Talk:Statistics

Please click here to add new comments at the bottom of this page.

in re Restoring article (back) to GA status

I'd like to help improve the article so that it can restored to GA status. I've made minor copyedits in the body text and lead paragraph so far, but I held back on a couple of ideas pending discussion here. I propose changing the lead sentence to the following, per discussion at (Archive 2) "Math and/or science?":

Statistics is the science of applied mathematics in data collection, organization, and interpretation^[1]; the data is often numerical but may take other forms including relationships between entities.

Before we make this change though, perhaps the first paragraph of the Scope section should be rewritten for clarity and readability including the compromise discussed before. Also, I think the second sentence of the lead should be rewritten so it doesn't begin with "It" but I haven't come up with an alternative any better than "Statistics includes the planning..." -- By the way, one of the header tags above mentions "suggestions below for improving the article" (June 2006) but I don't see these in the archives. Anyone know where they are? -PrBeacon (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the lead brief. We have a citation that that says statistics is a science (in its own right). There are lots of aspects of statistics that do not have a connection to "mathematics". If we need to have something like "the data is often numerical but may take other forms including relationships between entities", then that could well go under "scope", but there is certainly no need to be making fine distinctions in the lead. See WP:LEAD. Melcombe (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The "suggestions below for improving the article" (June 2006) might be the discussion at the end of "Archive 3". Melcombe (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Statistical Proof

Hi...I'm not a statistician (a biologist), but I recently came across statistical proof and most of what was written seemed nonsensical so I did a complete re-write of the page. I was hoping to find a statistically minded editor to swing by to read through my re-write and give some feedback. The page may be of some value to Wikilink in this main stats page. Please leave a msg on my talk page if you are interested. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Determining the relevence of statistical data based on how old it is

If I were to give a 200-year old statistic, most people, probably including statisticians, wouldn't take me seriously. But if I were to give a one-day-old stastistic, pretty much everyone would take me seriously (in relevence to the statistics' age). I'm not arguing with this. I'm just really surprised this isn't discussed in the article at all, when, in the real world, it is a factor in deteriming the value of a statistic(s). A point in discussing this that should be made should addressed is the problem of setting an age at which a stastistic is "too old" to be relevant. While pretty much anyone would agree with the arguments in my first two points, and with validity, this cannot validly be set: if a statistic is older than ('x' amount of time), it is relevent and valid (in terms of its age); if a statistic is (same 'x' amount of time) old or newer, it is relevent and valid (in terms of its age). Another point that goes along with this is the fact that when a statistic is said, it is presented in the present tense as happening at the exact moment the person saying the stastic, while technically, in reality, it it can only proven to be happening when conducting the experiments that determined the statistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.215.148 (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)