Talk:Tulip

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Robles Soriano.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iakosman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Poor English ...
... and poor editing throughout. We even get Gesner in one place and Gessner in another. Can someone tidy up this utter mess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.211.178 (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tulips
What is some information on the Black Tulip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.182.29 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you fuse tulip bulbs?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.225.97 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the author and publisher (& date)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.36.60 (User talk:24.129.36.60) 01:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

most young children like tulips and think of them most often when they hear the word flower. the next flower that comes to a childs mind is the rose and many other flowers but tulips are most often thought of in young childrens minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.238.50 (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is in need of major editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.4.43 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mixed Sentences
Obviously, two sentences have been accidentally mixed here. Kostaki mou (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement
Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:2005-04-08.FH-616.Tulip.jpg in the gallery, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Holland?
It was already stated in article, that tulips are from Middle east, and are associated with Holland by mistake in... Please, remove that one wikiproject stamp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.16.222 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tulips are not associated with the Netherlands "by mistake". They are associated with the Netherlands because the growing of tulips (and tulip bulbs) is a major contributor to the Dutch economy, and has been significant for over 400 years.  It is up to a national Wikiproject to decide whether an article is significant to that project.  Perhaps surprisingly, only the Wikiprojects covering Afghanistan and the Netherlands have decided that it is significant to their area of coverage.  Skinsmoke (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the name
The names doesn't find his origin in the Ottoman language, but in the Persian language. It derives from the word Persian word dulband. Any claims of Turkish or Ottoman origin is false!

Etymology: any of various plants belonging to the genus Tulipa. from French tulipe, from Persian dulband.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Persian_origin#T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.215.17.254 (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for discussing your changes to the article. (I wish more editors would bother.) You're both right and wrong. It was ultimately derived from the Persian, but it came through both Turkish and French before it entered English. Some dictionaries (e.g., Merriam-Webster and Random House) don't go into sufficient detail to include the ultimate origin and require one to look up turban to find the Persian part. In their defense, the word appears to have been applied to the flower for the first time by the Ottomans; dulband was strictly the headwear. (American Heritage and Oxford American make this clear in one entry.) So, like many words in the English language, tulip has a complex history. The Turkish part was most critical because that's where the meaning shifted. That should be reflected in the article, and I'll see what I can do. (I see you also removed the part about the flower's supposed origins in the Ottoman Empire. That was poorly worded and should have specified the commercially cultivated flower. I'll see if I can fix that, too.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Update: I made some changes. The section (and, in fact, the article) could use some more work, but I hope to have forestalled any Persian-Ottoman back-and-forthing by describing the etymology more fully, anyway. I also changed the wording to mention continents, not countries, since the range is so wide. Rivertorch (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Props on Kazakhstan photo
Just wanted to say what a gorgeous photo of the wild tulip. Amazing how much it has changed due to breeding.Peeweebee (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear Statements
I've been working on the tulip article recently, and I've come across several statements that for one reason or another seem unclear. I can try to resolve some of them myself, but if anyone has access to a good source, I thought I might point them out.

In the introductory section, does "northeast of China" refer to the northeastern part of China, or northeast from China?

In the first two paragraphs of the description section, many very technical terms are used, and I couldn't find clear definitions for some of them from a dictionary or Wikipedia.

There are also some sentences in the third paragraph of the same section that seem to contradict each other.

In the section about the tulip's introduction to Europe, the description of Sampaio's role in India is confusing. I'm not sure if he was actually a governor or just a usurper. It's possible that it's irrelevant to the article though and we can just remove that statement.

Finally, what full name is normally used for the poet Saadi? Is he always referred to as just Saadi, or is one part of his name normally preferred? Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have one potential book source and will try to take a look over the next several days. You might consider tagging unclear statements—e.g. —and then deleting those that are seriously detrimental to the article if no one clarifies them in a reasonable period of time. The article has had some long-term problems and has been on my to-do list for a thorough copyedit for over a year. I do think your recent changes have improved matters. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I marked the sentences with "clarify" tags and the technical language with "elucidate" tags (not sure if that's actually the appropriate template). Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page format
I also wanted to ask if anyone would mind me re-organizing the talk page. I wouldn't be deleting anything, and this talk page is small so I shouldn't have to archive or split any threads into separate sections. If anyone's unsure about how it might turn out, you can see some changes I made to the Shang Dynasty talk page to get an idea of how I might do it. Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it ain't broke... Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. If the formatting towards the top isn't bothering anyone, I'll let it be. Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Additions to the Horticultural Classification
First time additions to Wikipedia here, I have information on some of the Horticultural classifications Div. 11 - Double Late  Div. 12 - Kaufmanniana and Div. 14 - Greigii. : Double Late - Large, heavy blooms. They range from 18-22 in. tall; flowers may be damaged by rain or wind in exposed locations. : Greigii - Scarlet flowers 6 in. across, on 10 in. stems. Foliage mottled with brown. Early flowering. : Kaufmanniana - Waterlily tulip. Medium-large creamy yellow flowers marked red on the outside and yellow at the center. Stems 6 in. tall. Very early bloom. Permanent gardens. Citations

Uxbz44 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add this information to the article itself. Note that you must not use the exact wording in the source, but must paraphrase and add only the information. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem
The paragraph, "In Persia, to give a red tulip was to declare your love. The black center of the red tulip was said to represent the lover's heart, burned to a coal by love's passion. To give a yellow tulip was to declare your love hopelessly and utterly.[9]" is unfortunately taken verbatim from the referenced source. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. Invertzoo (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Lopo Vaz de Sampaio
The paragraph on the introduction of tulips by Lopo Vaz de Sampaio is without source and obviously wrong, because of a lack of tulips in India. Any arguemnts against deleting it? Hellebore3 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * None that I can see. Unreferenced, challenged material can always be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

think of the children
I came to this page wanting to learn about Dutch Tulips and was absolutely shocked to see the vile pornography on display. There's not one but two completely unnecessary pictures of tulip genitalia, including an extreme closeup of an erect tulip penis stamen covered with ejaculate pollen! Imagine the damage these images are causing to the innocent children who view this page! I know some people are going to whine about how Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED but this isn't about censorship; it's about basic botanical decency. At the very least, can't the pornographic images be replaced with diagrams? They would have greater pedagogical value without being so vulgar. And can the stamen picture at least be moved to the bottom of the page? 24.19.238.217 (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Plants don't have penises nor ejaculate, so one can only assume this post is a joke. And if it's not a joke, the poster should ask themselves why, when looking at botanical images, they visualise them in terms of human sexuality. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it's scientific and educational. The purpose of the images is clearly not pornographic. Drsruli (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Disputed etymology
The article had the paragraph:


 * Tulips are called laleh (from Persian لاله, lâleh) in Persian, Turkish, Arabic, and Bulgarian. In Arabic letters, "laleh" is written with the same letters as Allah, which is why the flower became a holy symbol. It was also associated with the House of Osman, resulting in tulips being widely used in decorative motifs on tiles, mosques, fabrics, crockery, etc. in the Ottoman Empire.

to which an IP added:


 * ((there is no flower in Arabic called "laleh" or "لالـه" so this meaning and connecting it to Allah is wrong!))

The only reference given (Christenhusz et al. 2013) did not support any language but Turkish, so I have revised the article to fit the source. If the origin is Persian, and the name is also used in Arabic and Bulgarian, sources need to be provided if this material is restored. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Synonyms
I've added to the species list a few names that as of 5 May 2015 appear as "accepted" in the WCSP list but are treated as synonyms by Christenhusz et al. I would expect WCSP to be updated at some point. One of the names currently has an article (Tulipa pulchella) which needs to be sorted. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Color or Colour?
Noticed significant use of both spellings. Should the language be English English or American English?User-duck (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's not a logical reason for a particular spelling (and in this case, there isn't), it's helpful to look back at earlier stable versions of the article. MOS:RETAIN advises: "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's changed ("post-stub"). This article goes back to 2002, and used colour from the start. Articles more often drift from British to American spelling than the other way, in my experience. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem that the original was in British English. I fixed some inconsistencies in "-our" and "-ise" endings and added an edit notice. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to a highly competent British editor on this matter, of course, but I was under the impression that "hybridize" was an exception and usually spelled (spelt!) with a 'z' in the UK. For instance, this has "hybridize" but "naturalised". I'm sure I've seen it that way in various bulb-related British publications, but Chambers and Oxford indicate either spelling is accepted, so I'm sure it doesn't matter. Just curious. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   14:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * there are two systems in use in the UK for spelling "-ise/-ize" verb forms, and two templates available in in the English Wikipedia – British English and British English Oxford spelling. I have long (very long!) preferred the latter, so if I have a choice, as with a new article, I use Oxford spelling, which uses "-ize" (but never "-yze"). However, Oxford spelling is a definite minority in the UK. If you see a mixture of "-ise" and "-ize", it's wrong. If you see a consistent use of "-our" and "-ize" it's likely to be British English with Oxford spelling or Canadian English. My view is that since the default here is definitely US English, it's best to explicitly mark articles that are in a different ENGVAR. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Being American, I am likely to (inadvertently) introduce American spellings. I did notice the inconsistency and asked the question. Thanks for resolving this. Is there a "Bot" that detects a departure from the preferred language variety? I would have thought "spelt" might be a misspelling but I would have checked.User-duck (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No bot that I know of. The general advice is not to worry too much about ENGVAR variations – content is much more important. A copyeditor will eventually sort it out. When I've wanted to get US spelling right (e.g. at Cactus), I've copied and pasted the text into a Word document and run the spelling check with the language set to US English. But this doesn't fix other issues, e.g. US prescriptive rules on the use of "which" and "that", which baffle me! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Daughter pages
I think we can work towards splitting off taxonomy (eg see Narcissus (plant)) which currently takes up most of the page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Completed, Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Fragrance
Scented tulips exist, however the article does not even mention that most varieties do not have pronounced fragrance. Drsruli (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have some good sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty well known! But an absence can be hard to reference. The index to the 420-odd pages of Pavord, Anna, The Tulip, 2nd edn 2019, Bloomsbury Publishing, ISBN 9781526602688 has nothing for "fragrance", and two entries for "scent", one under "lack of". Both are pretty tentative, & relate to C16 writers. Very few of her pages of entries for current varieties mention it, though "Monte Carlo" and "Brown Sugar" are "scented" and "Creme Upstar" "fragrant". The only species mentioned for scent seem to be the "strongly scented" T. Hungarica, which you won't see in English gardens, and the "lightly fragranced"  T. Kaufmanniana, which you can. Added. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Scented varieties: Apricot Beauty, Bellona, Verona, Angelique, Ballerina. However, first, the article ought to mention that it's generally a non-fragrant flower, like dandelions and sunflowers. (Ah, I see that that has been remedied. Thank you.) Drsruli (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Confusion between botanical genus and ornamental tulips
Consider [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulip&diff=1149546660&oldid=1149370173 this edit]. The problem is that when the article originally said "While tulips had probably been cultivated in Persia from the tenth century, they did not come to the attention of the West until the sixteenth century", it meant tulips cultivated for ornamental use, not wild species. Yes, there are native species of tulips in southern Europe, but they don't appear to have been used as ornamental plants. There's quite a bit more of the article that needs clarifying in this respect, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

6th century
The article says:

A sixth-century legend, similar to the tale of Romeo and Juliet, tells of tulips sprouting where the blood of the young prince Farhad spilt after he killed himself upon hearing the (deliberately false) story that his true love had died

But according to reliable sources, references to tulips first appeared in 10th century persian poetries and literary work. There is no evidence for tulip cultivation before the 10th century. Hu741f4 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it its "16th"? On the other hand, miraculous flowers do not need to be cultivated varieties, surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)