This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I'd appreciate if before deleting, the reasons to do this will be talked about with me. I'm ready to hear reasons and ready to explain, why did I make the list like this. Jeune091 ( talk) 14:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I used statistics from OECD, particulary these two tables.
For example, if we want to calculate gross median wage, we use certain numbers:
1)80,070 is average annual salary for Australia in AUD. 2)0.53 means that minimum wage equals 53% of median wage. 3)0.44 means that minimum wage equals 44% of median wage. 4)To calculate median/average wage ratio, we divide 0.44 by 0.53. 5)The number we've got, particulary 0.83 means, that median wage equals 83% of median wage. 6)Then, to get gross median salary, we mulpily 80,070 by 0.83. 80,070*0.83=66,458 7)66,458 AUD is median gross wage.
So, I don't think that OECD is not reliable source. All the data I've got was from on particular site -- OECD statistics. So no, it's not original research. I used their datas and didn't add anything from myself. Jeune091 ( talk) 16:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC) I think we need a mediator to solve this issue. Jeune091 ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
In the meantime, take a look at eurostat countries by median wage, and usa statistics below for comparison. The sources weren't multiplied there, aside from taxes. But I can leave gross salaries only. Jeune091 ( talk) 16:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
USA data comes from goverment site. I didn't calculate anything but taxes. You can erase net wages and keep only gross, for both Europe and the US. Besides, if we will remove calculation from OECD data, and will only leave ratios and average wages, explicitly stated in the source, that won't be OC the slightest. Oh, and I don't think you apply OC rules properly. The rule states, that If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. That means, for example, that if one source states that the planet is heating, and the other states that the number of pirates increased, statemet C that's considered as OC would state that the planet is heating because of pirates. This is different. This is mathematics. It's not wrong correlation, because it just calculates number they give. Both sources say A and B in one context. Besides, take a look at this: that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Median mentioned in one of two sources. Jeune091 ( talk) 17:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not just mathematics, btw. It's obvious. They, OECD, gave average wages data and median and mean wages ratio. From the same section, named 'earnings'. It's not a different set of data. It's the same site, the same organization and the same section. For example, they state that minimum is 45% of median. It's already stated, and the number is already there: 45% of median. My calculation just try to make it easier for the reader, so they won't have to calculate themselves. Example: a number is 10% of 500. The sources states that explicitly. I just wrote that it's number 50. 10% of 500 = 50. It's not OC, it's obvious calculation. And why did you delete eurostat and usa data? Jeune091 ( talk) 17:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
And between you and me, taxes are much harder calculate, so they are more on OC territory, than ratios. Why did you delete eurostat and usa data?
Also, please abstain from deleting. Instead, let's involve the others and come to consensus. Surely we both want to make a good article out of this, and it won't happen if we will delete data. I already sent request for mediation. Jeune091 ( talk) 17:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you know how is the real number of hors worked by a worker in every state in a month?Rubbish.It's a very original research.An article to close. 79.19.186.61 ( talk) 07:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
My friend it the head of National Accounts of OECD Peter van de Ven.I know this sector.These are just numbers ,not data.People of the sector immediately realize the original research.Even List of average european wages is a ridiculous article with different sources for every state and different not official tax calculators.A carnival.
Benniejets (
talk) 08:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
As per BRD the burden is on the editor who wishes to change the article, to gain consensus for their changes. As it currently stands, based on this article's talk page discussions, there has been no consensus gained for those changes.
May I assume that all involved will respect BRD and unless clear consensus is gained between now and the article being unlocked, it will be reverted to the previous version and there will be no further edit warring.
Make an edit - get it reverted - attempt to gain consensus. That is how we do things. Not, make an edit - get it reverted - and then jump into an edit war.
Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 06:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I'd appreciate if before deleting, the reasons to do this will be talked about with me. I'm ready to hear reasons and ready to explain, why did I make the list like this. Jeune091 ( talk) 14:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I used statistics from OECD, particulary these two tables.
For example, if we want to calculate gross median wage, we use certain numbers:
1)80,070 is average annual salary for Australia in AUD. 2)0.53 means that minimum wage equals 53% of median wage. 3)0.44 means that minimum wage equals 44% of median wage. 4)To calculate median/average wage ratio, we divide 0.44 by 0.53. 5)The number we've got, particulary 0.83 means, that median wage equals 83% of median wage. 6)Then, to get gross median salary, we mulpily 80,070 by 0.83. 80,070*0.83=66,458 7)66,458 AUD is median gross wage.
So, I don't think that OECD is not reliable source. All the data I've got was from on particular site -- OECD statistics. So no, it's not original research. I used their datas and didn't add anything from myself. Jeune091 ( talk) 16:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC) I think we need a mediator to solve this issue. Jeune091 ( talk) 16:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
In the meantime, take a look at eurostat countries by median wage, and usa statistics below for comparison. The sources weren't multiplied there, aside from taxes. But I can leave gross salaries only. Jeune091 ( talk) 16:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
USA data comes from goverment site. I didn't calculate anything but taxes. You can erase net wages and keep only gross, for both Europe and the US. Besides, if we will remove calculation from OECD data, and will only leave ratios and average wages, explicitly stated in the source, that won't be OC the slightest. Oh, and I don't think you apply OC rules properly. The rule states, that If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. That means, for example, that if one source states that the planet is heating, and the other states that the number of pirates increased, statemet C that's considered as OC would state that the planet is heating because of pirates. This is different. This is mathematics. It's not wrong correlation, because it just calculates number they give. Both sources say A and B in one context. Besides, take a look at this: that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Median mentioned in one of two sources. Jeune091 ( talk) 17:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not just mathematics, btw. It's obvious. They, OECD, gave average wages data and median and mean wages ratio. From the same section, named 'earnings'. It's not a different set of data. It's the same site, the same organization and the same section. For example, they state that minimum is 45% of median. It's already stated, and the number is already there: 45% of median. My calculation just try to make it easier for the reader, so they won't have to calculate themselves. Example: a number is 10% of 500. The sources states that explicitly. I just wrote that it's number 50. 10% of 500 = 50. It's not OC, it's obvious calculation. And why did you delete eurostat and usa data? Jeune091 ( talk) 17:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
And between you and me, taxes are much harder calculate, so they are more on OC territory, than ratios. Why did you delete eurostat and usa data?
Also, please abstain from deleting. Instead, let's involve the others and come to consensus. Surely we both want to make a good article out of this, and it won't happen if we will delete data. I already sent request for mediation. Jeune091 ( talk) 17:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you know how is the real number of hors worked by a worker in every state in a month?Rubbish.It's a very original research.An article to close. 79.19.186.61 ( talk) 07:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
My friend it the head of National Accounts of OECD Peter van de Ven.I know this sector.These are just numbers ,not data.People of the sector immediately realize the original research.Even List of average european wages is a ridiculous article with different sources for every state and different not official tax calculators.A carnival.
Benniejets (
talk) 08:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
As per BRD the burden is on the editor who wishes to change the article, to gain consensus for their changes. As it currently stands, based on this article's talk page discussions, there has been no consensus gained for those changes.
May I assume that all involved will respect BRD and unless clear consensus is gained between now and the article being unlocked, it will be reverted to the previous version and there will be no further edit warring.
Make an edit - get it reverted - attempt to gain consensus. That is how we do things. Not, make an edit - get it reverted - and then jump into an edit war.
Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 06:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)