User:Rick Block/DraftMed

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * : you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * talk:Monty Hall problem - attempt at a structured consensus discussion.
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-06/Monty Hall problem


 * : Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.''

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * Is the article NPOV, in particular with respect to the POV of the Morgan et al. source which criticizes the so-called "unconditional" solutions as not addressing the problem as stated?
 * Should the article fully address the unconditional solution, with "sources of confusion" and "aids to understanding" sections before mentioning anything about conditional probability - or would this violate NPOV by tacitly favoring the unconditional approach?
 * Should conditional and unconditional solutions be presented in a single "Solution" section (more or less like this draft), or should these solutions be presented in separate, possibly chronological, sections (like in this version)
 * Is a separate "large image" necessary for the "popular solution" and "probabilistic solution", or can a single image be used (more or less like the proposed draft linked above)?
 * Should the so-called "combining doors" solution be included in an initial "solution" section, or is it more appropriate to include this in an "aids to understanding" section?

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Additional issue 1. The only issue to be mediated is should the will of the consensus of editors continue to be be thwarted by the minority holding some sort of 'veto' power? Glkanter (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should clearly mention that the remarks made by some sources, that the so called "simple solution" is not complete, is not shared by all sources.

There should be 3 solution sections: Selvin's simple solution of 1975, transitions to Selvin's symmetrically equivalent conditional solution of 1975 (where the discussion of the simple solution's criticisms occurs), transitioning to Morgan's conditional non-solution of 1991.

The word 'variant' should be either stricken, or augmented by 'slightly different problem'.

A lot of 'blather' needs to be removed from the article. Too much time and effort is spent in the various remaining sections explaining the conditional solution, for no real reader benefit.

The 'Variants - Slightly Modified Problems' section needs work. The MHP is from the contestant's state of knowledge (SoK). The versions in this section are not. This needs to be normalized for the reader in these possible ways: An explicit statement that the contestant is aware of these new conditions (in which case these are no longer game show problems), or the explicit statement these problems are not from the contestant's SoK, coupled with a comparison of the MHP from a non-contestant's SoK. Or, just delete the whole section, as none of these are The Monty Hall Problem Paradox, which is the subject of the article. Glkanter (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional issue 2.