Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb

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 @Derek R Bullamore: 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)

@75.64.92.223: 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, @LoveMonkey:, 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 @SPECIFICO:. 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 @LoveMonkey:, @SPECIFICO:, @Limit-theorem:, @JanSuchy:, @Bgwhite:, @Jamool66:, @YechezkelZilber:, 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 [3]. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note, @LoveMonkey:, @SPECIFICO:, @Limit-theorem:, @JanSuchy:, @Bgwhite:, @Jamool66:, @YechezkelZilber:, 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, @SPECIFICO:, 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:

• 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.

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)

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)

Bibliography

The "bibliography" is huge, and it's not really a bibliography at all. Instead it's a list of writings by this author, and so the subheading needs to be changed. Moreover, I would just list books here, because relevant articles can be identified as necessary in the footnotes, and moreover we can say in the first sentence of this section something like this: "A comprehensive list of this author's journal articles is available at the author's website.<ref>[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/CV.htm Taleb CV].</ref>."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree; custom is to select the major papers. Journal articles are different from books. and those need to be selected. Limit-theorem (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If a paper is really major, then it ought to be mentioned in the text of the article and footnoted. There's no need for a separate redundant section on major papers, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I edited this section accordingly, moving a bunch of material to a footnote. The main article text generally ought to be the essential stuff that we ask readers to look at. If we put too much detail in the main text, then readers are more likely to get frustrated and not read anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't approve with your relocation of Taleb's papers. Just take a look at Stephen Hawking's, Daniel Kahneman's or Joseph Stiglitz's wikipedia-page. Obviously, it is at least common practice for a scientist's wikipedia-page to have some form of a 'selected bibliography' including journal articles. Jamool66 (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This issue comes up occasionally with BLPs of academics, and also journalists who write lots of articles too. An example is the journalist Larisa Alexandrovna, where the talk page has this interesting comment:

“ [A]s a Wikipedia editor I think that the list of "notable" articles has grown beyond the basic limits of notability. In fact, this is beginning to resemble a CV. Until an article achieves recognizable noteworthiness, like making a big scoop or winning an award, maybe it shouldn't be added. I presume that the writer has a website with a full list of her articles, so a link to that site should suffice for listing all of the non-award-winning pieces. ”

I did take a look at the Hawking BLP which lists only seven articles, and he's had hundreds of articles published. The vast majority of BLPs about academics do not list any journal articles at all; if they're particularly notable then they're discussed and described in the text of the Wikipedia article. See, for example Leon_M._Lederman#Publications. Even so, please note that I did not delete the list of Taleb's articles, and instead merely moved it to a footnote. One excellent place to look for guidance is to pertinent featured articles such as Harold Innis (a Canadian professor of political economy). Something else to keep in mind: per WP:Article size, stuff in footnotes does not count when determining if an article has too much "readable prose".Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

normaal practice with most academics in fields where the notability is primarily from published peer-reviewed articles is to add the 4 or 5 most cited, except for the very most famous people. (eg Hawking is famous, Taleb, tho notable, is not in the same league)-- every time I've tried to add more, I've been shot down. But where the notability is primarily books, the practice is not to add any papers. In Taleb's case, that means that we just list the books. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. It may be worth conisdering creating a separate bibliography page as per guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographiesSunwin1960 (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, I have decided to move the bibliography to a separate page at Nassim Nicholas Taleb bibliography Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:59, 26 March 2016 (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)

Reads like CV

I've inserted tags into two subsections that read much like a CV. This doesn't necessarily mean that there's any conflict of interest, or that using into from a CV or footnoting a CV is wrong. However, Wikipedia policy says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (emphasis added). If some info is only in the subject's CV, then that means we shouldn't use much of it, because otherwise would be undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted the reference #35 [4] that refers the jobs cited. Do you think the style of the section is bad? is it too long? thanks a lot Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a fine "find", User:YechezkelZilber, for the subset of career bullets that this article covers. Well done. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Leprof_7272, do you think these recent edits have improved the article? It's really important that we not rely too much on a self-published CV, but we can rely on it a little bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there are some references that can be found here and there for academic section from finance literature; will add them later this week. Limit-theorem (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am waiting to see the final outcome of the finance edits, before any further comment. I do think that the general issue of what is allowable from self-published sources should have been adjudicated to a close at the Noticeboard.

It is good to see, though, that the issues I raised have garnered respect from LT, with your arrival, User:Anythingyouwant. It is good to have the article back in general editorial circulation, again, regardless of whether I in the end agree or disagree with particular edits.

However, User:Anythingyouwant—besides thanking you for the significant time you have given, and this I do—I think, still, that the historic of self-promotional flavour in this article (reads like a CV, etc.), and the protectiveness exhibited by some editors, suggest: [ 1 ] that you should continue to keep and eye on the page, and [ 2 ] that an aim of removing all material that cannot be sourced other than by Talib's personal web page remains a good one. A further reason, other than those already discussed and based in WP policies, is that once earnest attention from critical editor's is lifted, anything self-published remaining will serve as examples of acceptable practice, and will only spur more. As well, it creates two classes of confidence in the material, which is problematic (since material only sourced to self-published material should have text modified to make clear our certainty in its veracity is lower than facts from independent historical/biographical sources).

Otherwise, I would note that the problem I have had is not with the Limit-theorem that has engaged and interacted here, but with a quite different one who refused to accept apologies for my initial frustration, and, via personal insinuation, continued to try to marginalize and diminish my voice, here, but especially at the Noticeboards. It was for that reason I withdrew. I am glad another, finer editor exists under that moniker, in addition to the one I engaged early. I have allowed that others have good and bad days, get off to good and bad starts with other editors. My hope is that he may eventually do the same. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent deletion of article section

This part of the article was deleted.

Map of the topics covered by Taleb with their intellectual histories and inter-relatedness [2]

The only rational given was "utter chaos. completely unreadable" . Why are people deleting things wholesale from the article rather than rewriting them to improve the article? LoveMonkey 19:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no way to fix that utterly incomprehensible diagram that does not explain anything and only serves to confuse the reader. And please fix your signature. Uncheck "Treat the above as wiki markup. If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page.
If checked, signing with ~~~ or ~~~~ will insert the above markup in place of your username, including any wikicode or formatting. Custom signatures should link to your user page, your user talk page, or your contributions.
Do not use images, transcluded templates, or external links in your signature. Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guidelines.
Note: to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not part of a piped link), please use &#124; for the pipe character; otherwise, it may cause templates to fail." in your preferences. — Keφr 19:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It may not be clear to you but clear to others. A map is there to show you territory not give you a discourse. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What does it depict then? Why is it here? These are just randomly drawn ellipses with keywords inscribed inside. — Keφr 19:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you editor Kephir familiar with Taleb's works? As this graphic depiction is used to express Taleb's ideas. Like on this external site here. [5] LoveMonkey 19:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have read his books. I recognise where these concepts come from. And this diagram does nothing to explain them in any way. Again, please fix your signature like I told you. — Keφr 20:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are other people using the graphic to illustrate his ideas? If this chart does nothing to explain them in any way. The chart was created by Taleb so what he is presenting is as you put it "utterly incomprehensible diagram that does not explain anything and only serves to confuse the reader". So Taleb's style of presenting his ideas is utterly incomprehensible diagram that does not explain anything and only serves to confuse the reader? Just to clarify. LoveMonkey 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This should not be reinserted in the article without RS independent citations as to the origins and influences of Taleb's work. We can't just use his own assertions and if there are noteworthy connections it should be possible to find references which document and discuss them. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a flaw in the reasoning. Influences are usually self-reported as it is not an observed variable to fact-check. For published authors, that is. Limit-theorem (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless that image itself becomes very notable, comparable to Vitruvian Man, it probably should not be in the article. John Nagle (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Limit-theorem... No, it's simply not true that influencers and influencees are only self-reported. Quite the opposite, the work of notable figures in the arts and sciences is fertile ground for discussion, criticism, analysis and sometimes controversy. We're not talking about Taleb's subjective experience, we are talking about the threads of thought as expressed in his written or spoken work. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What policy are you quoting from? The WP:SELFPUB says, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." This diagram is an overview of what Taleb teaches in his classes at New York Polytech or at least that's what it appears to be so. Why are yours standards ones that appear to overwrite what the policy says? The diagram adds a graphical depiction of Taleb's ideas to the content. As for other editors stating they don't like well there's a policy for that too. Wikipedia:I just don't like it as the content is an overview of the subject of the article made by the subject themselves. LoveMonkey 19:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please review the entire section to which you've linked. There are stipulations which are not met here. If the diagram were described as Taleb's self-description, with appropriate comments from third parties about the links depicted in the diagram, I think it would be closer to the spirit of the policy. At any rate, the burden for Verifiability is on the editor who wishes to include such content. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How about putting policy aside for a moment, and asking ourselves whether this image adds anything to the article? Because I am yet to understand what it is supposed to represent. —Keφr 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's true and a good point, the illustration not making a clear declamatory statement, which is what encyclopedia content should do. Every reader/viewer is likely to come away from such an illustration with a personal interpretation as would be the case with an ink-blot. As a matter of fact, I think that is entailed by the policy and is part of the purpose of the policy. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

References

References

bibliography

all of the bibliography was moved to a new page. This makes sense.

but the main works should be posted on this page.

Not a complete pub list. Just the black swan fooled by randomness etc. Jazi Zilber (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed the book list a bit, to the major books. John Nagle (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Work against GMO

Seems that Dr Taleb is vehemently anti-GM (against the actual evidence) and is often quoted on social media where he disallows comments from anyone who has the temerity to disagree. I'm blocked an I don't think I ever spoke to the guy. I think this is worthy of inclusion as he is using his "Professorships" to leverage his opinion in areas where he lacks any qualifications.Smidoid (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hardly, without reliable sources to support that - Alison ^❤ 05:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Taleb claims to be a proponent of tolerance, ethical culture and cooperation".

"Taleb claims to be a proponent of tolerance, ethical culture and cooperation".

Can we get this added towards the top paragraph?

Sources and references: http://nassimtaleb.org/tag/ethics/ https://www.facebook.com/13012333374/posts/10150658100773375

This page has countless references towards ethics in his written texts and work: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb

Regards and happy Wiki-ing!

110.169.128.108 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

His next book

My edits regarding this were reverted with the comment "Future books are too soon, per WP:CRYSTAL". But I made no predictions, I only stated what he was currently working on. On the other hand, referring to Antifragile as "the final book" is a prediction that there will be no more.

Note that WP:CRYSTAL largely concerns itself with what future events shouldn't have their own articles. It makes no prohibition on mentioning their existence in other articles. – Smyth\^talk 19:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The future book was cited only to the author's own website. In general, pre-announcements of future products are considered advertising on Wikipedia, and this article is already flagged for advertising content. If there's extensive coverage in reliable sources, such as for the Tesla Model 3, that's different. Patience. Either the book gets published someday, or it doesn't. John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but unless you object I'm still removing "final" since it looks highly likely to be wrong. – Smyth\^talk 21:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Very reasonable to remove "final" and replace with "latest" Limit-theorem (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with removing "final". Also, is "Dynamic Hedging: Managing Vanilla and Exotic Options" part of his "Incerto" series? John Nagle (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to Change Taleb's Picture

Hello :D

I humbly and respectfully request to change the image here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taleb_mug.JPG

in the description box to another picture.

Can we get a more professional looking picture and a more formal one?

I suggest a cropped version of this image: http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/642x390/k_n/NNicholasTaleb_GQ_07Dec12_rex_b_642x390.jpg

Or replace the mug with this one: https://www.facebook.com/nntaleb/photos/a.456978203374.236838.13012333374/10152352134153375/?type=3&theater

110.169.128.108 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)