Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: SirFozzie (Talk) & Elen of the Roads (Talk)

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Finding of fact

One divided by two equals two Two children are fighting over a piece of chalk. An adult intervenes by breaking the chalk in half and handing a piece to each child. One child immediately sees that division results in more pieces of chalk and, delighted by this bounteous doubling, happily begins doodling. The other child sees that division results in having less chalk and, outraged by this meager halving, throws it away in disgust. Whether or not one of the children's perspectives is unreasonable, neither child is mistaken about the math. The relevance of mathematical "truth" depends upon one's understanding of what the problem is about. (Story adapted from a talk by Ray Bradbury circa 1975)

A stated finding of fact is [my bold]

"The Monty Hall problem is unusual in that while there are many scholarly sources, the key source is a popular one, and the best known and most often quoted formulation of the problem and it's solution is 'wrong' in terms of advanced probability theory. This has led to a tension in the article between demonstrating the simple proposition in the popular sources, and providing the 'correct' Bayesian formulations of the advanced probability versions".

I am somewhat surprised that the arbitrators seem to have made a decision on what is a matter of fact regarding probability theory, especially as they refuse to be drawn into making a content decision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right about that, it is klutzy phrasing on my part. I will try a rephrase - what I'm trying to explain is why there is a "pov" about a maths problem, given that most people will believe that maths problems only ever have one answer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Martin. It might be more appropriate to express this in terms of that formulation of the problem being open to interpretation. As remarked in the article, "almost all sources make the additional assumptions." It may be noted that scholarly sources find the proffered solution does not satisfy strict readings of the formulation. It might be too much of a stretch to assert that the consensus of scholarly sources finds there is no reasonable interpretation under which the proffered solution is correct. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See if what I have changed it to is any better. I'm not trying to say it what is actually right or wrong, just that there is this viewpoint. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Better, but "should not be included in the article" probably overstates the position of the major faction. It seems more a dispute about how to include it, in terms of viewing it as deficient or not. I may suggest alternative language at the Workshop tomorrow, but I fear I lack the wit to achieve brevity. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The rewording morphed the statement from being about external factors to being about what "some proponents" allegedly want (and, if you mean to be including me in "some proponents" this is NOT what I want). I think keeping this externally focused would be better. I don't know if it's out of line to make a suggestion, but perhaps something like "In the literature, some proponents of a more complex Bayesian solution argue that the simple solution technically addresses a slightly different problem. This has led to a tension in the article between demonstrating the simple proposition in the popular sources, and providing the more complex Bayesian formulations commonly found in scholarly sources." -- Rick Block (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, that's what I get for rewriting on the fly. It's the external sources that I'm trying to get at, not the view of the article editors. I have left it at 'wrong', as that seems a plain english explanation, which is all that I'm after. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Two problems here. (1) A formally posed Maths problem might in general have a unique good solution, and of course many good paths to the good solution, but Vos Savant's words are already semantically ambiguous. To convert them into a formal math problem is a problem of mathematical modeling of the real world:and that is an art, not a science. There is no unique correct *math question* to answer. (2) MHP also found its way into game theory, mathematical economics, decision tbeory, optimization theory. It is not only commonly found in statistics textbooks, where it functions as a fun example for people struggling to learn Bayes theorem, but also commonly found in game theory textbooks, etc, etc. Where the same words of Vos Savant are converted into a different math problem. Richard Gill (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone else has said, perhaps the problem is that it's not one problem but many, which appear superficially similar. But in plain English, one bunch of mathematicians disagree with what another bunch is saying. People who never looked at maths past High School would be surprised by that - to them, maths problems only have one answer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes! And: that mathematicians, especially applied mathematicians, often disagree, is why Maths is so great, still alive and flourishing and going new places where it's never been before! Unfortunately many school teachers don't know this, don't want to know this. That's why nowadays children with a real aptitude for Maths usually don't discover they have the talent, so they are lost to business studies or something trendy multidisciplinary where they never learn a discipline of their own: they just learn how to copy and paste from Wikipedia. Richard Gill (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Elen, one bunch of mathematicians disagree with what another bunch is saying. Not to put too fine a point on it, but in the current version,[1] on which voting has begun, isn't it insufficiently neutral to note that "some" sources deem it wrong without also noting that other sources deem it right?

"Complex Bayesian formulations of the advanced probability" may not be the clearest way to indicate for a general audience that this represents an epistemological perspective, and is not simply a matter of being complex or advanced. For the purposes of this finding it might be better to simply note that some sources disagree with 'simple' treatments and with each other, rather than get into particular philosophical interpretations of probability upon which some of the disagreements are based. (Bell (1992): "I will leave it to readers as to whether this equivalence of the conditional and unconditional problems is intuitively obvious.")

The special challenge for editors that this finding represents is not just that there are differences of opinion, but that some of the most important sources are from different worlds of discourse. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(To be clear, the Bayesian formulation is plain vanilla math, it is the contention that only a Bayesian formulation can account for the a priori goat that is dogmatic. I should have left that paragraph out, and must again apologize for digressing. ) Sorry! ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:TECHNICAL and comments by Geometry guy

I have been watchlisting this case for some time, but have been reluctant to contribute because of the endless talk associated with what should be a straightforward and very interesting Wikipedia article.

I am commenting here primarily because of the reference to WP:TECHNICAL, a page whose status has been disputed recently (not by me), and whose nutshell ("Strive to make each part of every article as accessible as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material") is based closely on a comment of mine. There are many nuances connected with this nutshell, and arbitrators may be in danger of implicitly making a resolution on content if they do not take on board the distinctions. Geometry guy 00:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I read the whole guide, not just the nutshell. You'll also note I haven't quoted the nutshell. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are one of the most incisive and clear thinking arbitrators Elen: that is why I voted for you, after all!

I have no doubt that you read the whole guide, but please do not rush to respond or conclude: I was providing context for the current form of the guide, which, if you check the talk page and edit history, has been under flux recently. I have more to say, but prefer to encourage editors to read, rather than write, so I will delay further comment. Geometry guy 01:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your concern, but the point is not to exclude material because it is too simple. TECHNICAL itself recommends putting the simplest version first, and the more complex material later in the article, so that the person who simply wishes to be better informed can get an insight into the subject, even if they give up as soon as the maths notation, Greek or diagrams appear. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that my concern was yet clearly enough expressed above for you to "see", but regarding your subsequent comments, I agree with you entirely. Since the current form of WP:TECHNICAL is influenced by my comments, as well as more substantial contributions by editors I greatly respect, such as CBM, my support for the current version is unsurprising.

Beginning an article with simpler approaches, and discussing more technical details later is, in my view, a no-brainer, yet this has been a significant topic of argument, not only at arbitration here, but throughout the history of the article (which I first encountered in 2007). There have been many discussions about technical content across Wikipedia: the talk page history of WP:SCG provides further examples.

I do not envy arbitrators who have to provide findings in such complex circumstances. The concern I have is that conclusions drawn here, which may seem reasonable in this case, may inadvertently result in collateral rulings on content which go beyond ArbCom's remit.

Pause.

The statement that "routine arithmetic is okay" may suggest that other straightforward logical and mathematical deductions are not acceptable without citation. If A is smaller than B and B is smaller than C, is it okay to deduce that A is smaller than C? What if 10 letters are sent (reliably) to a mailing list of only 10 people and no one on the list receives more than one letter. Is it okay to deduce that everyone on the list receives a letter? Is it okay to deduce that the sum of two even numbers is an even number? If x belongs to a set A, but does not belong to a set B, can we deduce that x does not belong to the intersection of A and B? What if a function f(x) is increasing as a function of x, and its value f(0) at 0 is positive: can we conclude its value f(1) at 1 is also positive? These examples may seem trivial, but it is just as trivial to deduce that a group has only one identity element, or that any function whose domain is a discrete topological space is continuous. Does ArbCom really want to codify which deductions require reference to published sources and which don't? Geometry guy 02:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Our aim is to reflect sources - I guess I always take it to mean thus...I am actually trying to think of an instance where I've done any mathematical inference while writing....and I can't. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

People use mathematical inference (sometimes erroneously) all the time often without realizing it. In this edit for example, you did not feel the need provide a source for the rarity of cultivation being a consequence of the difficulty in propagation. Instead you added further reasons for the difficulty in propagation, which support the implicit logical connection. This is not a shining example, but I took it right from the top of your contribs, without even trying to find anything better. Geometry guy 03:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the source I added afterwards covers all three points. Hence I didn't have to infer anything as the inference was already covered in the original source. The first sentence I added and only added the second when I had a source (I knew it anyway as this plant is so damn hard to propagate espite growing in bushland everywhere :((( ) 04:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by casliber (talk • contribs)

I thought it might, but didn't have access to the source: you are smart enough to say "all three points", so it would be a great pity if you have never made a logical inference in your contributions! Geometry guy 07:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Fortunately you do (at least I hope so, per above!). I went back not much further, and found this edit: where the source has "The Vaucluse estate had been unoccupied since 1898... He bequeathed... the remaining estate to his wife Sarah that, upon her death in 1880, passed to their sole surviving unmarried daughter, Eliza Sophia Wentworth. Following Eliza’s death in 1898 the estate reverted to Wentworth’s trustees...", the article has "It was disused since 1898 after the death of Wentworth's last surviving unmarried daughter Eliza Sophia Wentworth". This contains implicit inferences: "sole surviving" implies "last surviving" (a logical triviality), and "unmarried in 1890" plus "no heirs in 1898" implies "unmarried in 1898" (some minor but reasonable assumptions). (There are some even more minor assumptions, such as dead people not having new children, even the "long-lost" variety!)

You may not find this example terribly compelling either, and may be able to reword the sentence so that it does not imply anything which is not in the source or William Wentworth. I'm not trying to find particularly good examples, nor "prove you wrong", but to illustrate the natural and desirable process of thinking while editing. This is an encyclopedia, and to stay on-topic often requires summarizing sources, combining them in a sensible (e.g. historical) order, and other routine logical manipulations. It is good that editors engage their brain while editing. Sometimes they get it wrong, and introduce original synthesis in the process, but routine manipulations of source material extend far beyond arithmetic. Geometry guy 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I congratulate the committee for what looks to be an above average section on principles, certainly in a difficult area to "legislate". However, I agree with the thrust Geometry guy makes about routine mathematical thinking not being limited to arithmetic, and wish to emphasize the following aspect of what I think is acceptable WP:OR and has relevance to this case:

• identifying concepts (or trivial isomorphisms). It's not uncommon for mathematical definitions and results (theorems, formulas, etc.) to have different names in different RSes (e.g. law of total probability). There has been long-standing consensus among WP:WPM regulars to a have a single article/section/definition for the concept, and note the varying terminology (within reason, sometimes the naming variations are quite abundant). Less often the opposite happens: the same name is used with different mathematical meanings, e.g groupoid. (This is the mathematical equivalent of distinguishing polisemic words in natural language. Some of the editors involved in this case have bickered about "the one true meaning" of which problem stands behind the MHP name— the wrong approach to an issue like this. And I fully agree that the gradual from-simple-to-complex-to-solve didactic approach is warranted in a venue like Wikipedia.) Policy-wise, identifying that concept X from RS1 is called Y in RS2 when they are discussed in the same context is routine mathematical thinking, and quite necessary on Wikipedia, even if there's no RS3 to explicitly say that RS1.X = RS2.Y. Of course, that's not an invitation to publish in Wikipedia previously-unpublished results of the caliber of this or this where there it's not immediately apparent from context that the objects might be the same. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Arithmetic?

Why is the word "arithmetic" used in the routine calculation proposed finding? There are many types of routine mathematical calculations that are not arithmetic in nature (alphabetizing a sequence of words, for instance, or finding a closed form for an integral of a standard type). It is both standard and good exposition to work through simple examples of mathematical constructions, and this finding would seem to prevent much of that, far beyond its intended purpose within this specific case. It seems a strange, arbitrary, and new restriction, and one at odds with the earlier admonition to keep articles as accessible as possible —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt many people would consider putting a list of words in alphabetical order to be a mathematical calculation. And if you are finding a closed form for an integral of a standard type, without it appearing in a textbook somewhere, then that is original research. I didn't make WP:OR up, I just quoted from it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are following a cookbook method for the closed form of an integral but the exact integral you're doing isn't one already worked out in the textbook for you, it's not original research, it's an exercise. And alphabetization could easily be used in an example of a sorting algorithm, which I view as being a form of mathematics. Basically, the statement as it stands seems to be written from the point of view of a mathematically naive reader who thinks that arithmetic is the be-all and end-all of mathematics; it does not make sense for most of our articles on mathematics beyond the high school level. To pick a more advanced example: in Lattice of subgroups there's a section titled "example" which describes all the subgroups of the symmetries of a square. The choice of this group of symmetries, rather than some other group such as the symmetries of a tetrahedron, was not copied from the article's sources, but the listing out of all of the subgroups of this group is, to a mathematician, a routine calculation, requiring no new insights. It's just an example, rather than a theory, and everything in the example is standard. It's intended to make what's in the rest of the article easier to understand rather than to add new theoretical material to it. But the calculations do not use numbers, and they do not use addition and subtraction and the other operations of arithmetic. So your proposed finding seems to prevent this sort of routine use of examples in articles that are about any kind of non-numerical mathematics. And, it's more about what sort of content we should or shouldn't have than I would expect from ArbCom.

By the way, I found this discussion from both WT:WPM and from my own talk page. Many of the WPM participants are fearful that this will lead to the outright elimination of examples from our mathematical articles: we can't copy whole examples from the sources because that would be a copyvio and if this sort of decision goes through we would also be prevented from making up examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's my concern as well. This decision would have serious (unintended) consequences if it passed as written and was enforced. I'm sure the intent does not match the wording at present. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruling on content is beyond ArbCom's remit (Elen has a more nuanced way to say this, but I can't find the diff right now), so it should suffice to draw attention to the risk of an implicit content ruling. The current arbitration team includes many smart editors. Geometry guy 03:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The intention in the principle is to re-iterate the WP:OR policy, and refers (or should refer IMHO) to novel derivations from first principles. Using substituted figures to illustrate a sourced method is certainly not a novel derivation from first principles, it's just a substitution of the starting point - if I were to write a piece on the standard method for solving simple quadratic equations, I could illustrate it with any quadratic as the method applies to them all. There's nothing novel about it, and I'm not creating any kind of OR with the example.

Glosses may be more challenging - Kiefer Wolfowitz used the example of a gloss for something that has not yet been glossed in sources. I would think this could fall foul of original research as defined by Wikipedia, particularly if the gloss is challenged by other mathematicians. Which brings us to the problem of Monty Hall, and lots of editors providing derivations in their own notation and arguing that others notations are wrong. In that circumstance, since the derivations themselves are contentious, Wikipedia must insist on sources for all the maths.

You guys might like to review the entire of WP:OR to be clear whether or not it presents a difficulty. If the wording here requires improvement, I am happy to put up a variant for the arbs to vote on. This does illustrate why it is better to hash the principles out in workshop first, and I regret that certain other distractions kept me from doing this for all of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Coming from a physics background, I'm also very very weary of this ruling. Taking a concrete example from List of baryons, a featured list: the lifetime of resonances is defined as τ = ħ/Γ. where ħ is the Planck constant and Γ the resonance width. Now I needed to list lifetimes (τ) and their uncertainty (Δτ), but this data is unavailable for some of the baryons. However, the information for this exists indirectly, in the form of resonance widths (Γ ± ΔΓ), rather than lifetimes (τ ± Δτ). Converting width (Γ) to lifetime (τ) is simply punching numbers through τ = ħ/Γ (this can easily be sourced), but to convert uncertainties requires a bit more effort and some knowledge of differential calculus. One first needs to derive, from first principles, the uncertainty relations (which, after you do the basic calculations, turns out to be Δτ = ħΔΓ/Γ²). Now that second part is obvious to me, is obvious to any physicist working in the field, should be obvious to any physicist or mathematician (or anyone actually) capable of doing basic calculus, and is completely uncontroversial. However that second part is also, as far as I'm aware, unsourcable to the degree which ARBCOM seems to want to require from now on.

This is a ruling on content, which quite frankly, ARBCOM is utterly unqualified to make. Case in point, most ARBCOM members are probably confused by the math I just gave, yet this is something that would be understood by anyone who passed a basic calculus class. 09:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a ruling on content at all. No original research is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and this is a straight quote from it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see where in WP:OR and particularly in WP:CALC the words "... deriving mathematical results from first principles, without reference to a published source, constitutes Original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia" or "... deriving mathematical results from first principles, where the derivation hasn't been published in a reliable source, is original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia" appear. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It fairly clearly excludes the type of calculation that you wish to do, and that's not going to change any time soon, regardless of this case. If you want to add the uncertainties, you will have to persuade someone to publish a table of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And it is precisely what is wrong with what ARBCOM proposes, because this stuff is both utterly trivial to perform and non-controversial (and well-within the current WP:CALC), and no one at WikiProject Physics would object to include derived uncertainties on grounds of "original research". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The (Bayesian posterior/consequent) probability intervals can be derived using the change-of-variable formula (Radon-Nikodym theorem), just as one can derive 2372+1=2373 using arithmetic principles (which can be challenged and then can be sourced). We cannot always source trivialities such as 2372+1=2373. Such derivations are trivial for mathematicians (not necessarily logicians!). Such derivations are obvious and never a subject of argument. They should be recognized as important for exposition and protected from challenges as "original research by synthesis".

Mathematicians disagree sometimes on the best way to present material: Criteria include simplicity, generality, insight/surprise, accessibility, relations to other topics. Articles are linearly ordered, and choices must be made.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. Several policies and guidelines such as WP:NOR already exhibit the problem that they only make sense in contentious situations and therefore have to be routinely ignored. Prescribing and fixing an interpretation of NOR as it applies to a specific class of articles will exacerbate the problem unless done with extreme care. There is a reason the mathematics project is extremely concerned:

• Mathematics articles differ from most other articles in that to a large degree they must teach rather than just inform. (This difference between mathematics articles and most other articles is necessary and not specific to Wikipedia. It reflects special features of mathematical literature and of mathematics education at all levels.)
• The main complaint about mathematics articles, and apart from the Monty Hall Problem article and very occasional cranks or self-promoters very much the only contentious issue for mathematics articles is that they tend to be very hard to understand for laypeople.
• Making mathematics articles more comprehensible requires the crafting of examples that fit the articles and therefore may not be in the literature. Just copying examples from the literature is a lazy practice that comes very close to plagiarism, even when a source is given, in those cases in which examples are practically arbitrary.
• It's extremely tedious and useless work to scour through an extensive didactic literature just to find an obvious example that anyone who knows the field could make up in two minutes. At the other extreme, for many advanced articles such a didactic literature does not exist yet and we would be forced to keep articles unnecessarily technical, essentially parrotting our sources instead of adapting them to our genre (that of an encyclopedia).
• Proposed decision 11 does not just say what NOR says anyway. In a subtle but important way it is considerably stronger.

• NOR: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources."
• Proposed decision: "Routine arithmetic calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted within articles. However, deriving mathematical results from first principles, without reference to a published source, constitutes Original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia."

Under the standard interpretation of NOR, it is no problem to make up example sentences for a linguistics article, as it is analogous to routine mathematical calculation and not contentious. The proposed new interpretation outlaws non-arithmetical mathematical calculations even though they are analogous to arithmetical calculations, and does so even when they are not contentious. A fortiori this brands the two examples in English relative clauses#Restrictive or non-restrictive as original research -- unless they have all appeared literally in a source. Hans Adler 10:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans - I'm not trying to expand on what's in OR, but that does seem to say that only trivial calculations are allowed without source. I entirely agree with the point about examples, to my mind, substituting one example for another example of the same thing to avoid a copyvio is not original research. Can you think of better wording, and let's put that to the committee? Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the NOR policy started with the principle "Wikipedia is not a place for cranks to advertise their theories" (someone correct me if I'm wrong, this was before my time here), but gradually became broader and broader to the point that it is now hard to tell the difference from WP:V. At the moment it's about as extreme as it's going to get. It has certainly crossed the point of diminishing returns. There is a lot of fine-tuning going on. E.g. occasionally it is proposed to extend the routine calculation exception explicitly to elementary logic. (This is problematic because outside very formal contexts, "Every A is B." and "Every B is C." does not automatically imply "Every A is C" for the simple reason that "B" can mean slightly different things in the first two sentences.)

This is not a non-negotiable fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It is one of those rules that must perpetually be tuned so that they are a net benefit, and sometimes must be changed in response to new trends and fashions in our community. The current text says "routine mathematical calculations". A year ago it said "routine calculations". If anyone wants to change this to "routine arithmetic calculations" then this change should be proposed and discussed at WP:NOR, not in an Arbcom decision. This is simply not the right forum for twiddling policy in this way, and I am also worried because Arbcom caselaw tends to have more inertia than written policies. If anyone starts abusing the wording proposed here, a consensus at WT:NOR will not be enough to stop this. Instead, another Arbcom case or at least motion will be required. Hans Adler 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it said 'arithmetic', but on checking it says 'mathematical' and then goes on to state that there must be a consensus that the arithmetic is correct. I can't see it makes the slightest difference - it is plainly only talking about a dispensation to do some easy sums. At the same time, most of the maths on wikipedia is surely sourceable if anyone asked - it's in textbooks and such. We surely do not have someone solving Fermat's last theorem on article talkpages. The only requirement is that there is a source in back of it. Using a textbook to elucidate the steps in a proof is not WP:SYN. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion here, so I'd just like to pick up on this as briefly as I can. Many lay people think mathematicians spend their time doing "hard sums", and conflate mathematics with arithmetic. Such confusion is perhaps evident in the wording of WP:NOR. However, "routine mathematical calculations" cover a much wider range than "easy sums". Calculations can involve logic, inequalities, and other deductions that extend beyond arithmetic, as I tried to illustrate above. In full generality, a mathematical deduction is any logical inference involving precisely formulated ideas: I am not suggesting that any such deduction is acceptable without a source, far from it, but I would note that some logical inferences involving imprecisely formulated ideas are commonplace on Wikipedia, and mostly harmless. Policies such as WP:NOR and WP:SYN draw attention to situations where unsourced deduction or logical synthesis may be damaging. Geometry guy 20:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of original research

I think that most of the concern on this topic amounts to a concern about the meaning of the phrase "original research". WP:NOR says that original research is material not originally published by reliable sources. But what counts as material? A very strict reading could argue that every sentence original to Wikipedia represents an original thought, and therefore counts as original research or synthesis. A slight rephrasing of a reliable source's sentence might change the original emphasis or alter some shade of meaning, and the only way to ensure that Wikipedia's sentences are totally devoid of original content is to copy them straight from something else, that is, to commit a copyvio.

WP:NOR goes on to say that copyvios are prohibited, and that "Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." Because this permits slight shifts in meaning, it allows slight amounts of original research. What is not permitted, and what the policy spends most of its time discussing, might be called original ideas. If I have a brilliant new idea for a revolutionary new theory, I can't go straight to Wikipedia. But brilliant expository prose is always welcome here (as far as WP:NOR is concerned; there are other restrictions).

What I am concerned about, and what I think most of the mathematics WikiProject is concerned about, is whether unpublished but well-known or easy mathematical reasoning counts as original ideas or not. Everyone agrees that arithmetic is not an original idea. Even if there are no reliable sources for 2974561 + 923592 = 3898153, this computation is not original enough to be the kind of original research we are worried about. A claim that 1 + 1 = 3 would be too original to include without a reference. In between is something like the example I wrote (based on an earlier version of the article) at Chain rule#First example. This is a straightforward first-semester calculus exercise. It is certainly unsourceable: The chances that someone else has written down this exact same exercise with the exact same numbers and the exact same setting are effectively zero. And it is certainly not arithmetic. But any good calculus student can do this problem (those of you who never took calculus or who took it years ago are excused). It has effectively no new content. However, the proposed findings of fact may prohibit it. While I do not think that this example is a derivation from first principles, it is closer to that than to arithmetic.

I suspect it is necessary to impose very strict, straitjacketing restrictions on Monty Hall problem. But I would like to plead that such restrictions not be placed, even implicitly, on other mathematics articles. Ozob (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I do see the concern of the maths community. Your calculus problem is the equivalent of someone editing a linguistics article and adding a new example of Litotes to avoid a copyvio - the method (the definition of litotes or how to do the calculus) is very well referenced, the editor has just slotted some different variables (phrases, numbers, symbols) into the referenced method. This isn't what is meant here - the problem lies where the outcome is novel and/or controversial. I suspect the Bayesian formulations in Monty Hall were unproblematic - it was the differing interpretations of the problem/solution that they were being used to support that was the issue, and in such a melee, one really does have to go back and say "sourced information only". Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So mathematicians are allowed to perform basic calculus, but not physicist??? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the mathematicians want to demonstrate how a calculus problem is solved, without slavishly copying the textbook example which would result in a copyvio. What you want to do is put up a table of results of your offwiki calculations. If challenged, the mathematician can point to the calculus textbook and say "here is where it shows how to do this calculus". Where are you going to say you sourced your results from? Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb is right here. "Error propagation", i.e. understanding how to translate an uncertainty in one variable into an uncertainty in another variable which depends on it, is something which is absolutely drilled into physicists because it is completely essential when you are writing up a practical to be able to calculate how various sources of error or uncertainty you may have identified translate into error or uncertainty in your conclusions (or error or uncertainty in calculated intermediates based on your data). One of the simplest and most important examples is if you need to calculate the reciprocal of your data. Headbomb's worked through the calculus above, but the simple rule that becomes second nature to physicists, because dividing by things is so common, is that if you take the reciprocal then the fractional uncertainty is preserved. Now in particle physics linewidth is in a reciprocal relation to lifetime (an example of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), so if we're quoting lifetimes then the uncertainty in lifetimes is indeed given by ħ ΔΓ/Γ² -- it's a trivial consequence of changing from using one variable to another. Yes, this could maybe be footnoted and explained; but the point is it should not be counted as OR, because it's entirely uncontroversial and unoriginal.

Other examples may be a derivation that is presented using one set of variables rather than another; or a very straightforward piece of calculus or algebraic manipulation that makes something jump out more clearly in the explanation.

Paraphrasing what somebody said elsewhere, if it's clear to the page editors that what is being put forward is unoriginal and uncontroversial and not seeking to advance any novel thesis, then it shouldn't be considered OR. Jheald (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- exactly! The concern is that the text, as written, might be misunderstood as prohibiting that sort of routine manipulation. I'm not worried about ArbCom so much as a well-meaning editor who comes across the finding without understanding this nuance. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions as to a more effective version of the principle. It is not intended to establish anything new, just describe things as they are. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the Arbcom needs to make general statements on what constitutes original research in mathematics at all. Imho all that is required here, are specicific assessments, whether any of the involved parties engaged in OR or not based on current policies. This is less than offering an own rewording of the general policy, for which this here is the wrong forum as Hans Adler has pointed out above correctly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom would normally make a statement on current policy before making a statement that editor Foo has violated current policy. If the statement needs to be more nuanced, suggest more wording because you guys clearly think this is saying something different to the OR policy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion by Ozob

I think you and I agree. The example of litotes is a good one—it is indeed exactly analogous to my calculus example. Unfortunately, finding a good formulation of the so-far ineffable principle we agree on may be difficult. Here is an idea. It's quite different from the formulations you've proposed:

Routine logical implications that a motivated reader can easily check using information in reliable sources are permitted. Other claims must be attributed to a reliable source or else they constitute original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.

Here are some comments on how I chose to word it:

1. "Routine logical implications" is my replacement for "Routine mathematical calculations". An arithmetic calculation is a type of logical implication. So is unit conversion and a calculus example. This phrasing, however, is very broad, and it covers not only mathematics but also physics, philosophy, and even far-removed fields like film criticism.
2. I considered replacing "routine" with "simple" but ultimately decided against it. Calling an implication "simple" invites disputes from editors with poor judgment. Calling an implication "routine" suggests that it is common in the literature, in other words, someone familiar with reliable sources would find it unremarkable; I think this is harder to abuse.
3. I said "easily check" to emphasize that the reader should already have all the major steps presented. Going from one step to the next should be obvious (for example, rearranging a formula, as in 2 + 3 = 3 + 2). The reader should not be asked to do something that might deserve the label of a deduction or argument. However, saying that something can be checked is a little weaker than saying it is verifiable. We usually say on Wikipedia that a fact is verifiable if it is possible to give a source which states that fact exactly. By "check" I mean "fill in all of the steps of the implication" with connotations of straightforwardness and clarity.
4. I said "using information in reliable sources" because this is a bare minimum standard which all articles should meet. I considered saying "using information cited in the article", but a strict, hard-line interpretation of that requirement would force every article to cite a full complement of textbooks, going all the way back to elementary arithmetic. The downside of my suggested phrasing is that it does not require editors to include all the relevant citations. It allows them to drop in a single citation to a multi-volume reference work instead of carefully citing each fact like they should. However, I do not know how to state a principle which both prohibits that behavior and is clearly a minimum standard for all our articles.
5. I used "motivated reader" instead of "general reader" for two reasons. First, a motivated reader is expected to care enough about the details to make an effort to verify them. Contrast this with a casual reader, who is not looking to master the details and who will not attempt to check them. Second, a motivated reader may be more advanced than a general reader. This varies from article to article—a motivated reader of elementary algebra should not be expected to know more than basic arithmetic, whereas I think a motivated reader of a research-level mathematics topic such as spectral sequence can be safely assumed to have some mathematical background (note that the current spectral sequence article assumes too much background). This is not intended to imply that article should be written only for specialists: Motivated readers are a very wide audience.
6. In the second sentence, I initially attempted to be more specific than "other claims" about prohibited kinds of reasoning. I tried "difficult arguments", "non-obvious arguments", and "uncommon methods of reasoning", but I didn't think that any of these were quite right. An novel argument that is not difficult but which uses a non-obvious or uncommon method of reasoning should be prohibited. So should a novel argument that uses common methods of reasoning but is so long and tedious that it is difficult. Of course, when an argument can be attributed to a reliable source, then it's acceptable.
7. All of this is contingent on consensus: There must be a consensus that a motivated reader will possess sufficient background knowledge to check the argument, there must be consensus that the omitted details of the implication are routine, and so on. I didn't explicitly include this dependence on consensus above, but that might be an improvement.

I believe that this formulation covers basic arithmetic operations, unit conversions, and calculating someone's age. It covers calculus and linguistic examples because they are routine logical implications of facts presented in calculus and linguistic textbooks. It permits changing the names of variables used by a reliable source to better match the names used elsewhere in the article, but it does not permit the invention of new symbols or terms. I am not going to take a stand on Headbomb's physics example because I don't understand physics, but I think that my formulation captures the right spirit: If his conversions are the result of well-known formulas (i.e., if they are routine logical implications) documented in reliable sources and are correct (i.e., they can be easily checked using reliable sources), then they are acceptable, much like unit conversions; but if each table entry requires its own novel derivation and these derivations are not sourceable, then they are forbidden as original research.

What I am not so sure about is how much this helps the MHP situation. There appears to be no consensus on what is a routine implication or a reliable source, so my rule cannot be applied. Ozob (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. It falls foul of remarks in both V and OR that the burden is on the person wishing to insert the information though. Perhaps an entirely different phrasing, that is more specific to the problems at Monty Hall, might be formulated. As I've said elsewhere, when the general community sees two mathematicians throwing symbols rather than sources at each other, the assumption tends to be that its OR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I now believe that my proposed rule is not compatible with WP:V and WP:OR as they stand. I think my proposed rule is a pretty good approximation to what mathematicians on Wikipedia do and to what I think V and OR should say, but you are right: It's not what they say now, and that's what you must base your decision on. Given that, I think the best option for MHP cannot be too far different from what you have already suggested. However, I think that best option may still be morally wrong. Because V and OR make no allowance for elementary mathematical reasoning—reasoning that has no more originality than calculation, but is not itself calculation—they forbid some things which should be permitted, such as examples, and they do not distinguish between those things and the original research that we intend to forbid.

I would be satisfied with a principle such as the following:

Routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted in articles, provided that there is consensus that these calculations correctly reflect the sources. Mathematical derivations which are not attributable to a published reliable source constitute original research according to the definition currently used by the English Wikipedia.

I attempted to take this as directly as possible from WP:OR. I prefer "mathematical derivations" to "derivations from first principles" because I think that, according to current policy, all derivations are suspect, not just derivations that begin at the beginning. I also want quite badly for the proposal to say "currently used" and not "used", because the former leaves open the possibility that the policy will change.

You have a very tough job here, and I think that some commentators on this page are not giving you enough credit for the work you do. I would like the take the time to thank you for listening to our feedback. Ozob (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb on physics (continued)

In the example, given above, $\tau ={\frac {\hbar }{\Gamma }}$ (this I can source). From this, it is obvious that ${\frac {d\tau }{d\Gamma }}=-{\frac {\hbar }{\Gamma ^{2}}}$, changing differentials into deltas and removing the sign (the difference between ± or ∓ is trivial in the case of symmetric uncertainties) gives ${\frac {\Delta \tau }{\Delta \Gamma }}={\frac {\hbar }{\Gamma ^{2}}}$, or re-arranging, $\Delta \tau ={\frac {\hbar \Delta \Gamma }{\Gamma ^{2}}}$. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting English: Comments of Eppstein, Jheald, & Gill

I think the application of WP:OR to the MHP mess is something of a misunderstanding, anyway. It is not a problem where some people are calculating 1+1=2 and some others are calculating 1+1=3 and if only we could figure out how to add correctly we could resolve it. It is a problem where some people are claiming that English-language description of the problem translates into math as 1+1 and some other people are claiming that it translates into math as 1+2. Everyone knows how to add, but they disagree on what should be added. So telling the participants "you have to find a source for your method of calculating sums" is addressing the wrong part of the problem. The actual problem is that natural language has ambiguities that need to be resolved before we can do mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is even that. There is a question that can be raised as to how to interpret the English language version of the problem; but I don't think that's what most of the row is about. It's more about how to explain the solution -- it's essentially an argument about whether to say 2 + 2 = 4 or to say 2 × 2 = 4; and how much weight and in what sequence to present each formulation; and whether it is original research to write it as II + II = IV. (i.e. to present the argument using a particular form of notation). Jheald (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was struck by the phrase routine logical implications. This is the root of the behavioral and etiquette problems with the page. One person's routine logical implication is another person's absurdity. E.g.: prove something by assuming the opposite is true? You must be deranged! (Yes. I have experienced this in a court of law, in conversations with top experimental physicists, and on the MHP talk page). Now, with a mathematics article on wikipedia, the readers and writers share a culture where a relatively high level of sophistication (awareness, routine) in routine logic is universal. No one bats an eyelid with reductio ad absurdam. But MHP has two literatures (well: two main literatures). A popular, and a technical (several different technical literatures). For wikipedia: two kinds of readers, two kinds of writers. It is about the application of routine logical implications to an easily understandable situation about which everyone has an opinion, opinions are often very strongly held, and many opinions are wrong. So I guess it is a context where re-expressing a routine logical implication in a way which doesn't previously exist in the literature (or is not previously prominent in the literature) is "O.R."

Example. If any of the conditional probabilities would favour staying rather than switching, there would be a "mixed strategy" (switch or stay depending on specific door numbers) with overall success chance larger than the 2/3 you get by *always* switching. So the difference between the simple and conditional approaches comes down to the issue of whether or not there could be a better strategy still (better overall success rate) than "always switching" (which gives you 2/3). (Formal proof: write out the law of total probability for this situation and think about what you see). For many technical writers on MHP this is so obvious that it is not written out at length but is only implicit in their arguments. However, the popular literature, afaik, does not report this insight. The literature which does MHP by using the Bayes sausage machine is interested in selling their sausage machine, not in gaining insight into MHP. I thought that this insight could help reconcile the two main parties in the fighting. Neither party agreed. So now this is in one of my publications where maybe future generations will find it useful, it is not on the MHP page. Richard Gill (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to summarise the problem at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem/Workshop#Proposals_by_John_Vandenberg. Could a few of the people commenting here also provide feedback there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard D. Gill

In the real world, Richard D. Gill has been involved in legal proceedings, by writing papers and by being interviewed by the news media. Extra care should be taken to avoid harming his reputation here, lest a wrongfully convicted person have less access to an honest expert witness or news reporters question his motives. It seems to me that he is being banned from the MHP for one year at his own request, as his sacrifice to WP to make the page open and inviting for new editors.

I don't understand why there is a discussion of his being stimulated by the WP article to write original research publications, which (after all) can be included once they meet the standard of reliable sources. Perhaps he may have been too enthusiastic on talk pages a few times, but it does not seem to me that he has added content without substantial support and acknowledgment from some other editors. The present language could be used to smear Professor Gill as manipulating WP to serve his own ends, contrary to the facts. In fact, Gill's contributions to WP continue to be made at great sacrifice to his academic research. I would suggest omitting the statement about his original research, and underscoring that Gill requested his ban, to send a signal to the WP community (and beyond) that new editors are welcome on the MHP.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, writing papers and being interviewed by the press does not constitute being involved in legal proceedings. That requires a court, writs, judges etc. Wikipedia is certainly not a court, and it is well understood in the media that it is possible to conflict with Wikipedia's rules and end up prevented from editing an article, without it being a comment on one's character. What he has done (WP:COI issues arising from closed loop referencing) is a very technical offense against one of Wikipedia's more arcane rules. I don't think that talk of convictions, smears and harm to reputation is particularly helpful here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elen! I could not find a subsection on closed-loop referencing on the COI page. Thickly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed loop referencing. You want the article to say some X. You are in a position where you can get a paper published saying X. You then come back to the article and add X as a source. The correct approach would be to suggest to other editors that they may find your paper useful, and wait for them to add it. It's a very technical contravention - the information has been peer reviewed so I presume it is sound, it's only to do with how the community prefers to handle experts who come with their own references.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your "correct approach" is, in my experience, broken. It's a pretty solution in theory, but doesn't actually work in practice. Case in point: diamond cubic. It has been tagged as unsourced since July 2008, in September 2008 I added to the talk page a suggestion for one of my own papers as a source (but didn't add it to the article itself due to the COI), and since then: nothing has happened. Nobody has added my source or any other source to the article. Nobody has commented on my suggestion explaining why it shouldn't be added. It just sits there. So I don't think it's reasonable to rely on this as an adequate way to bring in the expertise of some of our editors. (PS I added some sources today that have nothing to do with my own research, so the article is improved, but only because I was reminded of this situation and tired of waiting for someone else to deal with the problem.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If no-one has objected, you are free to add it. Some editors objected to Dr Gill's additions - that was the problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"That was the problem".   The "problem" has existed for more than two years now, and finally has articulated in enunciating Arbitration, see comment by others - Felicitous. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation was clear and helpful. The COI-policy recommendation that researchers propose additions of their results on talk pages then covers the problem with Richard adding such references himself. Thanks for your explanation!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I struck through the unhelpful comments. You are welcome to remove such comments & your response if you like.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Did you mean "called as an expert witness in legal proceedings"? I wasn't aware he was actually called into court. I thought he just advised. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Gill wrote on the talk page for the article about himself that he has not appeared in court for the Lucia de Berk case. However, he could appear as an expert witness in the USA, in some possible world. The statistician David A. Freedman was an expert witness for many cases. My concern about his reputation being questioned by an opposing lawyer derives from my legal expertise (entirely gained from viewing Law & Order!). Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been a court witness in legal proceedings. In fact, concerning statistical analysis of DNA profiles in a high profile murder case. I was interviewed by the judicial review committee which analysed the Lucia de Berk case and recommended it be reopened (which later happened, indeed). I have prepared expert evidence in several litigation cases about correlation versus causation.

Honestly I don't think I produced any new ideas on MHP: every single idea I came up with myself, or learnt from a fellow editor, turned out to previously exist in a reliable source. Just as one would expect. Some were hidden or implicit (the expert reader recognises them, the layman not). The way I am used to editing maths and statistics articles on wikipedia is that everyone composes nice examples of existing results, and nice ways to understand existing results, and everyone helps one another improve these, find references if possible, or remove if people find it unnecessary or unuseful. When I add some text to MHP I expect constructive camaraderie. Fine by me if no one likes the addition, they say so, and it goes again. Now it's amazing that when I correct blatant wrong notation, someone screams blue murder. I can give references to "usual notation" if necessary. I think that in such a case, I am correcting someone else's bad OR. Whoever wrote out those lines of formulas certainly can't have copied them from a textbook. Moreover they clearly had no idea what they had written: it was gobbledygook. Richard Gill (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm trying to get at with the OR thing. BTW, given Kiefer's laudible concern, I am happy to make clear that any sanctions are for what one might term 'etiquette problems', not for inserting dodgy statistics. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to reassure you all: it is fine by me to be told off for "closed loop editing" (though I don't believe I actually did that -- but I agree it can look like I did that). As a somewhat autistic mathematician my people skills are not as good as my math skills. I'll proudly add a wikipedia page ban to my academic CV. Fine for me to let the dust settle for a year and let other people do what they like with my published writings (including ignoring them). -- Though if this was an issue, I don't see why another editor didn't remove the text or reference. That so-called "O.R." contained nothing new, everything is sourced, it just collected known facts which I learnt from fellow editors at wikipedia (whom I collectively thanked) in a convenient package and added some personal opinions about teaching probability and statistics and the dangers of solution driven science. And those opinions were *not* referred to by myself or anybody else on the MHP page.

I share the concerns of other editors who like to write on maths, that taking the rule "no new maths beyond elementary arithmetic" literally would destroy any of our inclination to work on Wikipedia. We could better work on citizendium.org or statprob.com, where there's a degree of peer-review and professional collegiality. And then Wikipedia editors can just copy our citizendium / statprob articles. Obviously the writers themselves aren't allowed to do that. And what's the fun of copy and paste?

So there is a big problem with articles on subjects where there is both a big technical literature, and a big popular literature. Personally I think it is a really big challenge to bridge those worlds. That's what I have to do in my work on forensic statistics. It's an unsolved maybe insoluble problem. MHP is a great testing ground for this. Richard Gill (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:V haven't changed dramatically in the last few years - the thing seems to be that the mathematicians have ignored it. The principles should encapsulate existing practice, not be new practice - unless the maths community can come up with some wording which encapsulates what they do and shows what the problems with Monty Hall were, we have to go with what the policy states, since that's what people are supposed to be doing.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the existing policies are actually quite sufficient. WP:OR says no original research. WP:V says what needs to be sourced isn't everything, but only quotes and content challenged or likely to be challenged. What the math folks are saying is there's way more than "simple arithmetic" that would not be considered to be OR and that no one would challenge. The bright line is whether something is challenged. So, include whatever intuitively obvious results you want - but if what you say is challenged either provide a source clearly showing what you're saying is not OR or get a consensus of editors to agree the challenge is baseless. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what WP:V says. It says that you must be able to provide a source for material if asked for it. You don't routinely have to source 'humans are air breathers' because no-one challenges it. If it is challenged, you have to provide sources - there's no 'consensus of editors to agree the challenge is baseless.' Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC) ETA all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed <-- features in both WP:V and WP:OR. There may well be no need to actually cite the textbook if no-one challenges it, but the source has to be there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that a challenge of a basic math result, like 1+1=2, (as opposed to a challenge of a "fact") can be satisfied by a consensus of editors concluding the challenge is baseless - i.e. not all citation requests are reasonable and whether they're reasonable or not should be a consensus decision. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Richard, you have stated that you inserted references to your own papers in the article only where the results are due to others (and are cited in your paper). Is that correct?

Does ArbCom agree?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

*All* the mathematical results in those papers are attributed to earlier writers. The opinions are my own. Some results are extracted from other writers' proofs. For instance, a writer assumes A, B and C. Then uses A only to establish D. So I wrote A implies D and cited that writer. An editor who by their own admission can't read elementary (high school) probability theory disputed my claim on the talk page that A implies D (citing author...). So what could I do but write it out and get it peer reviewed? That was fun. (Is this what is called making a"gloss")? Later an editor disputed my reading io Rosenthal's paper. An expert from my own field writing for a professional audience. After many failed attempts to explain, I wrote to Jeff R., who was more than happy to be quoted that my reading was correct.

As to the history of the citations, first they were references by me on the talk pages to my preprints on arXiv.org or on my homepage in Leiden. When they were published, I updated the reference. I have no idea whatsoever who moved such a reference from the talk pages to the article. As far as I am concerned this was all done in an atmosphere of collaborative editing and service to the community. And obviously the citations are superfluous since the so-called "O.R." was not new mathematics. This is not like a Pratt and Whitney engineer designing new rotor blades! However, a non expert can hardly see the difference. It's abracadabra. Weird symbols and words. A high priest making incantations to the spirit world in a secret language. Richard Gill (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's nothing novel in Richard's papers. So, essentially anything referenced to his papers could be referenced to some previous source. I mean, lets think about this. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of previous sources about the MHP. The chances of anyone coming up with something novel at this point are very small - and if they do, the chances that whatever it is belongs in this article is within a small epsilon range of 0. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, some rephrasing of the findings about Richard then seems desirable. He has already expressed being treated differently on WP in recent weeks, and the current wording may intensify such injustices. (I believe that the committee understood Richard to have introduced some fairly minor results in the article, rather than reporting others' results.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a bigger than epsilon chance of someone coming up with something new. I call it the holy grail of MHP studies and offer a bottle of good wine (or paypal equivalent) to whoever can find it. See [2]. Richard Gill (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

YES! @Lambian has done it! Bayes has been made redundant! MHP is for the people! After this piece of OR has got peer reviewed and published, I hope all interested wikipedia editors will take up the possibility to cut out a whole heap of irrelevant crap from the wikipedia article. Put it back on Bayes' sausage machine where it came from and where it belongs. (IMHO). Richard Gill (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Current wording

"9) Gill110951 (talk · contribs), real name Richard Gill, has used his experience of editing and discussing this article to provide material for published research,[3] which he has then introduced into the article.[4][5][6]"

Alternative proposal

9) Gill110951 (talk · contribs), who has identified himself as Richard D. Gill, has used his experience of editing and discussing this article to provide material for published research,[7], to which he has referred in the article, [8][9][10]. However, despite raising the appearance of a possible conflict of interest, such edits referred only to others' results rather than to Gill's own results, and so they did not represent a factual conflict of interest. Nonetheless, in such edits, Gill failed to follow the best practice of proposing the edit on the talk page and letting others insert them.

I think that this summary is clear and accurate (according to Richard Bloch's statement), while the current wording suggests conflict of interest (of self-promotion type).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

See Richard Farmbrough's statement below, in the "Be Careful" section, for related concerns that some rewording is needed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing actionable, so no sanctions?

This alternative would imply that the committee should not impose any sanction on him, imho.

Regardless, even with the present wording, there seems little enthusiasm for the proposed (minor) sanction on Gill.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Probability theory falsehood

The Monty Hall problem (MHP) is not a problem of probability theory, as erroneously asserted in the finding of fact. It is a problem of statistical decision theory, which concerns economics, statistics, and philosophy as well as mathematical probability theory. Jeff Rosenthal does not make major mistakes about probability. Probabilists and statisticians do make obvious mistakes frequently about statisticial decision theory, simply because of ignorance about elementary distinctions between probabilities of conditional (if/then) events and conditional probabilities, or about probability kinematics (Jeffrey's rule), etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed finding:

Inspired by a popular game show, the Monty Hall problem (MHP) started life as an example of probability theory statistical decision theory, intended for students and the wider public. Since its publication, it has become an example of optimal decisions under uncertainty, which concerns probability theorists, statisticians, economists, and philosophers. On Wikipedia, the editing of the article on the MHP has featured disagreement over how to present the various forms of both the question and the answer, so as to provide complete coverage of all the facets of the problem, without overwhelming the general reader.

No. It's close enough as it is. The finding does not commit the problem to be one thing or another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard Gill just made a similar not dissimilar comment as mine, above.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Read what he said more closely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My providing the link to Richard's diff was meant implicitly to encourage others to read his original words (noting any differences). Thanks for making such caveat lectors explicit!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Original research (Mathematics)

I share some of the concerns above and I wonder a bit why we would need such a section with a general claim at all? This case started out as problem between editors on very specific chronically problematic article of relatively low importance and it should not have a side effect for math or science articles in general, in a particular since this is happening largely out of sight of the involved communities. Is there an option to explicitly tie any assessment in that area to the MHP alone, to avoid that this is becoming a ruling seen as a general guideline?--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean the original research is going on out of sight of the community? The plain fact is that everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable in published sources. We wouldn't allow an engineer from Pratt & Whitney to write an article on how some new fangled type of jet engine works without he provides some published sources, we wouldn't allow a leading economist to post a novel way of explaining where all the money goes in a recession without he provides some published sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about know, since this has nothing to do concerns raised above. The issue is here what exactly gets considered as novel or actual research in the math domain (i.e novel for who). Of course we won't allow publication of novel theorems, concepts or definitions in WP, the issue is here, that "novel" or "knowledge likely to be challenged" depends on the perspective and domain knowledge. And we want to avoid having articles tagged as unsufficiently sourced over even content removed, which anybody with domain would consider as sufficiently sourced and/or "obviously" true. And yes every piece of information needs to verifiable, but the questions is again by who (i.e. somebody with (some) domain knowledge or all/the average reader). Imposing the latter is often impractical in science or math articles and blocks desired practices (such as providing examples).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

By a consensus of editors. That is the only criterion that can be applied. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Struck this - realised I didn't quite answer the question you asked. The answer to 'who needs to verify the information' is that the consensus of editors on the talkpage need to agree that the source your provided verifies the assertion. The rule in WP:V isn't different for mathematicians. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. So if there is a discussion between laypersons and experts, and it turns out that something that the experts all know isn't written down clearly in a way that the laypersons can recognize, the expert has no option but to write it on his university home page or blog or publish in some professional recreational / pedagogical / opinion venue, point this out on the talk pages, and take a back seat. As long as the editors of specialist math articles have consensus, they do not have to worry about OR. The definition of OR is that which is challenged, not that which can be challenged. The mathematicians will continue to work within the spirit of the law. Was it the State of Nevada that ruled that pi is 22/7? Richard Gill (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much it. I don't think you guys are really conducting much original research - if push came to shove you could say "well it's in Foo - the definitive text for calculus" or whatever. You just don't often use sources because everybody knows it's right anyway. If you really do have the solution for whatever is the next Fermat's Last Theorem, you'd be publishing it elsewhere anyway. The problem is where a fight breaks out and you all start favouring your own derivations, instead of going back to the sources specific to this problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeating my opinion from the math project page: The behavioral problems with the talk page are to blame. It is not clear that a statement of mathematical policy is needed, unless another math article ends up here and is free from behavioral problems. Again, I am sorry for sounding opinionated,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you've noticed that the "consensus of editors" changed to "consensus of math editors" (editors with domain knowledge) in your arguments above. This was exactly my point for asking "verifiable by who". This is important for assessing whether some (not literally sourced) math computations/calcalutions/derivations represent OR or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Think about the problems of having WikiProjects on Scientology, Maoism, etc. I suspect that it would be impossible to have a special status for mathematics articles approved by the mathematics project, unless the consensus of mathematics is recognized as being higher than other disciplines (which it is).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well having domain knowledge is not the same as being an insider/believer. I'm not arguing that you need to be a Maoist to assess Maoist topics, but you may be required to have some knowledge of Maoism. In sense it is just stating you should be somewhat familiar with the topic you're assessing, which imho is common sense and applies to all WP fields equally. Independently of that I do think however that WP should not treat all fields completely the same, the basic approach/position should be a scientific/academic one imho.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives

by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

I (K.W.) suggested alternative wording on the mathematics project talk page.

1. Change "arithmetic" to "mathematical".
2. Add "providing context using standard mathematical results or providing elementary examples" to the list of accepted editing activities.
3. Add the following: "Explanations, which use routine mathematical results or reasoning, are not considered "original research by synthesis", even if such routine mathematics are not referenced specifically for the application discussed: The mathematical results should be capable of routine referencing (easily referenced if challenged) and the article's editing should display an overwhelming agreement both that such derivations are routine (rather than original research) and that (to avoid simple OR proofs of important results) the result is unsurprising."

Reference has been made Elen's (and my) efforts to rephrase the current policy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion by Geometry guy

Geometry guy suggested alternative wording on the workshop page, which I quote for convenience:

"1) Routine mathematical calculations, including simple arithmetic and combining numerical inequalities, are permitted within articles, as are straightforward and uncontested logical deductions. However, the derivation of mathematical results from first principles, where the conclusion hasn't been published in a reliable source, is likely to constitute original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia."

Comment: This language seems like an admirable attempt to provide the best guidelines consistent with current OR policy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ozob's suggestions

(Copied from above, which has commentary by Ozob.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC) )

"Routine logical implications that a motivated reader can easily check using information in reliable sources are permitted. Other claims must be attributed to a reliable source or else they constitute original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia."

(Copied from above again. Ozob (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

"Routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted in articles, provided that there is consensus that these calculations correctly reflect the sources. Mathematical derivations which are not attributable to a published reliable source constitute original research according to the definition currently used by the English Wikipedia."

Elen's suggestion

Elen made a new suggestion, which is quoted below.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"11.2) From Wikipedia:OR#Routine calculations Routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are permitted within articles. However, the derivation of mathematical results from first principles, where the conclusion has not been published in a reliable source, constitutes Original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.

Support:
1. Equal with 11, but I wonder if this will make the maths contingent feel any better. Also addresses John's concern - 11 was not meant to imply that one had to add the reference, just have it to hand if challenged, but this may be clearer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)"

Works for me (at least so far as I can see so far). Usefully emphasises that what we're really worried about is new conclusions being presented -- this was the key bit of G-Guy's wording. However, I remain concerned that the specific examples Elen cites as manifesting OR in the findings of fact do not in fact represent OR as far as I can see. This text further clarifies that: they are not examples of what would be identified as OR by this proposed principle. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern is new conclusions (not alternate presentations of what is effectively the same thing), but as there are some concerns about the OR examples, let me explain my reasoning. One of the examples was correcting duff maths - Richard Gill says he has to do that a lot. Duff maths (not typos, but where someone actually does it wrong) is in effect OR as it is subject to challenge and isn't supported by sources (unless you've got Dr Spock's Big Book of Wrong Maths). In Rich Farmborough's example, firstly it is described as OR in the conversation by one of the editors, and second, the two editors are disagreeing as to what exactly it should look like. When you get that kind of disagreement, you are supposed (according to WP:V and WP:OR) to go back to the sources, not continue arguing from your own knowledge - however extensive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What Richard Gill is objecting to is the notation rather than the maths. There are reasons he doesn't like the notation, and in fact the changes made to the article did in this case help clarity and readability. But what was there before simply used a slightly different convention, which is widespread particularly in more applied works. (The more complicated the expressions in themselves become, the less fussily you want to represent them; so the more that people tend to favour terser and more compact ways of writing things). Richard doesn't like that convention because it doesn't foreground certain shibboleths which he thinks are important. On the other hand there are other practitioners who view those shibboleths as completely unimportant. The issue for OR is that that other convention is widespread; and it is not novel; so it is not "objectively" wrong -- it simply isn't bothered about a particular agenda which Richard thinks is important. So frankly this one isn't about OR; it's more a stylistic choice, on the level of choosing whether to place quotes inline or in blockquotes. Going back to the sources and slavishly following their notation probably isn't the right call. (Besides, each source has its own notation). What's more important is consistency, and choosing the notation that is most accessible.

As for Rich Farmborough's suggestion, this is the kind of suggestion that we should actually be encouraging -- raising the idea of a small tweak in the presentation, to bring out more clearly the quantity that was actually determinatively. For particular reasons, it wasn't appropriate here, because in this case there was particular sensitivity so stay especially close to exactly what was originally presented. But it was well worth Rich suggesting it, because in many articles that's exactly the kind of tweak that makes our presentation of an idea just a bit neater and more effective.

I welcome very much that your concern is new conclusions. I do hope people can find some diffs where it is more identifiably new conclusions (or new 'positions' per WP:NOR) that are what was being added. Jheald (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A routine mathematical derivation, using only widely accepted standard methods and results, and thereby easily verifiable to anyone skilled in the mathematical arts, should not be considered research, and very definitely not original research. Such derivations would normally not be publishable in peer-reviewed journals precisely because they lack originality. Let me give some examples from my own edits:

• Mode (statistics): "For example, the mode of the sample [1, 3, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 12, 12, 17] is 6." (introduced in this edit)
• Bayes' theorem#A simple example of Bayes' theorem: "Suppose there is a school with 60% boys and 40% girls as its students. ..." (introduced in this edit; since modified)
• Equation solving: "For example, the equation x + y = 2x – 1 is solved for the unknown x by the solution x = y + 1, since substituting y + 1 for x in the equation results in (y + 1) + y = 2(y + 1) – 1, a true statement." (introduced in this edit)

The literal interpretation of the proposed principle, as phrased, implies that mathematics articles can only use such examples if they are copied from the reliable literature, meaning (non-existent) reliable copyleft textbooks. If adopted and followed, the effective result will be that our mathematics articles will no longer contain illustrative simple examples.  --Lambiam 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom cannot change policy. Let us hope for prudence: ArbCom should state only what is necessary to justify its actions, rather than quoting a excessively from a policy that is inappropriate for mathematics.

When the MHP drama ends, the mathematics project needs to propose a new policy, with the greatest possible consistency with existing WP policy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbComm should avoid rulings that appear to set new policy, even if they do not formally have that effect. Their rulings can definitely have the effect of sharpening the interpretation of the wording of policy. I further expect ArbCom to strive for consistency in its rulings; in other words, I fear this may set a precedent.  --Lambiam 12:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hi guys, I've just got here following a notice at WT:PHYS. The proposal I like most is Ozob's above, though I'd replace “Routine logical implications” with “Routine calculations and examples”, because I fear the former might be unclear for some readers. --A. di M. (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Article has been subject of original research"

I don't understand this proposed finding of fact, at least not as related to the claimed reference [11].

5) The talkpage, and at times the article, has contained a considerable amount of derivation from first principles, in an effort to explain the higher aspects of probability theory

Firstly, this isn't original research. It's the straightforward calculation that any Bayesian analysis of the problem is going to do. For example, here it is on page 60 (equations 3.36 to 3.40) of David MacKay's well known book on Inference and Information Theory. Any other book or paper that presents the problem from a Bayesian angle will replicate it.

Indeed, the exact same calculation was already in the article as of that edit, in the section Bayesian analysis; and it's in the article right now, at Monty_Hall_problem#Mathematical_formulation, just where Nijdam in this edit wanted to put it.

One can quibble about the presentation -- the very telescoped presentation in Nijdam's edit isn't particularly easily presented, nor did he introduce the material as straightforwardly as either the section "Bayesian analysis" that was already in the article when he edited it, or the section at "Mathematical formulation" in the current article. And it's not helped by the fact that he didn't really explain his notation.

But putting that to one side, let's look at what we've got here for the purposes of WP:OR:

• (1) Stating the previous word assumptions in mathematical terms, using mathematical variables. -- Per all policy, simply choosing a particular set of mathematical variables to express the problem is not OR. The way Nijdam sets things out isn't particularly elegant or well explained or beautifully typeset, but it's not wrong.
• (2) Application of Bayes' Theorem. This is the standard way to solve the problem in a formal mathematical way. Its use here is absolutely uncontroversial. If the question was just to demonstrate quickly where the number 2/3 came, this wouldn't normally make anyone bat an eyelid. (But see point 4 below).
• (3) The calculation itself. This is just simple arithmetic, no more than saying 127 + 1 = 128. Bayes' rule is a sausage machine -- you put in the numbers, turn the handle, out comes the answer. Now I think the guys further above on this page have a point, that the word "arithmetic" in the proposed statement of principles is far too narrow -- it's not appropriate to forbid basic calculus, or basic algebra, when these are at a level appropriate to the article. But even if we were to make that prohibition, and restrict what is allowed to arithmetic, this is arithmetic.
• (4) Presenting this as a way to think about the problem. This article is somewhat unusual, because the spine of it is "how to think about the question". Since what was being added in this edit was a way to think about the question (rather than just motivating where a particular number comes from), arguably it could to be said to be "presenting a position" per WP:OR, which should be attributed. So it would have been good to incorporate an attribution to RSs presenting this approach. But it seems to me that that omission was at most a solecism. The principle of the calculation was not controversial; indeed it was already part of the article, in the "Bayesian analysis" section, with a cited reference (Gill 2002) (( that's not R.D. Gill, btw. I have coauthored a paper on quantum Monty Hall which was cited on the page - not put there by me. Richard Gill (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) )). As it was already there in the article, Nijdam can hardly be said to be contributing "original research", merely by presenting it in a different way.

As a footnote, it is maybe worth pointing out that the controversy in the Monty Hall problem isn't about the mechanics of the calculation -- that is just the application of a basic theorem in probability. On the other hand, there is some controversy as to what are the numbers you should throw into the sausage machine.

In Nijdam's notation, this is the conditional probability rule P(H=2|C=3)=1, P(H=3|C=3)=0 which is simply a mathematical statement of what is drawn in the picture above. This assumes that the host knows where the car is, and will avoid it if he can. If this is accepted, then from this follows inexorably the result that what might all too easily be dismissed as apparently irrelevant information is in fact very relevant: i.e the guest should switch.

On the other hand things can be muddied if people think that the host has no idea where the car is, and might as easily have opened the door that did have the car behind it. In Nijdam's notation, this would correspond to the conditional probability rule P(H=2|C=3)=0.5, P(H=3|C=3)=0.5. If you threw those numbers into the Bayesian sausage machine, you would get out a different answer. But that was not what was shown in the picture, so Nijdam was right not to have presented it.

But that's a digression. Bottom line, it seems to me, is that given what was already in the article, what Nijdam added was not original research, so should not be identified as such as a finding of fact. Rather, it was a re-presentation (and duplication) of material that was already in the article, where it was already quite properly sourced. Jheald (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled by the mention of the talkpage in the proposed finding of fact. Why is this relevant? Talkpages aren't limited by WP:NOR. Indeed it can often be very useful for editors to set out personal understandings, to iron out misconceptions and get everybody onto the same page. Jheald (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the points above. The claim that talkpage was subject to original research is correct (but to see that you may need to go through large part of the archives). It even resulted in the publication in a paper/letter by Nijdam and Hogben. Of course you could argue that paper ultimately just corrected computations, but then again it was for the first time that the correct computation was published and the MHP is an area were even basic computations and their applictaion are highly contested.

Furthermore I don't see the arbcom claiming that nijdam used OR, but the claim was originally made about Gill, who did indeed (with best intentions) modified the article parallel and/or before his publications. He literally states himself, that he will write a publication to improve the current lack of sources in a contested area.

You still can argue that all the involved computations are somewhat straightforward for somebody with sufficient domain knowledge, but if you take that as an absolute position on the MHP case, you are essentially saying, that all the math publications on the MHP are not OR, in fact it becomes rather hard to imagine any OR math publication on the subject. From a pure mathematical point (possibly rating the whole MHP as trivial thing to begin with) you still might argue that, but I don't think that's a practical viewpoint for WP in highly contested articles (where even the people with domain knowledge don't quite agree). There it might be helpful to consider any published new representation or aspect of a problem as "OR". In other words the exact interpretation of OR depends on the specific article, in most cases (which are not hotly contested by a larger number of editors) there is no problem with mathematical computations or (smaller) derivations, but in the MHP or similar contested case that might not work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's useful. Could you give some diffs that you would consider better examples of OR, that we could maybe offer to Elen as substitutes? Jheald (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I just recalled from witnessing it as it actually happened, I didn't bother to reresearch that in the archives. For that Gill's exact comments you need to serach the archives of the last half year, it probably happened relatively soon after he joined the discussion. As for Hogben's and Nijdam's letters, that appeared in the American Statistician a while ago, it is mentioned some in the archives as well and you probably find some info on the user pages of Hogben and Nijdam. In earlier discussions of the Arbcom case there was only an OR comment by witnesses regarding Gill not Nijdam (see statements by Dicklyon, Woonpton, Gill on the evidence page). Other "OR" on the MHP talk pages where done by users (correctly) determining that due to symmetry reasons the unconditional probability for winning is identical with the conditional one. This was done in particaular by Gill and Tsirelson (both distinguished math profs). Note that this "OR" was done on the talk page only and meant to establish mathematical facts, i.e. it was a positive thing rather thana negative one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In my perception, OR on the talk page or elsewhere has played only a marginal role in this case. (Moreover, what superficially appears to be OR may be unavoidable and legitimate in discussing the best way to structure the presentation.) The problem as I see it stems from some editors not being able to set aside their personal viewpoints in order to make consensus possible; all the rest are concomitant effects.  --Lambiam 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's true if one chooses to ignore these two issues from the arbitration:

From Rick Block's evidence:

Y "[Glkanter] cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability:

• table "based" on Carlton's solution: [12] [13]
• Glkanter's "Carlton's decision tree": [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]"

and

From Glkanter's Responses:

"=== Response To Nijdam: He Continues His Disruptive Editing In This Arbitration ==="

"It's evident Nijdam does not care to follow Wikipedia policies. The diffs below are consistent with his discussions, edits, and reverts for the last 2+ years. The diffs below are special, though, as they are contained in his postings to this very arbitration."

Posted by Glkanter (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators opinion

The statement of dispute is the arbitrator's opinion of the statement of dispute. It doesn't have to be neutral, balanced, or use any of the words that you guys want it to contain. Not even one. It doesn't even have to be what you think the issue is. What it says is what we the arbs think. If we want to word it in simple language, that's how it will be worded. Also, it doesn't really matter - it's only there for us, and for any casual observer, who might look and say "what was all that about then". It doesn't have to be mathematically correct to the 99th quartile or whatever. So you can all stop trying to persuade me to rewrite it :) :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have posted an alternative form of words on the workshop page. Geometry guy 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Higher" probability theory

eg:

the problem and solution as presented in higher probability theory (from "Statement of dispute (two camps)")

in an effort to explain the higher aspects of probability theory (from "Article has been subject of original research")

Notwithstanding what you've just posted, this language is an embarrassment to you and should be revised. Bayes Theorem is not "higher probability" -- it is basic, introductory stuff. Describing it as such makes you sound like a gaggle of Victorian spinsters: "ooh... maths... frightening".

As an alternative form of words perhaps "a more formal approach based on conditional probability" might be appropriate? Jheald (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I could replace it with 'bloody complicated maths stuff' if you like :) Seriously, for most people who don't frequent a bookmaker, all probability is scary maths stuff, and Bayesian notation really is rocket science. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As probability theory goes, it is the basics of the basics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

More significantly, I can't change it after people have started voting, I can only add another option. I'll tell you what though, this is the last time I work with mathematicians draft offsite. I'd way rather get the arguments out of the way earlier. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "bloody complicated maths stuff" would be an improvement on the current wording, yes.

Something I find revealing in your reply is that you identify the "Bayesian notation" as the problem. Choice of a particular standard notation (and casting the material into that notation accordingly) is not original research. There may be other issues, such as making sure the notation is comprehensible at the entry level of the article; but merely translating material to conform to a particular notation is not OR.

This is the heart of my difficulty (two sections up) with your claim that [23] was original research. All that edit was doing was reproducing material that was already in the article using a slightly different notation. It is therefore not a good example of OR.

We're going to have to live with whatever definition of OR you hand down here, interpreted via whatever examples you cite, so this is not a small matter. Jheald (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm using the definition of OR in the policy, which I have open in front of me all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability], says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. Just using Bayesian notation isn't a problem, if somewhere there is a source that confirms that this is the notation for that. No-one's going to ask for a source if all the editors recognise it and know that how you did it is in a textbook in their loft. The problem comes when you've got two people doing their own derivations, and swearing blind that they're right and the other guy is wrong. When you hit that problem, you have got to go back to 'how do the published sources that are directly related do it. Do they directly support your interpretation'.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So what was your problem with this edit? Why do you think it was OR?

Mathematical notation is like a language. It's flexible. There are many many ways to write the same thing -- some more nitpicking, some more intuitive or more concise. You might choose one set of letters with subscripts and set them in a particular font; or you might represent exactly the same thing just with a simple capital letter. The test for something to be OR isn't whether the conventions are identical to what appears in any particular textbook; rather the test is whether, for somebody who reads the language, it is saying the same thing. What looks to have happened, at least in this edit, is more like having a discussion about writing a section of prose in one particular way or in another -- such as casting a paragraph round one way or round another. Such qustions are not questions of OR, nor questions of content: they are questions of presentation. This edit was a re-presentation of something that was already in the article. Its biggest problem was that it didn't explain its notation and make itself accessible. But there was nothing in its content that wasn't already in the article elsewhere.

So my question remains: What is it about this edit that has made you single it out to be your poster case of OR? Jheald (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The notation used in that edit is actually something I learned at school. I agree that rewriting of this kind can never be original research. The claim that it is OR is very close to the trademark claim of a now banned editor once made: That it's impossible to avoid OR without copying everything literally from sources.

I would almost say that to decide whether something is OR one first needs to be able to understand what it means. But this would be overstating things, because incomprehensible crackpot theories are of course paradigmatic for OR. So I'll content myself with saying that correct reformulations can never be OR. Hans Adler 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Two more cites

I see Elen has added two more cites:

- someone did a derive from first principles and got it wrong and OR by Rich Farmborough, not even a party here

I'm not sure either of these should be counted as OR in the usual scheme of things.

The first was a quibble about notation -- whether one should write P(C|H,S) or P(C=c | H=h,S=s) or P(c|h,s). Frankly they're all synonymous, and it doesn't make any odds. Even if somebody feels particularly fussy about it, this is a question about the tightness or looseness of the notation, not OR.

The second one was whether an argument should be presented in terms of N or N/p.

Either way, N or N/p, it doesn't make any difference to the argument one way or the other: it's still the same argument, making the same fundamental point -- which is the issue (or should be) for WP:OR. It's as trivial as choosing to use one adjective or another in a piece of prose -- either way, the argument is the same. In many ways N/p is indeed the natural quantity because this falls out as the essential ratio that drives the result. On the other hand, the original source uses N, and as (in this particular case) there was special sensitivity to present exactly who said exactly what, that was preferred. But in general, if one was just trying to get over the principle, without making a particular point that so-and-so had phrased it precisely in this way, then it honestly doesn't affect the argument whichever quantity one chooses to write the argument in terms of. (This is similar to Headbomb above insisting on the freedom to present data in terms of τ rather than Γ).

In my view none of these are good examples of OR. In particular, if you are prepared to consider Geometry-guy's definition of OR as applied to Maths, these do not qualify. Jheald (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

About those notations. (a) you forgot to mention p(c|h,s) and f(c|h,s), both of which would be more common and more arguably correct and unambiguous. (b) If you're going to use mathematical notation on a page about Monty Hall problem, in a section clearly written for students of Probability 101 courses, you had better fix one notation and use it consistently and carefully and tell your readers which notation you are using. In the case at hand the notation was used inconsistently. The notation which was used was not common, at least, not in mathematics or statistics text books. It was the most arguably wrong notation of all the many possibilities, and it is certainly the most confusing of all the possible ones; and it wasn't explained either. The writer was mixing up probabilities of events and probability mass functions of random variables as well as random variables and possible values of random variables. The formulas certainly weren't copy-pasted from a reliable source, and if they were composed by a wikipedia editor then that person clearly didn't have a clue what they meant. (Of course, they could have been copy-pasted from a psychology or a physics text book). Richard Gill (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's start by seeing whether we can agree on something very clear: The formulas certainly weren't copy-pasted from a reliable source -- it is not a requirement of WP:NOR that formulas have to be an identical copy-paste from a reliable source. Can we agree on that? If an editor wants to present those formulas in a particular notation, so long as the notation itself isn't novel, that's perfectly fine - there's no objection on NOR grounds. One can argue whether it is the best notation, one can argue whether it introduces confusions, ambiguities, or inconsistencies -- but these are stylistic choices, that can be talked through on the talk page. They're not about OR.

Saying the notation used isn't widespread simply isn't true. It's widely used in applications, particularly by Bayesians who may not be interested in the distinction between a random variable and the value of a random variable -- a fair number of Bayesian textbooks don't even mention the term "random variable", or specifically disparage it as being an unnecessary cluttering bit of fussiness, and simply treat the unknown value as a variable in the same way one would treat the ordinate or abscissa of a graph as a variable -- the single letter t denoting both that this is the quantity representing time, and that it may have a particular value, 12 o'clock. The details of notation vary appreciably from paper to paper and book to book; but it's far from unusual to see P(A|B) being used in just the way our article Conditional probability uses it, as simply an alternate compact choice for writing p(a|b) oder P(A=a|B=b). Often, particularly when expressions get longer and longer, compactness and efficiency can be the most important thing for preserving readability and understandability -- well worth the double duty in what the symbols are representing. The David MacKay link I gave above is one ref that is content to write P(D=3|H₁) for the probability that the host opens the third door given hypothesis 1, and on the facing page (treating the ignorant host case) P(H₁|D) where D is simply used for the Data that occurred. So the notation is out there; it's not OR; and just because the editor is not using it in the way you might use it, that does not mean they didn't have a clue what they meant. Jheald (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See now, this is a classic example of the problem. Going back again to WP:OR To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. If they want to change the notation, that is one thing, but to someone who last did maths at school, N and N/p are different entities, and can't both be right, so the variation must be supportable somewhere with a source the meets both requirements (directly related and directly support) if it is challenged. Dr Gill has challenged - you should (as you did) provide a source. I suspect folks are right, very little of the maths is actually unsupported by sources, the problem is the reluctance to to and find out and report back that "White et al use that notation", leaving the rest of us presuming you made it up out of your very learned heads, which would be OR. Perhaps it is more correct to say there has been some OR (the guy in the evidence section with the perl script is definitely OR!!!), coupled with a marked reluctance on the part of protagionists to back up their assertions with reliable sources, and instead a great deal of weasel words - "...is widely used in..." "...can also be used when...", frequently descending to arguing from the position that what the other guy said is not true (which I think both of you have done above). Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You can say you're nearer to X because it's a smaller distance away (d), or because it takes less time to get there (d/v). So the alternate entity can be just as "right". If it turns out that the subsequent argument revolves around time, it may well make sense to flag it up as the quantity of interest from the start -- that can help clarify the presentation from the start, but it may be making no material change the underlying argument.

As to arguing what the other guy said is not true -- frequently what this may really reflect is different assessments of what is important. Airing that can sometimes help both sides to realise that is where the underlying difference really lies, which can sometimes then lead to people making allowances to accommodate the other chap's sensitivities; but it can also lead to people throwing rocks at each other from their shell-holes. We have a solution when it's a content-question of what goes into the article (answer: NPOV, WP:DUE); but I suspect when the disagreement is over a meta-question of how to present it (a legitimate area for editorial discussion and judgement) things can get thornier. Unlike content-issues, presentation-issues are less likely to properly be questions of OR. Jheald (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does ARBCOM need to define NOR policy in the first place?

There's been a lot of hoo-haa over this section (as seen above). The latest proposal is better than the first two, but why does ARBCOM needs to dictate to the community what consists OR and what doesn't (as far as mathematics and mathemathics-related topics go), or why does it need to interpret NOR for us? ARBCOM never rule on content before, why does it need to start now? This would established a big precedent, and it's a slippery slope from then on. Elen of the Roads labeled examples of trivial conversions of uncertainty as "original research" which was "clearly exclude[d]" by the present WP:OR policy, a conclusion which is utterly rejected by physics and mathematics editors (and I suspect chemistry, biology, material science, engineering, ... editors too if we bothered to ask them).

ARBCOM should let editors decides what consists of OR and what doesn't. If there is a problem with the current WP:OR, editors can handle it themselves as they would handle any other policy change, via formal RFC and consensus gathering. We don't need ARBCOM to dictate us how to amend WP:OR, especially when many of their members lack the technical background to determine what is or isn't OR, or what their dictates would imply. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say this again, since absolutely none of you are getting it. All I am doing is repeating what it says in our policies. I'm not writing anything new. The entire problem is that you guys are not accepting what our policies say. Go read WP:V WP:OR and WP:CALC (it's part of OR]] again. You chaps appear for years to have interpreted the policies to be something entirely different to what they actually say. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That is demonstrably false. The words "... deriving mathematical results from first principles, without reference to a published source, constitutes Original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia" or "... deriving mathematical results from first principles, where the derivation hasn't been published in a reliable source, is original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia" appear nowhere in WP:OR and particularly WP:CALC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, that is demonstrably correct. From WP:V To show that it is not [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR original research], all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source... This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception and from WP:OR all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed...Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.... Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience....

Turning it round, where does it say that deriving mathematical results from first principles, without reference to a published source is exempt from WP:V and WP:OR. And please don't cite WP:CALC. This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus agree] that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the [http:/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources sources]. I know you can't see a difference between converting from yen to dollars to give an estimate of the cost of the Japanese earthquake, and using calculus to derive the (never published) uncertainties of baryons from their wavelengths (or whatever), but I can assure you that the rest of the community does.

Arbcom doesn't make new policy. It only applies what's there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

First, stop being condescending with your accusations of simple-mindedness "I know you can't see a difference...". Second, if the rest of the community does agree with you, where is that evidence? Everyone who spoke on this issue has been in support of my position that converting uncertainties is most certainly not original research or original synthesis, and is most certainly allowed by WP:CALC. See for example Jheald 1 Jheald 2, or Sbyrnes321 on Talk:List of baryons. I also cannot see anyone who agreed with you that these trivial conversion are prohibited by WP:CALC and WP:OR. So please, do demonstrate that the rest of the community does indeed consider them prohibited, because from what people are saying here, and the current wording of WP:OR/WP:CALC as well as Talk:List of baryons, and several requests for comments at WP:PHYSICS on the quality of this list, no one ever considered it to be anything but trivial and routine calculations.

And third, since this apparently doesn't get to you, these uncertainties HAVE been published. They have been published in the the forms of resonance width. Converting (Γ ± ΔΓ) into (τ ± Δτ) is as trivial as converting an area in square miles into an area in square kilometers. The only difference is that in the case of converting resonance width uncertainty into lifetime uncertainty, you need a basic calculus class. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a justified concern (but possibly overblown) that the Arbcom restatement/reformulation of policy could be misunderstood by 3rd parties later on. However, the ArbCom can-and-should state the policies on which its decisions are based. It might be helpful here if both sides don't go overboard; the line currently pursued by Kiefer and Elen (being open to more better suited restating of the referred policy) seems to be the right way to me.

For future cases, however, imho it might help if ArbCom refrains from restating policies that it ultimately hasn't really used in its decision: i.e. if ArbCom provides a detailed assessment whether a particular editor might have committed OR or not then it should start with stating the policy it has applied. However, if such an assessment is not given, there's no need to restate the policy.

Since the referred policy are subject to modifications itself, it might be also a good idea to quote the important passages with a permanent link, rather than restating them. This may help avoid confusion and might have avoided the current ruckus here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Some very helpful comments here, particularly the last point. There has been a considerable amount of OR from third parties offering their own helpful ways to explain or confirm the simple solution (two of which appear towards the end of the evidence) but those are easy for anyone to spot and reject. A difficulty for an outside observer when one moves to a largely notation/formula based argument is this: if two editors start arguing about whether or not Jade Goody is a celebrity, using various definitions of celebrity and opinions of the worthiness of the late Ms Goody, the only correct response is to call for secondary sources which use the term to describe the subject, or which expostulate why the term is inappropriate. Where two or three mathematicians start arguing in symbols, these are not always amenable to support from sources, hence they fall foul of To show that it is not original research, all material ... must be attributable to a reliable published source... The arguments I flagged as OR all had mathematicians relying on their own knowledge, without going back to sources. At that point, it is OR until someone digs out the textbook. That's what I'm trying to get at - you don't necessarily have to cite the source, but you must be prepared to produce it if an argument breaks out. "Well you can also say..." and "I would have said..." or "When I was at Cambridge, we did...." are none of them defences against a charge of OR. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it should only be OR if the mathematicians (or general people with domain knowledge) disagree among themselves and not if some arbitrary reader cannot find a literal reference. Because if we don't do that any common homework problem for students or pupils even becomes "OR" strictly speaking, which imho is nonsensical and can pose a serious problem for math or science articles. Also in particular in math you can make a statement on very different levels of abstraction. Meaning often some reference may very well source a particular content, but you may need some domain knowledge to see that, i.e. it does not "literally" source the content as in using the exact same technical terms used in the content. In other words something that appears unsourced to an arbitrary reader is in fact sourced and would be recognized as such with anybody with domain knowledge. It might also be noted that "common (domain) knowledge" doesn't need to be sourced, but only if it is likely to be challenged. Where personally I read that in a domain context (i.e. likely to be challenged by somebody with some domain knowledge).

To put it this way I mostly agree with your OR notion as far as MHP or similar contested articles are concerned, but we should not extend this strict notion to largely uncontested math & science article as this would create serious problems for the reasons already stated in various postings above. The latter was imho the primary concern of many of mathematicians/academics that have started posting here on this page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To address some of the math contingent's concerns, perhaps the committee could frame this as an application of general principle to a particular circumstance where (a) the subject is notable as an apparent paradox where "common sense is wrong" and (b) the subject has inspired dispute in the literature about "the right answer for the wrong reasons." The second circumstance is of particular relevance because it is not just the result or conclusion that is at issue here, but the derivation itself. Unfortunately, I don't see how to fit this in a structure where principles come before findings on the circumstances. Perhaps the statement of principle could be a brief, generic reference to WP:OR and a finding could emphasize its relevance to the subject article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider these remedies

Glkanter topic banned, Nijdam topic banned

Do you really thing that the behaviour of these editors over a period of two years warrants a one year ban. I very much doubt that we will see either of them again if the ban proceeds. That will be Wikipedia's loss.

Glkanter has stood firm against the agreed page ownership issues that have been holding back this article for years. We need people like that.

Nijdam is an academic with expertise in this subject (see comments about Richard below).

Could we not try asking them nicely first?

Richard Gill restricted

This action will, in my opinion, damage the reputation of WP, especially as Richard has voluntarily agreed to withdraw from the discussion. Richard is a recognised expert in probability, especially in its interpretation and application. Applying sanctions is going to send out a message to other academics that they risk embarrassment if they try to use their expertise to improve this encyclopedia. Eventually we will be left with only Google jockeys engaging in a cut-and-paste style of editing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Above, I suggested that Gill has not made any actionable offense (but on the contrary has tried and succeeded at contributing to the project and the MHP article, with at most a few minor blemishes, needing neither comment nor action). Therefore, there should be no restriction.

Below, Richard Farmbrough also requests that the finding about Richard Gill be reworded.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Fiat justitia ruat colonostomies: Further, I agree with Martin, that restrictions and sanctions would discourage famous experts from contributing to WP. Last, I have mentioned Gill's own statement that he has faced questioning in recent weeks on WP, because of this case, above. Sanctions would further discourage Gill's continued participation, and he has other uses for his time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion)

The pi-jaw

"A sanctimonious, long, moral lecture, as delivered by a school-teacher or parent:, rather than a reference to 3,14 Pi Day,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Look guys. You do a great job, and no-one wants to stop you doing it. But this is Wikipedia, not Mathispedia. Whether you like it or not, the same rules apply to you as to everyone else. Original research is as described in the policy, verifiability is as described in the policy, not some variant of it that you would prefer. Edit warring is the same for mathematicians as it is for everyone else. Civility doesn't change. The definition of disruptive behaviour, article ownership etc is the same. The consequences are the same whether you are a professor or a shelf-stacker. You need to learn this fast, because this case will apply discretionary sanctions to the article. This means that the next editor to come along and edit badly will just end up blocked by some admin at Arbitration Enforcement, doesn't matter who they are or how logically valid their argument is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this refer to the preceding discussion regarding Gill and your proposed sanction? If so, please see Casliber's comment on the decision page.

Nobody has claimed that the current WP policy (with respect to mathematics), particularly its approval of arithmetic, is worthy of the WP community, or a product of thoughtful debate: A wise editor questioned whether they had written anything without logical derivations, after all! The mathematics community should propose a better phrased policy, which respects the WP policy and common sense. We understand that ArbCom has to enforce existing policy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Elen, have you perhaps considered that, instead of mathematics / science editors wanting to get a "special treatment" and bypass "the rules", perhaps it is your interpretation of WP:OR is at odds with consensus of what OR actually is? In all the thousands of words that have been written on this talk page, none support your weird definition of what OR is with regards to simple derivations or routine calculations. The entire corpus of mathematics / physics / science editors are against you on that, that should seriously give you (and the rest of ARBCOM) some pause about where consensus lies on this issue. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly one of the driving reasons for OR was maths nuts. Circle squarers etc., together with water powered engines, perpetual motion machinists, alien abductees et al. But I agree that OR/Synth can be a little too onerous at times, at other times it's just what the doctor ordered. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Blocking? – But the main goal imho: The article should no more be just a solidificated one-sided obfuscation of little value. For each interested reader, the article should be accessible and intelligible, clear and helpful, comprehensive from cardinal to academic: capacious, but clear in what it is talking about. No more mulligan mix that it regrettably had been for the last two years.

Cinting:

"There are 4 editors here who have opposed [...] which at least IMO would make this a change for which there is not consensus".

That solidification of the article should have an end. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I was not suggesting that anyone should be exempt from the rules but the only finding of fact about Richard was, '...Richard Gill, has used his experience of editing and discussing this article to provide material for published research, which he has then introduced into the article'. Are you classing Richard's research as OR here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This (as exemplified for instance by the use of "original research" in the heading of principle 10) seemed strange to me too. To me this seems exactly what a Wikipedia editor who is also an academic should be doing: when he encounters a gap in the literature, he takes off his Wikipedia hat, puts on his academic hat, and fills the gap by publishing a peer-reviewed article. It seems the very opposite of OR, which is supposed to guard against including things that have not been properly peer-reviewed. It may have pushed the bounds of COI, but that's a guideline not a policy, and states explicitly that self-citation is ok when it's sufficiently neutral and non-controversial. Whether it was sufficiently neutral and non-controversial in this particular case is a different question that I have no opinion on, not having looked carefully at the edits in question, but I think the relevant guide for that should be WP:BRD: if you make a self-citation and someone else disagrees and takes it out, that's the signal for when it's too controversial to continue putting back in yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not given as example of OR, but only as a finding of fact here. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case there is no finding of fact relating to Richard Gill that warrants any kind of sanction. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a breach of ettiquette - an editor desirous of inserting a reference to his own work really needs spotless consensus and other editors agreeing that this really is an asset and must be added to the article. Everyone agrees his maths is sound, but there wasn't that really clear level of consensus. I have asked the other Arbs to consider very carefully whether his behaviour warrants anything more than an admonishment to take more care with this in future. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus because there were fights between other editors which had poisoned and polarized the discussion. People decided whether they liked my edits depending on which side they sensed me to be on, and decided to like or dislike those edits on that basis. (I think). Interestingly I was seen to be against *both* main sides, and that was because I proposed material (sourced in the pre-existing literature) which actually built bridges between the approaches of the two sides. Try coming up with a brilliant plan for Palestine/Israel which is in the interest of all peaceable well-thinking citizens of the region! You can be sure that on both sides the leaders and the terrorists won't like it. Because it erodes their position of power over half of the land or people concerned. Boris Tsirelson left editing the pages in disgust. I hang on because I had a lot of sympathy with the point of view of a couple of the editors, that other editors were exercising unreasonable control over the content of the page to enforce a point of view which perhaps belongs to naturally to the more pedantic teachers of elementary probability courses, but otherwise is an insult to everyone's intelligence. And because (and as long as) I continued to learn new things from the discussions and the literature. But now my work is done and as I wrote elsewhere, I'll proudly add to me academic CV that I have been blocked from editing a wikipedia page or pages, if it comes to that. Ask me kindly to keep out of the way for a year or so till the dust settles, and I'll do that. It's what I want to do anyway. Honestly the important thing is to get some fresh blood into editing the page.

By the way, as far as I know, my contributions on the symmetry stuff are still there. I am not following the page, I haven't looked, and don't plan to do so for quite a while. Because I want to work on other wikipedia pages, not because I've been banned or self-banned or whatever. Contact with another editor just generated a brilliant new solution which makes the use of Bayes totally unnecessary!!! (See my talk page). At last we have a complete solution which even Elen of the Roads or SirFozzie can understand. Richard Gill (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Be careful

Disclaimer: I have not followed this case in any detail.

1. Sensible discussion on talk pages needs to be permitted. Calling the type of stuff I posted on MHP talk (secondary school maths) "higher probability theory" may be flattering, but it's not accurate. Moreover mathematicians should be allowed to use mathematics to support their statements in general discussion, in just the same way that a rail expert might say "The Flying Scotsman was a standard gauge locomotive, therefore could not have run on the Ffestiniog railway, as I don't have access to the source cited, I am removing this claim." This may be jargon to non railway people (or not) but it's plain speaking to the denizens of the appropriate talk pages. Certainly these types of arguments should not generally be needed in articles-space, in situations where they are not attributable.
2. The findings of fact on Richard Gill need to make it clear that there is no circular referencing going on here. If Richard Gill had used his knowledge of the Flying Scotsman gained while editing Wikipedia to write a paper on the Flying Scotsman we would have grounds for concern, if it were cited in the WP article of the same name. If his papers were even cited to support historical facts or psychological facts about the problem "first published in.." "most people get it wrong.." without an explicit cite to another source in his paper, we would have grounds for concern. However citing published mathematical results, even if they were first proved on a WP talk page - or article is perfectly unexceptional.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm very much in two minds as to whether a sanction is warranted for Richard Gill, other than he's one of the four people left standing at the end of it, so he had probably (maybe unintentionally) had a hand in driving off other editors. Also, COI is COI, even if you are a mathematician, and I have a problem with him citing his own research - I don't think there is actually a consensus for it, as nobody else seems to agree with his 'symmetry approach', and experts must be careful that there is consensus to use their sources.Whether this is a mere breach of ettiquete, or amounts to something sanctionable, I'm leaning to sanctionable, but.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@Elen, please see my my attempt (earlier today) to describe your position.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make the slightest difference whether Dr Gill dreamed up the whole thing from scratch, or just reported what others had said. He's the one who put it together and published it, therefore he is the one with the potential conflict of interest.

Richard is not entirely alone in appreciating the argument from symmetry. (See my post about symmetry and two kinds of mathematicians.) Although argument from symmetry has strong appeal for algebraists, the application to MHP seems not to have attracted attention in the published literature. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has not attracted a great deal of attention, but it has attracted some attention. And there are even several different ways to use symmetry, there are more than one approach, and they all have been seen in the literature before. I think the reason for this is as follows. Most of the secondary statistics and probability literature about Monty Hall is written by teachers of elementary statistics and probability courses who want to teach their students Bayes theorem. MHP is used as an example of how that theorem works, so of course they like to go through the bloody details to show that it does work as you would expect. Similarly in the maths teaching literature. People write articles about how to teach Bayes. They only use MHP as an illustration. However, in the research literature, and especially in the discussion contributions e.g. to Selvin or to Morgan et al, you see a lot of contributions by a lot of smart people who show alternative ways to get the right answer. And symmetry is one of such routes. So it is frequently mentioned, but it makes MHP so easy, that it is not worth writing out a whole paper about it. Then you have the psychologists and animal behaviourists and popularizers of science, and they just copy what is in the literature. Then, on the MHP pages, you have wikipedia editors who are committed to the simple (unconditional) solutions, and wikipedia editors who are committed to the complicated Bayes theorem solutions. There is no one except people like me and Boris Tsirelson who point out that there are alternatives, and moreover, that these alternatives actually bring the two standard kinds of solutions rather close together. However in an atmosphere of polarization, no one wants to listen to a peacemaker. Cf. Israel and Palestine. There are too many vested interests, interests of ego's who have interested in a point of view and who only see their enemies with the opposite point of view. The notion that there could be a point of view in between is not liked by either side. Richard Gill (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"[Symmetry] makes MHP so easy, that it is not worth writing out a whole paper about it." Bingo! Not incidentally, that is exactly what makes a good riddle: the answer is obvious when you see it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@Elen: "as nobody else seems to agree with his 'symmetry approach'"? Can you explain what you mean by that? The "simple" proofs that the article begins with are using precisely that approach (unless you mean something else by those words). It's not Gill's approach by any stretch of imagination. In his papers, he simply engaged in the exercise of formalizing it, just to show that there's nothing wrong with it. There are other RSes who agree. If you want to make behavioral findings fine, but calling his approach unique and lacking "consensus" of other mathematicians is either declaring him some kind of misunderstood genius or a crank. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys from another planet or something? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not following now. I apologize in advance if this comes across as patronizing, but I think should read this RS till the end of section which explains the nature of mathematical proofs in practice (or see Mathematical proof#Nature and purpose, but has a quite a bit less detail). There are different levels of completeness and formalization for the same proof idea depending on the intended audience. A natural language analogy: if you want to determine whether a paragraph in a language you do not speak/understand (say Klingon) is correctly summarized by another sentence, what do you do? Tijfo098 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually trusting the Klingons mathematicians when they say that Dr Gill's maths in his published pieces is sound, and he's definitely not trying to slip in some crank piece. At the same time though, a goodly number appeared to disagree as to whether it was a really helpful way of putting it, whether it was the bees' knees, whether in fact they themselves could not put it better. An editor trying to add a reference to their own work needs to be wary of WP:COI, and really needs spotless consensus from other editors. You'll note on the decision page I have included an option to merely admonish him for being insufficiently careful to avoid a potential cOI issue, and I have asked the other arbs to give careful consideration to whether his behaviour warrants anything further than that.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor with a COI does not need a greater level of consensus than anyone else to insert any material. If it has consensus, then it has consensus. Removing the possible coi-related material because "this has consensus for inclusion, but not superconsensus to include" is a textbook case of disruptive editing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That concerned me as well so I had a go at a reword. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: Two MH problems

Says "I wonder if the real answer here is that there is not a Monty Hall problem, but two or more problems of a very similar nature that are being conflated."

That is very true. The basic misunderstanding is due to the conflation of two distinct scenarios - if the host always opens a random door of the two remaining the "intuitive" result is correct, it is only when he avoids any car that it fails. Moreover Gill's paper discusses varieties of the problem, and much is written about hidden assumptions, the point at which the choice is made, various biases etc. etc.. However this will all be known to the arbs, who will have researched the background thoroughly... Rich Farmbrough, 16:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

(Peanut gallery: All arguments end with "it's all semantics" followed by "FU", further illustrating Bertrand Russell's quip, "A mathematician is a person who never knows what he's talking about ...".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC) ) This was my attempt at humor, after Richard's contribution. The ArbComb people are doing their best, and are volunteers with other interests rather than reincarnations of John von Neumann oder Andrei Kolmogorov. A bit more toleration for fallibilities of non-mathematicians struggling to do the Lord's work would be nicer. :)

Speak for yourself! I was Hypatia in a former life --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought the quote was "A mathematician is a person who knows he doesn't know what he's talking about." ... Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

(Not Nipsey but) Bertrand Russell ends his quote with "and doesn't know whether what he says is true" (from memory).

Hypatia, then you had a previous unfortunate experience dealing with gangs of jealous superstitious men who don't want their secrets divulged to the public. May you have better luck this time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I said/covered that in my evidence. David Eppstein also said it somewhere above on this talk page. Ironically, the strict WP:OR interpretation as applied to math would prevent that kind of routine observations, which are absolutely needed to write intelligible articles when using multiple sources disagreeing on terminology; I wrote a bit more on that here. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@Rich: I think you miss the two-problems fork. That Monty selectively shows a goat is implicit in the problem by reference to the game show, where it is customary to reveal only prizes of negligible value. Sources that consider scenarios where Monty may reveal the car are not contentious, they are frank about dealing with variant problems. The contentious two-problems fork arises from considering which goat goat Monty reveals: (1) it's a particular goat behind a particular door, (2) it doesn't matter so we'll just "say door #3." Both forks exhibit the basic "paradox" (two doors remain but the odds are not 50:50). Fork #2 can be answered with "simple" analysis. Fork #1 leads to "interesting" math, and to contention over whether and under what circumstances , for purposes of answering the riddle, it matters which fork we are on. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)