Talk:Marilyn vos Savant/Archive 1

"Errors in the column" section
I'd deleted the section "Errors in Articles" and when I did so I stated my reasoning as "Ms. von Savant has been publishing for over 30 years. The four errors cited are all since 2012 yet took up 25% of the entire entry. Given the corpus of her work, these errors are not representative of the subject for inclusion." Can someone offer a counter-position on why these should be included in this article. Are there other authors of published works that have such a large portion of their entry taken up by a handful of times when they were wrong? &#8212;JM

Non-Euclidean geometry
Isn't it just a tautology, instead of a proof?


 * The theorem is, like all analytically true statements, a tautology. Wiles provided a proof of the theorem. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

''Vos Savant is also famous for opining that Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's last theorem was invalid because it used non-Euclidean geometry, which she does not accept. This view was criticized by some in the mathematical community.[1] In fact, her book The World's Most Famous Math Problem contains many egregious errors, such as the claim that Wiles' proof is invalid because it uses non-Euclidean geometry.''

First it is said she does not accept non-Euclidean geometry, and then it is said that her book contains mane errors, as the fact she doesn't accept a proof using non-Euclidean geometry...--Viktor 14:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That paragraph has been tightened. - DavidWBrooks 21:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I read that part of her book sometime ago, but I don't have the book. If I recall correctly, she also incorrectly made a spurious connection between elliptical geometry (which for some unknown reason she doesn't beleve in) and the proof - just because the equations of Fermat's Last Theorem are generalized elipses.  I don't think the proof had anything to do with elliptical geometry at all, although it did involve equations that were generalized ellipses, and she seems to have made a connection just because of the name.  But I want to be more certain before I change it.  --Bubba73 16:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Correction - the proof uses elliptic curves, which don't have anything to do with elliptic geometry, other than the similarity of the name. Therefore, she incorrectly made the connection to something she incorrectly doesn't believe in.  --Bubba73 17:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, she did not make this mistake. She criticized the proof for its use of hyperbolic geometry, not elliptic. Tim Smith 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Marilyn's argument shows that she simply doesn't understand academic mathematics. The classical problem of angle trisection is a problem in constructability. Given certain rules and restrictions, can a general angle be trisected? There are no restrictions, ever, regarding the structure of a mathematical proof, so long as it's a valid proof. The classical restrictions on angle trisection are part of the problem statement.

Galizur 10:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't really make clear the nature of her confusion and her statement in her retraction in the revised edition of her book. What she says is that her confusion arose because she thought the problem of proving FLT involved a setting where one could only use the mathematical tools available to Fermat. I have her book, and that's what she says! While one of her objections was related, as mentioned, to the use of hyperbolic geometry (which she regards as invalid), another rested on the fact that she didn't think Fermat knew hyperbolic geometry. --C S (Talk) 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"if we reject a hyperbolic method of squaring the circle, we should also reject a hyperbolic proof of Fermat's last theorem"


 * Oh my God, I don't care what her IQ is, this argument displays extreme ignorance of the laws of mathematics and logic in general. What's next, Marilyn vos Savant "disproving" spherical trigonometry because the inner angles don't add up to 180°? Aragorn2 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And on the same basis should we also reject General Relativity since its mathematical basis relies on non-Euclidean geometry? Dorado 16:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, here is where you don't get relativity, at all. BonniePrinceCharlie 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming and typography
I appreciate the effort to trim my wording–seeking clarity, I chose exposition over concision when I wasn't sure I'd be understood. I would, however, like to challenge some of the edits:


 * The magazine is PARADE, not Parade.
 * The quote about defining intelligence being like defining beauty provides valuable insight into her perspective on IQ.
 * Her short stories, stage play, and novels are mentioned in her books under "About the Author" and, I think, deserve a place here.
 * On "Marilyn" vs. "vos Savant": Yes, encyclopedic convention is to use the surname. The rule is not absolute, though, and Wikipedia often disregards it: Lula, Voltaire, Sting, Enya.  We default to surnames, but deviate when alternatives are prominent.  The column is Ask Marilyn, letters she prints begin "Dear Marilyn", and the third-party sites are "Marilyn is Wrong!" and "Marilyn is Right!"  I vote for "Marilyn".

What do others think? Tim Smith 21:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm the guy who changed it to her last name, so obviously I prefer vos Savant despite the typographic ugliness of the sometimes-small-sometimes-big V. Fan sites may call her Marilyn but she writes under her full name (despite the column title) and is not generally known to the rest of the world by one name, unlike Lula or Madonna or Sting. "Marilyn" makes the article feel like a fan site, as if we're pretending to more intimacy than we actually possess.
 * As for PARADE vs. Parade, the usual style is to not print titles as all caps unless they are legitimate acronyms/initialisms, because companies try to manipulate publications into making their name draw more attention by insisting on unusual typography for their "official" name (e.g., PETsMART, a U.S. chain) ... but this is probably a losing battle since the dot-com boom brought us eBay and Yahoo! and other goofiness. - DavidWBrooks 17:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Noticing that Marilyn's books use Parade, that common usage (as indicated by a Web search) favors Parade, and that the Manual of Style recommends standard capitalization even when trademark owners seek special treatment, I now agree with you.


 * I'm still for "Marilyn" over "vos Savant", though. The use of "Marilyn" in the column title, in letters she prints, and on third-party (fan and non-fan) sites, combined with the typographic ugliness of "vos Savant" and the fact that people who cannot spell, pronounce, or remember her last name happily use her first, has given "Marilyn" a prominence which overwhelms the intimacy it would otherwise possess–after all, even her detractors ("Marilyn is Wrong!") use it!  To me, "Marilyn" feels neutral and natural, while "vos Savant" strains for an artificial formality. Tim Smith 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You and I seem to be the only ones excited about this. I still think she doesn't rise to first-name status and "vos Savant" is better for this article, but I'm not vehement and/or certain enough to enforce it, so let's leave it and see if any body else enters the fray. If not, I think it's fine. - DavidWBrooks 14:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is only one one-name Marilyn, and that's Monroe. But I will admit to being less than excited about references to MvS in this article. - Rlw (Talk) 21:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * To me, the issue is more the prominence of "Marilyn" in the context of Marilyn vos Savant, and less the referent of "Marilyn" on its own. That is, I think we should compare "Marilyn" and "vos Savant" as they are used in reference to her.  Whether "Marilyn" in isolation evokes her or someone else is, in my opinion, less relevant. Tim Smith 20:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm waaaaaaaaay late on this one, of course, but I agree that "Marilyn" makes it seem like a fan site and (to me) looks very unencyclopedic. I'd only use the first name like that when, as mentioned above, that's the name by which the person is known to the public, such as Madonna or Prince.


 * Just for the record. 8-) Mwelch 01:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
The anonymous editor who questions my use of "neutrality" is advised to consult NPOV. Particularly relevant, in light of the opposition to "subjective" language in the article, is this comment from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales:

"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken."

Wikipedia policy is to present conflicting views without asserting them. Since Marilyn's view conflicts with that of her critics, I presented her "misunderstanding" as alleged rather than asserting it as fact. I hope the anonymous editor will understand the importance of neutral wording even for situations which seem "completely clear-cut". Tim Smith 23:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am the anonymous editor, and a mathematician, so I'm sure you understand how strange (and misleading) I find it when Marilyn makes a mathematical mistake and people insist on saying "her critics allege...". I'm a critic because I spot a mistake?  And, I don't believe Marilyn is currently defending any of these "alleged" mistakes.


 * The problem here is that you spotted the mistake yourself, which makes it "original research". What you should have done was find a published instance of someone else spotting the mistake, and cited that.  Is the sky blue?  I don't know, let me check published sources... close that darned window!  Welcome to the world of Wikinerdia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having looked at NPOV and the "words to avoid" link, I see that statements regarding science generally should not use "claim, allege, etc.", which supports my view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.229.129 (talk • contribs).


 * Marilyn's addendum of July 1995 retracts only the analogy with squaring the circle. That, and the fact that the book remains in print after twelve years, suggests her continued support for its contents.  It does appear that some passages have been altered since the first edition, but the extent of the changes is unclear.


 * I guess I'm more cynical about her motivation here; the book is lampooned in the math community as filled with mistakes; it seems she won't withdraw the book if it is still making money.


 * By characterizing her argument as mistaken you are criticizing it; "critics" means nothing further. ("Her critics" never appeared.)  I see the concern that "alleged" could suggest a lack of supporting evidence, though.  I'll reword.


 * My point is that it is a factual issue, not opinion, so it is appropriate to say someone is "wrong", "right", etc.


 * It's your belief (opinion) that it's a factual issue, but in the Wikipedia universe, there are only facts about what beliefs are held by whom; the beliefs themselves cannot be treated as facts. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming, as implied by context, that the Monty Hall problem appears in many textbooks written prior to Marilyn's column? If so, can you give sources?


 * Yes, see the references in Monty Hall problem.


 * Thanks. By the way, you can sign your posts. Tim Smith 04:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, haven't gotten around to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.229.129 (talk • contribs).
 * You should, if you're going to have a back-and-forth argument like this - otherwise it's hard for the rest of us to see who said what, and confusion is possible. You can sign them even with an anonymous IP; no need to create an account. - DavidWBrooks 13:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year, Anonymous Mathematician! (To you too, David.)


 * Specifics may be factual, but "misunderstandings" (of mathematical induction, proof by contradiction, and imaginary numbers) is in my opinion too indefinite an attribution to be absolutized here. We're better served, in my view, by the current framed presentation.


 * Although predated by the similar Three Prisoners problem, the Monty Hall problem itself seems to have originated in a 1975 letter to American Statistician. Again, where are the "many textbooks" in which the Monty Hall problem appeared prior to Marilyn's column?  Please be specific. Tim Smith 04:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't get myself involved in this dispute, but looking at Monty Hall problem gives: An essentially identical problem appeared as the "three prisoners problem" in Martin Gardner's Mathematical Games column in 1959. Gardner's version makes the selection procedure explicit, avoiding the unstated assumptions in the Parade Magazine version.

The first appearance of the problem was probably the one presented in Joseph Bertrand's Calcul des probabilités (1889) where it was known as Bertrand's Box Paradox.

I don't study probability, so I can't say how common this problem is in textbooks, but I can easily believe this problem would have appeared in textbooks between 1889 and 1975. Tim, your usage of "similar" in reference to the Three Prisoner's problems gives the impression that you think this is a different problem, but it's important to note that the Monty Hall problem as solved by Marilyn is in fact the same. That's why there is the note about Gardner making some of Marilyn's implicit assumptions explicit. Anyway, I realize this doesn't answer the question of whether there were "many" textbooks with this problem, but given the history, I wouldn't be surprised if some well-known pre-1975 textbook had it. --C S (Talk) 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Monty Hall problem is a problem about two goats and a car. The Three Prisoners problem is a problem about three prisoners.  Isomorphic though they may be, they are not identical, and with respect to the claim that "the Monty Hall problem appeared in many textbooks prior to Marilyn's column", they must be distinguished.  (Bertrand's Box paradox, which involves three chests each with two drawers, seems to be a different problem entirely.) Tim Smith 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A tree-diagram of the Monty Hall problem, under the vos Savant assumptions, is posted at: http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=723345 The Three Prisoners Problem and Bertrand's Box Paradox are similar in the sense that all three involve inverse-conditional (a-posteriori) Bayesian probabilities. {{User: Domenico Rosa, 2 February 2006]]


 * Thanks for the link, Domenico! I see you've added it to the article as well.  It actually might be more appropriate for our article on the Monty Hall problem itself.  This article relates the controversy over Marilyn's answer, while that article covers details of the solution. Tim Smith 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Like the anonymous mathematician and Wikipedia editor above, I am another mathematician and Wikipedia editor. I have just changed the sentence that began with "Critics" to read "Knowledgeable mathematicians". That is because to a knowledgeable mathematician -- and there are plenty of textbooks where you can educate yourself about this if you have a few years -- Vos Savant's (original) claim that Wiles's use of hyperbolic geometry invalidated his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is exactly as debatable as if she had said that 2+2 is not equal to 4.

I will be happy to run through a summary of why this is true if people here would be interested. It does *not* involve any need to understand Wiles's proof, simply what hyperbolic geometry is.Daqu (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for "hundreds of academics"
"Among the ranks of her opponents were hundreds of academics with Ph.D.s, some of them professional mathematicians scolding her for propagating innumeracy."

We should at least make sure this is factually correct. I can't find any references for this statement in the article though. What reliable reference says that there were "hundreds of academics with Ph.D.s" opposing her? In addition, is the fact that they had Ph.D.s really relevant? Perhaps if they had math Ph.D.s, but if they were history Ph.D.s or whatever, then I would question why the article is mentioning this at all except to express some kind of POV. This "some" is also very vague. How many were they? It would be nice to have the number (exact or approximate) of published letters from professional mathematicians. The excerpt as it is, gives the impression of a horde of professional mathematicians writing in. --C S (Talk) 18:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Tierney, John (July 21, 1991). "Behind Monty Hall's Doors: Puzzle, Debate and Answer?"  The New York Times.

"Since she gave her answer, Ms. vos Savant estimates she has received 10,000 letters, the great majority disagreeing with her. The most vehement criticism has come from mathematicians and scientists, who have alternated between gloating at her ('You are the goat!') and lamenting the nation's innumeracy. ... The experts responded in force to Ms. vos Savant's column. Of the critical letters she received, close to 1,000 carried signatures with Ph.D.'s, and many were on letterheads of mathematics and science departments."


 * I'll add this reference to the article. Tim Smith 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Great work! --C S (Talk) 22:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

She ill-formulated the Monty Hall problem
Marilyn vos Savant ill-formulated the Monty Hall problem. that's why all these mathematicians were fooled. This is explained in the newspaper article given as a reference. It should be mentioned in the main article.

She simply forgot to mention that the TV host has the choice of not opening any other door. This obviously changes the whole deal.

This goes to show that a typical mathematician does not watch these programs. Marilyn thought everyone knew this detail, so she didn't bother mentioning it. In fact, she did finally acknowledge in the newspaper article that the problem was ill-formulated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.239.168 (talk • contribs).


 * First, Marilyn didn't formulate the problem; she responded to a reader's formulation.


 * Second, her final column on the problem said that, judging by her mail, the "great majority of people understand the conditions perfectly". Furthermore, more than half of those whose letters had been published eventually wrote to retract their arguments.  One Ph.D. mathematician, for example, said that his initial disagreement had become "an intense professional embarrassment".


 * Third, our article already says not simply that her answer was correct, but that it was correct "under the most common interpretation of the question", and points readers to Monty Hall problem, where other interpretations are discussed.


 * By the way, you can sign your posts. Tim Smith 23:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * She did not ill-formulate the problem, but it does take a certain sort of intelligence to understand that the statement that the host knows what's behind each door is there for a purpose, and implies that he intentionally chose a door with a goat behind it. Regardless of her formulation, any response that assumes the choice was random is simply incorrect. Responses that apply the implicit information, or that are agnostic and solve the problem under either assumption, are correct. But most of the responses claimed that MvS was wrong in her logic, or that she was an idiot, etc. Those responses came from people who in fact got the logic wrong, and are not defensible. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that a mathematician like Erdos would have disagreed with vos Savant had he read the correct formulation of this problem. I know I would have agreed immediately with vos Savant, had I seen the right formulation in your article. Why did I have to read the reference to finally agree with her? That's because you didn't provide the full information in your own article. I don't think you should be satisfied with this state of affairs; it's not in the spirit of an encyclopedia. Great subject, but the execution could be improved. 67.127.54.239 07:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Chris Major


 * Again, formulation issues are covered right here in the encyclopedia at Monty Hall problem, to which our article directs readers for details.


 * Erdős biographer Bruce Schechter reports in My Brain is Open that Erdős was "fooled by the workings of the laws of chance". Even after the problem had been explained to him "using the language of mathematics" and demonstrated with a computer simulation, Erdős remained "frustrated by his inability to understand intuitively how switching worked", and was satisfied only after further discussion several days later.


 * Yes. I wonder if Chris Major was at all affected by the fact that he seriously doubted something that was in fact true. Many of the responses to MvS displayed a similar lack of humility. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For more evidence that the problem is controversial even with all constraints explicit, see Talk:Monty Hall problem, atop which exasperated editors have placed a large notice advising dissenters that "There is no need to argue the factual accuracy of the conclusions in this article. The fact that switching improves your probability of winning has been confirmed numerous times by experiment." Tim Smith 04:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, mathematics has been confirmed by experiment? Oh noz...BonniePrinceCharlie 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the problem was ill formulated. I thought her answer was counter intuitive (I am not a statistician but I am familiar with many of the concepts and I use statistics often in my work) so I modeled the problem in Excel using a random number generator to place the prize, and then a second random number generator for if the host had to choose between two available non-prize doors. Once I had written the worksheet I tried it 1000 times and sure enough, the odds are as stated. There are many instances where MvS has misstated a problem, or even failed to grasp an elementary insight) but this was not one of them. The one I remember best was her singularly dim-witted response to a reader who wrote in with a question (which he answered) about why manhole covers are always round.  The answer, of course, is that the round shape prevents it from falling down the hole in the way which a square or rectangular cover might, if mishandled.  MvS explained earnestly in her column that that wasn't it at all -- the reason they did not fall into the hole was because of the little lip underneath!  Cross Reference 22:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is ill formulated since it implies the host opens doors at random, and such situation makes her answer wrong. If the host has special rules for opening doors then those rules have to be included in the problem. The whole issue here is that by opening only the loosing door the host gives a certain credibility to the not picked door, but this is absent when he just opens random door. Proper formulation is the key but such problems are usually ill formulated on purpose cause only if they fool enough people they are interesting enough to propagate. 195.242.255.83 (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "it implies the host opens doors at random" -- in what way does it imply it? In fact, it doesn't. In fact, by stating that the host knows what's behind the doors, it implies the choice isn't random, else it wouldn't matter what the host knows. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Imaginary numbers
Her quote about imaginary number is thus:


 * The square root of +1 is a real number because +1 × +1 = +1; however, the square root of -1 is imaginary because -1 times -1 would also equal +1, instead of -1. This appears to be a contradiction.  Yet it is accepted, and imaginary numbers are used routinely.  but how can we justify using them to prove a contradiction?

Marilyn vos Savant, The World's Most Famous Math Problem, page 61.

All I can say in response is "Whaaaaa?" Front243 22:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope this is mis-attributed/misinterpreted otherwise it's flat out stupid and ignorant. The complex field and it's basis in plain thought and the imaginary unit i cannot be beyond someone, even if they are not a mathematician, that claims to be at or beyond 6 &sigma; G. Lycurgus 17:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't take 6 &sigma; to see the serial errors of logic in your statement. For one, the statement is flat out stupid and ignorant regardless of whether it is misattributed. For another, "flat out" means that misinterpretation is no excuse -- the statement is stupid and ignorant by any sensible interpretation. Finally, since MvS is "at or beyond 6 &sigma;" (it isn't just her claim, she's been tested), then if the statement isn't misattributed (ex hypothesi, since you wrote "otherwise"), "[t]he complex field and it's (sic) basis in plain thought and the imaginary unit" apparently can be beyond someone at or beyond 6 &sigma;. Actually, I doubt if it is beyond her; I think she just suffers from a poor mathematical education and some severe misconceptions -- a correctable condition. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When to qualify
The article's statement that Marilyn's answer to the Monty Hall problem "was correct under the most common interpretation of the question" was recently qualified with "her supporters say". In my opinion, this qualification is unnecessary. The featured article Monty Hall problem affirms that under Marilyn's interpretation, "the answer is yes — switching results in the chances of winning the car improving from 1/3 to 2/3", and that "vos Savant gave the correct answer".

In contrast, recent edits declaring Marilyn's argument about hyperbolic geometry to be "ludicrous" and "naive" are inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. We already acknowledge differences between squaring the circle and proving Fermat's last theorem, mentioning "critics" to indicate that such differences were used in public criticism of her argument. We also report her July 1995 retraction. Pejorative labels are unnecessary and unencyclopedic.

The charge of "misunderstanding mathematical induction, proof by contradiction, and imaginary numbers" is, as I said above, too indefinite an attribution to be absolutized here. For the Monty Hall problem, we quote the question under consideration, state the competing answers, assert her correctness under a particular interpretation, and provide details in a lengthy accompanying article. With this level of specificity, we can call her answer "correct". But with only a bald proclamation of "misunderstanding" and an external link, we are better served, in my opinion, by the current framed presentation. Tim Smith 17:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete threat
There is an anti-Hi-IQ/Gifted Jihad in process at the moment. Already the Mega Society has been deleted and Ronald K. Hoeflin and The Ultranet are up for deletion. Who will be next? Marilyn vos Savant, Mensa? Don't take this lying down: the Mega Society deletion has been appealed, please go here and support its reinstatement with an overturn vote.

Possible articles under threat are:

Marilyn vos Savant, International High IQ Society, Mensa International, Intertel, Colloquy, CIVIQ Society, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, Triple Nine Society, Prometheus Society, HELLIQ Society, The Ultranet, OLYMPIQ Society, Giga Society

--Michael C. Price talk 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As you may have heard the Mega Society article was deleted awhile ago, at the end of an acrimonious AfD/DRV process. There is a wide divergence between deletion policy (as defined by various policy guideline documents) and deletion practice, as implemented by admins (who claim to be following the "spirit" of the law). Consequently there are lessons to be learnt from the experience, which will not be obvious from reading the guidelines. Here are some tips for future conduct:


 * Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians: create, edit and even ... delete articles!  There are plenty of articles that need attention.
 * It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate.
 * When voting, include brief reasons which are grounded in policy (votes not backed by reasoning may be discounted; too much reasoning will be ignored).

Given the bias against soliciting (see judgement) I may not be able to contact you again, so I suggest you put the Mega Society in your watchlists. The closing admin's comments on the Mega Society:


 * Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits.  This is good news for you.


 * The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable.  Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight.  Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted.  The others supporting your view were.  I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known.  In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.  It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)


 * If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it " faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show.  Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So the outcome was not entirely negative, although I was disappointed by the admin's rather cavalier approach evidenced by the response to my enquiry:


 * .... why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, nor did I solicit them.  I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith? ...... --Michael C. Price talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

to which I received this rather off-hand reply:


 * User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

which didn't fill me with confidence about Wiki-"due process".

Anyway, my grumpiness aside, the Mega Society article, is presently under userfied open-development at User:MichaelCPrice/mega, and will reappear at some point, when (hopefully) some of the ill-feeling evidenced during the debate has cooled. I am very heartened by the article's continued development, and by the development of associated articles. Thanks for everyone's help!

--Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)