Talk:Tulip mania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Tulip mania is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 30, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 5, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
August 18, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

"Unlikely" anecdotes[edit]

From the article,

The increasing mania contributed several amusing, but unlikely[citation needed], anecdotes that Mackay recounted, such as a sailor who mistook the valuable tulip bulb of a merchant for an onion and grabbed it to eat.

I inserted "citation needed" because this is speculation, it needs backup. Keep in mind that even now, people eat a lot of funny tasting and spoiled food, it isn't at all a stretch that a not so bright sailor might think they were chowing down on a funky onion instead of a far pricier tulip bulb. Especially, if they were really hungry, since this was supposed to have gone to court, perhaps there's a reference that can show absence of such court records. Then you would have a basis for the "unlikely" claim. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the "citation needed" template. Surely anybody would agree that somebody accidentally eating a "million dollar" tulip bulb by mistaking it for an onion is unlikely. It's just a 1+1=2 matter. Nobody would just leave a million dollar bulb laying around, but would take steps to secure it. And nobody would continue eating a semi-poisonous bulb that tastes nothing like an onion. Please do not mistake MacKay for a reliable source - he is nothing of the sort. It's just a tall tale told by an acknowledged tall tale teller. Have you read anything from the rest of the book? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. One of the common features of such market bubbles is an absurd ignoring of risks by some of the participants looking to get rich quick, for a recent example, there's the sloppy paperwork on real estate loans just prior to the real estate crisis where a fair number of people later legally defaulted on the loans because it can't be shown that the loans on their homes are owned by anyone. That was a lot more than a million dollars and the people setting up those loans were supposedly professionals. -- KarlHallowell (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV problems again[edit]

This article has gone from supporting the theory to the point of quoting more on the doubt of it than its existence. Either the article needs to be pared down, or the argument needs to be dealt with.

The current article compares the slow tapering off of prices in modern specialized plants to the crash in 1637 - which is a logical fallacy, as neither have the same timespan, it distracts from the article's facts. (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree: this article is highly one-sided, and too long. The "Efficient Markets Hypothesis" is highly controversial. Only some "Modern economists" have disputed the reality of the bubble and offered "rational explanation": ie those whose economic philosophy finds the reality of speculative episodes to be inconvenient. Others, like John Kenneth Galbraith for example, have felt no need to challenge the validity of the basic facts as reported by Mackay, because these facts conform to a pattern repeated in other, much better documented, cases, such as John Law's Compagnie d'Occident (Mississippi Company), or the South Sea Bubble. Sasha (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't see the same comments about the dot-com bubble or the United States housing bubble, because they're so well documented there is little to contest. (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

terrible article[edit]

Its equally amazing and shameful that an article like this is rated FA.

- Rather than an article about something, its an economic debate around the actual topic. - This article is not about "tulip mania", its a debate about the efficient-market hypothesis in history. - The article is rather clearly being used to "soapbox" on political topics. - Anyone actually looking to answer the question of "what" Tulip Mania was will be lost in what is presented. - The introduction is far, far too long and covers matters that have little to do with anything in a proper introduction. - The body of the article is even worse. It takes seven paragraphs of history and flower biology to get anywhere near coverage of the subject itself. - Speculation i.e. "This may have been" seems to allowed in the article. - The section on "Madness of Crowds" should be presenting what the source said and what it made those claims on. It should not be a running modern critique with sentences such as "His popular but flawed description of tulip mania as a speculative bubble remains prominent, even though since the 1980s economists have debunked many aspects of his account". - There are currently five separate sections making economic cases against the book. That is excessive and unencyclopedic, as well, rather than critiques of "Madness of Crowds", they should presenting their own narrative of what happened. There is no question that tulip mania at least as a perceived cultural event did happen. - I'm not sure what all the arguing over if it was or was not a bubble is even useful. What matters is what actually happened in terms of prices, the personal fortunes of individuals and the cultural perceptions that were created afterward.

The article in its current state is terrible. Even harmful in that so much of the content is nothing more than a political soapbox for groups of people with clear agendas. There are NPOV problems throughout, the best way to fix it would be to junk about 80% of it. At the very least, this should be dropped several steps down in terms of "class", this is certainly not "Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information." (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want economics or "history and flower biology" I'm not too clear what you do want. The lead is not a very good summary I agree. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

mention in Garden of Cyrus[edit]

In Thomas Browne's 'Epistle Dedicatory' [Wilkin ed., 1835] to The Garden of Cyrus (1658) he says, "… while the ingenuous delight of tulipists, stands saluted with hard language, even by their own professors.", with a footnote (Browne's) citing "'Tulipo-mania;' Narrencruiid, Laurenberg. Pet. Hondius in lib. Belg."

While the scope of this article seems to be the more modern usage, as an economic bubble [Mackay, 1841], I wonder whether this might have some relevance. I think a secondary reference is needed, perhaps it is mentioned in Dash (2001). cygnis insignis 17:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what Browne's sentence means, much less the footnote. I'd love to see contemporary or near-contemporary accounts cited, but first I'd like to know what it means, then decide whether it is relevant, as far as Dash, I was appalled by the book. It just repeated quaint old stories. Looking for backup in the notes, I found there was no backup. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Opium Bulbs?[edit]

Were most of the tulip bulbs actually opium bulbs and the people who were going crazy trying to buy the bulbs were actually opium addicts? Historians cover up that the spice trade was actually about opium and some people in the Netherlands were involved in the "spice" trade at this time. It makes more sense that people who are addicted to opium would pay a extremely high price for opium bulbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tulip mania. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)