Talk:The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable/Archive 1

Archive 1

original research?

In an article about a book, citing the book itself for so much of the article's sources seems too close to original research to me. The book is not an independent source on itself. And is it objective about itself? Felisse (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Felisse, you would normally be right --if the article was not about the book itself. There is a necessary self-referential aspect to this: the best source of the contents of a book is the book itself.Bajaa-Sawda (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

While I greatly admire Taleb, I remain puzzled by the lack of reference to Benoit Mandelbrot's original research. It is as if the Mathematician Mandelbrot was a irrelevant academic reference, rather than a significant scientific narrative as well as a autobiographical account. The real story is stranger than fiction. Mnemosyne (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

US- UK confusion

The ealrier editor of the entry took most info from the UK expected publocation. the picture is th eUK one. I guess the ISBN, too.

The publicaiton date was corrected to the US one. But the piucture is still the UK one.

See on [www.fooledbyrandomness.com over here] links to amazon in the US an UK, if someone wants to rectify the confusion.YechezkelZilber 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Began Refactoring Page

I updated the book's description paragraph. I plan to start on the arguments section next, as it would be more appropriate to stick with how Taleb lays out his idea in the book rather than reinventing the wheel.--Herda050 07:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, about using his own definitions.YechezkelZilber 15:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The black swan taleb cover.jpg

Image:The black swan taleb cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Globalize tag on the sales section

"domestically" implies one country, but which one is ment is neither stated nor obvious from the context. 85.178.91.157 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletion

What was the rationale behind the deletion of ==Critcism==?--S. Rich 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well. This is an entirely uncritical qoute from a single source. The were arguments about TBS book, but most of them were of hte half half sort (i.e. criticising partss while praising the other part, or sriticising style while approving content). So if inserted it must be in the full context (i.e. more serious sources, relevant reactions etc.). Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a "Why I Walk" section?

Hi. Could someone confirm for me, if it exists, and in which pages? This is in regards to these edits, which I am unsure about. I checked the tableofcontents (and various excerpts) at Amazon, but could not see anything. (Logged-in editor preferred for the confirmation, as I partially suspect self-promotion). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Example?

Might someone provide an example of a black swan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.228.167 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Random event Happening in your life are black swan, The 26/11 happened in Mumbai for India was a black swan but for those terrorist was a planned event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtuzi (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Improved introduction

The introductory section of this article is currently appallingly flimsy (eg "a literary style" has no real factual content, and "living life" is so vague as to be ridiculous) and needs updating with a more useful factual description of the content of the book. I propose the following description (based on a review of the entire book) to replace the paragraph that includes the fluffy phrases above. I will be happy to give many examples of each of the elements I describe if anyone feels it is factually incorrect - suggestions for additions to the list are also welcome.

The book is an unusual mixture of autobiography, fiction, philosophy, informal lectures about simple statistics, and unashamedly overgeneralised derision directed at various disciplines, professions and countries with whom Taleb has had some contact in his life. Taleb's overarching lesson to the world is that we make the terrible error of basing important decisions on predictions about the future - his view is that the real world is so unpredictable and the unpredictable events are so important that it is hardly worth trying.

81.111.221.4 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the article could do with some work, but we need something less colourful and more factual than what you have written. I would avoid colourful language such as "unusual mixture", "unashamedly overgeneralised derision", "overarching lesson", and "terrible error", and present the basic facts in a neutral way, with sources. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Coping with Black Swan Events

This entire section is incoherent. Presumably the author had a point to make but I can't figure out what that might be: Black Swan Events can be positive or negative and they can even be non-Black Swan Events (depending on the observer)? I doubt that the main idea is to "build robustness to negative ones" and "being able to exploit positive ones." What does this even mean. Is it the case that Taleb's position is that one should think about things in a general, not very specific way, in order to "avoid being the turkey?" This section is poorly written, provides no advice on the topic of coping with Black Swan Events and should be deleted.154.5.45.119 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)