Jump to content

Talk:Mierscheid law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%AF%B8%EC%96%B4%EC%83%A4%EC%9D%B4%ED%8A%B8%EC%9D%98_%EB%B2%95%EC%B9%99

HELP. Have a problem with korean caracters. --Braunbaer 21:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005?

[edit]

How did this law hold up in the 2005 election? --Jfruh 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


according to http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1454782,00.html , total German production was roughly 46% in 2004; according to http://www.advfn.com/news_german-steel-producers-see-2005-domestic-production-flat-on-limited-capacity_9433044.html , 2005 was expected to be the same. I have not been able to find either specific numbers for 2005 or West German production, but if these two links presetn valid info and there is a small amount of steel production not being done in the west of Germany (presuming "Western Germany" in the law does not refer to the former, preunification state), it seems that the law held reasonably true. I will look for more info.--128.186.13.112 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.stahl-online.de/english/business_and_politics/companies_and_markets/steel_companies_germany.htm shows the distribution of German steel production plants, and indeed, a large portion of them are in the former "western federal states"--i.e. former West Germany. This still requires a lot of assumption, and it would be nice to find a source that has already gotten and compared the numbers, but it seems that this law may have held true in 2005.--128.186.13.112 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2005 failed [1]. --Braunbaer 21:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

[edit]

I'm a bit worried about verifiability. There's no references (apart from stating that it has been published), only one inbound link, and talks about being written by a hoax person. Googling seemed to come up with a fair few wiki copies. Andjam 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a couple of interwiki versions, especially the German one, but still ... Andjam 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hoax. [2], [3], [4] ---Sluzzelin 22:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is IS an HOAX, but you could say it is an "official" german hoax. 194.76.29.2 09:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while the person who supposedly found this law is a hoax, the law itself works out reasonably well, better maybe than a lot of the more seriously scientific approaches to vote forecasting in Germany. So is "hoax" the right term for the Mierscheid Law? 62.117.17.217 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because whether it is consistently accurate or not, it was started purely as a joke, and at the time was not based on any fact. It goes hand-in-hand with correlation does not imply causation. If Bigfoot turned out to be real, all of those forged photos in the past would still be hoaxes. 68.228.14.125 06:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to do a better job of explaining that the Mierscheid Law is just a funny coincidence and indeed a hoax. The law is simply not statistically significant, and is actually quite absurd. While it's possible there could be some non-causative correlative link (for example, higher industrial production both leads to greater support of the SPD and greater steel production), this seems quite unlikely, and isn't even really supported by the data. The fact that this law is not particularly old, and that various people have proposed "corrections" to fix the law only proves that it obviously is meaningless. Anybody can invent laws to fit old sets of data whatever their relation. There is no evidence this law has future predictive power, and in fact, when applied to 2005 elections it failed.Eebster the Great (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it failed 1990 and 1998 [5], only 2002 was a hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braunbaer (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mierscheid's law is not what I would call a hoax. Mierscheid is; of course; and to call this funny apparent correlation a "law" as if it were a law of physics is obviously a joke. Joke, yes; but not hoax. It does have as a serious part - calling it a law is a joke - the claim there really is a funny coincidence (up to 2005, when - it has to be said - the old SPD did split in two, with the lesser part later joining the Left), and that is true (up to 2005), as the given diagram itself shows (of course, not an exact one). This makes it a noteworthy example of "correlation does not imply causation" (though the textbook example for that in Germany is "it has been shown that areas with a lot of storks have a lot of children, so, does the stork bring the babies?", referring to what children, they say, were once told about where the babies come from). In fact, it could be a serious example for "both things are caused by some other thing", noting that the "greater steel industry" (meaning the branches of industry bargained-about by IG Metall and Gesamtmetall) are in fact the perhaps most important (certainly most iconic) realm of the classical factory-workforce, which in turn is the classical habitat of the SPD electorate (it is called a "Worker's party" for a reason). These now are not jokes. So, one could say further studies are needed, but impossible, as the situation before the SPD split cannot be recreated, and neither can the industrial situation of the 2nd half of the 20th century.--2001:A61:3A23:CA01:863:904:90E:6BE3 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

[edit]

Don't remove the image without justification (I'm looking at you, Braunbaer). If you feel that the '98 value is wrong, discuss it, provide justification, and/or update the image (it's in svg, so it's easily done). Don't just remove something you don't agree with. JeffyP (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1998 was 38.45 Mio tons and 40,9 percent [6] --Braunbaer (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[7] lists the values at 41.0 million tons and 40.9%, and [8] & [9] show the same (look at the graphs), so I think your source might be wrong. JeffyP (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source based on the official steel statistik [10] or loook at newer Mierscheid himself [11] [12] --Braunbaer (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So can someone change the graph?--Boson (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like you are right. Anyone can feel free to change the graph, or I'll do it myself sometime soon.JeffyP (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mierscheid law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mierscheid law. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mierscheid_law&oldid=1204000981"