IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jns/jbstat/v231y2011i5-6p598-607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Production of Historical “Facts”: How the Wrong Number of Participants in the Leipzig Monday Demonstration on October 9, 1989 Became a Convention

Author

Listed:
  • Opp Karl-Dieter

    () (Universität Leipzig (Emeritus), University of Washington, Seattle (Affiliate Professor))

Abstract

This paper deals with the demonstration in Leipzig on October 9, 1989, an important episode in the history of the East German Revolution. It is generally held that 70,000 demonstrators participated. This paper shows that this number is clearly wrong. The paper describes briefly the results of a survey that were inconsistent with this number and how the authors of the study proceeded to make a new estimate. The paper further outlines how the original estimate was made and found its way into the media and historical accounts. Finally, some general lessons are drawn from the case. The case study this paper focuses on is not an example of the faking of data, but rather of negligent data handling. However, it is argued that the lessons from this case discussed in the final section hold for faked data as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Opp Karl-Dieter, 2011. "The Production of Historical “Facts”: How the Wrong Number of Participants in the Leipzig Monday Demonstration on October 9, 1989 Became a Convention," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 598-607, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:231:y:2011:i:5-6:p:598-607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jbnst.2011.231.issue-5-6/jbnst-2011-5-603/jbnst-2011-5-603.xml?format=INT
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:apsrev:v:87:y:1993:i:02:p:319-333_09 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stevanov, Mirjana & Dobšinska, Zuzana & Surový, Peter, 2016. "Assessing survey-based research in forest science: Turning lemons into lemonade?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 105-117.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:231:y:2011:i:5-6:p:598-607. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.