Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb/Archive 3

Taleb's returns
I've changed the formulation concerning the returns of Universa to more closely follow WSJ. It would be nice if the article can give more details about the returns of funds which have been managed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, but it seems that those numbers are secret or non-public. It is also important that facts are supported by reliable sources. Ulner (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you and Merry Christmas. Bloomberg article says "according to investor documents" . So I suggest correcting your edit you are welcome to say "according to investor documents" or nothing (as understood since returns are necessarily according to investor documents). IbnAmioun (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merry christmas to you as well! I think your change is one good solution - deleting "(according to a person close to the fund)". What is a bit interesting is that (according to the WSJ article) there are several different Universa funds which had different returns - I guess from lowest 65% to highest 115% (here I guess they count from Jan 2008 to Oct 2008). Ulner (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the numbers in the article cherry-pick the good year. For registered funds, the SEC doesn't let you do that. But hedge fund operators can get away with it. Bear in mind that it is inherent in Taleb's approach to lose money in years when nothing exciting happens.  So it's deceptive to give only the return for one year. Can anybody get solid numbers from Universa, ones not cherry-picked? --John Nagle (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Returns for all years 2000-2004 and since 2007 available in WSJ and Bloomberg. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are statements of returns since [] [] and you yourself computed some other years. So please do not make false statements. and here are 2000-2004 []. This is serious business. Incidentally the links made by NAgle on Empirica Capital (and on this page) are to a finance blog (non fact checked nonreliable source) but it does not make a difference for now. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no problem explaining that the strategy does not make steady payment --provided you make it in a neutral way that is compatible with sources and evidence as strategy is not meant to derive steady income or income in good years. And then you are obligated to put the WSJ returns for 2009 and 2010. The other avenue is that you may say is that "there is no publicly available data" for other years except 2000, but the WSJ says "x" and Taleb in the 2nd ed. of the Black Swan claims "x". IbnAmioun (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whats the point of this discussion and what is its relevance to Taleb's Wikipedia entry? I strongly think Nagle has some personal issues and he def needs help. I am a bit concerned for Nassim Taleb as Nagle is beginning to come across like a crazed celebrity stalker and Wiki Monitors need to take note ( Taleb has been a target of death threats before). The guy is eating, breathing and sleeping Taleb and it is a little creepy to be honest. I also suggest completely ignoring the gentleman unless he has something sensible and relevant to say. The article is stable and there shoudnt be any tags or issues as of now. Mr Nagle is obviously in need of help and I wish him all the best.

Is there anyone at Wiki that can take a look at this situation? Thanks! ~Asim Asim samiuddin  —Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Asim samiuddin - please read No personal attacks. Ulner (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ulner is right, Asim should not be angry and can legitimately and as convincingly raise his concerns about the gravity of the pattern of behavior without inferring potential obsessive personal issues, whether these exist or not. IbnAmioun (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is a valueable addition to the Wiki article to compile known public figures from reliable sources about returns - such as published in Wall Street Journal. It would be nice to add the WSJ returns of 2009 and 2010 which have been discussed earlier above by IbnAmioun. Ulner (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not angry but it concerns me this gentleman's behaviour that is-. (Such behaviour is potentially dangerous and I do fear people who exhibit such behaviour). That said- point well taken-

BTW- I was looking at Paulson's Wiki entry and I didnt see any returns for the years we are arguing about. It only mentions what Paulson personally pocketed. Same for Steven A Cohen of SAC( A lot of times- returns are either not verifiable or are not posted). So what is interesting is that these guys actually "run" their funds and NNT does not "run" Universa. Just some food for thought. Is there some extra scrutiny/unnecessary details that this page is being subjected to? Asim samiuddin (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Asim
 * Ulner, you are a good faith editor and can do what you like. But let me explain. Everyone is not a quant like you looking from a finance perspective. Nassim is not a celebrity because he was a trader but because he is an intellectual for more general public with his ideas on risks and robustness in society. Detailed discussions on returns can be perhaps left on the various pages of the entities like emperica etc. (where, incidentally they can be found). And happy boxing day to all. IbnAmioun (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For an overview of the "cherry picking" problem, see, which has some good cites to academic papers on the issue. The problem with Taleb is that he talks publicly about his returns in good years, but doesn't release the figures for all years.  That's an inherently deceptive tactic.  It doesn't comply with the Global Investment Performance Standards, for example. Also, one editor here has indicated that Taleb's companies have more than one fund (for which we need a cite). If other funds under the same management are not being reported, that introduces survivorship bias.  For this article, the issue is that mentioning the returns for only the good years gives a false impression.  Much of Taleb's reputation is based on his claimed results as a trader, so this is highly relevant.   --John Nagle (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So Mr. Nagle you are implying here very explicitly that you are on a mission and using Wikipedia as a tool to bring down Taleb's reputation. And you are on a mission to conduct original research (and post from bogs for that), trying to rally followers.  IbnAmioun (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a very interesting question why Taleb is a celebrity - I personally think both his books (including his first book Dynamic Hedging), his provocative style as well as his returns (in many articles the good returns of his funds are mentioned) are important factors. If I had to pick one reason I would say his books. What do you IbnAmioun, Nagle and Asim think are the advantages/disadvantages of giving the known results in this article as well? Ulner (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ulner Taleb was a celebrity before his returns were known since his book was the highest nonfiction for 2007 before his returns were known.IbnAmioun (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see - I thought he mentioned at least some of his returns in Fooled by Randomness? And furthermore, he can be of even greater interest (to the public) if he has original ideas as well as a stellar record of fund performance. Still, even information about Taleb which is not related to why he is a celebrity can be relevant enough to merit inclusion in this article. Do you IbnAmioun think his returns are totally irrelevant, irrelevant, somewhat relevant, medium relevant or highly relevant? Ulner (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying relevant or not relevant if done right without libel. It is the mission to downgrade someone's reputation (as evidenced by 14 statements by Nagle) and use of "red herring" argument that is not relevant. Prof. Taleb made a statement in The Black Swan 2nd edition concerning the returns for his decade and the use of uneventful years against him (the use of survivorship bias) and it would obligatorily be needed to be there in any discussion of longer returns. Incidentally it is not the return but the prediction of the crisis that made him even more credible --that he made money was not so much the point. IbnAmioun (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, original skepticism about someone's market abilities like skepticism about September 11 or the man on the moon may be valid investigations for the wsj but they are not the job of wikipedia.IbnAmioun (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am curious why nobody outside wiki made a detailed work on Taleb returns.
 * my best guess is that what catches the eye in Taleb ismnot his returns, and somehiw reporters find it not extremely useful to work on it. Just my guess.
 * anyway, it starts to feel here like a blog. Snd original research is not far from what it is. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me say it again. Prof. Taleb wrote for the decade 2000-2009 returns "triple digits over the past decade" (from the power of compounding around 60 % and 100% and the down years are well stated and mild ) but there is no need to include statement here except if anyone mentions the decade returns it is obligatory to put it in to avoid problems. And should someone want to challenge it go to the WSJ. IbnAmioun (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again! From where is that quote; from WSJ or his latest book? Ulner (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From The Black Swan 2nd edition. There is no need to quote it except as a counter to attempts to smear (by now well known sources). Incidentally you can recompute it yourself from existing details in papers but should not post it here (your own computations) as it would be original research. IbnAmioun (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think easy mathematical computations does not constitute OR and should be allowed (anyone can follow the arguments and see if they are correct) if no other assumptions are needed. I have found the quote on page 371 in the second edition of TBS. It does not mention which funds (one or several) are involved (I have not read the whole chapter). Ulner (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And happy boxing day to you all! Ulner (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same to you. Feel free to post. 1.6 times 2 = 3.20, 220% (ar 60% in 2000 and 100% in 2008) so losses in bad years can't degrade too much.  It may show Prof Taleb in a too favorable light, and counter Mr. Nagle's attempts at degrading him for some strange anymosity. Also all strategies being similar (as the exact same Black swan protection was used by statements) the numbers might not change much. IbnAmioun (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * About the discussion on Universa returns: Every big return (up or down) will get much more publicity than a small return. If one looks at Universa's website, the phrase "Universa is an investment management firm that specializes in protecting its clients' portfolios against extreme risks" is the first to be presented when describing what is Universa. Therefore, the returns profile expected from such a strategy is the already known small losses big gain; if there was no such big gain when a crisis happened, that would be noteworthy. As Taleb's main activity recently has been writing (the 2nd edition of TBS and the release of TBOP, both published in 2010, painting him as a trader or statistician seems misguided (and the use of selective references is suspect). MCarr (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is notification that I removed a bad source for Empirica's returns lifted from a finance tabloid blog. A tabloid blog is certainly not a source of returns for an encyclopedia, for stories that did not make it to the media because of conflicts with fact-checked reliable sources like wsj and bloomberg. The tabloid blog though can be a source of harmless anecdotes.IbnAmioun (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ulner: pure facts from reliable sources stripped of all biases. The business subject of the bio is not sensitive to returns (visibly investors do their own fact checking and investigate records), only to irrelevant comments like "good returns" or "bad returns" or degrading comments accompanying the numbers. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Statements of Returns in Bio Section
I do not make standards on what is and what is not a gossip blog about the returns being "debated". But someone has inserted an unprofessional comment on trading in an otherwise factual bio (the other 20 years of finance do not have commentary). Should it stand as criticism, then it should be included in the section on criticism with the following statement adjoined to it as entitled by normal standards of neutrality.
 * "Most of the smear campaign I mentioned earlier revolves around misrepresentation of the insurance-style properties and performance of the hedging strategies for the barbell and “portfolio robustification” associated with Black Swan ideas, a misrepresentation perhaps made credible by the fact that when one observes returns on a short-term basis, one sees nothing relevant except shallow frequent variations (mainly losses). People just forget to cumulate properly and remember frequency rather than total. The real returns, according to the press, were around 60 percent in 2000 and more than 100 percent in 2008, with relatively shallow losses and profits otherwise, so it would be child’s play to infer that returns would be in the triple digits over the past decade (all you need is one good jump). The Standard and Poor’s 500 was down 23 percent over the same ten-year period. in The Black Swan 2nd Ed., p 371"I IbnAmioun (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Taleb may think it is "child's play" to estimate returns by cherry-picking two years and guessing the effect of the rest, but some of us have higher standards. A proper calculation is obviously necessary and might show Taleb's guesstimate to be rose-tinted. The most detailed data I have seen (which has not been contradicted by Taleb's "authorized rep", IbnAmioun) indicated a compounded return of about 5.5% per annum for the Emperica Kurtosis fund. This would equate to 70% per decade, which is worse than long term stock market returns, albeit better than recent miserable stock market performance. But much more than a few years data would be needed to get a reliable picture of long term performance. Giving no data except for rounded numbers for the very best years is virtually the most unbalanced presentation as possible. Elroch (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are Extrapolating from taleb's worst years, and excluding 2008. According to the wsj & bloomberg 2003 & 2004 were profitable. So what is the point? YechezkelZilber (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not extrapolate from Taleb's worst years, I formed a compounded average of the only detailed data anyone has exhibited for a "black swan" fund (3 years and 2 months of Empirica Kurtosis returns, including its best year). This data is both more precise and more comprehensive than the rounded number for the very best years mentioned in the NYT. With regard to truth as opposed to citability, there has been no reason so far to doubt the data, so it is to the disservice of the reader if the article retains the less balanced data from the WSJ.Elroch (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is Taleb closed Empirica and there are contradictions for 2003 and 2004 returns. We do know Empirica returned close to 60% and then had modest gains and losses. To measure Taleb's entire record We'd have to include Universa (and its 2008 performance). We can argue as much as we want but the bottom line remains that as a "Hedge Fund Manager who specializes in Tail Risk Hedging" he has been very successful and is a visionary in this field. It is apparent that such a strategy will have modest gains/losses at other "calmer" periods.
 * The basis is that those modest gains/losses will get overshadowed by a massive gain and a massive loss will be averted. Im all for crunching numbers in an unbiased way as long as we have real information(WSJ/Bloomberg and not business insider). That bottom line still remains. Thanks and a Hapy New Year to all Asim samiuddin (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Asim
 * There is no contradiction concerning 2003 and 2004 returns. The WSJ vaguely indicated that they were above zero, the data referred to by Weisenthal ended at February 2003, so the two are consistent (apart from the WSJ using a rounded figure for 2000). The compounded return per annum for the entire life of the fund depends on what the "single figure" gains mentioned in the NYT article were, but cannot be much more than the figure for the 3 years and 2 months.Elroch (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor IbnAmioun posted this comment..
 * From the Hedge_fund_returns_for_Empirica_Capital
 * It is the NYT that calls it "a gossipy Web site, Business Insider" and most certainly not what the NYT uses for financial returns (on October 5, 2010). The fact that they have cited them for anecdotes means nothing. IbnAmioun (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well from the New York Times link provided by Mr Amioun it literally states that it is a gossip blog.
 * "Tellingly, his first guest was an old target, Henry Blodget, a Wall Street analyst whom Mr. Spitzer got banned for life from the securities industry. (To settle with regulators, Mr. Blodget also paid $4 million in penalties.) Now, like his nemesis, Mr. Blodget has recast himself as a journalist -- he is the editor in chief of a gossipy Web site, Business Insider. They congratulated each other on their comebacks."
 * Also the site itself claims it is an gossip blog.
 * "Editor and CEO, Business Insider "Star tech-stock analyst-turned-media mogul; his fall from grace in 2002 was an obsession of the industry he has now joined. His gossipy Business Insider has been dubbed by some as 'the Hooters of the Internet, a title Mr. Blodget is known to appreciate." LoveMonkey (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hooters of the Internet? Really. Think about it, an article on Wikipedia should use "the Hooters of the Internet" to source it? Although the site is very interesting it is not a valid source. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course - a crucial criterion for whether a site is a citable source is whether it has ever been compared to a restaurant. :-) Elroch (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL excellent point Elroch, but of course it could have been worse it could have been Joe's Crab Shack which is Hooters meets Red Lobster. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a typical ruse that has been employed by Quant Traders particularly from the UK to smear Taleb. Deliberately and Selectively choosing years to benefit their point of view. Unless verfied by a veritable source- Numbers are pure speculations. "it is to the disservice of the reader if the article retains the less balanced data from the WSJ"?? Really?? You arent being serious are you? Thanks Asim samiuddin (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Asim
 * Please calm down, Asim samiuddin, and don't be paranoid. Your post was inappropriate because (1) the data amounted to every scrap of precise data available (2) that no-one has provided any evidence that the data was inaccurate or seriously suggested so, and it is unlikely to have been. (3) that there was nothing very bad about the data, just more balanced - you prefer a rose-tinted picture (4) that the WSJ used far more incomplete data that was rounded to the nearest 10%. (5) you invented a conspiracy which I am willing to wager you can provide no evidence for.
 * Your blustering has a most distinctive style, but not one that is appropriate to discussions about an article in an encyclopedia. Elroch (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the key point. As I wrote over at Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, "Despite much noise, no one has suggested that the numbers in the image of the Empirica Kurtosis LLC fund statement are wrong. If they were, Taleb and his team would probably have made a public statement by now. Taleb is very active in defending his reputation.  So I think we can safely go with the numbers." --John Nagle (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What you just posted makes no sense. How is what you posted justification to use the Hooter guy above? Post here your valid source that accounts for all of the years and gives an average. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a saying somewhere in Africa I believe. If you call a lion a monkey and he doesnt respond- It doesnt mean he is a monkey. Maybe he doesnt care. "If they were, Taleb and his team would probably have made a public statement by now." Once again- If we want to play the numbers game (not the greatest idea for a hedging/insurance strategy), we can but we play by the book and not a gossip magazine. Asim samiuddin (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Asim
 * Those numbers matter. Taleb's reputation is based on those numbers.  Unless he actually gets above-market returns from his strategy over the course of a business cycle, his whole approach is a failure. His big claim is that the market systematically underprices options which are way out of the money.  If that's not, in fact, the case, his whole "black swan strategy" is a dud. --John Nagle (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats opinion. As the statement "Taleb's reputation is based on those numbers." Is not fact but opinion. I wonder if such a thing could be sourced? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * taleb never said that the market undervalues options. He said only that very extreme events are undervalued (like options on one day big shock etc.)
 * as said hundred times above, taleb fins were intended not to make average high returns but insurer investors. How many times has this to be repeated? Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "Taleb never said that the market undervalues options." Wrong again.  In "Fooled by Randomness", p. 207, Taleb wrote: "As an option trader, I have noticed that people tend to undervalue options as they are usually unable to correctly mentally evaluate instruments that deliver an uncertain payoff, even when they are fully conscious of the mathematics". --John Nagle (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Taleb said people, you said market. Market is random collective of events, people are but a component of that. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We should not make an independent evaluation of Taleb's strategies here, but in my opinion just state clear facts about actual returns. Ulner (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I want. Clear facts about actual returns, and less of Taleb's promotional remarks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nagle repeatedly interprets things but then says he does not want to be or engage in independent evaluations. Reliability here means that wikipedia only publishes the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Taleb's theories of randomness a trader's performance is a noisy sample except if he blows up.


 * Also nobody seems to remember he became independent in 1987.


 * Taleb does not need his own trading to prove the point of rare events, but an aggregate across markets. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The (repeated) statement that Taleb's reputation is built around his returns is absolutely ridiculous. Its just Nagle's opinion. I humbly request any responsible admins to please start taking a look at this. This behavior is scary to me. Citing unreliable sources and playing the same tune of a misinformed opinion repeatedly needs to stop. Please refer to the relevant material carefully. Questioning/Slamming the knowledge regarding options and their pricing of the guy who wrote Dynamic Hedging and traded options for over 20 years at the highest level is irresponsible and in bad taste. Asim samiuddin (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Asim
 * He's a trader; he's judged by his returns. Which he mentions for his "up" years, while concealing the data required to evaluate his performance over time. (And yes, he's a "quant", as are most options traders. He's certainly not a fundamentals trader, like Warren Buffett.) --John Nagle (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * here is a POV statement which is self refuting. Taleb is an intellectual with a wide umbrella of qualifications ad activities. Factually, he is not an active trader for almost a decade.
 * Warren buffet is a full time one progression guy of trading, while taleb is having a consulting position at universal among his various academic and writing and free time activities. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the other logical mistake is thinking that if someone is not a fundamental trad he is a quant, as if there are just two ways to trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YechezkelZilber (talk • contribs)
 * Taleb is an adviser to Universa, so he's an active player. Whether he is an intellectual or just a pundit is a matter of opinion. --John Nagle (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * one of five or so jobs he holds. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Black Swan a proper noun ?
In the discussion here and elsewhere it is capitalised, should be adopt that here ? DominicConnor (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Still a poor article
I have been following the evolution of this article intermittently through the past one year, after I finished reading the Black Swan. I was very impressed with the book. But the kind of one-sided hype on this wiki page and the aggressive way in which that hype is defended really makes me sad. Taleb could actually have something useful to say. The manner in which he's saying it, and the way his defenders are defending him is going to eventually backfire. That is all. This article definitely does NOT read like an encyclopedia article, but more like a hagiography. Someone from wiki needs to take note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with everything you said.Ktlynch (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cannot give a final opinion. There were editor conflicts here of all kinds and colors. On some cases, however, there were anti Taleb editors who tried to play with whatever word possible to degrade Taleb. Looks like Taleb is quite colorful with many lovers and enemies, which makes the wiki editing quite a cacophony Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any hype. The text seems to reflect facts. They may not agree with you but they are facts.80.227.123.219 (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There's hype alright. Look, I don't want to get into an argument over whether there is hype or not. The text does NOT reflect facts uniformly. Parts of the text are factual, parts are not. My agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with it. For instance, "Taleb put a psychological, mathematical, and (mostly) practical framework around the philosophical problems in a long lineage of skeptical philosophers, including Socrates, Sextus Empiricus, Al-Ghazali, Pierre Bayle, Montaigne, David Hume and Karl Popper in believing that we know much less than we think we do, and that the past should not be used naively to predict the future. Furthermore, as a practitioner he creates a decision-making framework of "how to act under incomplete understanding, imperfect information". Taleb believes that most people ignore consequential rare events that he calls "Black Swans" because we are more comfortable seeing the world as something structured, ordinary, and comprehensible". Where is the citation for this? How exactly does the work of all these philosophers and thinkers relate to Taleb's work? As it stands, that sentence is nothing more than academic name-dropping. To give another example, in what ways exactly is Taleb an "epistemologist", rather than a philosopher in a more general sense, (which is how I regard him even if many others do not)?

The wiki article should not be used to degrade the man. But at the moment it is not fair and balanced. It reads awfully. A lot of the sentences have the phrase "Taleb considers himself", which is fine. But what do others consider him to be? Not just the so-called experts, but lay people - cite books reviews, blog reactions, TV spots - whatever. Just don't restrict it to how Taleb wants to see himself. I consider myself a great shower singer. Should that make it into my autobiography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.103 (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to refers to sources.The arguments above are random. Visibly when you discuss an author, you would say "according to " as reference to article, particularly when autobiographical. The text by the previous author is "there is hype alright" and "I don't want to get into argument whether..." is rather confused. The "great shower singer" is a severely unrigorous argument. And saying "I don't want to degrade the man" is rather misplaced in the context above.
 * This is wikipedia. Articles need to be SOURCED and for someone who sold 3 million copies of books, his books are de facto sources, particularly when it comes to his ideas and his papers. Other sources of criticism are fine, as well, except that Talib's peer-reviewed articles have not been criticized technically yet, alas.80.227.123.219 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The arguments above are indeed "random" in the sense that they are a "random sampling" (a statistical term!) from the article. I do not have time to go through it systematically. I am sorry to have confused you - but I am sure your deliberate misreading and attempt to shift the focus from the original article itself to my comment on it has something to do with your confusion. I yield on "the great shower singer" being an unrigorous argument. And saying I do not want to de-grade the man is true, whether you believe it or not. I found myself nodding along to many chapters from the Black Swan.

I agree his books are sources. But then, instead of waving retail figures at me, it would be nice if you acknowledged they cannot be the ONLY sources. Taleb's peer-reviewed articles were not the issue at all (unless they have also sold 3 million copies!). Anyway, alas indeed that his supporters have the same sort of fanaticism that turns every good idea sour at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.111 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HarlaCo (talk)I agree that this article is not at the quality that should make any of us proud to have helped build it. Bits are good, objective and referenced, but the structure is poor, and it is hard to read it without picking up the opinions of the person writing it, which to me fails the neutal point of view rule in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarlaCo (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the structure of this article is very poor. This article needs serious attention to bring it in line with the manual of style.  Specifically, the introduction paragraph is too long and needs to be simplified.  From what I recall, references in the intro are not necessary because everything in the intro is expanded in the main body, where information would be referenced.  Also, the article pays FAR too much attention on his own opinions, which a Wikipedia article should not.  "Taleb considers himself..." "Taleb is focused on..." "He also believes..." "Taleb doesn't like..."  The article should give an overview of his views and describe his works, not give the reader a class on every thought he's ever had.  These types of articles make me suspicious.  I feel like there's either some conflict of interest editing or a group of uber-fans that are dedicated to having this article capture his every single accomplishment.  Call me unenlightened, but I've never heard of this man until I saw this page requested for assessment on the Bio wikiproject page, so I don't have an axe to grind. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this has point has been noted by a number of people and I think it is true that the article is at times embarrassingly sycophantic. I wonder if Taleb himself at one point had a hand in writing up this article; one of the earlier anonymous editors in particular seems to have had a singular fascination with the topics and historical figures dealt with by Taleb in his books. Inchiquin (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed? That is not what he is saying -don't use self-serving interpretations. He is concerned with structural matters. "Sycophantic" is your angle. 67.87.132.170 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel like there's either some conflict of interest editing or a group of uber-fans that are dedicated to having this article capture his every single accomplishment. Which from where I stand is a polite way to say 'sycophantic'. Incidentally user 67.87.132.170, if you are going to hide behind this cloak of anonymity then any arguments you make are hardly going to hold much strength. At the very least you could register. Inchiquin (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to explain why listing credentials constitute sycophantic behavior --and violates non-neutrality. Please do so here.IbnAmioun (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Credentials are backed by facts so there is no harm in listing them. I agree. The whole unnamed sources and unverifiable slander is not required. Wikipedia is about listing out facts and thats pretty much what I see here, No need to glorify/slander .Also to the other anonymous person- if an accomplishment is worth listing, why is listing it sycophantic? Thanks!

Asim samiuddin (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

May we rather conentrate on constructive changes? As I see it, much of the argument here is about style and order, let's move on to make it a better article. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think all editors involved here should be subject to a sockpuppet investigation. I have never seen such a large number of non-native English speakers on one article. Our friend Mr Asim samiuddin for example has only just joined wikipedia. His first edit was to vandalise another article with the words "Nassim Taleb" his second to inexplicably revert the tag I placed on the article. His third, to happily jump into this debate with a sure opinion.--Ktlynch (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * well- Our good friend Ktlynch seems to have bigger problems that smearing people. The other article I "vandalized" with a "z" and not a "s" ( just a little English lesson from another non-native English speaker for you Dear native English speaker) was on a guy named Fernando Vargas.

I said "No need to glorify/slander" which goes both ways. Wikipedia is about stating facts not glorifying or slandering. So you got this whole "sure" opinion part wrong too. Opinions are supposed to be fairly sure (but flexible) thats lesson number 3 for you.

Now that that is resolved. Can we actually get constructive- Lets point out what exact items are causing the ruckus here. I suggest we go through them one at a time and resolve this peacefully and like adults without taking petty shots at one another. Thanks A 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs)


 * One last thing- (and I apologize for a fiesty reply earlier) is that we do seem to agree that the page needs to be improved. There is a consensus on the need to improve and not lack of neutrality. If there are any specific points which pertain to this supposed lack of neutrality lets bring it up and discuss it fairly without accusing each other or pulling ranks or sounding narrow minded.Asim samiuddin (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)A

The main point to consider on this discussion is that Taleb does not follow the standards most writers/philosophers do. He publishes articles on SSRN, he updates his website, he posts on Twitter, and therefore exposure of his ideas will be inherently "messy", as new sources are discovered and new fields of enquiry appear. I'll be glad to help in organizing the ideas, but there's no NPOV question here. Some people will focus too much on his career in finance, some are put off by the way he expresses himself, but I think that the exposure of his ideas is fairly represented. See the entry for Charles Sanders Peirce for an example of a rather long exposition of ideas and work. Perhaps an adequate formalization of his ideas will take some time to produce, and it won't be achieved as they are being produced. No NPOV here (and I've edited other pages that had NPOV problems, like "Strange Piece of Paradise"). Ktlynch, if you read Peirce's page you won't have the same opinion. --MCarr (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the reader who started this thread - just wanted to quickly point out three things:

1. I myself am a non-native English speaker. While I'm on your side Ktlynch, I have to disagree that a large number of non-native English speakers automatically call for a sock puppet investigation.

2. Do note how, whenever a criticism of the style of this article is made, the arguments are once again brought back to how "unorthodox"/"unjustly maligned" a figure Taleb is. For instance, MCarr tells us that his ideas are "inherently 'messy'" because he publishes on SSRN, twitter etc. Fine. But if they ARE messy, why does THIS article simply not say that and withhold judgement on these ideas until they are made less messy? Why does it, repeatedly, come down in favour of Taleb and his (as of now) messy ideas?

3. Some specific criticisms were made by me on this very thread - I ask again - in what ways exactly is Taleb an epistemologist rather than a philosopher in a more general sense? What are the key ideas - not just a general framework - of Hume's and Al-Ghazzali's that he has given a "psychological, mathematical and (mostly) practical" framework to? Remember, the general framework is that one must not make the Inductivist Turkey mistake of thinking the future shall be like the past. Are we really to think that Taleb is the first one to have put a psychological or practical framework around this? And in what ways has he put a mathematical framework around it? That last is not a rhetorical question. I, like many others, will benefit from a citation on the "mathematical" claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.117 (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. I did not intend to offend anybody's literary ability, but I'm not the first editor to see some level of organisation or similarity between the gung-ho Taleb brigade. I was merely offering some evidence in support of the hypothesis.

2. The "Inherently messy" idea is ridiclous. Lots of people disseminate their ideas through the same media. Just as the POV editors have tried to deflect accusations of a POV by saying "we agree the article is messy and poor, but it's neutral", the claim his ideas are "inherently messy" is an attempt to obfuscate the fancruft inserted into this article. The poor style is a result of sentences like: "According to Taleb, so far no direct published criticism has been directed at his ideas, rather at his person and style". Several experienced editors have noticed this, including a reviewer from Wikiproject:Biography

3. This article needs to be based on real sources, not blogs, wikis. Taleb himself is a reliable source, expect when he is writing ridiclous self-help, which is quite often. Yours truly, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Even when he is writing ridiculous self-help"? This seems a quite strange reply. Wikipedia is not about YOUR opinion. And you claim violation of NPOV? Clearly we need to make sure that what is on this page comes from sources, but not from the opinion of taleb-allergic editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.45.30 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, A couple of things, trying to counter the "messy" point with "its just meant to obfuscate the facts" does not help anybody does it?

Wouldnt it be a lot more helpful if you could be more specific as to what exactly is "fanboy" stuff and what are the real "facts" that it is trying to fudge? The "According to Taleb" part is something that I believe is there because he has mentioned that enough times and the fact that it says "According to Taleb" means just that. I'll try to research if someone has actually published verifiable research critiques on his ideas and I suggest you do that too. Also you might think he isnt reliable when he writes "ridiculous" self help, but then again you are being judgemental and thats your opinion. Again IF (not that I am actually suggesting so)I were to counter by saying it is "groundbreaking" and "perfect", it would be my judgement but neither of our judgements should belong on Wikipedia

I think if you do feel it is poor style, you are definitely entitled to it and I think we can definitely discuss modifications and even other ideas to address that "messy" stuff. Also I would recommend to the other reader who has questions about mathematical framework to check out some of those SSRN papers. There definitely is some level of effort to put together the mathematical framework you mention. Thanks:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs) 13:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that the article is not excellent in what editing has done to the readability and more importantly whether it tells people what they ought to know. However it is better than may others where there is contention both about the person and their views and where the subject matter can sometime be very technical. Part of this is due to the fact that NNT is a "borderline celebrity". He's well known in certain areas, but not generally famous enough that there are enough good articles about him to provide the level of cover needed to get this article up to the desired standard. DominicConnor (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be bold and improve the article. Remove or improve the non-encyclopedic elements and leave the hype for sites outside Wikipedia. If unsure use inline templates to indicate the trouble spots OrenBochman (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediocristan vs Extremistan
The section on NNT's Finance career includes the sentence, He says that reaping dividends the way he has means dwelling in the land of "Mediocristan" instead of "Extremistan", the latter being an environment where huge things (black swans) can happen to you, whereas Mediocristan is the land of dentists who earn an above average income but with less extreme variations. giving a citation to a Sunday Times article which is behind a paywall. Without access to the original article, I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to be saying. In The Black Swan, for example, NNT describes his investment strategy as trying to benefit from positive black swans while avoiding exposure to negative black swans. Perhaps this could be described as "dwelling" in Mediocristan but "owning a condo" in Extremistan? Noamz (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the Edge article on the subject LoveMonkey (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How does this one relate to the Sunday Times article? Specifically, I was wondering whether the sentence in the WP article was accurately citing the ST article, because it seems to be inconsistent with what Taleb has written elsewhere. Noamz (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, because NNT's investment strategy (e.g., as described in The Black Swan) is to try to profit from extremely rare events while guarding against losses from such events. This is specifically a mixed strategy: mostly in "Mediocristan" to protect against large losses, but partially in "Extremistan" in order to attempt large gains.  That's why I find the sentence in the WP article unusual -- it seems to be telling only half of the story. Noamz (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The barbell strategy. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is everything about this author written so poorly ?
I happened to read the article about the Black Swan book after reading an article in which someone referred to "Black Swans" in Taleb's sense, and was struck by how awful and incomprehensible much of the writing seemed to be. I realize that perhaps editors whose native language is not English sometimes overestimate their English fluency but there's a lot of fan-cruft in all these articles, jargony repetition of the author's ideas using the author's own terms, muddying rather than clarifying his ideas. It's left me with a negative impression of the writer, if his true admirers are all so incapable of presenting his ideas. 70.150.21.209 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because a lot of the editing is by Taleb's flunkies. Look what happens if anyone discusses Taleb's disappointing fund returns for any year other than 2008.. Taleb's big bet in 2009 was to put Universa in options that would pay off if there was hyperinflation..  Can anyone find out how that came out?  I can't find any recent press reports on Universa, but that strategy can't have paid off between 2009 and 2013. --John Nagle (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing seems hidden on the page. The text on the page says very well that Taleb's performance has been lumpy "with big payoffs punctuated with dry spells". I fail to understand the exact issue. 59.188.39.228 (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Taleb is a huge self-promoter with various ideas and pet theories -- some are interesting, some are silly. If one throws out enough such ideas, some of them look good in hindsight and can be presented as having been insightful predictions.  We know he understands the usefulness of such cherrypicking because it's closely related to the various statistical processes about which he's written.  Unfortunately some of Taleb's fans and boosters may come to WP and remove material which is not consistent with their unrealistically favorable view of him.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This may be your impression from the press but Taleb is anything but a self promoter and this statement is not compatible with evidence. He is a skeptic and refuses honors, including honoris causa. He came here to Asia a month ago and someone who had the same impression as you was surprised  . And he has not been predicting at all but providing very scientific approach to his idea of risk management. All he has been doing since 2009 is scientific research  with peer review and he said when he was here his book is coming out with Princeton U. 59.188.39.228 (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Universa Fund lists him as "Scientific Adviser". "The firm’s Senior Scientific Advisor, Dr. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, is considered the premier specialist of Black Swan events and has had a working relationship with Universa since its inception." He's still a player.  John Nagle (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He is also a scientific advisor at The International Monetary Fund. 59.188.39.228 (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Black Swan has been credited with predicting the banking and economic crisis of 2008.
Really? Given the 'Black Swan' is about how to avoid the unpredictable, how did it predict the 2008? Quoting what a journalist wrote, the very ones that were torn to bits by the author, one would wonder whether the wiki maintainer actually read the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.244.252.246 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * He actually says that the predictable events are those entities fragile to The Black Swan events breaking.59.188.39.228 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * the book said specifically that Fannie mae (or whatever hte exact name is) sits on a barrel of dynamite, the is he shuddering from the thought of what will happen with the slightest whistle of wind.
 * This is being said explicitly in the book Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's like saying nuclear power plants are dangerous and then claiming that you predicted Chernobyl. Anyway, you need WP:RS which would directly support proposed article text. SPECIFICO  talk  15:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It is like saying Cherbobyl is an accident waiting to happen, then being credited with predicting Chernobyl. Numerous sources satisfy WP:RS. 59.188.39.228 (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please list the RS so that your text can be used in the article. No point discussing it without reference to the RS. I'll have a look if you wish to share.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. There was already one there from the Guardian. I fail to understand why other reliable sources on the site were not sufficient. 59.188.39.228 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talleb Google Scholar
I have a question. He has a google scholar account. Is it not mentioned because Wikipedia does not link to google? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.86.177.102 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Name of fans
Can the fans/followers of Taleb be called Talebans?--86.125.163.181 (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Todays significant edits toward non-self published text
I came today to pull a detail about Black Swan, and found the article rife with citation issues, some smaller, some larger. The more problematic include the article's ample self-published material (text and quotations) and connected citations that were written by the title person, and that only cited the author's self-published webpages (fooledbyrandomness.com).

The work I did, therefore, was to move the article away from (1) the appearance of being a repository of the authors ideas based only on self-published sources, and from being (2) a mess of citations that while largely sound, appeared in many cases in URL-only form (see remaining uncorrected cases, nos. 9-11, 39, 43, 65-66, etc.), and other cases very redundantly appearing (e.g., see what is now the Stephanie Baker-Said 2008 citation, no. 12).

To start, I removed a citation to the title subject's Facebook page as an inline citation (as it is not an acceptable WP citation, and it already appeared in in the external links).

Then, in some cases the text gave only a self-published citation, but it could be traced to an actual published article, online or otherwise. In these cases Taleb's website was left as a second online source of the information, the actual publisher's site being the first. These cases are clear if searching "fooledbyrandomness" and finding two URLs appearing in the citation.

In other cases, the citation of Taleb's personal web page appeared as one of several attached to a bit of text. In this case the citation was simply deleted as redundant (with the 1, 2, 3 other proper citations still appearing).

In still other cases, the citations were to quotations from Black Swan, and in this case, I added the citation to the book, and indicated the need for a page number, with the tag.

Finally, in the remaining cases, there was no way to trace the web page material to an independent source, and in these cases the personal webpage citation was deleted, and the sentence was marked wither with or. I encourage other concerned editors to look at the diff for before/after my work today, and to add citations from standard WP-approved types of independent published sources to remove these tags. Please do not simply re-introduce the nonindependent references, and please, under no circumstances remove the inline citation tags, because they mark areas I and others can return to, to work.

Note, in no case was offending, unsourced text removed; this will come later, if it remains unsourced for a long period.

Otherwise, I did other cleanup work, including: (1) removing many redundant citations (to his books, to Hélyette Geman), (2) created the Influences section so that information appearing only in the infobox, with and without sources, could appear elaborated in the text itself, and (3) moved all infobox and some lede citations to the appropriate points where the same material appeared in the main text (so to cleanup the box and lede).

Have a look, do the diff, but discuss here before any substantive reversions please. (I have explained myself thoroughly with regard to these bold, WP policy-based edits, and it is AGF reasonable that changes be discussed bere before hours of work are undone.) Cheers, Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for continuing the work on the bare URLs. The list 9-11, 39, 43, 65-66, etc. appear mostly done.  Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No sir wiki policy does not ban self citation. Please post here what policy you are going off of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.92.223 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are the policies, please review:
 * WP:BLPSPS
 * WP:SELFPUBLISH
 * WP:VERIFY
 * WP:NPOV
 * And the issue is not "self citation", it is citation of self-published material, especially when the authorship of the self-published material is the subject of the article. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy that you linked specifically says.


 * Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field LoveMonkey 20:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It does not do justice to the subject of a BLP article for so much primary-sourced material to be used as references. It gives the impression that there are no independent reliable source citations which confirm that his ideas are noteworthy and are presented with due weight and perspective. The article has been plagues by this for a long time. SPECIFICO talk  21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please,, state all parts of all of these policies, that are relevant to the argument. You are selectively quoting, and do not do justice to the policies. We are called to used reliable sources, and what a person puts on their personal web page, about themselves, is not considered reliable information. Otherwise, please reread above, about how careful I walked the line here, leaving the material, and in many cases, leaving the citations. It was only in the worst cases, where reliable sources should exist (e.g., university appointments), where relying on the article subject's self-published CV was deemed as unacceptable. Finally, I concur with . Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did state the policy I copy and pasted it. The specifics follow from the point that the published works by people can be used to source information about that person. LoveMonkey 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Still noting that your excerpt is a very small part of what the policies have to say, and that what you did not mention does not support your interpretation. Please continue this at the ANI. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a Wikipedia editor my job is to improve a page, by adding info. A source by an author on his own ideas is a source but it may be insufficient. It is not to be treated as irrelevant but to be added upon. So a reponsible policy is to find additional citations, and possible replacements. Limit-theorem (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the measured and important comment, Limit. Please, look above and see to the lengths I went to replace or improve citations, in no cases removing text, and only in the most inappropriate cases, replacing the Taleb personal pages with . Otherwise, I encourage all, including, , , , , , , to hold on editing and reversions, until the ANI attention can resolve the hard differences of opinion that exist over when personal pages can be used, see here .  Cheers, Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note,, , , , , , , the edits of a few moments ago are to leave the article on good readable shape until the ANI speaks. The recent edits of LoveMonkey misconstrued particular of my earlier edits as being about self-published sourcing. They were not. The edits to the lede and to the PhD section were about redundant or incomplete sources, or about deadlinks. The material in the lede is fully sourced in the main body, where the citations appearing are complete and properly formatted. (The earlier citations in the lede were incomplete and included at least one deadlink. If LoveMonkey again reverts this, you will see this deadlink reappear.) The PhD section edits were simply to complete the references that were incomplete, and to add further detail. (E.g., only 3 of 4 committee members were named earlier, now all four are named; the French name of his dissertation did not appear earlier, now it does (because its meaning is different than the English translation appearing), and the English translation is sourced to Prof Geman's academic webpage—i.e., all edits are scholarly and sourced appropriately, and have nothing to do with the ANI matter, of whether we should be sourcing this article from Taleb's personal webpage.
 * I ask that no offense be taken, that these edits that are unrelated to the ANI issue are returned to the article, so the deadlink and redundant, incomplete lede citations to not have to appear in the article until the ANI rules. Cheers. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The place to seek further guidance would be RSN or BLPN, not ANI at this stage. This is a matter of weight and verification.  The issues must be considered in context.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free,, to move the matter to BLPN. I am washing hands of the matter, except to support you and others, as Limit-Theorem continues to revert non-ANI matters under the guise of the ongoing ANI discussion, and to make further obfuscating edits to the article that muddle any hope of fair outcome at the ANI. I am done with such base tactical game-playing. The article lede now, yet again, has a deadlink in it, and the citations returned to the lede are redundant with better formatted citations appearing in the body of the article. I will not do corrective copyedit work multiple times because another editor confounds matters and attempts to mislead others through rapid edits. The article is his. I will support you, but not take further time-wasting initiative in the presence of this article-owning editor. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

More Constructive Approach
It is more responsible for an editor, facing a dead link, to google. In the case of "convexity" in the lede it became gated. Some links exist to an ungated public page. Editing entails some homework. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your analysis again falls flat as superficial (the deadlink WAS replaced, but in the main body), and your lectures on editorial responsibility fall flatter (in light of your tactical editorial obfuscations and game playing). Bottom line, I did all the homework necessary, and moved unnecessary citations in the lede to the main body, explained this in the Edit histories and in Talk, and was reverted by an editor who made his edits without ANY response to the extensive Talk section I posted coincident with my edits.


 * Had you read the Edit histories and Talk, you would have seen that the deadlink citation was unnecessary (it was replaced by a live, complete citation in the main body), and that the two other poor citations you reintroduced to the lede were similarly relocated and improved. You reverted knee jerk, and then have been hiding the evidences of your superficial, communications-ignoring actions ever since.


 * So, I am done with the article, and you. You are a game-playing, article-owning editor. Taleb is yours, and my respect and time will go to other editors and articles. The article cannot be assigned to students to read. So be it. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Addition of further incomplete citations further diminishes the article
This longstanding pattern of adding poor or incomplete citations, whatever their motivation, should be understood as unacceptable here: This is work of the same sloppy type that I worked hours earlier to correct. This offending editor has taken on full responsibility for the article by reverting those good faith efforts, expressing a clear sense of ownership of the article. It is therefore her/his responsibility to ensure that the edits s/he makes (returning to the lede citations made unnecessary, through their earlier move to the main body, etc.) are up to standard, and not so grossly incomplete. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Derbyshire, J., & Wright, G. (2013). Complements scenario planning by omitting causation. MISSING NAME OF PUBLICATION, VOLUME, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC.
 * Mattos-Hall, J. A. (2014). Strategy Under Uncertainty: Open Innovation and Strategic Learning for the Iceland Ocean Cluster (Thesis). MISSING INSTITUTION, URL, ACCESS DATE, ETC. ALSO, GENERALLY UNACCEPTABLE UNLESS SUPPORTED BY STRONGER SECONDARY SOURCING.
 * Citations are complete. I will request from editor Leprof do not contact me on my page. There seems to be a problem with Leprof.Limit-theorem (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Both citations are now full. No problem with this anymore.
 * Generally, incompleteness of this kind is very common in wikipedia and is of no serious concern. Just google the citation headline and opps you have the full details and multiple links to the citations. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is common, when someone asks for better completeness, to oblige. Why make someone else do the secretarial work that should be done by the person who starts the citation?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Collaborations
This section is somewhat puzzling. It says Taleb has collaborated with Benoit Mandelbrot, Daniel Goldstein, and Constantine Sandis. But he has collaborated with all of his co-authors, so I plan to simply add the former to the latter, and then remove this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went ahead and did this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving blockquote to footnote
The article says: "Taleb contends that statisticians can be pseudoscientists when it comes to risks of rare events and risks of blowups, and mask their incompetence with complicated equations." Then it gives a long blockquote that would be better in a footnote. The blockquote is not (as far as I can tell) widely quoted by other authors, and the sentence I've just recited already provides a good summary of the blockquote. Here is the blockquote:

Simply, one observation in 10,000, that is, one day in 40 years, can explain the bulk of the "kurtosis", a measure of what we call "fat tails", that is, how much the distribution under consideration departs from the standard Gaussian, or the role of remote events in determining the total properties. For the U.S. stock market, a single day, the crash of 1987, determined 80% of the kurtosis. The same problem is found with interest and exchange rates, commodities, and other variables. The problem is not just that the data had "fat tails", something people knew but sort of wanted to forget; it was that we would never be able to determine "how fat" the tails were. Never. The implication is that those tools used in economics that are based on squaring variables (more technically, the Euclidean, or L2 norm), such as standard deviation, variance, correlation, regression, or value-at-risk, the kind of stuff you find in textbooks, are not valid scientifically (except in some rare cases where the variable is bounded). The so-called "p values" you find in studies have no meaning with economic and financial variables. Even the more sophisticated techniques of stochastic calculus used in mathematical finance do not work in economics except in selected pockets. There are already lengthy blockquotes in this BLP, and this one would be better in the footnotes where there are no blockquotes now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)