Talk:Tulip mania/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tulip mania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Protonk Comments

 * Sources. References cited are authoritative.  I would add Ch. 11 of The Origins of Value, but that is just a quibble.


 * Lead the lead is too long. the MOS gives rough guideline for length and with the article as short as it is, the lead should be shorter.  I'm looking mainly at the third paragraph.


 * Images Image copyright tags check out.


 * Wording overall very good.  some adjectives and adverbs are unnecessary, but good overall.


 * Information This is an exceptional article. Well sources, clear, and informative.  the article does a good job placing the subject in context and does an excellent job of presenting the subject itself.


 * Room for improvement There is a probably a little too much weight placed on specific modern explanations for the bubble. I don't mean those explanations are wrong or unimportant.  I mean that in the context of the whole article, large chunks are devoted to individual explanations authored very recently.  It probably behooves us to edit those sections down somewhat.

Asking for Second Opinion In my view, this article meets all the criteria, but I'm going to ask for a second look in order to be sure. Protonk (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Protonk for jumping on this so quickly! I will work on trimming that lead down.  Regarding too much weight: This is an astute observation, but I'm not sure how to get around it.  I've already worked very hard to keep this article short, it's less than 25k of readable prose (not easy that--three of these sources are book length!) and these are complicated explanations.  Much of the length is not from repeating Goldgar, Garber and Thompson's arguments, but from explaining rather complex economic concepts.  I could shorten this by removing the explanations, but this would only serve to make an already short article inaccessible to people unfamiliar with the subject matter.  I don't think that would be a good strategy.  That's actually something of a wrong impression, however, that they're devoted to explanations authored recently.  The three recent authors summarize all the past scholarship as well.  So it's actually not as simple as three recent explanations, but collations of all sorts of information throughout history, by three different authors studying the subject recently.  I think that's a relevant distinction. --JayHenry (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mentioned the length and "weight" but didn't elaborate because I don't have a very good method to do so without eliminating accesibility or giving too much weight to Mackay. Upon some further reflections I have three suggestions:
 * Break off the "Social mania and legacy" subheader into an H2 header entitled something like "the legacy of social mania" or some such. This section could be expanded slightly.
 * Subsections (rational and legal explanations) should probably be retitled. Portions of the rational explanations subsection can better serve the article above in the "modern views" introduction.  It seems to me that the rational explanations section is advancing a few different positions:  gains/losses weren't necessarily realized, scope of speculation was narrow, and comparisons of similar products.  Only some of these are "rational explanations for the bubble".  Some of them are serious, important claims on the subject in general but probably belong outside a section entitled "rational expectations.
 * Perhaps (following on the above suggestion) we should follow the layout of the "modern views" more organically. The quote discusses concerns about importance and extent of the mania, perhaps we should order the section along thosse lines (or something like it).  Many of Garber's claims speak to the limited extent of the phenomena, but all of Thompson's claims appear to be about the mania's importance as an anomaly.
 * Just some thoughts. Protonk (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. The MOS guideline is LEAD, and I'm okay per MOS. I am happy to trim this, but I don't think I've actually run afoul of MOS here. --JayHenry (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great recent changes and very useful GA review.

Some minor stuff:

The 3rd and the last pix are purely decorative, but don't really detract much. I haven't read any Shiller lately, but I find it hard to believe that (approx) "It's generally considered to be the 1st speculative bubble." Ida thunk that as long as there were markets, that after the fact some market movements were viewed as "irrational." Maybe better "one of the first documented bubbles", but...

The suggestions on the headings are good, but it will take some work to find better ones. I like the word "Legacy" for the last subsection. The legacy here may be more important than the event.

I think perhaps that some bow to the greatness of Mackay should be made, if only to placate those editors who might think that this is too strong a "debunking." The Tulip bubble is an article of faith to some!

The table from Garber - Is he really saying that these exact goods were exchanged, or only that money of the value of these goods was paid (a basket of goods reflecting inflation). The footnote suggests, as my memory suggests, that it is the later.

Florins should be used consistently throughout, with a single reference to guilders made (I've made this change). Both are/were used but florin is the older term and I think Mackay uses it. "Guilder" refers to "golden" florins. The modern currency abbev. DFL refers to "Dutch FLorins."

Excellent work.

BTW, I do not consider myself to be an uninvolved reviewer.

Smallbones (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as the "first" speculative bubble is concerned, it probably is that in the European world. Check out the web available text from Origins of Value (linked above).  I'm guessing (really, this is speculation) that if there were a bubble in financial markets previous to this of great significance, it would have been noted.  And I think that--supporting the notion that this is the first "speculative bubble"--the use of futures contracts as financial instruments was practically non-existent in the west prior to the dutch markets.  I say practically because a number of interesting futures-like instruments existed in piecemeal fashions, but nothing resembling a working market.  And the introduction of futures is partially (IMO) what raised the hackles of many observers.  That's all conjecture on my part, so take it for what it is worth. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that reorganization suggestion Protonk. I've started it just now and will mull a bit and do more.  For some reason I can't find my copy of Shiller, but he actually makes an argument along the lines that bubbles can't really form without a media in which they can be disseminated.  A bubble without documentary evidence would basically be near impossible, he says.  I'm not sure I buy that, and Shiller himself does provide some other examples of events that have features of bubbles (but I can't remember what they were... I'll find the book eventually).  But actually, the point I wanted to make is more limited: that it's generally the first event studied in the speculative bubble literature... just need to think of a way to phrase it.  Agree about bowing a little deeper to Mackay.  The table (of pigs, sheep, wine, etc.) is originally from Mackay who claims those goods were actually exchanged for a bulb.  This fix is correct, btw.  Good catch!  Agree about florins too, thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to flesh out some more about tulips in the appropriate section, but it is a hellish few days coming so it will be sporadic. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've unexpectedly been called away from town. If it's necessary to put this on hold, please be aware that I won't be able to respond to anything for a few days. --JayHenry (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion
I think this article is ready for GA status. But with one caveat.

I would like to note that not all economists are convinced that Tulip mania did not constitute a bubble. There is no consensus on this issue. Given the sparse data, showing that it is possible for actors to be rational, and still have prices follow their historical trajectory, is not the same as proving that the actors were rational. Further, certain types of bubbles can exist even with rational actors. Lets not be so quick as to completely rule out the interpretation of historical contemporaries, based on a few studies done nearly 400 years later.

I've edited the article somewhat to reflect the continuing uncertainty, but I think it could use another going over to make sure that it does not state definitively that there was no bubble.

lk (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will work on these points. I think the sparsity of the data is especially important to note.  I did not intend to write this article as stating definitively that no bubble whatsoever occurred and I will give it another pass, as that is not an intentional impression.  As a note, the dueling interpretations are 250 years later and 400 years later.  No historical contemporaries wrote accounts of the Dutch economy being ruined, nor did the concept of a speculative bubble exist.  They wrote that prices rose very high (to them unimaginably high) and then fell rapidly.  Nobody disputes that. --JayHenry (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've learned that newer editions of Kindelberger apparently have a chapter devoted to Tulip Mania, and so I can use this to flesh out the other perspective. I have ordered it off Amazon and it should be here in a few days. --JayHenry (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the recent edits more than address my reservations. JayHenry has done an excellent job here, and I fully support this article for GA status. lk (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
The article does lean too heavily on a single analysis to "disprove" (or rather, dispute) the mainstream opinion of Tulip mania. The analysis argues that the original account was a "morality tale" designed to argue against the excesses of capitalism. But the new analysis, which attributes the bubble (or whatever we can call it) to government intervention, simply offers a new morality tale by substituting one enemy for another. Crucially, while the analysis points to the government intervention as a reason prices were driven up, I found no information to explain what caused the subsequent decline.

It's important to offer both views, but I find it rather odd that a single analysis borne out of the era of Reaganomics should suddenly upend centuries of previous views on the matter. My two cents.

--32.137.115.120 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How are Dash, Garber, Goldgar and Thompson a single analysis? I'm afraid I can't really address your concern because none of these four analyses are borne out of Reaganomics.  (And please point me to the modern refutation of the recent economics on the topic.  I'm not willfully ignoring something and I have no ulterior motive in presenting the article this way.  I'm honestly unaware of any modern scholarship you seem to be saying I've omitted.)  Thompson's point is not about government intervention, nor a normative judgment that this legal change should not have happened.  He's just saying that growing certitude of a legal change from a futures contract to an options contract would have this effect on price.  Thompson argues that prices collapsed when the change occurred (February) and it became obvious that no contracts were going to be honored.  If someone points to this as supporting evidence for deregulation (the only plank of Reaganomics that's conceivably relevant), then they have completely and utterly misunderstood Thompson. --JayHenry (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You correctly guessed that I am referring to Thompson's analysis. The section that describes it has been greatly improved, but I do think closing the article by citing a Slate columnist's musing about the status of the Tulip craze as an analogy lacks encyclopedic weight and greatly overreaches beyond the current academic debate. Thompson's analysis was narrowly focused on market efficiency and can't be said to undo the moral implications of, for example, the elites' decision to have the government intervene on the basis of their own fears. By all means cite modern research, but please remove the opinion of a columnist — one who admits he doesn't know enough to be able to tell whether Thompson's assessment is accurate at that. --32.137.115.120 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's interesting you read it that way. I included Daniel Gross for two reasons, 1) because the term is of particular interest because of its widespread use in financial journalism, and Gross speaks directly to this issue and 2) I included it as a skeptical voice.  Gross isn't saying they are correct, only if they are correct and his uncertainty was the reason I concluded with a quote  from him (as a Reliable Source voicing the exact reservations that you're voicing!).  Again, I'm not here as an advocate of the efficient market hypothesis nor to spread an anti-regulation/intervention POV.  I'd be willing to move Gross from, I guess "having the final word", but see no reason to remove him entirely. --JayHenry (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, I think that several columnists have earned the right to 'peer into the walled garden' of economic arcana. We can't reject the views of non-specialists on the basis that they don't share the same qualifications.  there is an ongoing argument about this in the legal profession (regarding the competence of reporters on the court beats) and the answer (at least in that case) is resoundingly in favor of the journalists.  Good, smart journalists can look at the economic world and draw interesting conclusions (or better, explicate and summarize the conclusions of the experts properly).  Granted, most journalists aren't smart or good, but there are a few who jump right to mind. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Passing
I've promoted this article as the 2nd opinion was satisified with the changes made. I think that the layout changes can be made at the leisure of the editors and that once those changes are made we can start pointing this article toward the path of FAC. Great job to jay henry. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)