopg believes the simple solutions are incomplete or answer the wrong question and that this must be made clear to all readers. Rick and I are at least willing to discuss the subject in a civil manner rather than hurl insults or edit war. All other editors are welcome to join in the discussion.

If there is a general feeling that this is a topic more suitable for the /Arguments page I am happy to continue the discussion there. All I would ask in return is that editors who wish to express an opinion on the subject do so there rather than waiting for a proposed change to the article to appear on this page. To put this another way, if you want to discuss this subject on the /arguments page then please do so, if you do not want to discuss the subject then please accept the result of that discussion.

I think the current state of the article is a reasonable compromise and follows a logical order, from simple to complex. I have a few minor issues with it. I would like to remove the 'health warnings' from the simple solutions section and improve the 'Sources of confusion' section by replacing an incomprehensible paragraph based on Falk with an agreed conclusion on the subject perhaps from other sources. Apart from that the article is looking much better in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no right or wrong question, but each solution needs to be precise regarding what question it actually answers and under what conditions. The issue is from my perspective (might not be true for nijdam or rick) not about the prominence of the simple solution but being about fuzzy about the exact question it answers and under which conditions or assumptions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we agree on most things then. We all agree that the simple solution applies in the unconditional case but I assert that it also apples in the totally symmetrical (car placed uniformly, host chooses a goat door uniformly) case. We have a reference (Falk) to support this view. Perhaps something on this could be added. I also believe that, because we are asked to answer the question from the player's SoK, we must treat the host's goat door choice as uniform, thus the symmetrical case and simple solution apply to the conditional problem. Many editors agree with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody disagrees with the fact, that the simple solution can be used (or "extended"). The issue is about not describing the exact circumstances and their meaning to the reader in favour of a (somewhat deceivingly) simpler looking explanation. I.e. you cannot simply give vos Savants argument or variety of it that solves the unconditional problem and then state it solves the conditional one as well without further explanations. I.e. stating explicitly which principle/assumption is used and why that forces the conditional probability to be identical with the unconditional. Doing otherwise is exactly what I meant with "being fuzzy" and it's a disservice to readers.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how your approach works with Selvin's 2 letters to the American Statistician? This is where the problem is first presented and named The Monty Hall Problem. Selvin puts forth the scenario that the contestant on a game show has chosen box B, and the host has shown that box A does not contain the set of car keys. He solves it in his first letter with a simple solution. Has Selvin provided the 'wrong' answer to the question that he himself has just asked? How can that conceivably make sense? Glkanter (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

+ to Colincbn, + to Kmhkmh and + to Martin.

"What matters for reaching a correct solution to many probability problems is often not only the given information, but also the manner by which it has been obtained" (Falk)

"the correct solution depends on explication of underlying assumptions" (Falk)

"whereas the correct answer (assuming an unbiased warden) is 1/3" (Falk) Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Glkanter's changes. There was no discussion on these while the article was protected and nothing has apparently changed. The image is still WP:OR. And deleting (as opposed to editing) the introductory paragraph at the beginning of the "Solution" section is not the prevailing consensus. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous user added the following new section. It's completely unreferenced, and as far as I can tell is simply WP:OR (including the section title).

The easiest way of proper understanding the problem

I have 150 honey-bees: 149 workers and one queen. The queen does not fly. I divide the lot into three boxes, 50 bees each. Now I choose one box at random. The chance that it contains the queen is 1/3. Now I transfer the bees from the two other boxes into a forth one, with some small stones on the bottom: the chance it contains the queen is 2/3. Now I cut the hole through the lid* - and the bees begin to fly out. When half of them flies out, the probability that the queen is still in is 2/3. Even when 99 bees leave the box the chance the queen is still inside is 2/3.

*The still more convincing way: I open the lid of the forth box and hoooosh! Plenty of bees flies out in panic. I do not see the bottom of this box - and I do not know the number of bees that left it, or perhaps return - but the probability the queen is stil in, remains unchanged: 2/3.

Important remark: it does not make any difference whether one throws away (from the fourth box) 50 workers or 50 stones - as long as you throw out only "non-queens".

I've deleted it from the article but have copied it here for comments. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's suppose that the simple solutions to the MHP provided by Selvin, vos Savant, Devlin, Rosenthal, Adams, and many others were determined to be wrong by a consensus of editors on this page.

Would that then give as the 'authority' to espouse that POV in the article? Despite the fact that none of those reliable sources had renounced their papers?

Of course not. So what's the point of arguing which side is right? Talk pages are meant for discussions about editing the article, not as a tutorial on Probability. Both sides are reliably published. We're to present the reliably published sources in a manner the reader can comprehend. Which does NOT include warning the reader that he is being misled by certain reliable sources. As that would be a violation of NPOV. Glkanter (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There are in fact many more sources giving simple solutions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. And, to underline the need for the Wikipedia NPOV policy, we editors can't even agree on which sources are on which side of the dispute. We're as divided over Rosenthal's paper as we are over the MHP itself. For what benefit? The article has to be NPOV. Each of us has typed, directed at another editor, 'Your opinion is not what is important. It's what the reliable sources say'. And yet, we argue endlessly over which side is right, and how to best phrase in the article that one side considers the other wrong. Glkanter (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I do find the Rosenthal argument rather hard to believe. How is it that a source which literally says of the simple solution 'It is actually correct' can be understood to say, 'It is actually incorrect'? I think we need some more uninvolved opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For what purpose? How does any such 'opinion rendered' change either the content of the reliable sources, or Wikipedia policies, most notably, NPOV? Glkanter (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter's removal of the 'health warning' in the simple solution section is not vandalism but removal of a POV misinterpretation of Selvin. Selvin says nothing about one solution represting the case where the player chooses before the host opens a box.

Selvin does, however, approvingly quote Monty Hall's response to his first (simple solution letter) on the subject Monty says, "Oh and incedentally, after one [box] is seen to be empty, his chances are no longer 50/50 but remain what they were in the first place, one out of three. "

Note that it says that after one box is seen to be empty, the chances of the car being behind the originally chosen box remain what they were in the first place, one out of three. The simple solution is thus agreed to be valid for the case when the player chooses after a box has been opened.

Once again, some editors are basing their opinions what they would like the sources to say rather than what they actually do say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The section that I have just removed is pure OR. No source that I am aware of sets out to solve the problem on the basis that the player chooses before the host opens a door. Selvin, the quoted source, does not mention this possibility. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the text to what I think was a less controversial version much closer to what we worked out some time ago (before Gill's changes). -- Rick Block (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

@Glkanter - Per WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view." Saying what sources say is not a violation of NPOV pretty much no matter what the source says. On the other hand, deleting what sources say because you don't agree with them is POV. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick, the text that I deleted did not reflect in any way at all the quoted source, it was pure OR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your latest text is no better. The quoted source is Selvin, This says nothing about, 'outcomes of always switching to the outcomes of never switching', or, 'not taking into account the knowledge of which door has been opened' or 'mathematical sources' or 'explicitly addressing the probability in the example case where the host opens Door 3 after the player initially chooses Door 1'. [Martin]

Martin - you previously agreed to very similar wording, see Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 17#Why Isn't The Door 1 and Door 3 Pairing a Subset of 'Always'?. I'd be fine with another version of this, such as:

There are multiple approaches to solving the Monty Hall problem all giving the same result—that a player who swaps has a 2/3 chance of winning the car. Most popular sources present solutions based on simple probabilistic reasoning. A different approach to solving the problem, commonly used in mathematical sources, is to treat it as a conditional probability problem.

The version I added to the article is essentially what this morphed into following several edits. The citation to Selvin in the current version is specifically the sentence that says he presented both types of solutions. The other content (in the current version) is descriptive of what is contained in the following major sections. References for this content are in those sections (this is the same sort of approach used in the lead section of articles - since this is summarizing content that is elsewhere the references are not repeated). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How about having the Rosenthal comment everyone? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your paragraph above is fine with me (apart from maybe some minor quibbles about words) , but not in the simple solution section. It is more of an introduction to the solution section as a whole. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We've got one user already blocked for edit warring on this article. I see there has been an attempt at mediation but it has apparently not achieved the desired result. I would remind everyone editing here that the only exception to WP:EDITWAR is the reversion of obvious vandalism, and that users who have not crossed the line of WP:3RR can still be blocked for edit warring. The only thing edit warring will accomplish is periods of page protection and/or blocks for all users involved. Keep that in mind please. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, we are still waiting to begin Formal Mediation. Two brief attempts ended when the Mediators resigned. Glkanter (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Falk comment was replaced, with an edit summary quoting the talk archive. The version replaced seemed to be the original version rather than anything discussed on the talk page.

I have replaced the text with Rick's proposed version from the talk archive quoted. I still do not agree that this is a consensus version but it is better than the original. I may propose some changes later. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What was there was the version we ended up with after our extended discussion about this - from Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 20#Another proposal for Falk's point (in the show/hide box). What you've changed this to is an incomplete version, omitting the last sentence - which is what we discussed at length. I don't understand your intent here. Do you want to have the same discussion again? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I have made a mistake (I missed the box) but what was there looked like the original version to me. I think the whole thing is rather cryptic anyway and we never reached a final conclusion. No one else seemed interested in commenting so there is hardly a consensus to have anything.

What would you like to have? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like you not to play dumb. The article was locked. I suggested we work on this paragraph on the talk page, editing it in place in the show/hide box as if it were in the article. What we ended up with is what I added to the article after it was unlocked. What you changed it to is what the starting proposal was, minus the last sentence. At least Gerhard, Glopk, you, and I made changes to the starting proposal, all of which you dropped (in addition to the last sentence). We had worked on this for a while, specifically the last sentence - which I ultimately suggested we reword to be much closer to what Falk actually says using essentially a quote. The discussion is archived at the link I provided above. Your last comment was that you think the wording that is essentially a quote might be seen to conflict with the rest of the paragraph. My response was that this wording is directly used by Falk and is the entire point of this section of her paper and, hence, this paragraph in the article - so if it does conflict it is the rest of the paragraph that should be changed. You didn't respond to this, which I took as tacit approval. Please change the paragraph back to what we ended up with. If you're unhappy with it we can discuss it more. -- Rick Block (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Rick, I am not playing dumb, I really was. Please feel free to change the wording to whatever version you think was nearly agreed between ourselves. I do not think anyone else cares. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it to what we discussed. Assuming you're still going to be unhappy with the "not because of the former that the latter is true" bit, here's the direct quote from her paper - where she's directly talking about the Three Prisoner's Problem, but this section is talking about the general principle of "no news" which she has already said applies to MHP as well: "In the original version of the problem, the warden can always truthfully name at least one of Tom and Harry, and the probability of pardon for Dick does not change. Yet, as we have seen, it is not because of the former that the latter is true." As I've previously said, if you insist we can cite her book where she repeats this phrase verbatim (including the italics for "and" and "not because") while talking specifically about the MHP [1]. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think my complaint would be that it is partially because of the former that the latter is true. In other words the forme is a necessary but not sufficient condition. I would be happy with any for of words which makes this clear, as Falk does elsewhere in the paper. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is your complaint that you think this sentence is not accurately reflecting what the source says or are you partially disagreeing with the point being made? In both this paper and her book she emphasizes this point with italics - this sentence as it currently appears in the article is virtually a direct quote. There's plenty of context in the surrounding paragraph that makes it clear what else is required for the initial probability to remain unchanged, i.e. the third sentence and the sentence immediately following the one you seem to dislike. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Falk does not make herself particularly clear in that quote. It seems that we all, you, me, and Falk all agree on the facts, which are that the fact the host reveals a goat when it is known that the host must reveal a goat is not, on its own, 'no news' (there because there might be 'news' in the door number the host chooses). On the other hand, the fact that the host must reveal a goat combined with the knowledge that he must choose one uniformly does mean that when a goat is revealed there is no news and the probability of the car being behind the originally chosen door cannot change. I do not think your proposed Falk quote makes this clear, although Falk does elsewhere in her paper. Could we have something like, 'it is not just because...the host must also choose a goat door randomly...'. We should be intelligently summarising the agreed content of the paper rather than picking a poorly worded quote. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Falk makes herself perfectly clear and she repeats this in her book as well (just follow the link above, italics in the original): "Truly, Monty can always open one of the two other doors to show a goat, and the probability of door No. 1 remains unchanged subsequent to observing that goat, still, it is not because of the former that the latter is true. The probability of winning the car by sticking with door No. 1 remains unchanged due to a specific combination of priors and likelihoods characterizing this problem." It seems to me that you disagree with this point and are trying to change it to something far less damning of the simple solutions that rely on this argument. Falk is not being in the least unclear. X and Y are both true, but X does not imply Y. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree (and so does Falk) that just X does not imply 'Y' but X is an important part of the implication of Y. Should we not make that clear? We all (including Falk) agree on the facts, why not present them clearly and unabiguously. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Should quotes from sources that are not speaking of the MHP be included at all? I can see that leading to endless trouble... Making a correlation, and paraphrasing the content from a source on a different problem sounds like a violation of WP:Synthesis to me.Glkanter (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Falk paper is primarily about the 'Three Prisoners Problem' although is does briefly digress to talk about the MHP. The proposed quote is, however, referring specifically to the TPP and thus to insist on quoting it directly here is not justified.

Please read this entire section. The paper is about both the MHP and the TPP, and the quote in question is repeated in her book, talking specifically about the MHP. -- Rick Block (talk)

The 'Why the probability is not 1/2'subsection seems to have been changed without consensus to something that does not seem to aid anyone's understanding. Does anyone object if I change it back to its original, simpler version? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I propose to revert this to the long-standing consensus version. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Which version are you talking about reverting to (just for clarification)? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Say this [2] version. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

this could be a way of helping people understand: http://www.multimediacollege.be/2010/08/the-monty-hall-problem-a-programmers-approach/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.138.110 (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I strenuously object to Martin's claim that his preferred section ordering is "consensus". The history here is he made this change (some time ago), Nijdam reverted it, he made it again, I reverted it, he made it again and I let it stand rather than edit war (assuming mediation will resume at some point). Nijdam moved the conditional solution earlier in the "solution" section and Martin has reverted this change. I strongly prefer Nijdam's ordering - but suspect we won't actually reach a consensus on our own. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. 2 reverts already today. It's quite clear to me who is doing the edit warring. And claiming ownership. And ignoring NPOV policies. And encouraging OR. Glkanter (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The current order has been stable for some time now and represents a reasonable compromise between simple and probabilistic solution supporters. Anyone who gets as far as wanting to understand about host bias will undoubtedly have understood the reason why the answer is 2/3. The current order is the logical order used in most text books and WP article. start with the simple and move on to the complex. Starting up this old argument serves no useful purpose except to default on a reasonable compromise Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The correct solution should in fact be the first one. I can live with the position directly after the simple "solutions", but don't want it to be hidden in some sense!!Nijdam (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@Martin - Our last discussion about this is archived at Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 16#Aids to understanding moved. You had previously tried this change and it was reverted before this. You tried it again just before this archived discussion and I reverted it. The archived discussion does not indicate a consensus and you went ahead and reverted my revert. Rather than edit war, I let it sit. This order has been "stable" only because you were willing to edit war to preserve it. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a compromise of sorts, but one based on good practice in text books and WP articles. If you remember, you adjusted the heading levels to reduce the 'space' between the simple and probabilistic solutions. I accepted this without argument.

It is only Rick and Nijdam who seriously object to this topic order. Kmhkmh has said several times that he accepts it and Glopk has not commented. On the other hand several editors strongly prefer it.

Whatever you may think, it is not my desire to hide the more complex solutions, I just want to make sure that they do not obstruct less mathematically able or less interested readers. Many readers will simply not be interested in the complex solutions, you may feel that they should be because they are 'correct', but the fact is that some readers will just want to confirm that the correct answer is 2/3 and understand why this is so, making no distinction between the conditional and unconditional cases. I do not object to educating readers about the potential conditional aspect of this problem, but we cannot do this against their will. There will of course also be readers who want to understand the problem more thoroughly; the current format offers no impediment to their doing so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The current order has been stable since 1 June. Can we please discuss here to get a consensus before changing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, nice to hear, you won't in some way keep the correct solution out of sight for the readers. Yet practically you do, by placing it far away in the article. I want every reader to see what the problem is with the so called simple solution. That's why I actually prefer even to place the correct solution first. But it's fine with me to have the simple explanations first, as long as the right solution comes immediately thereafter, so no one will be kept in ignorance, or given the wrong idea about the solution. I can not think of any objection to this, other then keeping it out of sight.Nijdam (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to moving the section on the probabilistic solution further down the article. Just like Nijdam, I can live with having it following the "simple" solutions, but not after the "aids to understanding" section. I feel that doing otherwise would do a disservice to the readers, by presenting logically incomplete solution as the whole story and ignoring reputable sources that say they are, in fact, incomplete. glopk (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Then let us get some outside opinion in on just the section order. No content change. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I have said many times before I feel that the article should progress from easy to difficult math. I am not a mathematician and the first time I read the article, long before I ever read this talk page, I had to skip over the conditional section because it made no sense to me. I think people forget that in most scholarly papers where the MHP is discussed they use the simple solution. Now before you jump to disagree with me please note I said "most scholarly papers" not "most mathematics papers". The MHP is used extensively in psychology and sociology and even neurology. In fact if it was not for the psychology of the MHP the problem would not even exist as such. If you count all the non-mathematics papers they are by far the more plentiful. I have never seen a non-mathematics paper that discusses or uses the MHP that does not describe the simple solution.

But that is besides the point. Most WP readers will not be holders of degrees in advanced maths or statistics, we should therefore try to present the page in a way that is accessible. That in no way means leaving out the conditional solution. It simply means we should order the article so that those who just want to understand the basics of why the MHP is called a paradox, like I did, will not have to skip that part and go searching for something they can understand that clarifies why the answer is not 1/2, like I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colincbn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As Nijdam as said before, this has to stop. This article has been held hostage for quite some time primarily by two editors. One, Martin Hogbin, has repeatedly shown himself to be astonishingly incompetent in the area of expertise affecting the article, but has managed to drag on the discussion by exploting the goodwill of Rick Block and other editors, and drawing on a large reservoir of sophistry when the goodwill was nearing exhaustion. I won't comment on the other, Glkanter, other than note that his history of abusive behavior has already resulted in a bans and wiki-fights with valuable contributors to the Wikipedia project. I hope that the mediation process can be restarted soon, or that further escalation be initiated. glopk (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that there have been four long term editors who have tried to exert ownership over this page to propagate their own POV on the subject despite what the majority of sources say. I came is response to an RfC claiming those same issues of page ownership years ago. Since that time, and even before it, there has been a steady stream of editors who have come here and argued against the page owners, only to be driven away, exhausted by consistent tag-team tactics. If you like we can go back through the talk history and count them. Glkanter and I have been the only ones to have stayed the course but we represent a suceession of dissenting editors.

All I have done is to propose what seems like a reasonable compromise, to change the subject order to that found in most good text books and WP articles, the simple stuff first then the more complex. Nothing has been removed or glossed over. As the article has remained in this state since the start of June, I assumed that there was a, maybe fragile, consensus to keep it. I was just about to propose a truce, since we now have something that I thought was just about acceptable to all when Nijdam started editing again.

If you want to get more outside opinion please let us do so. There is no need for anyone to join in the fight over what is the 'correct' solution. All we need is opinion on the best section order, with no change of content whatsoever. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, sophistry. "Nothing has been removed or glossed over" - this in the same day that Glkanter has removed twice the very two paragraphs that are the only reason for the conditional solution to exist in the article. "I assumed that there was [..] a consensus to keep it" - where "it" is your own favourite version that you had edit-warred on, and temporarily prevailed by exploting Rick Block's and other editor's patience. "No need for anyone to join in the fight over what is the 'correct' solution" - after having piled for days wrong equation after hare-brained mathematical argument in the Arguments page, and having been proved wrong time after time. All in the vane effort to show that the "simple" solutions without disclaimers are all there is to the MHP, and that the reputable sources that say otherwise are not worthy of consideration. Honestly, I am having a harder and harder time assuming good faith (there is a limit to how much confusion and ignorance one can assume). glopk (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, several times you have said that you thought a change in section order was logical and acceptable to you. Do you want the diffs? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was agreeing with glopk's assessement, which doesn't state anything about the order of sections. I don't really care much about the order of various sections (as I indeed have stated several times), but I do care about an accurate wording in the various section including the simple solution and so far I haven't seen you suggesting an accurate wording being in line with the sources and that's going on for over a year now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was only talking about my revert of Nijdam's change of section order (maybe Glopk was talking about more than that). I think there is a (fragile) consensus to keep it as it is now. If we could all agree to that we could discuss the detailed wording of sections later. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Glopk, I was (obviously) not referring to Glkanter's edits but to Nijdam's change of section order. Regarding Rick's part in this, after I made the change, near the end of May, he proposed changing the section levels to reduce the perceived negative impact of the move on the prominence of the 'Probabilistic solution' section. I agreed with that and it was done. I took this as a sign that some sort of agreed compromise had been reached. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

I believe Martin thinks his section ordering is a better match for the guidelines suggested at wp:Make technical articles understandable. My response has consistently been that I believe this creates a structural POV, as described at wp:Neutral point of view#Article structure. Martin pooh-poohs this, claiming that his intent is not to push a POV but merely to make the article more accessible to the non-expert. I sincerely believe we can't have an argument this heated for this long UNLESS it's fundamentally a POV issue. Martin denies intending to push a POV, but if in the interests of making the article "more accessible" a structural POV is created favoring the simple solutions then his intent doesn't actually matter - the end result is the same whether we got there because of POV pushing or not.

I've argued before, and I still think it's the best approach, that we should treat this conflict as a POV issue. I've also said before that it's odd to do this with a "math" article, since math is (at least usually) more or less objectively correct or objectively incorrect. If we treat this as a POV issue it would mean:

1. We completely cease any attempt (at least on this page) to convince other editors that our opinion is correct and that their opinion is incorrect. Our opinions don't matter - the opinions of sources matter.
2. The various POVs should be identified in the article. This is not weasel wording but using careful phrasing to attribute who thinks what to the various sources that hold the various POVs.
3. The article must not endorse any of the POVs, meaning none should be placed in a position of primacy to the others.

We've made progress before on drafts I've floated of a combined NPOV solution section, for example the one in the show/hide box at /Archive 16#A genuine attempt at compromise..

@Martin - would you be willing to work on a combined solution section that presents both unconditional and conditional solutions in an editorially neutral manner? If not, would you be willing to abide by outside opinions (perhaps from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard) about whether the structure you're advocating is NPOV? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion below which may help with reaching agreement. Let is find out how much we agree first. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Article is now protected from editing for the next two weeks due to continued edit warring. Some things for you all to keep in mind:

• It is impossible for only one user to edit war, so there's plenty of blame to go around on that count
• Since there was already a very clear warning posted, I would have been equally justified in blocking everyone who participated in the edit war
• For the record I don't know or care who is right or wrong as far as the facts. It is not relevant as all parties who edit war are equally guilty.
• Please limit the discussion here to discussing the article and not each other. Lay off the incivility and personal attacks

Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there will ever be total agreement between the regular editors here over what is really a very small and uninteresting matter of mathematical philosophy. On the other hand, the page is not that far from agreement as it is.

We need some way to break the deadlock here other than just plain discussion, which has completely failed. In over two years not one person has changed their mind. Mediation has also failed and, in my opinion, is not likely to be successful if re-started.

Maybe we could have some sort structured RfC where uninvolved editors are asked to make some decisions for us based on an agreed summary of the issues. It may be beneficial if these editors are not interested in the maths and could therefore contribute imaginatively in other ways. From what I can see now there is very little disagreement about the strict mathematical facts, so these can be presented as an agreed position to incoming editors, who could propose the best way to present these facts based on WP policy and the sources. In anticipation of at least some support for this idea, I will start an 'agree facts' section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently that suggestion is disruptive so I will drop it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Article locked again. And here I thought Israel-Palestine was a heated topic area :) One quick question, while not much else is happening: Player picks Door 1, Monty knows where the Car is, opens Door 3 to reveal a Goat. Player now takes the option to switch to Door 2, increasing win probability from 1/3 to 2/3. What if there are four doors, Player picks 1, Monty opens 3&4 to reveal Goats, Win probability goes from 1/4 to what by switching to Door 2? ADD: Ok it's 3/4 right? But wow it's hard to grasp this when for example there are 1,000,000 Doors, Player picks and the odds are one in a million he gets it right, Monty opens 999,998 Goat Doors then the Player is left looking at two Doors, so the incredible 999,000/1,000,000 win probability by switching is a function of the Player's original pick? Play nice. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 03:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your example is in the article. But what I really want to point out is that this collective of editors is improving!!! Our last article protection was imposed for a full month, with a couple days off for 'good behaviour'. Little did the unprotector know, the same discussion had move to the 'arguments' page. This protection is only two weeks! Finally, PROGRESS!!! Glkanter (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In either the 4-door or 1,000,000-door case is the door the host leaves closed picked randomly from among all losing doors if the player has initially selected the car, or not? If yes, then the answers are 3/4 and 999,999/1,000,000. If not, then both answers might be anywhere from 1/2 to 1. For example, in the 4-door case, if the doors are laid out 1-2-3-4 left to right on the stage and the host always starts at door 4 and opens 2 doors right to left skipping the car, then if the host leaves door 2 closed you have a 1/2 chance of winning by switching - but if the host leaves door 3 or door 4 closed you have a 100% chance of winning by switching. The preference doesn't have to be absolute for it to affect the chances - the point is that the player's chances of winning by switching are (always) a function of how the host decides which door to leave closed in the case the player chooses the car. If the host has a probability p of leaving the remaining door closed (where p is a probability between 0 and 1), the player's chances of winning by switching are 1/(1+p) - regardless of how many doors there are! In the 4-door case, if the host exhibits no preference then p=1/3 and the player's chances of winning by switching are 3/4. If p is higher for the specific door that's left closed, say 1/2, then the player's chances are only 2/3. If p is lower, say 1/4, then the player's chances are 4/5. So long as the car is randomly placed at the beginning, the player's chances are always between 1/2 and 1, so switching is never worse. And, on average across all players, switching wins with probability (n-1)/n where n is the number of doors - but the chances for any given player don't have to be the same as the chances for all other players and always depend on how the host decides which door to leave closed if the player picks the car. If the host has no preference among the n-1 doors the player didn't pick, p=1/(n-1), so 1/(1+p) works out to (n-1)/n. -- Rick Block (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And there, RomaC, is perhaps the major point of contention as we edit the article, in all it's Glory. I referred you to a reliable source (not technically, since it was Wikipedia, but you get the idea). Rick gave you the answer, in his own words. It's the difference between pointing the reader of the article, perhaps with a brief summary, to the reliable sources, versus turning the article itself into a primer on Probability. If you've read Nijdam's recent comments, and other's, they feel the article must present the 'right' solution prominently, and equally prominently explain how the 'simple solutions' are flawed in their eyes, and in the eyes of some reliable sources. But the simple solutions come from reliable sources, too. So some of the editors, currently mostly Martin and I, plus countless others over 7 years who grew weary from the stalemate, feel that what Nijdam and Rick advocate violates the NPOV policy. Equally as important, we believe the reader is being distracted from his quest to understand a simple puzzle and it's paradox: why it's 1/3 & 2/3, instead of 1/2 & 1/2. And, here we are, the article is protected a second time. Glkanter (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think most readers come here to find out about the Monty Hall problem, the article focus should be there rather than on alternative/hypothetical setups which obfuscate more than illuminate. Wikilinks can be used to direct interested readers to articles looking deeper into probability etc. RomaC ^TALK 07:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. In addition to the article protection and pending mediation, a request for NPOV assistance was just posted. The link is in the last section on this page. Glkanter (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this section is to state as clearly as possible the mathematical and other facts that are unanimously agreed by everyone here.

I will start to list them below, the idea is that if anyone challenges them they must be removed until an agreed position is reached. If no agreement can be reached then we say nothing about the subject. A certain degree of discipline will be required if this approach is to help us. Please put nothing other than unanimously agreed facts in the 'Agreed acts' sub-section. Comments and discussion should go in the section below but remember, the rule is simple, if one editor disagrees then it does not go in. (Obviously we will need to cope with obviously crazy people who may turn up).

I have three sections below, 'Agreed facts' and 'Candidate facts' and 'Rejected'. I propose the following rules:

Anyone can propose a candidate fact but, only if no one objects, can the statement be moved to 'Agreed facts'.

Anyone can move a statement from 'Agreed facts' or 'Candidate facts' to the 'Rejected' section.

The only way to deal with a rejected fact is to change it so that everyone will agree and then propose it as a candidate again.

I suggest that agreed facts are not signed. I ask everyone to stick to their principles but not to be obstructive. There are many subtle points to be made but we do not need unnecessary awkwardness. Also please no, 'You rejected my suggestios so I will reject yours' tactics. This section is to show just how much we do agree.

I have proposed some definitions below, just to for the purposes of this discussion. If there are more forms or accepted definitions of these terms I am happy for them to be used here. The aim is not to make any particular point but just to allow us all to be clear what we are talking about.

For example, someone might claim that 'vos Savant's answer was correct but her solution was not', meaning that the probability was indeed 2/3 but the reasoning she used to get it was flawed.

• An 'answer' is the numerical value of the probability that the player wins the car by switching their choice of door.
• A 'solution' is a logical series of statements needed to arrive at the answer.

• A basic description of the Monty Hall problem is given in the lead to this article.

• This discussion only concerns the game with the standard rules, that the host always opens an unchosen door to reveal a goat and always offers the swap.

• That the in the 'standard formulation' of the problem the car is initially placed uniformly at random and the host opens a door selected uniformly at random from those permitted under the game rules.

• The answer to the standard formulation is exactly 2/3.

• The original problem was posed by Selvin in two letters to the 'American Statistician' Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• The most notable and well-know statement of the problem is that by Whitaker, which leaves many details undefined. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• The most notable answer and solution were thos given by vos Savant in Parade magazine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• That we wish only to discuss here the case where the player must make their choice after the host has opened a door. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Nijdam (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• The 'answer' is based on the numerical value of the probability that the player wins the car by switching their choice of door given the situation of the player.Nijdam (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• That the player must make their choice after the host has opened a door.

This is not the obvious and clear intent of Whitaker's question. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• The player chooses a door uniformly at random.Nijdam (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have started an idea above to help us reach a conclusion. Please give it a try. The aimis that, when we have suffiecient agreed facts, we get some independent editors to help us reach agreement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be in a particularly perverse mood at the moment Nijdam. How can you reject that the player chooses a door uniformly at random when it is part of the standard problem formulation? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You better put on your glasses and reread the statement(s) of the problem.Nijdam (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You could propose that we only answer the question with the conditions that the player has chosen door 1 and the host has opened door 3. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by, 'Given the situation of the player'. Do you mean based on the player's likely state of knowledge? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To be precise: given the numbers of the chosen and opened doors.Nijdam (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam, I have refactored one of your moves, with an explanatory note. I am just suggesting we use the term 'answer' to mean the numerical value of a probability not the logical steps needed to reach it. This is just for clarity of expression and is not intended to make any point about the MHP. If you would rather we use more formal terms for these concepts I am happy to do so, all I want to do is let people express clearly and concisely what they mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin - this whole section has completely the wrong focus. You're asking editors to agree with "facts". If we treat this as a POV issue, the only "facts" that matter are facts of the form "some reliable source (naming the source) says this". Nobody needs to agree with what the source says, only that the source says it. If you want to proceed with this I strongly suggest rephrasing all "facts" in this form, and I'll nominate every paragraph of the entire article as of the last FARC (linked from the article milestones box at the top of this page) as candidate "facts" (at that point, every "fact" in the article was attributed to a reliable source). In addition, I reject any "fact" not attributed to a reliable source in the same sense as if it had a {{citation needed}} tag.

And, frankly, given how close we've come before to an acceptable combined solution section and your apparent rejection of my suggestion (2 sections above) to resume working on such a solution section, it's difficult for me to read this section as anything other than wp:disruption. We aren't starting from scratch, but from a featured article. The primary point of disagreement is your continued insistence (to the point of edit warring) that the article be changed to consist of an extensive explanation of the "simple" solutions, with all criticism of them and any mention at all of the universally accepted conditional approach relegated to a subservient position in the article presented as if this is of academic interest only. If we're not talking about this, we're not talking about the actual issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point Rick. There is no point to arguing the math, or which side is right, or what Whitaker really meant. All that matters is the reliable sources. But you seem to enjoy the debates as much as anyone. Even though Wikipedia talk pages are intended for discussions of editing the article, not to debate which source has it right and did they state it just right, or why the simple solutions are wrong or as a tutorial website for readers who are not familiar with the MHP. Eliminate all the pointless noise, and maybe we could get something accomplished. Like the removal of POV and unsourced editorializing, aka OR from the article. Maybe a mediator would even be willing to wade in then. Glkanter (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not trying to sweep one POV under the rug. I have suggested countless times that the all controversies be addressed together in their own section. Without any refereeing by the editors. Let the reader decide for himself, just as Wikipedia intends it. Glkanter (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick, your accusation of disruption was uncalled for. This was a good faith attempt to allow some independent editors to help us decide how to structure the article. I know we are starting from an FA which is why I thought we could agree on nearly everything easily but it seems this will not be so. Continued argument gets us nowhere so I suggested something new. As it seems no one likes my suggestion, let us move on to Glkanter's point about what the sources actually say.

The fact is that many reliable sources give a simple solution without saying that they are incomplete or that they answer the wrong question. On what basis do you presume to overrule these sources. You can start with vos Savant and Selvin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Many reliable sources give a simple solution without saying that they are incomplete or that they answer the wrong question. This is one POV. There's ANOTHER POV expressed by many reliable sources that the simple solutions are incomplete or answer the wrong question. The article needs to address BOTH of these POVs, without endorsing either one - the question is how can we do this? So far, I think I've heard 3 suggestions:

1) Completely ignore this in the interests of making the article more accessible to non-experts, i.e. your preference to focus first and foremost on the simple solutions without mentioning there's another POV. IMO this creates a structural POV effectively making the article endorse the "simple solutions are correct" POV. You apparently don't agree with this. I've suggested we might try to get an outside opinion on this from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You have not responded to this.

What sort of response do you expect to the claim that putting the simple solutions first than the complex ones creates a 'structural POV effectively making the article endorse the "simple solutions are correct" POV'? Please let us get some outside views on this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The response I'm expecting is "sure, let's ask" perhaps accompanied with "and, I'll listen to what they have to say". So, let's ask. And you know perfectly well the point is not that you want the simple solutions presented first but that you want them presented in great detail with multiple sections worth of explanation with no mention whatsoever that another POV exists - as if the universal view among sources is that they are perfectly correct and the "right" way to address the problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Block, your comment above is shocking in the manner in which it spread lies about Martin's intentions. You made that stuff up out of thin air, as Martin has never suggested changing the article in that manner. You are acting in a disruptive manner with a post like this, and should cease immediately. Glkanter (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@Rick, that is exactly what I was trying to do. I wanted to get some outside opinion on how to structure the article from a wide range of editors. The problem is that it is hard to find editors who are willing and able to understand the mathematical and philosophical issues, as well as reading the many sources. My plan, as I thought I had explained, was to present an agreed position on the technicalities of the problem so that a wide range of editors could contribute to deciding how to present the information in the best way. I though we might cooperate on getting together what we all agreed on, which is actually most things, so that outside editors would find it easy to help without being drawn into an argument that has lasted over two years. This was obviously somewhat idealistic and optimistic of me as my good faith efforts to find an innovative approach to moving forward were treated with suspicion and disruption. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

2) Glkanter's suggestion that all controversies go in a "controversies" section. If we literally do this then the simple solutions go there as well as the criticisms and we're left with the completely unchallenged-by-anyone conditional solutions. I assume this is not actually Glkanter's intent (which is apparently that the criticisms would go there but not the simple solutions), let alone yours. The problem with putting only the criticisms in a "controversies" section but not the simple solutions is that there are two side to any controversy. Identifying only one side as "controversial" is blatantly POV.

3) My suggestion to collaboratively edit a single solution section until it is scrupulously NPOV meaning that it editorially does not take either side - such as any of the ones I've suggested, for example the one in the show/hide box at /Archive 16#A genuine attempt at compromise.. The controversies need to be explicitly addressed somewhere in the article, but presenting solutions (inclusive of all POVs) first without getting into technical mudslinging seems (to me) like a reasonable structure. Do you honestly believe that this is an impossible goal?

That is what we do now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard any other suggestions. If anyone has any, please speak up. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick, there is no reason that a reliable source cannot be in the article without qualifications. Both sides of the issue are reliably sourced. Period. Your's and Nijdam's mandate that the simple solutions must be accompanied by the criticisms is POV. Period. The criticisms will be in the article. In a NPOV way. To discredit one side as you are presenting it, even with other reliable sources, is the NPOV violation. In fact, that is the very definition of POV. Glkanter (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter - did you read the proposed solution section? Please do so and comment again. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. I prefer to use the existing article as my starting point. I think you can address my concerns anyway. Why *must* criticism accompany the simple solutions, or be used as an intro to the conditional solutions? It's pretty obvious that such an approach, as it is in the current article, favors a POV. As editors, we're supposed to make sure both sides are presented without bias. By the way, I wish you would explain to Nijdam that for Wikipedia purpose, neither side is 'right' or 'wrong'. His recent talk page postings concern me very much on this very issue. Glkanter (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Rosenhouse (sp?) directly criticizes Morgan's paper. Unlike Morgan, who criticizes what is it, 6 'simple solutions', but does not make reference to any but vos Savant's. Rosenhouse is reliable. Morgan admitted 3 mistakes in their paper. Why don't Rosenhouse's comments and Morgan's later comments accompany Morgan's earlier comments as they appear in the article, and serve as a warning that the conditional solution is unnecessary? Glkanter (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the text I'm proposing we work on until everyone is satisfied it is NPOV (comments continue below).

Glkanter - is this proposal editorially neutral (doesn't pick which side is right)? If not, where (what words, exactly)? -- Rick Block (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're joking with me. Please, Rick, this is not a good time to be disruptive. Glkanter (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. Are you suggesting this proposal is not editorially neutral? Again, where (what words, exactly)? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Each source claims to be solving the same problem. Your proposal indicates something else entirely. Anyways, would you please answer the questions I asked earlier?

Why *must* criticism accompany the simple solutions, or be used as an intro to the conditional solutions? It's pretty obvious that such an approach, as it is in the current article, favors a POV. As editors, we're supposed to make sure both sides are presented without bias. Simply reading the word 'criticism' says it's a POV.

Rosenhouse directly criticizes Morgan's paper. Unlike Morgan, who criticizes what is it, 6 'simple solutions', but does not make direct reference to any of them but vos Savant's. Rosenhouse is reliable. Morgan admitted 3 mistakes in their paper. Why then, wouldn't Rosenhouse's comments and Morgan's later comments accompany Morgan's earlier comments as they appear in the article, serving to rebut Morgan's criticism of the simple solutions, and serve as a warning that the conditional solution is unnecessary?

Thank you, in advance. Glkanter (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Each source claims to be solving the same problem, and each source does it in a different way. What text above are you taking offense with? I could guess, but it will go a lot faster if you just tell me.

Re your questions: I'm not saying criticism must accompany the simple solutions (indeed, the proposal above is meant to avoid this). What I am suggesting is that solutions from both POVs be presented, as equally valid and in an editorially neutral fashion. In the text I'm suggesting above, there's nothing directly from Morgan. Where are you talking about adding Rosenhouse's criticism (and, to be specific, it's the one where he says something like "I don't like their tone" - right?). Similarly, what later comment from Morgan are you suggesting be added, and specifically where? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick, that proposal is the most foreign looking thing I've seen on these pages. I will not discuss it further, rather I will focus on the current article. Yes, Rosenhouse's criticism where he takes offense to their tone. Morgan admits 3 mistakes, that should be included as well. I am not advocating this, rather showing how it would logically follow from your's and Nijdam's insistence that criticisms of the simple solutions surround the simple solutions.

But, please, will you answer my first question?

Why *must* criticism accompany the simple solutions, or be used as an intro to the conditional solutions? It's pretty obvious that such an approach, as it is in the current article, favors a POV. As editors, we're supposed to make sure both sides are presented without bias. Simply reading the word 'criticism' says it's a POV.

Thank you, in advance. Glkanter (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So, you're refusing to discuss this proposal? Please tell me why.

I answered your question just above. "I'm not saying criticism must accompany the simple solutions ...". -- Rick Block (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam said it quite clearly, maybe yesterday. If you're not insisting on this, why did you repeatedly revert my deletions, to the point of edit warring? Frankly, Rick, I find your semantic volleying tiresome, approaching disruptive. Glkanter (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're talking about this change? It might have helped to say this. Most of the content you're deleting here is completely rewritten in the proposal I'm suggesting. I can't speak for Nijdam or Glopk (who also reverted this change), but rather than delete this I'd be fine with revising it as I've suggested above. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Rick, you and Nijdam speak very clearly with one voice. You both advocate for the same POV being prominent in the article, and you protect each other's article edits. Even more so, in your role of Admin, you have never, not even one time, counseled him on these pages that posts like the following are disruptive, malicious, hurtful, condescending, erroneous, and are prima facie both contrary and irrelevant to every important Wikipedia policy:

"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)" [3]

"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)" [4]

Nijdam is not a reliably published source. Yet, you, Rick, allow and encourage him and his manifestos to dominate the editing of the article. Now, explain to me how I'm supposed to edit this article without getting reverted by you or Nijdam? And then when I make a revert to eliminate your's and Nijdam's NPOV violations you report me, though not Njdam, and I get blocked. But, first you filed an RfC on me requesting that I:

"2. Spend more time editing and less time arguing on talk pages." [5].

Then, when I do attempt to edit the article, you report me for edit warring: [6], [7], [8], Glkanter (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you were edit warring [9] [10], I warned you about it, and you continued. You still don't seem to understand the difference between an editor having a POV and an article having a POV. Nijdam is using the talk page in an appropriate manner (expressing his opinion about what the article should say). He's not edit warring. Most of your post here could easily be construed to be a personal attack on me. I've asked you repeatedly to stop this. I'm really tired of it. Really, really, really tired of it. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Block, I will not be bullied by your bellicose manner, inexplicable interpretations and admonishments, or the disinformation you spread. Glkanter (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Enough, already. Let's commence to editing the article in good faith, elimainating the existing NPOV violations without adding in new NPOV violations based on Nijdam's and your's NPOV violating manifestos. Glkanter (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think there is anything in the article that does not comply with WP:NPOV please say what it is, exactly. I'd suggest using a new section on this page. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not endorsing your approach by adding the Combined Doors solution. I have added it for completeness, only.

These strike me as glaring NPOV violations, from the conditional section:

"This is a more complicated type of solution involving conditional probability. The difference between this approach and the previous one can be expressed as whether the player must decide to switch before the host opens a door or is allowed to decide after seeing which door the host opens (Gillman 1992)."

"Although this is the same answer as the simpler solutions for the unambiguous problem statement as presented above, in some variations of the problem the conditional probability may differ from the average probability and the probability given only that the player initially picks Door 1, see Variants below. Some proponents of solutions using conditional probability consider the simpler solutions to be incomplete, since the simpler solutions do not explicitly use the constraint in the problem statement that the host must choose which door to open randomly if both hide goats (multiple references, e.g. Morgan et al., Gillman, ...)."

As the reliable sources disagree on both of these, including them with the solutions is clearly a NPOV violation. And, to even make your NPOV violating point, you had to bring up Variants!!! They are not the MHP, and should not be in the solution section!! Again, I ask, why *must* the reliable sourced disputed criticisms appear with the solutions, and why do they not include the counter-point arguments? Glkanter (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I just don't get you, Rick. You give the section the title "Proposed NPOV solution section", then make a big issue about how I just *have* to read it and give it consideration. (I find it interesting that you find it necessary to include NPOV in the title. That should be the case all the time, not just this one time.) You *assure* me that there is nothing that violates NPOV. And then all along you included most of the same BS that we've been arguing about. This, your defense of Nijdam's indefensible postings, and your horrid response to Martin are just recent examples of why I question whether you are really operating in good faith. Glkanter (talk)

Your addition of Carlton's quote is redundant with the text that was already there, and as has been previously discussed your image is WP:OR not based on the cited source. I've deleted these in the working draft above.

The combining doors "solution" is explicitly an aid to understanding (the text even starts with "Another way to understand the solution ..."). I've put it in its own section above, but how about if we move it to the "Aids to understanding" section?

Where in the reliable sources do they call the Combining Doors solution an 'aid to understanding', rather than a 'solution'. Where does a reliable source call it 'explicitly an aid to understanding'? Is 'another way to understand...' a quote from all 4 sources? It seems to me this is just intentional editorializing of a NPOV violating manner. Glkanter (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say the first paragraph you object to (including "The difference between this approach and the previous one ...") is POV? It is what the cited source says and helps clarify the difference between the type of solution being described in this section from the types of solutions described in the other sections. It is factually true that the difference can be expressed this way - Gillman does. Including what a source says is never an NPOV violation, regardless of what the source says, so long as it presented in a way that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints" (from WP:NPOV). Would this read less POV to you if it were reworded to say "Gillman (1982) describes the difference ..."? I've made this change above.

The other paragraph you object to similarly helps distinguish the two kinds of solutions saying what the cited sources say. Again, including what a source says is not an NPOV violation, regardless of what the source says - so long as the article remains neutral about it. The wording in this paragraph seems to me to be clearly attributed to some sources - i.e. it is presenting the POV of these sources, without taking their POV. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A minor clarification - including what a source says, regardless of what the source says, is never an NPOV violation so long as including it does not give undue weight to the point being made. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in discussing this at a micro level if we can't agree on what the parameters of NPOV are. This includes the placement of criticisms and the prominence of solutions. I ask that you respond to my new proposal first. Glkanter (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond below. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Im just curious, Rick, why isn't this heading appropriate for the combined doors solution? "The probability of winning by switching given the player picks Door 1 and the host opens Door 3" Glkanter (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the heading is not clear, but it is intended to refer to a solution which addresses the conditional probability given the player picks Door 1 and the host opens Door 3. The combining doors explanation does not do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, Rick, the heading was very precise. It represents the 'correctness' of your favored solutions. That it also describes a solution you don't favor requires another bout of verbal acrobatics, feigned ignorance, etc. on your part to avoid admitting that the Combined Doors solutions meets every requirement of the Whitaker/vos Savant problem, and that there is no reliable source that criticizes it. Glkanter (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, see Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 10#Combining Doors Solution, and I imagine we'll discuss it again after mediation starts up. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You betcha! <wink> Glkanter (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And my definition of 'collaboration' does not include you unilaterally removing Carlton's solution (with or without the decision tree). Think about it, Rick, you just reverted my edits on a talk page 'working copy' that you goaded me into contributing to. Must be force of habit, I suppose. Rather, you should indicate in the working copy itself in some manner that you don't agree with my suggestion. Calling the Combining Doors solution any other than a 'solution' is a brand new, unsupportable contrivance on your part. Glkanter (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm treating the "working draft" above as if it were in the article - with comments about edits here (below the working version). This is the process we followed with the Falk paragraph the last time the article was protected. Many editors seemed to like this approach. All revisions are available in the history. I didn't delete anything any more "unilaterally" than you added it - this is simply how editing works here. When somebody adds something, it is expected that somebody else might edit it or even delete it. If you make a change that someone reverts you don't make the same change again, you discuss it on the talk page (see WP:BRD). That's what's happening here. All perfectly normal. What's NOT normal is making the same change again and again that other people have reverted (even making the same change once after it's been reverted is not good). This reasoning applies both to changes that are additions and to changes that are deletions. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you spent more time editing a range of articles here and less time arguing on this talk page I suspect you would have a better understanding of this.

I've previously suggested the Combining Doors explanation is an aid to understanding (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem#Is combining doors a solution or an aid to understanding?) - it was in fact in the "Aids to understand" section after the last FARC (see this version of the article). It is definitely not a "brand new, unsupportable contrivance". -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the simple solution section is pure OR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is basically an "in other words" paragraph. Do you think it is an interpretation beyond what the solution source says? I might agree that the second sentence ("Assuming each specific case ...") is OR (it is the symmetry argument that is actually missing from most sources that present this sort of solution), but the first sentence is more or less a literal interpretation of the words. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No one wants to talk about what we agree on so let us talk about what the sources really say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than repeat them (yet again), I'll add the following (Gillman, Grinstead and Snell, Lucas, Rosenhouse, and Schepler, and Rosenthal) by reference, see /Archive 16#What the Sources say. You're well aware of Morgan et al. and Falk as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources quoted do not say that they give unconditional solutions, they give simple solutions to the problem as stated. It is not disputed that some sources give more complex solutions to the problem.

Very few, if any, sources actually say that the simple solution is not valid for the standard interpretation of the problem. If anyone disagree perhaps they can show where in the source it clearly stated that the simple solution to the standard formulation of the problem is deficient. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Grinstead and Snell, p. 137: "This very simple analysis, though correct, does not quite solve the problem that Craig posed. Craig asked for the conditional probability that you win if you switch, given that you have chosen door 1 and that Monty has chosen door 3." -- Rick Block (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Gives a simple solution
• Does not say it is incomplete or that it answers the wrong question.
• Continued to defend her simple solution after criticism.

• Invented the problem and gave a simple solution to solve it.
• Does not say it is incomplete or that it answers the wrong question.
• Clarifies the basis for the simple solution and also gives a conditional solution.

• Says of the simple solution, 'It is actually correct...'

• Gives a simple solution
• Does not say it is incomplete or that it answers the wrong question.

• Says, 'Marilyn was right...his [the contestant's] chances increase from 1/3 to 2/3'

• Gives a simple solution
• Does not say it is incomplete or that it answers the wrong question.
• Shows the simple solution fails for the equivalent of the "Monty forgets variant", and gives a conditional solution, see [11]

• Says, '...most people have at best a vague understanding of why vos Savant's answer is correct, and the extent to which it does or does not also apply to variants of the problem'.

• Points out that, in answering Whitaker's question we must consider his intent rather that his exact words.

• Says, 'Since the only other place the car could be was behind Door 2, the odds on that door must now be 2 in 3'.

• Gives a simple solution to the standard formulation
• Does not say it is incomplete or that it answers the wrong question.

Just Google 'Monty Hall problem' to get plenty.
Academic sites: [12]
Others: [13], [14],[15]

As the simple solutions are controversal, I suggest we put them in a separate controversal section. The conditional approach is not controversal and should be presented first.Nijdam (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The conditional solutions are as controversial as the simple ones. Vos Savant continued to argue her case, Morgan's paper was described as a 'bellicose and condescending essay', most sources ignore the conditional solutions and most readers will not be able to understand them. They are nothing but irrelevant and insignificant academic diversions from the real MHP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you consider as being controversal. The so called simple solution(s) are criticized by several sources as being incorrect. Would you not call them controversal? The conditional solution is not criticized (can not be); seems not controversal to me. And to you?Nijdam (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The solutions are not controversial. The argument over them may be controversial. Maybe a better section heading for 'Controversy' would be 'Professional Consensus Divided'. And since the critics are reliable sources, they deserve to be mentioned in the article. But not in a manner that suggests agreement (or disagreement) by Wikipedia or it's editors. That would violate NPOV.

As it seems English is not your first language, I must ask if you understand the meaning of Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policy for editing articles? Further discussion of your proposal is not warranted, and would be considered disruptive. Glkanter (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Nijdam, who are the reliable sources that answer and discuss the 'proper solution' to your satisfaction? Glkanter (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@Martin: Doesn't it strike you as odd, that you as a non-expert on probability differ in opinion from the experts in this whole discussion?Nijdam (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a new one one me. When I try to talk about the mathematics and philosophy of the subject I am told that it is the just sources that we must listen to. When I try to discuss what the sources say I am told that it is the 'experts' here who must decide. When I point out that Gill, an expert who is currently writing research papers on the MHP, agrees with me (and may other editors) no doubt some new rule will be proposed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The simple solutions are published by enough reliable sources that it would be POV to present them in this way. Based on AGK's update at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem#Update I'm hopeful we'll have a mediator soon. Seems like it's probably not worth getting too worked up over this. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for esoteric mathematical arguments. Exactly as they are not to be used as 'fan pages' for an article on a music group.

Here's an example of the warnings on one such talk page:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the [musical group's name] article.

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Likewise, the math comes from the sources. There is no benefit, and as we have seen for a long time now, a real detriment to all these meaningless arguments. I'm sure there are other websites, or other places on Wikipedia more appropriate for these arguments.

The discussions are time-wasting and by definition disruptive, as Wikipedia articles are based on the reliable sources, not OR or personal manifestos.

Accordingly, I suggest that the Arguments page be either protected or deleted. I believe Rick set the page up, maybe he can effect the protection or deletion. Glkanter (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The /Arguments page was set up specifically as a place to allow the sorts of discussions that kept getting in the way of discussions on this page about changes to the article. I really don't recommend it, but if you'd like you can nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I believe the chances that it would be deleted are close to 0 and nominating it for deletion would simply be a waste of time. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I was around when you created the page. But I wasn't as aware of Wikipedia's policies as I am now. It seems to me, all the page did was create more opportunity for extended discussions and arguments. And it sure hasn't helped to cool things down, or aid us in reaching any sort of consensus. Having two active talk pages adds to confusion, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if our inability to attract and keep a mediator is due to the volume of postings. Well, if we eliminate the discussions that don't relate to the article and the sources, maybe a mediator can come in and help us sort out our difference.

The real issue is why have the page at all? Whatever that might be 'developed' there can't go into the article. Whatever happens on that page does not change who the reliable sources are, or what they wrote. And Wikipedia articles and talk pages are not meant to be used as a Probability Tutorial & Primer. Curious readers can be directed to any of the reliable sources in the article.

But, those arguments should *not* return to the main talk page. They are useless. I will consider any discussions of 'which source has the math right' or 'my POV should be more prominent, because it's right' as disruptive.Glkanter (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The page, and all the pointless, endless arguing have no affect on what should go in MHP article. It is all a distraction and a nuisance, adds no value, and has wasted a great deal of a lot of peoples' time. Glkanter (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rick. Glkanter (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've requested opinions about Martin's structure change at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV complaints about Monty Hall problem. I suggest folks from here refrain from commenting there as much as possible. We all know what we think. The point is to find out what some other people think. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that involved editors state their case once here in a section below but refrain from responding to outside comments until the review is deemed complete, maybe a fixed number of days.

I also suggest that a short and agreed introduction is provided for newcomers. I propose the following:

This dispute concerns the prominence and order of two types of solution to the Monty Hall problem. These are described in the article as the 'simple' and 'probabilistic' solutions. One group of editors thinks the simple solutions are incomplete or do not answer the right question and another group believes the simple solutions are correct and the 'probabilistic' solutions are unnecessarily complex.

It is agreed, however, that both types of solution are given in reliable sources and that it is unlikely there will ever be a consensus to have only one type of solution in this article. The question is therefore, 'How should these two types of solution be presented in this article?' Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam makes two recent highly offensive postings where, along with insulting other editors, he insists the article must feature his favored solutions, and that any mentions of the simple solutions must be accompanied by the criticisms from other sources.

Rick Block defended Nijdams postings as being appropriate for a talk page.

Martin Hogbin engages in direct, polite, on-topic discussions, at great length, and Rick out of nowhere accuses Martin of secretly wanting to do exactly what Nijdam proposed, except, of course, Martin would feature his favored solutions, and trivialize the conditional solutions.

So, Nijdam insists that the article must violate various Wikipedia policies, and Rick, an admin, is OK with that. Martin does nothing of the sort, but Rick harshly castigates him because in his own imagination only, he thinks Martin wants to do the same things to the article as Nijdam. I have to scratch my head, and wonder what is going on? Glkanter (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

What follows is my suggestion only. Having been an active participant in this dispute for nearly two years, I believe the following is the most expedient path to ending this conflict:

The current article is being disputed on three key areas:

NPOV violations - clearly the article currently shows, and has always shown, a great bias towards one POV

Use of OR

Sequencing of information (also being argued as NPOV violations)

I believe we should use the existing article as our starting point. My approach will result in primarily deletions from the article, although some (very little) additional sourced material may be added. Some whole sections may be re-arranged within the article.

I understand that Rick, Nijdam, and others feel the readers should know that there are reliable sources that state some simple solutions do not properly address the question as posed in vos Savant's column. Martin, I, and others feel each solution should be presented without any criticism of any type.

I propose a statement or two early in the article that says something about 'some sources are critical of some of the solutions presented, as they feel those solutions do not properly address the question posed in vos Savant's column', and provide a link to a section called 'Not All Sources Agree On All The Solutions'.

I would also propose that there be a single 'Solution section', with no sub-headings. And this solution section would contain no criticisms, warnings, discussions of 'before or after', and no discussions of any variants. Accordingly, only paragraph 3 from the conditional solution would remain.

The 'Not All Sources Agree On All The Solutions' would be the only place in the article that the criticisms are presented. Both sides would be presented, Morgan's paper, G&S, and others on the one side, Selvin, vos Savant, Rosehouse & Morgan's 2010 letter on the other. Each source/viewpoint would have a brief statement (I prefer direct quotes) of their position, and no opinion on 'right or wrong' would be included.

Some whole sections should also be considered for deletion, and large portions of other sections should be considered for deletion. This would be due to OR, or for not being within the scope of a Wikipedia article.

I think this is a NPOV way of giving due attention to all the sources. Glkanter (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Glkanter (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue II. The 'arguments' talk page is grossly counter-productive to the discussions on actually editing the article and should be deleted immediately.

Issue III. This talk page should be used for discussions that are within Wikipedia's policies only. There should be a banner at the top saying any discussion of the underlying math is prohibited. And that sources are not to be discussed in terms of 'right', 'wrong', 'complete', etc... Other than as stated by the reliable sources. Glkanter (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue IV. Is the following decision tree image properly derived from this reliable source as per Wikipedia policies, or is it OR?

"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).

Glkanter (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue V. The topics of 'host bias 'and 'variants' will not appear in any solutions sections. They will be discussed only in the criticisms section and the variants section. They will receive nothing like the Undue Weighting prominence they enjoy now. Selvin's conditional solution in his 2nd letter could satisfy this in the solution section, if needed.

Issue VI. The 1st sentence of the article:

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

will lose the word 'probability'. Many reliably sourced solutions rely more on logic or other disciplines to solve the problem. Calling it a 'probability' problem leads to the misconception that only the 'conditional' solution is 'right'. This is another NPOV violation. Glkanter (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I definitely appreciate the thought behind this proposal, a generic forward reference that says anything like "some sources are critical of some solutions" is basically weasel wording. The reader will immediately wonder which sources and which solutions. Folding criticism inline is recommended at WP:STRUCTURE as a way to achieve an NPOV treatment.

As you know I strongly favor a single solution section. I don't see how sub-headings matter (why would we delete them?), but I think a discussion of "before or after" is more or less required. This is a critical difference between the conditional and unconditional solutions. It sounds like you're suggesting we not say how the solutions are different until some later section. Contrasting the solutions at the point they are described seems like a much more natural approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do the sub-headings come from the sources themselves? They seem to be arbitrary creations. Especially when 'The probability of winning by switching given the player picks Door 1 and the host opens Door 3' is then explained away as "Perhaps the heading is not clear, but it is intended to refer to a solution which addresses the conditional probability" [italics yours] in order to omit the reliably sources Combining Doors solution. Again, as the headings don't come from the sources, and you alone are able to pick and choose which solutions meet the requirements of each heading, it's once again quite obvious that this editorializing and OR is intended solely to influence the reader in an NPOV violating manner. Glkanter (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a single solution section is a really bad idea. It makes the article inaccessible to the vast majority of readers who visit to understand the basic paradox rather than the academic extension. Have a look through the talk page history and you will find several readers were confused by the basic MHP, that is to say, why the answer is 2/3 and not 1/2. The most common additional subject was, 'Why does it matter if the host knows where the goats are?'. These are the questions that must be answered clearly and understandably in this article. No one has ever asked if it makes any difference which door the host opens. In some, somewhat contrived, circumstances this can be an interesting question, particularly for those studying probability theory but it is not what makes the MHP notable and interesting. This academic extension has some place in the article but it should never be allowed to complicate resolution of the basic paradox, which is already one of the worlds hardest brain teasers.

Interestingly, once the basic problem has been understood, the host bias extension is relatively simple to understand. What is difficult to understand is why some people find it so important. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Krauss and Wang (emphasis added): '...most participants take the opening of Door 3 for granted and base their reasoning on this fact. In a pretest we gave participants (N = 40) the standard version, asking them to illustrate their view of the situation described by drawing a sketch. After excluding four uninterpretable drawings, we saw that 35 out of the remaining 36 participants (97%) indeed drew an open Door 3, and only a single participant (3%) indicated that other constellations also remain possible according to the wording of the standard version. The assumption that only Door 3 will open is further reinforced by the question that follows: "Do you want to switch to Door Number 2?"'

In other words, 97% of the subjects in this study were trying to solve for the conditional probability P(win by switching | player picks Door 1 AND host opens Door 3). The essential point is not, and never has been, that the host might (academically) have an unequal preference between the two doors, but that the probability of interest is the conditional probability. The biased host variant is introduced only to show that the conditional probability and the unconditional probability (addressed by the simple solutions) are indeed logically different. After how the conditional probability can be correctly determined is understood, the host bias extension is relatively simple to understand. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Door 3 is an irrelevance. The subjects drew it because it is mentioned in the question. If you want to call that conditional that is fine with me, so long as you do not want to show drawings and explanations in which a different door is opened by the host. Now look back through the talk pages and see what the real problem is for most readers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That may all be accurate and true. It is, nonetheless a POV that is not universal, and perhaps in the minority. All of the reliably sourced simple solutions answer the problem based on the same set of premises. That is, they all claim to be providing a solution for vos Savant's problem. Selvin, vos Savant and her thousands of letter writers never broach this subject. Host bias may have a place in the article. But it's not needed in order to present any solution, nor is it 'entitled' to Undue Weighting in order to support your POV.

Except the part where you interpret 'P(win by switching | player picks Door 1 AND host opens Door 3)' as somehow excluding the Combining Doors solution. That's just hogwash. Glkanter (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to continue this discussion on the mediation page. I replied to some unsourced claims with a quote from a clearly reliable source. I have no interest is arguing about this outside of mediation. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re "Issue IV": 5 separate users have told you it's OR and have explained why. You've added it to the article 12 times (resulting in the the article being protected twice) and it has been removed by at least 4 different users. This is after you were blocked for edit warring twice about an equivalent table. I don't know what the mediators have in mind, but it seems to me this might be a good issue to start with. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Rick, as I posted yesterday, I am interested in the interpretations of other Wikipedia admins. Glkanter (talk)