Talk:Foxconn/Archives/2015

Suicide numbers, corrected.
To be fair I very rarely hear of anyone committing suicide while one the job. I think this is what people find so appalling. Unless the numbers are of national averages of suicides at your job while working, they don't really compare.


 * I corrected the numbers of suicide within this article. The media and also this article stated that the number of suicides was high, but with about 450000 employees, it was FAR below china's average number. Used 2 (English) Wikipedia articles as source.

Although these suicides are widely discussed in the media, the number of suicides is far below the Chinese national average. With Foxconn having 458,999 employees and a national average of 13.9 on each 100,000 people who commit suicides, a number of 67.6 suicides would be considered normal for one year. As the discussed deaths are in the first 5 months of the year, 28 deaths would be equal to the national Chinese average. Foxconn only has 10 employees who died because of suicide during this period.

Jeroen84 (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please find a citation that says all these things? As we discussed on my talkpage and your talkpage you cannot go around and start collecting facts and figures and then putting them together on your own. A reliable source must put these calculations together, not you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can give the numbers. And its no rocketscience to see that the number is far below average... http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/chin.pdf --> Number of suicides in China. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/snapshots/11204.html --> Number of Foxconn employees... Jeroen84 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The numbers may be correct BUT the calculations based on these numbers, the comparisons and the conclusions made from these calculations are yours. This is called synthesis WP:SYNTH and original research WP:OR and this is a really bad thing around here. Please refer to the links I just showed you. It explains why it is so bad to do that in great detail. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So right now everyone who does slightly more research as that what is massively published lately, can see that the media is making a big issue out of nothing, its not that there are huge amounts of suicides at foxconn.. So why publish incorrect info at wikipedia? Its more like it is a hard gossip that people take over. But a small calculation everyone can make learns that those numbers are not that high as it sounds. In one of the wiki-articles you where refering too, an example with the UN is given. Lets take that example, and lets say one newspaper picks it up as "Since the start of the UN, 160 wars started", and they put it in a context where they suggest that the UN is involved with it (as what is happening with Foxconn right now). Should that be pickedup by wikipedia? Imho the current "gossips" should be removed or there should be stated that the numbers are far below average. And of course you are not going to read in a newspaper that "Foxconn has only 30% of the expected suicides", as its not interesting. "10 suicides in 5 months" sound spectacular. And thats what is bothering me. 212.1.1.63 (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, but unfortunately this is how Wikipedia works. The operating concept here is verifiability WP:V not WP:TRUTH. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that it's OK for a contributor to selectively use data to vent her/his malice at the capitalist system (or whatever is bugging these people), but if someone wants to include a reality check, woe betide them. If facts (expressed numerically) are correct, simple arithmetical calculations on them are ipso facto correct.  It should be perfectly obvious that juxtaposition of known, verified and referenced facts isn't the same as "original research" giving new "facts" which can't be verified (unless another person repeats the exercise).  Or does one have to "cite" an "authority" to say that 2+2=4?  I believe Wikipedia has a big problem with what "original research" is - I'd rather think that than that W is promoting the fashionable anti-capitalist agenda which permeates the article.  The least you should allow is for the contentious "information" to be removed, or marked to show that it's open to plausible challenge. 121.99.93.160 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

( Comment from uninvolved editor ) — Unfortunately, Dr. K's the messenger on this. Wikipedia doesn't accept original research under any circumstances, and that's to prevent spreading disinformation that can POV push, as you suggest could happen with a contributor manipulating the numbers. Generally speaking, the rule of thumb is that, if you can find a verifiable source, it's credible for inclusion. And finding the proper numbers for Foxconn's suicide rate is hard to do, at best. Signalizing (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)