Talk:Fooled by Randomness: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:12, 8 December 2010

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Philosophy: Literature / Epistemology Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Epistemology

merge of Taleb distribution

Several of us on the AfD for the Taleb Distribution have suggested that the contents of that article should be merged into this article (or one of the articles on Nassim Taleb's other books), since the taleb distribution is simply a mathematical representation of the concepts outlined in this book. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against. Generally applicable scientific ideas should have their own articles and not be confused by being discussed within a description of one particular book. In fact one contributed suggestion was this book and two suggested another. If there is sufficient overlap, then a more suitable target for a merge would be black swan theory. Melcombe (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Against for the same reasons, it makes sense for them to be separate articles. Only perhaps if they were merely marginal encyclopedic articles to begin with then could you make a case for them to be merged. But I don't see them as this. Mathmo ^Talk 10:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Favor. But flexible about where the information belongs, perhaps in the book or perhaps in Taleb. For me, the key is the lack of separate coverage of the concept of a Taleb_distribution in reliable secondary sources independent of Taleb himself. For example, is there a single textbook or journal article that mentions it? If there were, then it merits an article. If all we have are brief mentions by a columnist(s), then it doesn't. Ephery (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 :'''Against'''. Generally applicable scientific ideas should have their own articles and not be confused by being discussed within a description of one particular book. In fact one contributed suggestion was this book and two suggested another. If there is sufficient overlap, then a more suitable target for a merge would be [[black swan theory]]. [[User:Melcombe|Melcombe]] ([[User talk:Melcombe|talk]]) 10:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 :'''Also Against''' for the same reasons, it makes sense for them to be separate articles. Only perhaps if they were merely marginal encyclopedic articles to begin with then could you make a case for them to be merged. But I don't see them as this. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 10:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
+:'''In Favor'''. But flexible about where the information belongs, perhaps in the book or perhaps in [[Taleb]]. For me, the key is the lack of separate coverage of the concept of a [[Taleb_distribution]] in reliable secondary sources independent of Taleb himself. For example, is there a single textbook or journal article that mentions it? If there were, then it merits an article. If all we have are brief mentions by a columnist(s), then it doesn't. [[User:Ephery|Ephery]] ([[User talk:Ephery|talk]]) 12:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)