Talk:Statistical significance

	This Science related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Rewrite

Can I do I rewrite of this sometime in the next few weeks focusing on statistical significance? $\approx$$\pi$ 10:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

You can rewrite anything you like, but just curious what this article is "about" if not statistical significance? tmtoulouse ^beleaguer 16:01, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Jargonic solution

Weaseloid de-bronzed this. I've got no problem with that. However, I think some jargon is necessary. As a statistician, I'm probably biased. Is it better if the jargon-laden parts are segregated into a "technical details" kind of section or just annihilated altogether. I can do the former, but not the latter (it doesn't look very jargon-laden to me). MarmotHead (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We need to talk about science

But before we do, we need to watch YouTube videos about science. Cause that's what smart people do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)