Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem

Dispute specifics

 * Involved users
 * , filing party


 * Articles concerned in this dispute


 * 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

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues
 * 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 (added by other parties)
 * The only remaining issue is how much should the 'Morgan' paper, and it's adherents, be reflected in this article. Morgan clearly was not aware of Selvin's 1st or 2nd letter to the very same journal they are published in. They are, basically, ignorant of the topic that they chose to write on, 'Let's Make A Deal: The Player's Dilemma'. Instead of writing a letter to vos Savant, as 1,000s of other PhDs did, in which they could have pointed out her oversight of Selvin's premise, they wrote this embarrassing article. Glkanter (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How can the article be organised so as to best meet the needs of the majority of readers by giving a simple, clear, and convincing solution to the basic, non-conditional, problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

Note: JeffJor and Colincbn have previously agreed, see and. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. Rick Block (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Glkanter (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree. Nijdam (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. Heptalogos (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree. Gill110951 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree. And I apologize for the delay (I was temporarily indisposed and not able to log in) Colincbn (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree. And I apologize as well - I thought I had agreed before. JeffJor (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree. glopk (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)   – back from abroad
 * Could you please request that they sign here, as a formality? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I have already asked.  Neither of them have edited since then (Colincbn not since Jan 6).  I've requested Colincbn to sign here via email as well.  JeffJor does not have Wikipedia email enabled.  -- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section ; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
 * Accepted. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to mediate provided the parties agree. Andrevan@ 16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How do the parties agree? Will you be asking each party? Or is this post an implicit query? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty :-) All yours, Andrevan. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note on case
This case was initiated in January 2010, and underwent extensive formal mediation from then until the end of 2010. During that period of mediation, multiple mediators were in turn assigned to the case: first, User:Andrevan; second, User:Sunray; and third, User:Sunray and User:AGK. The case was then referred to the Arbitration Committee at the start of 2011, with a request for arbitration being filed by one of the parties, User:Rick Block, on 9 February 2011. This request resulted in the arbitration case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem and the resulting decision. During arbitration, this mediation case was placed on hold; after arbitration (which ended on 25 March 2011), mediation remained on hold, and was then closed on 28 April 2011.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 13:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)