Talk:Tulip mania

Social mania and legacy - Board Game

I am unsure whether it's relevant enough to mention but a modern board game about the Tulip Bubble has been released: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/229414/tulip-bubble It's a recent release (demoing at the UK Games Expo 2018) but has been receiving positive reviews (I can imagine it becoming popular in board gaming circles). Wight1984 2018-06-05 16:15 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.183.149 (talk)

No such thing as social or fool or lose or folly or low or dregs or passionate about or coveted or satire or not, cep the judges, think, do, be, can think, do, be any no matter what and any be perfect. Buying tulips can be just perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickelp (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

lede

Why isn't the onset date in the lede?Kdammers (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

FAR needed

The article has not been reviewed formally since its 2008 promotion. It is over-reliant on a handful of sources, tagged with citation needed several places, and suffers also from a see also & EL farm. Nutez (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It may be time to spruce up the article a bit. It is a controversial article, in that it presents the modern theory that there doesn't seem to have been anything that extraordinary about the event, or at least that there is not enough documentation to show that anything extraordinary occurred. Still it is an extraordinary story - the story itself, not necessarily what actually occurred - so we would be remiss if we didn't have an article, and present the wildly different views, which include the much cited work "Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds" from 1841, modern economists and business commentators who rely on the 1841 book when they make brief mentions of the "event", and modern economists who have actually looked at the extent documentation. I'd guess Nutez means these last sources when he mentions "over-reliance on a few sources'. There is a wide range of sources presented, I see no reason to exclude the best sources available. I'll also object to him saying that there are several citation needed tags, there are 3, 2 of which he put in today. 2 of the 3 tags are not really needed, e.g. one is covered by the ref in the previous sentence, and "at least 6 versions of "Extraordinary delusions ..." are currently in print. That was written about 12 years ago, and is easily checked now. He should have done that. (I'll check this in a bit. I suspect that that @Nutez: just wants a review because the article doesn't match with his preconceived notions of the subject. That would be abusing the process. @SandyGeorgia: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Checking an Amazon search for "Charles Mackay" gives 10 different editions (publishers?) on the 1st of 34 pages of listings (2 are in Spanish) [1] IMHO that a pretty bad case of drive-by tagging. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I really don't have time to follow this (pinged you because I saw this on the FAR notifications), and am unwatching now -- but if you need me, please ping (particularly if I need to read or translate anything from Spanish). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Please stop misgendering me. I have indicated in my preferences that I am a female editor, and would politely request you use the appropriate pronouns. Thanks. It would also be great if you'd stop strawmanning. You are clearly projecting thoughts and conclusions onto me that I have not explicitly voiced. I posted a succint and to-the-point analysis of the article's problems, so that they might be dealt with. Please review WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL, before continuing in the same vein. Nutez (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, you do seem to be projecting on OP, and your post is a bit rambling and unfocused. Meanwhile on planet earth, have made various edits and trimmed per request. Most of which was removing stuff tacked on post the original FAC, in which I was closely involved. I am happy to dig out sources if needs be. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones and Ceoil: The person who left this original notice has retired and last edited in 2021, so I didn't ping them. There's been some amazing progress on the article since the notice, and I especially like that the history section has been broken up into level 3 headings. I think this is close to being marked "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020. Some of my concerns are:

• Some paragraphs don't end with a citation, which is typically required at FAC nowadays.
• There are lots of citations in the lede, which I'm not sure are necessary per WP:CITELEDE. Is this information present in the body of the article, and can we remove these citations?
• There are some references that are not used as inline citations. Can they be included (recommended) or moved to a Further reading section (not recommended)?

Thanks everyone, let's get this removed from WP:FARGIVEN! Z1720 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones and Ceoil: After several months, it looks like the above has not been addressed yet. I'm going to give a second notice to this article. If no one is able to address the concerns above, I will nominate it to FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"not enough price data is available to prove that a tulip bulb bubble actually occurred"

This significantly overstates the sources cited. In reconsidering Mackay's sensational account, "price data" is not a decisive source about what occurred or did not; there are also legal records, correspondence, and the more descriptive parts of the Samen-Spracek satire. The revisionist sources concur that in winter 1636-37 speculation in tulips became faddish among urban merchants and artisans, and that tulip prices spiked by an order of magnitude at the same time. I propose instead the wording "Many modern scholars believe that the mania was not as destructive as he described, but was scarcely felt beyond the urban merchants and artisans who participated." 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Currently "Many modern scholars believe that the mania was not as destructive as he described, but was limited to cliques of urban artisans". But should "many" not be "most"? The preceding sentence is "Mackay claimed that many investors were ruined by the fall in prices, and Dutch commerce suffered a severe shock." - does anybody now believe the 2nd part of this? Johnbod (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Background

The background-section was removed some time ago in accordance with DENY. There were also imo issues with the sourcing and citation overkill. It is possible to write a passable background section using only the main sources of this article. I've written one for the svwiki-version and could translate it if there is any interest. It is at 700 odd words so it might need some trimming. Either way I'm not gonna go poking around in a featured article without consulting the locals first. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that too much - apart from User:Smallbones the main editors have not edited the article for many years. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems not to have been a large bubble

unless the evidence has just vanished. See this book review in the Smithsonian. ELSchissel (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)