Talk:Tulip mania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleTulip 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 trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 30, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 18, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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.

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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.

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

reference to Kipper und Wipperzeit[edit]

The article compares tulipmania to the slightly earlier (almost contemporaneous) Kipper und Wipperzeit, which was a gross debasement of the currencies of the Holy Roman Empire, a forerunner to the 1923 hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic. The article refers to similar manias as tulipmania occurring in the Kipper und Wipperzeit, with a reference to Kindleberger's book "Manias, Panics and Crashes". I have the 1996 third edition, rather than the later, but there is no mention of manias in it and I don't see why there should be - they are quite different phenomena. During hyperinflations, people are more concerned about buying bread than buying some exotic collectible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andersmith (talkcontribs) 03:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Social mania and legacy - Board Game[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

lede[edit]

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

FAR needed[edit]

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)