Talk:Probability and statistics

Discussion to 2004

Hello. We might consider explaining why the words "probability" and "statistics" are so often found together. I don't think this article should ever be more than a glorified redirect to probability and to statistics -- all content should go to those pages -- but this article can say why those terms are related. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:44, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Again: I'm no expert in probability theory, but I can very confidently say that probability is not a mathematical theory. Probability theory is a theory, but probability is something else. I'd prefer not to be the one to make the change, though. --Larry Sanger

---

Probability theory is certainly a mathematical theory. It is formally a branch of measure theory, and its foundations are as solid as any other branch of mathematics. As a one-line description, probability theory deals with objects known as Random Variables, which are functions mapping from an event P:E -> [0,1]. Now, the application of probability theory gets into some really sticky business, i.e., one must define what probability actually means. Applied probability isn't just Statistics, but must be founded a priori on some particular notion of reality. In particular, the concepts of aleatory and epistemic probability seem to cause much confusion.

---

There are philosophical concepts of probability which do not match or fit the mathematical theory of probability. My usage is perhaps too informal, but is conditioned by the topic residing in the Mathematics hierarchy as distinct from Philosophy. --Dick Beldin

---

It seems to me an article about probability ought to acknowledge the morass of senses that exist in ordinary language, philosophy, and mathematics. --LMS

---

I have renamed all of Dick's pages so that the ones that should have (IMHO) lower-case titles do have lower-case titles. I have also moved the internal links from the beginning of the articles to the end of the articles, for consistency with other Wikipedia articles. What remains to be done now is to change all the Upper Case links to lower case ones, so that we can bypass all the redirection pages that I've created. I would do the latter myself, but it's dinnertime.  :-) --LMS

Done. --maveric149

Discussion from 2009

(no discussion 2004 to 2008) just to add re dates of contributions. Melcombe (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC) There is a suggestion that the statement "Moreover, many topics in statistics are independent of probability theory" is dubious. The validity of a statistical analysis is as dependent upon the statistical sample as it is upon mathematics. The computer phrase GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) applies here. My 2¢ and worth it. Anobium625 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFREF

The page is relevant versus your opinion that it is "... obviously is not relevant to this benign, brief, and clear paragraph". Employing WP:IAR might work but be aware of WP:UCS. In fact, I find it ironic that you initially used the edit summary "Does not seem like an improvement". This seems like WP:POVPUSHING. Logoshimpo (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Setting aside the personal commentary, I don't see anything in here that could possibly be responded to. You are of course welcome to make an affirmative argument for something, but simply dropping irrelevant links like WP:SELFREF is not part of any consensus-building process I'm familiar with. Instead of continuing to edit-war after your bold edit was reverted, you should consult WP:DR for options (among which is WP:3O). But the first step will definitely be trying to make a coherent affirmative argument for why your version is better than the other -- something that you haven't done. --JBL (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

3O Response: Procedurally declining at this time. I see no evidence that there has been a thorough discussion of the dispute at this time, which is a prerequisite prior to requesting a third opinion. If there is more substantive discussion that fails to resolve the dispute, a 3O request can then be submitted. Otherwise, editors are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Doniago. @Logoshimpo, to reiterate: the first step will definitely be trying to make a coherent affirmative argument for why your version is better than the other. Merely typing the shortcut link to a guideline is not a substitute for a clear statement of how you believe the guideline applies in this case and why (since guidelines are guidelines rather that inflexible rules) this interpretation makes things better for readers. There is nothing to discuss until you do that. --JBL (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:SELFREF says, References that exist in a way that assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia, without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia) or the manner of access (online), are acceptable. That evidently applies to the text in question here. There are no policy or guideline-based grounds for a dispute. XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That contradicts the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#This Wikipedia article discusses ..., While Wikipedia is not a ..., Edit this page ...: "Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or referring to Wikipedia policies or technicalities of using Wikipedia, should be avoided in the article namespace where it is unnecessary." Logoshimpo (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Saying that probability and statistics are covered in several articles does not say that those articles exist on Wikipedia. Copy all the pages to another website, and that statement remains equally true. XOR'easter (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

You aren't even being logical. Logoshimpo (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Needless to say, I agree entirely with XOR'easter -- your proposed reading of this guideline is deeply confused. This can easily be seen by reading the section you've linked, none of which is about the kind of reference (from one article to another) happening here. Moreover, your edit replaces a natural structure (a brief, context-setting sentence, followed by an introduction of a list -- exactly the structure recommended by MOS:DAB) with a fragment that does not appropriately introduce the list; this is bad for readers.

If you want to have a successful career as a Wikipedia editor, you need to be able to read policy and guideline pages and extract what the point is, rather than Wikilawyer short snippets that don't reflect the main body of the text. I recommend you practice this skill with the policies WP:CONSENSUS and WP:3RR, and self-revert. --JBL (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Set index article, not a disambiguation page

The words probability and statistics don't resemble each other. There aren't two topics with the same name, like the same word applying to an institution of learning and a group of fish. So, this shouldn't technically be a dab page. It's not disambiguating a term. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not fully up on the this distinction, but the article is looking good after your edits (and actually useful for a reader who somehow stumbled on it) -- thank you. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)