Talk:Statistical significance/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Discussion of recent edit by BetterMath

A recent edit that I made has been challenged. Following WP:BRD, this is for a discussion of that.

User:Danielkueh, please explain what aspect of my edit you disagree with. I am unable to tell from your edit summary.  BetterMath (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

YOU are clearly misinterpreting and misapplying WP:BRD, which is not a policy, but "an optional method of reaching consensus." This is the second time you are doing this. According to WP:BRD, you made the bold edit, I reverted your edit, we then discuss. You don't get to re-revert the page to your own liking before discussion is resolved. See the flow chart on the right. Finally, if you're going to insist that other editors follow the guideline, you need to make sure you understand how it actually works and not twist it to suit your needs. danielkueh (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You are right that BRD is not a policy—my mistake.

Again, I ask you to please explain what aspect of my edit you disagree with. BetterMath (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

For the following reasons:

• Specifying the location of where a printed book was published is standard practice. See examples of style guidelines by the MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of Style [1]
• The citation template used in this article is standard WP format (see WP:CT) and is widely used in other WP articles as well. Thus, it is good practice to keep formatting consistent across articles in WP.
• Some book editions may vary from country to country based on spelling (e.g., US vs UK Spelling), titles, supplementary chapters, etc. Thus, specifying where the book was published tells us which book edition (e.g., US vs international) was actually cited.

danielkueh (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The removal of the publisher's location is not a real issue for me; I was making the other changes, and thought that I would do that too. I also appreciate you describing your objections in clear detail; taking them in turn....

• Yes, and it has been standard practice for centuries. My understanding is that it dates to a time when, if someone wanted to order a book from a publisher, they would send a letter to the publisher in the specified location. Nowadays, some sources omit the location, because (for international publishers) it is irrelevant and even misleading. As an example, consider the two books published by Psychology Press: one is listed as "East Sussex, United Kingdom: Psychology Press" and the other as "New York, NY: Psychology Press". In reality, both books are published in both locations, and presumably in other locations as well.

Yes, but which version was actually cited for this article? US or UK? That would be the point. If you think it is no longer relevant or that we should have outgrown this practice, then you should take it up with the style guides (e.g., Chicago Manual of Style) and on the talk page of WP:HOWCITE, which lists the type of information that one should include in a printed book reference, among them “place of publication.” Otherwise, it makes no sense to remove a standard identifier such as location of publication just from this article while leaving it in other articles. The content guideline applies to all WP articles (see WP:CS). I have no objections if you think we should set wikilinks for the publishers. danielkueh (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter which version is cited, unless there is a quote. HOWCITE does not require place of publication.

Of course, it matters. What if I were citing a version that has an additional chapter? A prologue perhaps? An image or graphic that does not violate the copyright of the country? Or different page numbers? Or what if I just want to contact the local office to obtain information about the book? Place of publication is therefore helpful. Also, I’m not sure if we’re both looking at the same text on WP:HOWCITE, but here’s the exact relevant text from that page:

Citations for books typically include:

name of author(s)

title of book

volume when appropriate

name of publisher

place of publication

date of publication of the edition

chapter or page numbers cited, if appropriate

edition, if not the first edition

ISBN (optional)

As you can see from above, place of publication (emphasis mine) is included whereas ISBN is the only identifier listed as optional. danielkueh (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• My edit used the same templates as were there before. Examples of citing a book without the location is given by Template:Citation (under "Parts of books").

Look at “Books” under “Examples” in template:citation. It has “place,” which means the same thing as location. My point is that specifying the location is standard practice in WP (see WP:HOWCITE and WP:CS) and in all other print media (e.g., see [2]), and it is included in the template for a reason. 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Some examples include place; others do not. Thus, place is optional.

It is optional in different types of media such as websites or journals, where other more specific identifiers (e.g., page numbers and volume) are more appropriate. danielkueh (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I had not considered this point. I agree the point is valid. It would seem to be important only when the source was being quoted though.

I’m glad to hear we’re on the same page on that point. danielkueh (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No books are quoted in this article though.

BetterMath (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The first four references in this article are books. Quotes are not necessary when providing a complete book reference. danielkueh (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to the other edit (change null hypothesis to “it”), I have no objections. danielkueh (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's good. What do you think about the points that I replied to above?   BetterMath (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted my responses to your comments above. danielkueh (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have made some rebuttals, above. I just realized, though, that this whole discussion is inappropriate. There should be a Wikipedia policy, or at least guideline, that addresses the issue. Individual editors like you and me should not be deciding something like this. Hence, I agree with reverting this article to include the place of publication (for now). I will be raising this topic in a general Wikipedia forum—though not right now. When I do, I will ping you, so that you can participate if you would like to.   BetterMath (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

”I just realized, though, that this whole discussion is inappropriate.” - Yes, my point exactly. That said, I provided additional comments above for clarification. Unless there is a WP policy/content guide change, I consider this matter resolved and won’t be commenting further. You’re welcome to respond. Good luck pursuing this issue on the general WP forum. danielkueh (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Short description

I'd like to offer a thought that might cut the Gordian Knot on the short description.

Remember that short descriptions are supposed to be short, and they don't have to precisely define the topic. The purpose is to give just enough information so that users know whether or not they want to click on a link.

With that in mind, I think a short description saying "Concept from inferential statistics" would be entirely adequate. That way we don't need to argue about the details of the meaning, or the grammar. --Trovatore (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought and I am open to suggestions. That said, I do find the proposed short description, "Concept from inferential statistics", to be rather vague even if it is not wrong. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Vague" is fine. Think of short descriptions like disambiguators, like the parenthetical parts of Georgia (US state) and Georgia (country). They don't need to provide any significant information about the topic; they just need to make the user aware of the general area the topic is in. Frankly this article probably doesn't need one at all; we could get away with {{shortdescription}}, which provides an empty short description, the recommended action when there's nothing useful to put there. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm not opposed and would much prefer it over the alternative [3]. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You can reject the null hypothesis when the p-value EQUALS the significance level

See this discussion.

This requires many small corrections to this article.

I'd rather not edit the article myself, as English is not my first language. Jpeccoud (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)jpeccoud

Not only can you -- you should! Otherwise you don't attain the correct rejection rate under the null with a discrete statistic. Glenbarnett (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Statistical significance in Psychology

In the late 80s-early 90's, and perhaps afterwards, Clark University taught that in Psychology, as opposed to just about all other fields of science, P-values under 0.1 were accepted, that was the norm, rather than the standard .05. This was because results often weren't as robust for a variety of reasons, namely that human subjects were needed for the experiments, it was more expensive to get participation (compared to experiments on animals, for example), and humans have rights that require a lot of work to document and follow. I don't think it's a coincidence that it is psychology journals that bring up the issues of statistical significance. It would be great to see additional information on statistical significance in psychology in particular, because that's where its most controversial. Tumacama (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit because the problem And concern of overuse is not unique to psychology unless the sources explicitly say otherwise, which I don’t believe they do. danielkueh (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually the onus is on you to provide examples. You can't just revert my claim because you "think" overuse is a problem elsewhere. It has been a systematic issue in psychology for at least the 30 years I was taught it at university. Issue because it's not a few bad eggs, it's a common and accepted practice. If you think it is a systematic problem in other fields, just give a citation. Sometimes I wish Wikipedia didn't work that way, but once I made the claim, you HAVE to provide evidence of the contrary to prove your point. It's a reasonable claim (although I don't think any fields of study welcome this difference, and even "parapsychology" and other fields don't even recognize P-values Tumacama (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we have a process called BRD (see WP:BRD) whereby if you were to make a bold edit, and someone else reverts it, the next step would be to discuss it on the article's talk page and seek consensus (see WP:consensus). Also, we stick with the sources (see WP:V and WP:RS). Other than your own anecdotal experience at your university, you have not provided any reliable sources to support the claim that this issue is a perennial problem in psychology and not in other fields. In fact your assertion is not supported by the sources that have been cited in this article. None of the sources listed claimed that this is a problem unique to psychology. So unless the sources say otherwise, there is no reason to change that heading. And as far as burden of proofs are concerned, you have it backwards. I recommend learning the fallacy of "appealing to ignorance" to better understand why. Since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it by providing reliable sources that anyone can independently verify. This is consistent with WP's policy (see WP:BURDEN in WP:V). danielkueh (talk) 23:39,

BUT ITS NOT A BOLD EDIT IT IS A SIMPLE ADDITION THAT DOESN"T CONTRADICT ANYTHING!!!!

4 August 2020 (UTC) Failing Grade: 89% of Introduction-to-Psychology Textbooks That Define or Explain Statistical Significance Do So Incorrectly

Show all authors

Scott A. Cassidy, Ralitza Dimova, Benjamin Giguère, ...

First Published June 27, 2019 Research Article

https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919858072

Please indent your comments appropriately so that it is easy for other editors to distinguish them from mine. In WP, a bold edit just means "Go for it." The source that you just gave does not say that there is an overuse of statistical significance in psychology. Rather, it is saying that it is "commonly used" and that it is often defined or explained incorrectly, particularly in introductory psychology textbooks. Also, please do not re-revert the page without achieving consensus. By doing so, you're disregarding the views of other editors and WP's policies. Please be patient and continue the discussion process. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

And since you wanted evidence, I encourage you to read this recent 2019 article [4] from Nature magazine, which is a very well-established scientific journal. If you were to scroll down, you will see a passage that states that the authors invited experts to comment on a draft to abandon the "entire concept of statistical significance," which included "statisticians, clinical and medical researchers, biologists and psychologists from more than 50 countries and across all continents except Antarctica." Again, not an issue that is unique to psychology. danielkueh (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)