Talk:Bonferroni correction

message: If nothing else, this paragraph requires citations.  Holm-Bonferroni is one of many sequential Bonferroni-type approaches to controlling the familywise error rate in a set of tests.  Among these many approaches, it is not even particularly powerful---Hochberg's approach is, for example, guaranteed to be no less powerful and is in many cases more powerful.  The paragraph should be changed to reference two classes of more pwoerful tests: (1) sequential Bonferroni-type tests that control the familywise error rate, and (2) Benjamini-Hochberg type tests that control the false discovery rate.  Specific reference to an individual test such as the Holm's is out of place, as it appears to provide preference to one of many alternatives.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.130.128 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--mcld (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Holm-Bonferroni is inappropriate

message: Though related, the Bonferroni and Šidák tests rely on different assumptions and lead to generally different results.  It is confusing to discuss both on a page labeled "Bonferroni correction."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.130.128 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Šidák correction should be moved to its own article

message: It says "one way of maintaining the familywise error rate is to test each individual hypothesis at a statistical significance level of 1/n times what it would be if only one hypothesis were tested", i.e., alpha_corrected = alpha/n. The formula given is *another correction*, which is "applicable for two-sided hypotheses, multivariate normal statistics, and positive orthant dependent statistics, it is not, in general, correct (Shaffer 1995)". See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BonferroniCorrection.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo.hamilton (talk • contribs) 10:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is incorrect

message: I have added extra references to this article so that people can conveniently find out more about this method. I have also added a direct link to Thomas Perenger's critique of the Bonferroni method, as it is cited in the three other references I have added. Michael Glass 13:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra references

message: There is a need to clarify how the outcome of the multiple tests is judged .... "at least one test says reject", or "all tests say reject". Melcombe (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification needed

message: There was some notation implying that you specify the tests to be of size alpha/n, when they should be of size 1-(1-alpha)^(1/n)...  That is, one minus the chance of not rejecting each test.  Why would these things be written as 1-(1-alpha/n)? Brusegadi (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additive 

message: Bonferonni correction was not developed by Bonferroni - it was developed by Dunn, based on a proof of an inequality.  However, the proof of the inequality was not done by Bonferroni either, he extended it.  I'll edit this when I have the time.  Bonferroni correction is based on Boole's inequality - this is discussed in the article Stigler's law of eponymy by Steven Stigler.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremymiles (talk • contribs) 05:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me correct the above statement made 10 years ago. I went to check Stigler's paper claimed above ("Stigler's law of eponimy", available online), and also two of his books ("Statistics on the Table" and "The History of Statistics" and no, Stigler does not say that the Bonferroni method should have been named after Dunn. Dunn has provided Statistics with a number of contributions, including using Bonferroni to produce confidence intervals, a novel method for correction (now called Dunn-Sidak) and a procedure for multiple testing using rank statistics (named Dunn procedure). But no, Bonferroni is just Bonferroni. Winkler (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: -Not developed by Bonferroni

message: The statement "Second, in certain situations where one wants to retain, not reject, the null hypothesis, then Bonferroni correction is non-conservative." could do with a citation Worik (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that 'conservative', in its statistical sense, means 'rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true less often than indicated by the nominal p-value or specified Type I error rate', but i don't have a citation for that to hand either (other than conservatism (disambiguation), which is hardly a WP:reliable source). I may try to find one... Qwfp (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing citation

message: The only source for the "Lou Jost" test is Lou Jost's own website - his suggestion does not seem to have been subject to any peer-review. I have removed the reference and added tags; if someone cannot dig up a good source, I will remove that section. Angio (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lou Jost" test? 

message: From the current article:
:“Bonferroni correction can be used to adjust confidence intervals. If we are forming m confidence intervals, and wish to have overall confidence level of 1-\alpha, then adjusting each individual confidence interval to the level of 1-\frac{\alpha}{m} will be the analog confidence interval correction.”
This claim should be sourced.Vegard (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confidence intervals 

message: Can we add the sentence "In order to do a Bonferroni Correction, divide your significance threshold \alpha by the number of hypotheses being tested" somewhere, preferably in the introduction? I know the article says this, but anyone who isn't a mathematician is going to have to read closely in order to extract that  piece of information. (Assuming it is correct).
:In general this article is extremely technical for anyone who isn't a statistician. These corrections have applications (and are widely used, in fact) in other areas of sciences and significance testing. It would really be helpful if the article had a less technical section - which obviously needs to be written by a statistician in order for the article to remain accurate. Sadly, I am not a statistician and hence I cannot do this myself. 130.209.157.26 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Plain English 

message: The derivation of the correction substitutes having a conservative p-value for committing a type I error. The outcome is the same, but the presentation and therefore strictly speaking the logic is erroneous. I was thinking about how to correct it, but perhaps it should be handled by somebody more familiar with the subject matter's conventional presentation. — RFST (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bonferroni correction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716071000/http://www.silicongenetics.com/Support/GeneSpring/GSnotes/analysis_guides/mtc.pdf to http://www.silicongenetics.com/Support/GeneSpring/GSnotes/analysis_guides/mtc.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The change of title is inappropriate and inconsistent with article naming criteria. The new title, and accompanying article text change, are less recognizable (the old name is far more common in literature), less natural (few people are searching for the alternate name), less concise (without resolving any ambiguity), and less consistent (the old name was near universal throughout Wikipedia). Many things in science have unusual or "incorrect" names; It is not the role of Wikipedia to assert non-neutral, less common names as if they were consensus to reflect what some users think things "should be called". Echocancellation (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets turn this around from an accusation to a question: Why do you think that this is appropriate and consistent? Could you, for example, point to authoritative literature that uses this name? I was pointed on Twitter to the APA dictionary as one source, but you may be aware of more. Note that it is not necessarily appropriate to only look at the historically most frequently used name. effeietsanders 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   The new name is simply to keep the Wikipedia up to date. While the old name Bonferroni-correction may be more widely used in the academic literature it is quickly becoming out of date and will soon be overtaken by Dunn-Bonferroni. The new name gives proper attribution to the originator of the technique. The APA dictionary reflects this development and Wikipedia should too. Groceryheist (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saying that it "will soon be overtaken" is a naked assertion; The proposed renaming appears intended to motivate this change, not merely reflect it. I attempted to compare the two terms with both Google Search Trends and Ngram Viewer, but "dunn-bonferroni" was so rare that it wasn't even possible to make a chart. Second, of the first several pages of Google search results I skimmed for multiple comparisons corrections, not a single one used the proposed naming. Finally, although not a precise tool, Google Scholar search results, when limited to the year 2019, still show the proposed name has about 2% of the hits as the existing name (under 700 vs 29,600). Echocancellation (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Bonferroni correction" does seem more widely used/recognized historically; however, changes in usage standards may be recent (e.g., the APA Dictionary example provided by effeietsanders) and usage without Dunn's name may continue due to ignorance and path-dependency more than anything else (perhaps I'm just speaking for myself there). With new and/or more recent terminology changes, Google ngrams or search trends may not resolve the question decisively—see: WP:Namechanges on extra weight to reliable sources as/after changes occur. Within Google scholar results, around 50% of the uses of "Dunn-Bonferroni correction" occur within the last 5 years, suggesting that Groceryheist's assertion may not be quite as naked as it looked. At a minimum, the historical absence and more recent inclusion of Dunn's name in standard, scholarly sources should be addressed explicitly in the article and via redirects. The invisibility or erasure of Dunn's work should be a part of the encyclopedic record. Aaron (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Just to say that the APA Dictionary cited above is not correct. Nobody has to believe me -- just look at the paper by Dunn (1961) to confirm. Ideally we would revert all changes made today, then add to the section (already existing) on confidence intervals that for that use the method can be named Dunn-Bonferroni. There are too many wrongs in the world already, we don't need to compound to it... Winkler (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   thanks for bringing the original paper back in! That said, the Dunn paper doesn't address the reasoning of the APA Dictionary authors and editors on this point. More importantly, our conversation will not be able to resolve what the procedure should be named one way or another. That's a question for authors publishing in reliable sources and the editors of those sources to resolve. Aaron (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

text:   I'm with you! Winkler (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Title from Bonferroni to Dunn-Bonferroni