User talk:I JethroBT/MontyHall

Thank you all for volunteering to sort out the opinions expressed in this RfC. I am looking forward to seeing the last of the individual closing statements soon. Are you planning to also present a joint statement that succinctly lays out what has and has not been decided? I ask for two reasons. Firstly, because this years-long dispute has seen a great deal of talking past each other and quibbling about what is meant or implied, I don't think it will really settle down without some clear, bright lines being drawn, if there is consensus for them. Secondly, notwithstanding their brevity, the two proposals each entail multiple recommendations. Some collateral issues that came up in discussion are also addressed in the individual closing statements posted thus far. For clarity and decisiveness I think it would be helpful to explicitly identify them and say with one voice what, if anything, has been decided about them. The questions I have in mind, though you may see it differently, are the following: Don't forget that you are addressing a bunch of epic nitpickers, not to say obfuscationists (oops, I said it). It will be impossible to apply a consensus if what it is or what it means is open to dispute. In commenting here, it is not my intent to exert undue influence on the direction of your decision(s), but to urge you to give the community clear and decisive findings. If, despite my intention, these remarks are seen to give the appearance of impropriety then please feel free to disregard them and slap me with a trout. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC).
 * 1) Whether a "conditional" solution should be presented early in the article (Proposal 2), or deferred until later (Proposal 1).
 * 2) Whether the solutions should be presented, at least initially, without suggesting they are right or wrong or incomplete (both proposals).
 * 3) Whether subsequent exposition of the "conditional" approach should be a "full and scholarly" one (Proposal 1).
 * 4) Whether a subsequent section should discuss criticism of the "simple" (or any) solutions (Proposal 2).
 * 5) Other matters raised in discussion...
 * We are posting separate final reports. I Jetrobot will be posting his report soon (hey, it is Halloween); the other two reports are already on the article talk page. Personally I don't think a court-judgment style single report fits the Wikipedia way. Yes, I think we do address all the questions above. If you look at my report, it says: 1. Proposal 1 has consensus. 2. Criticism of the vos Savant solution (the main criticism of simple solutions in the RFC) should not be included. I have added a suggested order for the "first" set of solutions, and suggestions on how the problem should be presented (no need for math terms such as "random", "uniform" and "unbiased"). There is a long explanation of my reasons on the article-page of this talk page (that is at User: I Jethrobot/MontyHall) and a summary in the report I posted at Talk:Monty Hall problem. I cannot speak for the other closers, but as the discussion at User: I Jethrobot/MontyHall shows they have also addressed the issues from different angles. Churn and change (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My closing report has been posted. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, never mind. It may be hoped that the community of editors will make good use of the concurrences and differences among the separate opinions. I have my doubts, but hope to be proven wrong. Thank you all for your efforts. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)