Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds/Archive 1

"Alleged" bubbles
Why is the Dutch tulip mania now an "alleged" bubble? If there is any doubt that it happened, or any doubt that it deserves to be called a bubble, those doubts should be described in the article. Plazak 13:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Tulip mania and the discussion page there. I think it's pretty clear now according to several modern scholarly sources that Mackay really overstated matters.  How much of that discusion should go here - some probably - but please feel free to put in the amount you think is reasonable.  Smallbones 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again - "Alleged" bubbles ?
The complete work was about far more than financial "bubbles" yet one would not suspect so from it's Wikipedia entry.

Focusing on the tulip(o)-mania as a primary "summary" of the book comes-over as deceitful. This particular phenomena forms only a small part of the whole work. (chapter 3 only, of 16 chapters in total). Chapters 1 and 2 which cover the "Mississippi Scheme" and "South Sea Bubble" are far more telling as a portrayal of the widespread susceptibility of the public to popular manias of the era than Tulip speculation alone. The speculative bubble of French fiscal policy arising from mismanagement and misunderstanding of the concept of fiat currency is surely one which would survive an historical critique distinct from that of "Tulipomania".

I fail to see how the term "alleged" could be applied by implication to the whole book, let alone the coverage of speculative bubbles. I feel this is the case particularly in context of his overall proposition that of an analysis of collective madness and wholesale delusional self-deceit of the public at large. Again, all of this regardless of whether McKay overstated the case for the tulip mania or not. Perhaps if it is felt that the coverage of "bubbles" stands criticism then this fact should be made in a way which renders it distinct from the rest of the work.

Also, what emerges from reading McKay is not "influence of politics and religion on..." (as stated) but quite the reverse - that of how politics and religion which frame our lives are plausibly affected by wholesale public lack of rationality. In particular it was shown in several chapters that no person was immune to collective-mania from kings and key-policy-makers down to commoners. Almost a fable for our modern era.

As an entry which attempts to be representative of the book as a whole the current entry does not yet do the work fair justice. If there are aspects of the remainder of the book which overstated the case these should be singled out and made clear along with a brief synopsis as to why this demonstrably the case rather than using the tactics of "spin" in focusing on a single critique of one facet of his work to attempt to dismiss the entire body. Focusing on one "convenient" area of a work in order to "apparently" lessen it's legitimacy is disappointingly common in Wikipedia. Whether that is the case here I don't know but the entry doesn't "come over" well at all and would stand extra work.

Chapers 5,6 and 10 covering Modern Prophecies, Fortune Telling, and the Witch Mania far more pertinent to the 21st century undercurrent of widespread self-deceit, spin, delusion and wholesale demagoguery by contemporary politicians. Also, some notes perhaps regarding the reverse proposition, that such mania effects government and policy (particularly fiscal policy) even if it is by means of belated remedial legislation following periods of purposeful lasses-faire as mentioned in chapter 2.

It would appear that critics have bothered only to read one or two chapters from the book - to put the remainder in context, here is a summary list of chapters. Compare this with the book's entry on the main page with one entry "Bubbles" being addressed in detail.

1. Money Mania.—The Mississippi Scheme 2. The South Sea Bubble 3. The Tulipomania 4. The Alchymists (file a.) 4. (cont.) The Alchymists (file b.) 5. Modern Prophecies 6. Fortune-Telling 7. The Magnetisers 8. Influence of Politics and Religion on the Hair and Beard 9. The Crusades (file a.) 9. (cont.) The Crusades (file b.) 10. The Witch Mania 11. The Slow Poisoners 12. Haunted Houses 13. Popular Follies of Great Cities 14. Popular Admiration of Great Thieves 15. Duels and Ordeals 16. Relics

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macExContents.html Online copy of the book for reference 86.6.60.72 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with the notion that the article as written spends all its times on the few 'financial bubbles' chapters and neglects the rest of the book. Moreover, the 'Bubbles' section seems to overemphasize the seemingly independent and objective research of Garber and Goldgar, which in fact is not objective at all - Both of these researchers have an axe to grind as strong proponents of the efficient market hypothesis. It seems that more sections should be added on the other books chapters and the bias that refers to 'alleged bubbles' removed from the 'Bubbles' section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a week has gone by without comment, I will begin the task of adding other sections to the article, and pruning the "Bubbles" section so as to make it more objective. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added alchemist and witch mania sections; I will soon be adding one on the crusades. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Edevorse
If anyone knows the definition of the word "edevorse", could you please add it to the article? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpbyrd3 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How many sections?
I'm looking for input on how many sections this article requires. I've added some of the major ones, such as witch mania, the crusades, and alchemists to go with financial bubbles, as these are the biggest sections of the book. Some of the other sections, however, are quite small - the "beards" section is less than 10 pages, for instance, and probably doesn't require its own section. Some of the others are less obvious. Suggestions about whether other sections should be added? Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)