Talk:List of countries by median wage

Regarding the first list

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)

Methodology of calculations

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.

While I applaud the effort, this unfortunately falls under the helm of OR because you are taking an original source and combining it with 4 others to get an end result. The tax calculators are especially problematic because you are making assumptions about who the taxpayer is. In addition they are extremely unreliable. So isn't the first item that needs to go. This is all pure Original Reserch. The figures are all being calculated by YOU. Also, the median mean ratio may not reflect the same data which underlies the avg wage tableLneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Tax calculators used in other listst, such as European countries by average wage and American acountries by average 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)

The OECD is a reliable source, howevever: a) The tax calculators are not, b) the median/mean ratio does not come from the same data which underlies the calculation of average wages, and, c) Even if they were reliable they would still fail the wikipedia OR test which is as follows:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. 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."

This is exactly what was done. You took average wages from OECD, and multiplied it times a ratio, to reach median wage (a conclusion) NOT STATED by the source (OECD). The OECD does not show median wages at all. Furthermore, when combining that result with tax calculators you make a much worse violation because now you are using a DIFFERENT source altogether. I am sorry because I know you put in hard work, but for some reason it is Wiki policy to enforce this. :( Lneal001 (talk)

Like I said, I will ask for mediation. Let them decide if you're right or wrong.

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)

I never deleted the Eurostat data. If Eurostat has data on median wages for some countries, then you should add it to the "List of European countries by average wage." USA isnt examined by Eurostat, so any data from USA would be with difference source and methodology.Lneal001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You still didn't answer why you removed eurostat and usa data.

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)

The OECD does not explicitly say median wages, therefore the calculations are coming from you. The Rule says that the median has to come from the OECD, i.e. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. I understand what you are saying that it is simple math, but that does not mean its acceptable wiki policy, and again, the ratios come from a different set of data that underlie average wages. Lneal001 (talk)

Did they mean mathematics by that rule? It doesn't explicitly specify, what exactly cannot be added.

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)

Well as obvious as it may sound, it goes against wiki policy. If it was so obvious, why does not the OECD show median wages? The Eurostat data should be moved to the relevant European wages page, of which there are two.

Lneal001 (talk)

I don't think so. Wiki allows calculations of taxes, as shown in this article: List of European countries by average wage.

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?

If the net wages from that page are calculated from a tax calculator, then it should also be deleted. Only what is reported by Eurostat itself should be reported. I dont have time to edit every page, but certainly that may be the next change. I deleted the data because it violates OR. Also, what Eurostat produces is not strictly comparable to what USA produces. For example Eurostat excludes enterprises with less than 10 employees. Lneal001 (talk)

And that's why USA gross median wage is not calculated by Eurostat, but rather by social security site. Doesn't justify deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeine091 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

Jeune091 Your content falls under WP:SYNTHESIS WP:OR - we should be showing facts as they are given to us by reliable sources, not making calculations and coming to conclusions. If the data you wish to show is notable, then it will have a reliable source showing your data, rather than you have to rely on your own calculations. If there isn't a source, then that content isn't currently notable, making it unsuitable for inclusion in this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not rely on my own calculations. I use the date the source provides. Read it here Jeune091 (talk) 07:07, 17 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)

I actually do. OECD data reflects annual wages, USA data reflects annual wages too. As for Eurostat, it reflects hourly wages, which is easy to fix. If you'd read the sources, you'd knew that. Jeune091 (talk) 07:44, 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)

Very convincing. But unfortunately, we rely on reliable sources, rather than anons from the web. Jeune091 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You're combining data from multiple sources to come to a conclusion. It's synthesis. You're making calculations based on assumptions. It's original research. You'd be better off looking for a reliable source that has already made the calculations, than making them yourself - obviously if it's notable, the sources will exist. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The source is the only one. I mean, the OECD data. Did you read it? One source -- labours earnings. They provide both average wages and ratios. And how am I making calculations on assumption, when there's a clear ration? minimum to average and minimum to median? How's that an assumption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeine091 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you and other user, this is OR. The OR page also agreed. Merge all pages to the average wage page where OR is not listed. Can someone delete or merge this page? Lneal001 (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Next step.

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)

Well the previous version was no version as this page was created a few days ago with the OR. Lneal001 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Then let's go back to the original state - this article should revert to being a redirect. That's the last stable version. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, can you do that as now the edit function is enabled? Thanks. Lneal001 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)