Talk:Black swan theory

Difference with black swan problem (problem of induction)
This is ridiculous. It is an attempt to pretend that this Taleb character invented the concept of the Black Swan fallacy. He, or whoever wrote it for him, should be damned well ashamed of themselves for this pathetic behaviour. I am going to delete the whole page unless someone sorts it out. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You are conflating this with the Black swan problem, i.e., the problem of induction. And please use sections for comments. Limit-theorem (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Giving all the credit to Taleb is ridiculous and I suspect whoever wrote this is either a friend or admirer of Taleb. Considering I've known of the Black Swan problem ever since I studied philosophy in the 1970's it can hardly be a metaphor that was created in 2001 as stated in this article. MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The metaphor belongs to Juvenal. Hume is the problem of induction. The book as I recall has pages and pages on Hume. I am not sure Hume ever mentioned "black swan" in any text but worth investigating and finding a reference. Limit-theorem (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Title section summary
The title section gives a summary of Taleb's theory (ideas?) that doesn't seem to rest on any actual statements, and seems to make sloppy use of otherwise rigorous terms, more specifically:


 * The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:
 * The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.


 * What is the "realm of normal expectations in history, [etc]"?


 * "Disproportionate" with respect to what?


 * The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).


 * What "nature of small probabilities" warrants their "non-computability"?
 * Where did Taleb make this claim?


 * The psychological biases that blind people, both individually and collectively, to uncertainty and to a rare event's massive role in historical affairs.


 * Where did Taleb get to explain "psychological biases"?
 * What is there to support the claim that this is a goal in his "theory"?
 * Where did he make the statement that people are (generally) blinded to uncertainty?
 * Where did he claim that rare events have a "massive role in historical affairs"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.118.230 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

First Paragraph Suggested Re-write
The wording of this section is confusing - the sentence about 9/11 as well as the inferred link to Australia don't flow.


 * Current Text:
 * The event most commonly considered a black swan is the September 11, 2001 attacks. This term refers to the unexpected nature and unpredictability of the sudden observance of black swans that coincided with the discovery of Australia. Previously, the commonly held belief was that all swans were white in color.


 * Suggested Revision:
 * An event often referred to as a "black swan" is the September 11, 2001 attacks.


 * The term black swan comes from the ancient Western conception that all swans were white in color. In that context, a black swan was a metaphor for something that could not exist.  The  17th Century discovery of black swans in Australia metamorphosed the term to connote that the perceived impossibility actually came to pass.

Caen 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems better. I would add other events that were totally unexpected, but has tredemnous consequences. The personal computer and the Internet, were unexpected (especially their effect was). The same for the starting of Chrstianity YechezkelZilber 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made the change. The reason 9/11 is mentioned is that it is specifically referenced.  As for the PC, Internet, Christianity, etc., there would need to be a specific citation in which these things are mentioned, or perhaps a separate section such as "Examples of black swan events".  Caen 16:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * World War I was most definitely NOT an unpredictable event and has no place at all on the list. 9/11 is also highly doubtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.26.92 (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Article claims that "In that context, a black swan was a metaphor for something that could not exist." Is there a cite for this? Is it even true? Or did the metaphor kick in only after it was falsified? Kevlaw (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * someone here said "911" was a black swan event - why would it be when all these inside saudis were mysteriously let to fly back the next day when all planes were grounded? I believe the attacks were a loosley motivated deal behind the scenes so that a group of mostly saudi "terrorists" were caught attempting to do this so that the people in wait (those sent "back" mysteriously which no one ever talks about and were not going back due to "safety" concerns but to take over the planned regime change not in iraq but saudi arabia as there was hoped to be a public outcry and "evidence" that "groups" there needed to be culled out) ...what went wrong? we'll never know probably incompetence but this was not a black swan event and therefore a poor example and one which irks me as the conversation about black swan theory if you want to call it that is rather dismal then no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamrussellmorley (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is (but I speculate) is that such an event (and the consequences) was perceived as never to happen? Note: In the book, it is indicated that some scenarios of Black Swan events have sometime been indicated in advance, but in a way that is 'at the limit', and never expecting to happen. --Nabeth (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact is that almost nobody has actually prepared himself to first world war in advance nor 9/11. Remember also that now afer the fact we see those few who predicted it as much more central. As if before that they were heard. After the fact, those who predicted it in advance get lots of publicity giving the incorrect impression that they were that before the fact everyone heard aobut them, too. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How can 9-11 be a Black Swan event unless the WTC bombing in 1993 is also a Black Swan event? -- But if there are two, then neither is a Black Swan.Tobyw (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The magnitude and the effects were entirely unexpected. Even Bin-Laden was surprised by the strenght of the destruction and the west reaction.
 * When thinking about the 1993 failed bomb, some were imagining a terrorist attack killing such and such persons. Not a collapse of the buidling with the accompanying interenational shock etc. The size of the effect was a surprise for almost everyone. Same for War I. ppl knew a war can happen, but nobody expected such a bloodshed and the massive change in Europe Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Other views
At the risk of enduring flames, I've re-started the criticism section with re-worked verbiage from a prior edit that was thrown out as not-notable. From where I sit, Taleb's work is right at the core of ongoing arguments (see quasi-empiricism in mathematics), yet it brings a newer, and interesting, viewpoint to the debate. That the earlier entry referenced Amazon is not grounds for dismissal. The exodus of some learned social scientists from the academic environment so that they can apply their theories in the modern milieu founded upon the 'web' (Amazon, Google, etc.), with its ever-growing support for experiments across time and space, is one example that Taleb's work is of importance to the discussion. Besides, the Ludic fallacy is real. Let's apply it to proof and model theoretic issues, too. jmswtlk 00:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the earlier section for failing WP:CITE (re:Amazon reviews) and WP:OR. Although it fails both of these criteria, I've left your version in (tagged appropriately) because your point that the subject is a topic of much current debate and the section has much potential. Skomorokh  incite  00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism section is crap. It's one sentence, which doesn't actually offer any criticism, and it has a disclaimer. &mdash;Ashley Y 05:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted. &mdash;Ashley Y 08:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone here read the book?
I apologize if any of this sounds insulting, but this page does a poor job of describing what NNT outlined. It makes me question whether anyone working on this page actually read the book.


 * 1) Black Swans aren't hard to predict, they can not be predicted. Grey Swans are hard to predict (September 11). That's said in one of the other sections, directly contradicting the initial paragraph.
 * 2) The High Impact of the unexpected section should be completely rewritten. And corrected. Review the Ludic Fallacy page. Better yet, reread the book.
 * 3) NNT describes theories as "like medicine: often useless, sometimes necessary, always self-serving, and on occasion lethal". Therefore creating a page called Black Swan Theory, seems to be an invitation for scorn from the man himself.--Herda050 09:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could supply an example of a Black Swan event 74.66.228.167 (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Similar to Knightian uncertainty?
I wonder how far this is related to the Knightian uncertainty. Any suggestions?

BS theory is about extreme events. Indeed, many of these are hard to measure. Taleb talks much about our lack of knowledge which is partly about the unmeasurable. See also Unknown unknown whihc is also a term Taleb uses. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Taleb's Black Swan
It is important to note that Taleb's BlackSwan is different from the "black swan" of philosophy. It has an impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.56.228 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Taleb's Black Swan just another version of Chaos Theory? Or are chaotic events and knightian events just extremes of the overarching Black Swan Theory? Anyone's thoughts? Ssullman999 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Who originated this theory
Did Taleb originate the black swan theory (as applied to high impact low probability events that cause paradigm shifts) or did somebody else? I was under the impression that his book was not the first one to come up with this theory (since it is a core concept of risk management). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowbert (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The theory was originated by David Hume. This Taleb person obviously stole this idea from Hume and now promoting himself and his book using this Wikipedia page. 78.167.0.28 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Someone should edit this article. It is absurd to give the credit to Taleb rather than Hume. MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The Black Swan is not to be confused with "fat tails". Taleb's three attributes have no known precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.131.192 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Black swan is a metaphor not a theory. The page should be renamed to The Black Swan.

I never read The Black Swan but Taleb describes it in great detail in his previous book Fooled by Randomness which I did read. Which doesn't really answer the question but dates the concept back at least 6 years or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.162.70 (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to sources that are cited in the article, there is one more. Plotinus writes in his Enneades (Second Ennead, Sixth Tractate ) about qualities that are constitutive or accidental for something. He says there: "In the swan the whiteness is not constitutive since a swan need not be white". Apparently, Plotinus did not assume that all swans are white! Sdraganov (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge?
Could this be merged with the book he wrote about black swan theory? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Merging the two would not be adequate. The "Black Swan Theory" and The Black Swan Book are different items. The book is not technical (it is a literary essay); the theory is more scientifically outlined in other writings such as "the fourth quadrant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.248.29 (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a scientific theory, I guess this "black swan theory" is not widely discussed by economists. A search on Google Scholar does not give many results (at this time). For this reason I think this article should be merged with the Black Swan book article.


 * Now the wiki article states: "The Black Swan theory (in Nassim Nicholas Taleb's version) refers to a large-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations." I think this is a description of a "Black Swan event" - I do not understand what the "Black Swan theory" claim is true, and what predicitions this theory makes.


 * Perhaps a better notion is the "Black swan thinking", which claims that current economic theory underestimates the impact of "Black Swan events". Ulner (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps merge the book with this article? There seems to be such substantial overlap, and frankly it all seems a little walled-gardeny. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that the article should be merged with the article on the book. I admire Taleb, but for a theory to be notable it needs to be discussed in the writings of more than one author. There was already writing on overconfidence effect before Taleb. The book is definitely notable; the theory isn't independently notable. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am against merging --The Black Swan events are part of the vocabulary. Taleb does not call it "theory" but BLACK SWAN EVENT. So I suggest changing names.NewEconomist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

Turkey? What?
Could someone please rewrite this sentence so it's not hidden in a cloud of unanticipated poultry metaphor?
 * A Black Swan surprise for the turkey is not going to be a Black Swan for the butcher—hence his idea is "to avoid being the turkey" by finding out where one may be exposed to be a turkey—and "turn Black Swans white".

I'd be grateful. 137.195.68.169 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Taleb uses an anecdote regarding the life of a turkey raised for slaughter to explain how the expectations of probability based upon day to day anecdotal experience can create a fallacy that will lead us into events that go horribly awry. I suggest just quoting that section of The Black Swan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.59.154 (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Challenge to the concern over Black Swans
This idea is primarily an issue for active investors. For the passive investor who holds their index portfolio for a risk-appropriate period of time, there are no black swans.

When Eugene Fama was asked to comment on the Black Swan, he stated, "Half of my 1964 Ph.D. thesis is tests of market efficiency, and the other half is a detailed examination of the distribution of stock returns. Mandelbrot is right. The distribution is fat-tailed relative to the normal distribution. In other words, extreme returns occur much more often than would be expected if returns were normal.

There was lots of interest in this issue for about ten years. Then academics lost interest. The reason is that most of what we do in terms of portfolio theory and models of risk and expected return works for Mandelbrot's stable distribution class, as well as for the normal distribution (which is in fact a member of the stable class). For passive investors, none of this matters, beyond being aware that outlier returns are more common than would be expected if return distributions were normal.

For other applications, however, the difference can be critical. Risk management by financial institutions is a good example. For example, portfolio insurance, which was the rage in the early 1980s, bombed in the crash of October 1987, because this was an event that was inconceivable in their normality based return model. The normality assumption is also likely to be a serious problem in various kinds of derivatives, where lots of the price is due to the probability of extreme events. For example, news story accounts suggest that AIG blew up because its risk model for credit default swaps did not properly account for outlier events. See Fama/French Forum.

As I noted in the External Links section, histograms of index portfolios over appropriate holding periods do not show black swan events. See Simulated Passive Investor Experiences.

This is important data relative to Taleb's claims that investors should be concerned over such events. Rare events like these balance out over time and are more likely to be positive than negative. The worst one month return for the S&P 500 occurred on 9/31 and was -29.74%, while the best one month return occurred on 4/33, and it was 42.55%. See Eight One Years of Monthly Rolling Data, see S&P 500, page 21.

Mark Hebner 76.175.202.232 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhebner (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark Hebner you should not make edits to a wikipedia page on Fama's ideas when you sell products related to DIMENSIONAL FUND ADVISORS. You are violating the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.69.1.178 (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark Hebner is an independent investment advisor, who receives no compensation from any products that he advises his clients to invest their assets. Therefore, he is not "selling" Dimensional Funds. He acts as a fiduciary for clients and therefore provides advice in their best interest and has a non-biased point of view that is highly valuable to wikipedia. Mark Hebner 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhebner (talk • contribs)

philosophical approach taht was deleted
this section was removed, and I do not understand why. the two fold problem is a good distinction. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Taleb's problem is about epistemic limitations in some parts of the areas covered in decision making. These limitations are twofold: philosophical (mathematical) and empirical (human known epistemic biases). The philosophical problem is about the decrease in knowledge when it comes to rare events as these are not visible in past samples and therefore require a strong a priori, or what one can call an extrapolating theory ; accordingly events depends more and more on theories when their probability is small. In the fourth quadrant, knowledge is both uncertain and consequences are large, requiring more robustness.


 * Then it should be back in text. It does correspond to the Black Swan (Taleb). NewEconomist (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization / Name Change
In the prefix of this article, it notes that Black Swan Theory should be capitalized as a specific concept. Yet the article itself is simply Black swan theory. Should the article be fully capitalized? dimo414 (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * it will mess up various links. In which case, redirect pages has to be created. As for capitalization, I have no idea Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't mess up anything as redirects are created automatically. -Koppapa (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason "black swan theory" or "theory of black swan events" should be capitalized. English doesn't work that way. We don't capitalize anything that sounds important. --Tysto (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Theory?
If not more than one example can be found for a black swan event, this page should surely be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.84.88 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole meaning of "black swan event" is an event that is unique or so infrequent that in human experience it is perceived as being unique. Black swan theory deals with such events (plural). — Robert Greer (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

38.121.134.234 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Precisely my point. What are the examples? An Earthquake in Japan? Are you kidding me? Taleb's own examples are even stupider. Harry Potter? Viagra? Seriously. Anyone thinking 9/11 was inherently unpredictable should read this: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/15/opinion/la-oe-rowley-wikileaks-20101015 Lift your game people. You've been taken for a ride.

Better example needed
The lone example currently given is not valid: 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. John Kay said it was not a Black Swan:
 * http://www.johnkay.com/2011/03/16/why-we-struggle-with-our-roulette-wheel-world

Magnitude 9.0 earthquakes are not unprecedented:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Valdivia_earthquake

- Ac44ck (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally some sanity prevails here. But alas we have NO examples now. What a tragedy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.134.234 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're a troll. The earthquake in Japan has resulted in the Japanese government deciding to phase out nuclear power. If that is not a black swan event, then I don't know what is? Maybe if they built bigger walls, thicker reactors etc attitudes might have been different. But they didn't plan for a super tsunami - a 1:1000 year event - so this is the result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.28.225 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Precisely, you don't know what is. There is no black swan "theory" and you have clearly been fooled by rambling if you cannot (and I will not relent on this point) come up with a single example.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.84.88 (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An excessive knee-jerk reaction to a single event at a nuclear power plant is not unprecedented. The Three Mile Island accident brought nuke building to a halt in the US. Hence, a similar reaction by the Japanese government is not a black swan event, it is a copy of a previous CYA campaign elsewhere. - Ac44ck (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the example given on the following post - http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2011/07/july-28-2011-real-black-real-swan.html 167.30.73.70 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO this whole theory is flawed. 1) Black swans may be rare but they don't cause a great (or any?) change in the general swan population. 2) Numerous other phrases and similes already exist which do actually make sense. 3) Defining any human-driven event as completely unpredictable is foolish and natural events will all have precedent.

"Theory" - vote on name change
There appears to be quite a bit of discussion as to whether this article is about a theory or not. Can I propose a name change to "Black Swan (unpredictable event)" and changing the first three paragraphs to remove references to "theory". Edratzer (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * CHANGE. NNT in public has denied that Black Swans are a theory.  Black Swans do not offer predictive power. Edratzer (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP. I agree with you that it is not a theory, but it is probably too late to fix. Marketing trumped pedantry. If the name of the article is changed, a redirect with the current name would probably be added. Being more factual in titling this article would only clutter Wikipedia.
 * WP:Verifiability
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
 * That may be an institutionalisation of
 * Argumentum ad populum
 * If many believe so, it is so.
 * But that won't be fixed by renaming this article. - Ac44ck (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Theory" - vote on name change
There appears to be quite a bit of discussion as to whether this article is about a theory or not. Can I propose a name change to "Black Swan (unpredictable event)" and changing the first three paragraphs to remove references to "theory". Edratzer (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * CHANGE. NNT in public has denied that Black Swans are a theory.  Black Swans do not offer predictive power. Edratzer (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP. I agree with you that it is not a theory, but it is probably too late to fix. Marketing trumped pedantry. If the name of the article is changed, a redirect with the current name would probably be added. Being more factual in titling this article would only clutter Wikipedia.
 * WP:Verifiability
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth
 * That may be an institutionalisation of
 * Argumentum ad populum
 * If many believe so, it is so.
 * But that won't be fixed by renaming this article. - Ac44ck (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:TITLE: "not a theory, but it is probably too late to fix..." etc.


 * "The philosopher Edna Ullmann-Margalit detected an inconsistency in this book and asked me to justify the use of the precise metaphor of a Black Swan to describe the unknown, the abstract, and imprecise uncertain—white ravens, pink elephants... Indeed, she caught me red handed. There is a contradiction; this book is a story, and I prefer to use stories and vignettes to illustrate our gullibility about stories and our preference for the dangerous compression of narratives... The metaphor of the black swan is not at all a modern one—contrary to its usual attribution to Popper, Mill, Hume, and others. I selected it because it corresponds to the ancient idea of a “rare bird.” The Latin poet Juvenal refers to a “bird as rare as the black swan”..."


 * "I can predict when an author is about to plagiarize me, and poorly so when he writes that Taleb “popularized” the theory of Black Swan events."


 * —Machine Elf 1735  23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Swan event outside the verification of Taleb.
Black Swan events by token of the theory outside the present verification of the author of the theory:
 * 1) The Titanic disaster, North Atlantic Ocean. April 14/15, 1912 Sinking of the Titanic
 * 2) The Japanese bombing strike against United States naval base Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. December 7, 1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor

Wikipedia rejects attempts to introduce these events on its page «Black swan theory» Black swan theory. In returned notations it is that only a verifiable and introduced reliable source would permit the entry within the Wikipedia article. --Laurencebeck (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I rather agree with Laurencebeck (talk). I haven't checked to see if both events remain in the Black swan theory article. If still present, consider removal, for the reasons stated above, no? --FeralOink (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both suggestions were implemented some time in April 2012, I just confirmed. Thank you. --FeralOink (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should rename "Examples" to "SAP System Failures"
Surely the must be better examples of Black Swans than these SAP-related system failures. Wikifier (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I’m more concerned about the section being full of arcane corporatespeak and computer engineering jargon. Concerned enough to tag it with a ((technical)) template, as a matter of fact.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite true, but if you read the history of other examples that eventually were deleted, SAP implementation is all that is left. Should we then have NO examples listed?Wzrd1 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not corpspeak as much as it's very badly written. Improve the grammar, punctuation, and spelling and it would be much clearer. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is some jargon and poor use of language. I'm not acquainted with the specific cases listed, so I'm not really able to help clarifying it. The best I can think of to initially clarify it is to explain the software, rather than use specific vendor product names, as most non-IT types don't know what SAP R/3 is, ERP or what a Pinnacle is beyond the geographic term. I'm not even certain one could call it Black Swan for some, as over-expectation of a new software platform and sweeping software changes project implementation issues, incorrect assumptions on the capabilities of the new technology and byzantine failures in communicating needs vs what is being implemented that fragment and ultimately derail a major technology project. Perhaps one IT example and perhaps a more natural Black Swan event, such as West Nile Virus causing ecological impact that was totally unanticipated, under-appreciated until wildlife population crashes and human disease clusters brought it to national attention. A major impact is a rather relative term, depending on what is being considered impacted. The Black Swan isn't what is considered impossible, it tends to instead by a completely surprising event that was not dismissed, but never even considered, as it never occurred in the past and resulted in a significant impact. Hence, the Titanic sinking wasn't by itself a Black Swan event, but the deaths due to a lack of sufficient lifeboats being available may potentially be considered one, due to regulations requiring sufficient lifeboats on vessels after the event.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just returned to this article after being away a few months. I lol'd at the sub-heading here, on the talk page! And shuddered when I read those monolithic blocks of boring and excessively detailed prose in the "Examples" section. No, that isn't fair, nor even accurate. They aren't boring, if I read them from the mind set of say... a Harvard Business School case study on IT project management disasters. Yet I doubt that that is what we need here. Good point about nothing else being an example of this Black Swan Theory. As others have said, it is somewhat due to there not quite being a theory, not according to Taleb, but more of an event, which is covered elsewhere. But the term has taken on a life of its own, outside of Wikipedia, so I understand that we can't merge or expunge it. I DO like Wzrd1's example of the deaths due to the Titanic sinking, as it is more accessible than ERP. I will try to get back to this, do something about it. If I do, I would like to excerpt some of Wrzrd1's wording above. Is that acceptable? If not, Wzrd1 can feel free to do so, as I might not get around to this for awhile anyway. --FeralOink (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement
The whole page reads like an extended advertisement for Taleb's books. Did he perhaps write the whole page himself? Or maybe some PR flack for his publisher wrote it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.30.132 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like an attempt to force the phrase into the common vernacular, using Wikipedia as the vehicle for that effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.227.246 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Any attempts at changes are reverted. Genetikbliss (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The fallacy was widely known before Taleb's book from 2007. I think that the general concept should be placed in Black swan fallacy (which now redirects to Falsifiability) and Taleb's work should be moved to The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Menemenetekelufarsim (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No objections for two months, so I will move the general concept to Black swan fallacy now. Menemenetekelufarsim (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are conflating the idea of black swan events (Taleb) and the fallacy. This does not read like advert. PopulationGeneticsLevant (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Since reverted 's edit here, I reverted the edit of Black swan fallacy back to a redirect. See also the Wiktionary entry black swan fallacy. We would need more content about the black swan fallacy to justify expanding the redirect into an article. Biogeographist (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Reception/criticism
The author of this book seems to have made some pretty bold claims about the nature of history and predictive models. Surely someone has responded, or otherwise, why not? Did the book have any impact at all? If not it might not be notable enough to justify the article's existence. 138.16.21.199 (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article has no examples of such events. Those that did exist have been debunked and removed. If there are no examples, what makes the concept notable? - Ac44ck (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merge with The_Black_Swan_(Taleb_book), which refers here:
 * See Black swan theory for Taleb's definition of a Black Swan Event.
 * Putting his definition in the article about his book could eliminate this article, which seems to offer little support for the theory from other sources. -Ac44ck (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant Pictures
Considering the pictures don't actually relate to the article, maybe it would be more fitting to just include the first picture? Archlinux (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black swan theory. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903065011/http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2636 to http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2636

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black swan theory. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031200537/http://israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=512&ArticleID=1297 to http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=512&ArticleID=1297

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black swan theory. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907061933/http://www.wrap20.com/files/The_Black_Swan.pdf to http://www.wrap20.com/files/The_Black_Swan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content related to "deleted article"
Would it be possible to link to an archive of the article, or ask around for a copy, instead of deleting the content outright? Vecr (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working." is a Wikipedia guideline: WP:DEADREF.
 * I reverted: I restored the content of this article that was deleted 2020 May 1. And I ask everyone to revert any other such deletions that go against Wikipedia guidelines.
 * The page Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles describes the standard process for asking for a copy of an article that was on Wikipedia but has since been deleted. (It's unclear to me if the "black turkey (metaphor)" article ever did exist, or if instead redlinks were created in preparation for an article that still has yet to be created).
 * --DavidCary (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Anyway the reference should not be there as that article has no academic impact, compared to black swan that has > 11K. We only cite things that have some citation as indicator of encyclopedic relevance WP:NOT. I suggest removing the reference to that black turkey. 01:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for discussing this.
 * This is the first I've heard the claim that "We only cite things that have some citation".
 * Is there any Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay, etc. that supports "We only cite things that have some citation", or otherwise hints that the citation impact of some source has anything at all to do with whether we should use that source as a reference in a Wikipedia article?
 * Are you aware that the notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles ( WP:NOTEWORTHY )?
 * I certainly agree that there are some things that should not be in Wikipedia ( WP:NOTEVERYTHING ). In particular, I agree that there are certain sources that should not be used in Wikipedia ( WP:NOTRELIABLE ). However, it's not clear to me that "black turkey" falls under either one of those categories.
 * --DavidCary (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)