Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Black Swan Theory versus Black Swan Idea

This text from the article on Taleb

Living in a world we do not understand Recently, Taleb sees his main challenge in mapping how to live and act in a world we do not understand, and how to come to grips with randomness and the unknown—which includes his black swan theory of unexpected rare events

conflicts with this earlier text in the same article:

Consistent with his anti-Platonism, Taleb doesn't like to see his ideas called "theories". As he stands against general theories and top-down concepts, he never mentions theory in conjunction with the Black Swan. The phrase "Black Swan theory" is, to him, a contradiction in terms, and he urges his readers not to "Platonify" the Black Swan. Rather, Taleb in his 2007 book The Black Swan calls this an "anti-theory" or the "Black Swan idea".

````pandion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandion (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

True. Taleb only calls "Black Swan Events". Ciao tutti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.227.71.28 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Added an archive

I archived everything up to August 2009 as this page was getting long. Lot 49a^talk 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Paleo

Not sure if this is all that notable, but Taleb is mentioned in this NYT article. —Ashley Y 07:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of Taleb

This article strikes me as a little sycophantic. I have read a few of the books by Taleb, and while I mostly agree with his ideas, I can't help but feel that some of the criticisms of his books are justified.

Many of the critics of the writer have focused on the fact that he did not properly cite his arguments. Taleb has countered that these critics were focusing on the style over the substance, but the problem with Taleb is that the style of the book impacts upon the substance. Taleb tends to freely express fairly strong opinions on a wide range of topics throughout his book (for example he hates the media, seemingly the result of a humiliating TV interview he mentions in one of his works), and I can't help feeling that that these kinds of strong opinions lead him to make flawed arguments on a number of occassions. Inchiquin (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You gave a great example.

The problem with the media is hardly an original idea of Taleb. There are various critics about the effect of the media on our mind and so on. Further, the point of Taleb against dailuy media is that most of hte data is random dailhy and weekly changes, instead of essntial changes in the state of things. This is a statistical very logical point.

Taleb despises hte media for decades, as he stopped reading newspapers decades ago.

Alas, Most of hte treatment of Taleb in the media has been highly positive. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit sycophantic. Taleb has strong defenders, and perhaps something of a cult. His financial idea is that maybe the Gaussian model used by Black-Scholes does not properly handle rare events, and this can be exploited as a trading strategy by weighting outliers more than a Gaussian curve would. Amazingly, he's been able to turn this into popular books, although its performance as a trading strategy is not impressive over a decade or so. --John Nagle (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

John Nagle is defamatory --and wrong. Do the math: from the public record, around 60% in 2000 and north of 100% in 2008. You know nothing substancial happened in other years (from the public record). This is part of the smear campaign against Nassim. Spreading wrong information is illegal. Also you should not misrepresent what Nassim is doing as he not posing as a return provider but insuring portfolios.

John Nagle you did spread messages like that in the past. It is very dangerous to spread LIES about people's performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a legal threat? --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is an empty threat. But the article is extremely one-sided because all contributors who wanted to extend it have been scared away by zealots with too much time like IbnAmioun - who is a family member of Taleb and takes umbrage at any detail of the article that is less than laudatory of this modern-day "polymath" -- 192.223.140.45 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect; Prof Taleb started publishing since 2007 so it is better to keep downloads for last year and qualify. Also I removed polymath as it brings nothing and causes confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.53.99 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The style of the book is one thing, intellectual arguments are another thing. Nassim Taleb's book is philosophical but HE PUBLISHED scientific papers around it (peer-reviewed) and THESE are the one to address.

Furthermore it is wrong to say he does not cite arguments. Get a copy of his book and look at the notes and references in the back. This criticism comes from the fact that he believes that Scholes did not cite the others who developed the same equation.

Smear Campaign Against Taleb

There have been many attempts to smear Taleb, particularly on the parts of members of the "quant" and banking industry, (like, say user 192.223.140.45 who is from is from Fidelity Investments,or others before him. NewEconomist (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe.

I found sections of the stuff by Taleb to be quite enjoyable (even enlightening). One argument made by Taleb was that some of the strategies employed by share-traders, financial planners, CEOs etc. were comparable Russian Roulette. Taleb argues that if you win at Russian Roulette, you are a fool no matter how much money you gain, simply because the alternative to winning is just so horrible. This argument by Taleb is very powerful, and applicable to numerous fields aside from finance. This is one of Taleb's better points.

More the shame then about the vein of insecurity that runs through Taleb's works. Taleb uses his books to strike out at things he doesn't like: Some of his attacks are justified, but often not, and sometimes ill-informed. The style is comparable to that of a self-important newspaper opinion writer, which is curious given how much the said author hates the media.

Maybe there is a smear campaign against him, but Taleb is no victim. He gives as good as he gets.

Inchiquin (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point --whether one disagrees or does not disagree with ideas, discussions are not smearing, so long as it does not translate into personal attacks against Taleb and distortion of the record. Furthermore the attacks are suspiciously coming from members of the banking and investment industry who seem to have an axe as Taleb has been siding with the common guy against the banks NewEconomist (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any smear campaign against Taleb, normal reporting of his financial activities - whether he likes this or not - and ordinary reviews and criticism of his published works - whether for style or substance - does not constitute a "smear campaign" nor ad hominem attacks. There is often smearing of editors on this page though. Ktlynch (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that most of the criticisms of Taleb on this page are fair. However, I'll give NewEconomist the benefit of the doubt as a few comments could be interpreted as smears. For example consider the recent anonymous edit on January 30. Of course some of the Taleb supporters are equally myopic (I wouldn't be surprised if one of the regular pro-Taleb editors is in fact the subject in question).

My main issue about the books by Taleb is the feel of insecurity that runs through them... the guy seems determined to prove that he is a modern day Pliny the Elder of something. I suspect the problem is that Taleb spent to long working in the Finance industry; Taleb is critical of the culture in the Finance industry but he may have unconsciously inherited some of the wanky elitism this industry is famous for.

Inchiquin (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree There is no sign of smear campaigne on this page. The problems have been addressed. But there have been attempts on the World wide web. Also if a reader does not like Nassim Taleb's work and writes a published criticism, it would not be a smear campaign. A smear campaigne is when organized attacks aiming at discrediting and smearing someone reputation.IbnAmioun (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignorance of accounting

In Fooled by Randomness, Taleb takes pride in his ignorance of accounting; dismissively writing of his uninterest in FASB pronouncements. This is a clear indication that he cannot possibly understand business and financial markets. 132.211.195.25 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir, before critisizing Taleb, you should learn to read.

Taleb was critical on the technical side of accounting. Not about taking care of the numbers.

The idea is that accouting is important, but not the minor technicalities. A business should be namaged in a general and wide view, and not by technocracts who know all the accounting books withouyt any [ractical common sense.

Read Henry Mintzberg research on management. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's strange that someone would accuse the author of "Dynamic Hedging" of not understanding financial markets; his disdain is for the presumed precision and correctness that is attributed to financial reporting. --MCarr (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My first response is: Why did you delete the this part of my comment, viz.:

The article should expose, to some extent, that after many career failures, (in contradistinction to the assertion of his being a "polymath"), Taleb got lucky, (a rare event to be sure), and found some publishing success with MBA-types, and Charlie Rose, who are easily impressed with mathematics; (that they generally have very little understanding of).

Second, financial accounting, when properly understood, (it takes about ten years to achieve expertise in the field), is essential to recording, analyzing, and, ultimately, understanding economic events. Your dismissive reference to "the technical side of accounting" merely indicates that you have not gone through the long, and difficult, process of achieving a complete understanding of financial accounting.

Lastly, I am a graduate of McGill University, where Henry Mintzberg spent his entire academic career; and I am fully aware of the content of his writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.25 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)As a headhunter for banks I can share that most people in investment banks have only vague knowledge of accountancy, and if you turned up for a job in financial markets armed only with an accoutancy qualification, they might employ you, but in what is generically called "back office". If you quoted FASB at an interview for trading or risk it might actually damage your chances, whereas an intelligent view (for or against) NNT would help you a lot. Some interviewers specifically ask querstions they they have drawn from his book, both the popular Black Swan series, and the highly technical work on Hedging.

Why do you say "after many career failures" ? This can be constituted as libel, and it is wrong. After trading and making money for himself, he wrote a technical book that is still relevant ("Dynamic Hedging"), opened a fund with a particular goal, wrote a book ("Fooled By Randomness") that was a success even though it was published by a small house, and became a bona fide best-seller author with "The Black Swan". If this is a series of career failures, I wonder what is needed to become a success. If you want to say that financial accounting is important and the Taleb's comments are too dismissive about it, Ok. But be careful about becoming too agressive yourself, and start attacking someone personally - personal attacks can be damaging to both parties. --MCarr (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Firstly, NNT has "found favour" in people with PhDs in the subject and who lead important parts of major banks, not just MBAS. You may feel that this is a bad thing, but that does not stop it being true. He teaches quants and traders, and most of those are not MBAs, indeed few quants are MBAs. Of course his ideas are also rejected by some smart people, NNT is in the very small set of people that I know who get hate mail from Nobel prize winners.

Next NNT's career has not been monotonically successful, he'd say that himself, and over a glass of wine will quite happily and forcefully explain this to you.

At the risk of commiting the sin of original research I don't beleive he sees his goal as being right, but to attack those he sees as wrong.

Taleb's Orthodox Roots

There seems to be no discussion of Taleb's orthodox roots in the article and his theology.94.200.71.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

yeah you find links on the net where he does mention he is an orthodox chrisitan and he is a practicing christian. he comes the Taleb family whic are a prominent family in amioun also hes ancestor built the Taleb Palazzo in Amioun he even posted pics of this.

i think this is a quote from him

I am originally from Amioun (Amyoun) but, the family has not lived there since 1890 outside of vacations; it is in the Greek Orthodox Levantine heartland (we are what Cavafy calls ellenosuron or, what people call less poetically the Antiochans --and I am a native French speaking Ελληνοσύρος (Syrian-Lebanese blood, Arabic tongue,Greek heart ) son of Jesuit educated French citizens to confuse matters (though I am not myself a French citizen). http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

he is where he talks about religion and criticizes scientists who are against religion he is very proud of his Orthodox roots. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article4022091.ece?print=yes&randnum=1212475411171 ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

HarlaCo (talk)I think this could be important, but it's going to be tough getting references. Also in this context, it will be important to distinguish culture from faith, which in this region not only is intertwined, but also as his own family demonstrates, interact with politics. —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Some quotes from Taleb in his participation in debate about religion

Quotes:

"Before scientific enlightenment we were much wiser"

"Up until very recently, about seventy years ago probably, anything that took you away from the doctor extended your life."

"Visiting a doctor in france in late 19 century multiplied your chance of death by eight" (no citation)

"Science has not been very good at saving lives"

"Even today, I don't know if you know it, we live longer in spite of the family doctor, we live longer because of sanitation because of a lot of things"

"When hospitals have strikes we dont live less"

In other words, making a case that science has had no positive effect and has not extended our life span from something like 30 to 80 in the last 2000 years...

Reference: Around 50:00 and 1:17:40

My comments: Later he likens religion to art, that we should believe it just like we believe tomato juice is real blood in movies -- and this is a case against taking theism seriously even though he is on the theist side in that debate...

This guy is great at manipulating the statistics. If he found one black sand particle on a beach, I wouldn't be surprised that he would go on a world tour claiming to have found beaches with black sand on it.

This is a distortion of Nassim's position on religion lifted from a few minutes soundbites. He is not a theist. His principal point is that religion is not about beliefs, but "customs and heuristics in an opaque world". See his notebook and what he wrote in The Black Swan on religion as culture to deal with areas in which science has incompleteness.IbnAmioun (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb05/taleb05_index.html Edge article: The Opiates of the Middle Class IbnAmioun (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Austrian School reads like Original Research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb#Approach_to_models_linked_to_Austrian_School smells like WP:OR to me. Regardless, it doesn't belong where it is in the article. Tempted to remove the section entirely. Thoughts? For the moment I have added a Citation Needed tag to the section (at first I tried to add it to the section title, apparently that doesn't work) - Sethop (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it may "read" like it's sourced, because the paragraph *does* have references, but the actual assertion, that Taleb and The Austrian school have been "linked" seems like it's both WP:OR and well, frankly, irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethop (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is now changd within the article, with austrian school removed Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture Replaced

Someone replaced the picture with "mug". This picture is not available for public use. Can someone upload one of the other authorized ones (Sarah Josephine Taleb) IbnAmioun (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind.IbnAmioun (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Fields deletions

John Nagle deletes everything from the fields infobox, and oddily brings a line from an article to justify deleting the rest........

Ok. Professor taleb is distinguished prof. For risk engineering. He has just published an aphorism book (is there a clearer definition for sphorist than someone who publishes aphorisms??? The many articles name him as philosopher scholar or thinker. He has many scientific publications oknowledge, risk and many other aspects. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPN

FYI, there is a discussion about this article at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Incidentally, I have edited the lead of this article to try and bring it into conformity with WP:Lead. So, I will tentatively remove that aspect of the tag at the top of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent edit. Thank you for the professionalism.IbnAmioun (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing the Point: SPECULATING v/s HEDGING (Insurance)

Taleb, let me insist again, ran "protection protocols" rather than funds. Please investigate.IbnAmioun (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an investment fund. You put money in. They manage it. You get more or less money back. Neologisms will not help. See WP:NEO --John Nagle (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

are you pretending or truly do not understand? Investors put money with the explicit goal to make money when the market crashes. You measu results in light if the stated goal Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nagle, you are mistaking INSURANCE funds with funds ("tail hedging") and you seem ignorant about the difference between SPECULATING and HEDGING clients, or you want to be ignorant. You spread lies saying "Taleb sunk many funds". You should stop this campaign of harassment on wiki and go do it on some blog.IbnAmioun (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree- Nagle doesnt seem to the get the point- Insurance Funds'success comes from NOT losing- In Nagle's defense- He is not alone, A lot of ignorant people dont get it. I think its obvious that this gentleman is here to slander without making any attempts to be reasonable or to educate himself. I think this fan pov tag needs to go. This type of agressive, opinionated and unreasonable arguing is best for blogs, youtube videos etc. Lets move on-(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to falsely characterize a fund as "insurance" has happened before. See Portfolio insurance. That was a disaster in the late 1980s. Nor is what Taleb is selling a Hedge (finance), with balanced short and long positions. It's a speculation on volatility. It's an interesting derivatives strategy, but it's nothing like "insurance". --John Nagle (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

After this statement- Nagle shouldnt be taken seriously- He hasnt a clue and refuses to make efforts to get one. Mr Nagle- Please- I implore you to at least familiarize yourself with some basics of Math, Finance, Econonomics and Common Sense before trolling and spamming Wiki Pages. This is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.112.2 (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

as a matter of fact, taleb always made money in years of market shock. This s what he explicitliy tells his investor, and in every public encounter. As the saying goes "if it walks like a duck behaves like a duck etc. " you are trying to force his funds to be categorized in your way to devalue them. This is ridiculous (assuming no bad faith, for sure)

FYI betting o volatility tends to favor market shocks over the upward, because markets tends to have uneven distributions (increasing slowly, then falling fast) so even betting volatility is insurance. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: "This s what he explicitliy (sic) tells his investor, and in every public encounter." Exactly. He does say that. That's the problem. For Wikipedia purposes, Taleb is not a reliable source about Taleb. Other sources say he exaggerates his returns.. There's a controversy over that, and Taleb whines about it, but hasn't released audited numbers. --John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)'

Nagle is clearly engaging in a smear campaign. He references blogs and then talks about verifiable sources.Nagle- What part of the article do you have issues with? Be specific! BLOGS ARE NOT A VERIFIABLE SOURCE. This is Wiki and not a place to act like a crazed stalker. Please refrain from such behaviour in the true spirit of Wiki and cite specific parts of the article you have issues with. Tagging articles coz you have a personal dislike for the guy isnt appropriate behaviour.Asim samiuddin (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Asim

CLEARLY OUTRAGEOUS SMEAR CAMPAIGN by NAGLE. See this refuting it. See Reuters "Emails to Felix Salmon" .

Why is it smear? Because Nagle WAS MADE AWARE of this correcting article before. User Nagle OVERRIDING Bloomberg, WSJ, Reuters and other sources: that HE has not seen the audited returns does not mean they don't exist. What an irresponsible fellow I wonder what he is doing on WIKI. IbnAmioun (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

YouTube

Per WP:EL: "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content. For example, all links to YouTube videos should, if applicable, indicate that Flash video software or a web browser supporting H.264 is necessary to see the content."

YouTube videos are pains in the neck for these reasons, and I think we ought to stick with other sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the edits. Its indeed looks better now Yechezkel Zilber (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

No problem, he's an interesting subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal life section

Done for now

"Epistemology and theories of randomness"

What to do about the "Epistemology and theories of randomness" section? That's a turgid mess. All references in that section are to Taleb's own writings. The only Google hit for that phrase is Wikipedia and its clones. I suggest the entire section be deleted. The subject matter is better discussed at Ludic fallacy, a much clearer article on Taleb's approach to randomness. A "See also" link would be appropriate. --John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have worked a bit tonight on the lead and the first section (Family background and education). I tend to agree that it might be a good idea to take the encyclopedic content from the section "Epistemology and Theories of Randomness" and distribute it amongst the other sections on his three careers. I'd be glad to work on that next.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is all very interesting. I have read The Black Swan but I did not realize that this guy was the cause of such heated battles.Some guys are very vehemently trying to watch his back and sing his praises while others specially John Nagle are hell bent on crucifying him. I don't how much damage the well-wisher-fanboys can suffer and I don't know how much law you guys know but there are causes for lawsuits based on obvious slander. For a guy who is a Hedge Fund Manager and a best selling Author, He can sue the hell out of guys like John Nagle for making statements such as "Taleb blew up several funds" or "Taleb inflates his returns". Such accusations on this forum can cost him (Taleb) business.The way legalities works in the US (and specially in UK and India and other countries),this gentleman-Nagle- if not careful can spend the rest of life paying legal bills if Taleb is half as headstrong as he comes across to be and decides to pursue legal charges. It appears that Mr Nagle does have all the time for that but money could be a different matter. Ironically The well wishers are robust (cant lose much except credibility or their Wiki editorship) as Taleb would say. The slanderers are very concave (can lose the shirt off their back). Thanks ~JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.190.231 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would advise removing this talk, as this comes under defamation of character and presents grounds for legal action —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.237.5 (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Risk analyst

I'd like to suggest "Risk analyst" in the infobox, instead of "Risk engineer". The latter does not seem to be a very well-known term. Alternatively, "Financial engineer".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On Wall Street, he's called a "quant", or Quantitative analyst.. His "three careers" are all as a quant; he's run a fund, been an academic, and written books, but the subject matter is closely related. A real "risk analyst" is a different job. See Certified Risk Analyst. --John Nagle (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, are there any objections to changing "risk engineer" to "quantitative analyst" in the infobox?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

i would say statistician. it is a field name, and compatible to the various publications etc.Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

his professorship is "risk negineering". Yet "decision analyst" seems more apt. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times calls him a "statistician, trader and author." So does anyone object to changing "Risk engineer" to statistician in the infobox? I have no objection to leaving "risk engineer" in the main text of the article, but I think a more standard term ought to be used in the infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

ok with me Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Taleb is a Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at NYU so Risk Engineer is not inappropriate

He has never been a so called Quant! i agree with earlier guy who said that Nagle is likely to get sued for massive amounts He questions a title provided by a respected academic institution and has numerous counts of blatant slander on a forum like wiki! I know law very well and Talebs lawyers could have a field day with numerous charges and in numerous jurisdictions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.195 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I only started practising law in 1974, so perhaps I'm a bit new to the game, but I'd like to know what you are implying here. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at this and make your intentions perfectly plain. Rodhull andemu 00:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly, Taleb seems to have called himself a "quant" in an interview. "For 10 years, he operated as a 'quant' and a trader." --John Nagle (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As for litigation threats, Taleb recently threatened to sue the group which gives the Nobel Prize in economics. Really. --John Nagle (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

John- You are getting carried away a bit too much. You basically troll this page all day and seem to have turned this into your full time job. Its kinda sad. There are things said for sarcasm (and the gentleman just published a book full of it) and there are things that need to be taken seriously. What the person said is accusing a Hedge Fund Manager for inflating or lying about his returns or blowing up funds without ANY proof on this medium (and not on a blog) is a likely cause of being slapped with a lawsuit. Happy Holidays! Hope you have a better 2011. ~Asim --Asim Samiuddin

Also No one is threatening you and NO ONE SHOULD THREATEN you. The point made was that It could be a reason for Taleb to- because your accusations amount to slander. No accusations, legal threats etc etc. Lets all get along- Its Christmas time my friends. --Asim Samiuddin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays everyone.IbnAmioun (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Taleb's current funds.

See . "The fund manager is Universa founder Mark Spitznagel, Bovet said in an interview, so “Nassim is not actually trading the fund.” But he’s doing more than just lending his name, he said. “He’s very involved in Universa but not on the trading side. He’s a principal of Universa and a strategist.” Taleb used to have his own hedge fund, Empirica Capital, which was launched in 1999 with Spitznagel as head trader." The full name of Taleb's fund is "Universa Asymmetry Fund II L.P.", from "Universa Capital LLC".. There's also a fund-of-funds arrangement, called "Sentinels One", so that little guys can get a piece of Universa. --John Nagle (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, John, that it would be very strange to mention both of his current professorships in the lead, but omit Universa.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant I agree; I asked okay you can keep but you may need to add "scientific" advisor to advisor.IbnAmioun (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think my work here is done, now that IbnAmioun and John Nagle are agreeing. :-). Happy Holidays to you both. BTW, I think "scientific" is not needed, because the sources don't mention it much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays! Wiki needs to have higher standards than these sources.IbnAmioun (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, John, Nassim is not a scientific advisor to any of the funds run by Universa but to the mother company that runs a lot of funds. Also I will get him to send you a few bottles of vintage wine if you can find two small mistakes in the bio as it is now. IbnAmioun (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent> Ibn Amioun, Wikipedia does not strive for truth, but rather verifiability. See WP:V. In other words, we must follow reliable sources, whether they are right or wrong.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We are all on the same page. Of course there is no incompatibility between truth and reliable sources, or very very rarely. Mistakes usually come from unreliable sources those without fact checking. IbnAmioun (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but feel it's strange to include this reference to Universa. The only motivation I can imagine is that it's advertisement. Every notable person in finance/economics has dozens of 'consultant' and 'advisor' appointments, many of which they can't even recall themselves. It's mentioned in the bio and that's possibly more than enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redprince (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be right Redprince, as a general matter. But in this case, see what the reliable sources say; they indicate that Taleb's connection with Universa is very significant and notable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant you are a very fair person and an excellent fact checker. One comment: beware selective citing. That a blog mentions something is not sufficient; you need to see how often two names are mentioned together compared to alone. And you need to give more importance to the NYT or WSJ for instance as a reference than a finance gossip blog. IbnAmioun (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Universa, from the Financial Post: "The fund manager is Universa founder Mark Spitznagel, Bovet said in an interview, so “Nassim is not actually trading the fund.” But he’s doing more than just lending his name, he said. “He’s very involved in Universa but not on the trading side. He’s a principal of Universa and a strategist" A search shows the words "adviser" and "principal" appearing with Taleb and Universa. So we have "strategist", "principal", and "adviser". Bloomberg and the New York Times say "a principal". --John Nagle (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nagle, Dec 17 you made statements without backing (wanted to override the WSJ and Bloomberg before to say "Taleb claims". Now you want the NYT?) You make original accusatory statements online for everyone to record and in addition, show an overt pattern of harassment. Anyway please check this official title from official site not cherry pick. BTW do you have anything else to do? IbnAmioun (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

IbnAmioun, if a person gets blocked for making a personal attack, and then comes back and makes more personal attacks without fear of getting blocked, then who has the mental problem?

:-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I think it's pretty clear and factual that he's a "bestselling" author, and I've accordingly edited the lead, including footnoted links to the New York Times bestseller list. So, I don't think that falls under WP:Peacock. Regarding his status as a former "hedge fund" manager, that's what many reliable sources say, and I've footnoted several of them with quotes in the respective footnotes. As far as "Black Swan robustness" and "stochastic tinkering", I think this is pretty meaningless in the lead unless we very briefly explain both terms, and I've done so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a current hedge fund manager, back in the game again. He is an adviser to Universa.. (Universa had a really good year in 2008, as you'd expect. But try to find results for other years. The strategy used bleeds money in quiet years and wins big in crashes. The question is what the average over a decade or so is.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

From the number of books published and his public schedule, I would call him an author first. Universa already has Mark Spitznagel conducting the fund. The published articles do not refer to Taleb as conducting the daily activities of the fund. MCarr (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the whole article, so his work in trading (current and previous) three popular books and professorships should all be mentioned. The phrase "three distinct careers" is an idea that comes from Taleb's own propaganda of himself. The route industry->popular book ->academia is not that unusual and there is not reason not to simply describe it. Only current lecturing positions should be mentioned in the lead "several universities" sounds like ridiculous puffery. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence makes no sense (and there is no puffery, just redundancy) and "has several careers" has no information, as well as "has been a professor at several universities" is useless. But it is obligatory to mention "NNT is currently the Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at NYU-P" as his formal position. Also that he is a former trader &... His other appointments are all part-time, even advisory. And Wikipedia needs to line up to a formal definition of a person, no less, no more. Further it is foolish to call puffery since Prof. Taleb's own formal bio is formal and only has facts. IbnAmioun (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So the only formal one that does not violate neutrality for the 2nd paragraph is "Taleb, a former trader, is a bestselling author and currently the Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at NYU-P". I wonder why you would bicker about that. IbnAmioun (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fan POV tag

This article is very low in quality and doesn't clear minimum Wikipedia standards in several areas, as some editors have commented. I've tagged it with fan POV. An article on a person this notable should be written to GA standards at least. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand the point. There is an extensive criticism section. BajaaS (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tag. The criticism section is a joke and reads like a series of set-ups from straight men. I suggest you read WP:BLP if you don't get the point. This article is overly laudatory, uses primary sources, contains original research, and uses sources that are not accessible to most readers, including pay sites such as the WSJ. In addition it is very poorly written and does the subject of the article no service. Wikipedia is not a promotional venue and requires sourcing to reliable, neutral secondary sources. The satellite articles are in the same shape and verge on the edge of incoherency. Why you want to defend an article of such low quality is beyond me. I would think you would want to improve the article to feature status. I made a few copy edits but I'm not as knowledgeable as you and a few other editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see exactly anything that supports this rant (a bio that doesn't present the subject's prominence would be removed as it would imply the subject is not worthy being there). The criticism here comes from scientific papers. Everyone here knows wiki is NOT about promotion but description -accurate description. Look at Taleb's other bios (concocted by speakers bureaus) and you will see the difference. But I agree it needs tightening and the philosophical ideas are not well presented.BajaaS (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think there is some substance in the sort of criticism made earlier by Tom Reedy. I think the article is better than it was, but it still seems to lionise Taleb a bit too much. Taleb has some excellent thoughts and his books are well worth reading however I get the impression he is something of an aggressive self-publicist. This is why I have been a little wary of the tone of the article, in places it doesn't seem neutral to me. Inchiquin (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is room for improvement in this article. The point must be on improvement and accuracy rather than on degrading the subject as have been the axe to grind for some "correctors". Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Inchiquin calling Nassim an "Agressive Self Publicist", then going to change his bio is itself a dubious motivation and shows the clearly subjective aspect of this editor. Clearly we have a problem there. (note that this argument is typically used IN PLACE of substantive criticism in order to detract from central arguments) IbnAmioun (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Ibn but I have not made an edit to the Taleb article in several months, as could be seen if you just have a look at the edit history. (The edits I have made on this article have been quite fair, and don't take my word for it, have a look yourself). I like a lot of things about Taleb but his general lack of humility isn't something I find appealing. Inchiquin (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So Inchiquin, if I am correct, you are EXPLICITLY stating that you have a bias against Taleb, (with a second reason for disliking him) yet you are posing as an editor here or, if you are not editing, through this talk page, trying to incite action.IbnAmioun (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a fan problem here. Some months ago, I tried to put in some material about his rather disappointing performance as a hedge fund manager (it's above on this page) and his fan club was upset. As a fund management strategy, Taleb's buying of options far from the current price does very well in years of big changes, like 2008, and loses money on worthless options in years when the market doesn't move that far. You have to average over a decade or more to see if that's an overall win. Taleeb doesn't give out enough performance numbers to allow this. The numbers are available, though and they're not that good. --John Nagle (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The matter is of some gravity. In the past John Nagle has written "Taleb blew up many funds" which seems strange. Nothing is "disappointing" about the performance and nothing is hidden except by cherry picking someone's performance, particularly for a Black Swan Protection Protocol. The numbers 1999-2004 and later (and 1987) have been FACT CHECKED in the press, so you need to cite WSJ and Bloomberg. Wikipedia is not the place for smear campaign, John Nagle. IbnAmioun (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that I would describe myself as a supporter of Taleb's ideas, in contrast to what has been stated above. As is clear from a number of comments I have posted earlier, I recommend people read his works. However, I also strongly support the philosophy behind Wikipedia, and I don't think it is unreasonable to say that the tone of this article as it stands is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Judging by the above comments, I am far from the only one to share this view.Inchiquin (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Too late, Inchiquiin. If you don't like Nassim's perceived personality (here, say arrogance) write an article on him and publish it. Sticks to facts here. DON'T engage in these very dangerous practices. And please don't make bogus claims neutrality. Also as per WIKI rules "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. " IbnAmioun (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to selectively quote WIKI rules, how about this one: Public wikis, of which the collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia is the most well-known, depend on implicitly or explicitly assuming that its users are acting in good faith. Wikipedia's principle of "Assuming Good Faith" (often abbreviated AGF), which has been a stated guideline since 2005, has been described as "the first principle in the Wikipedia etiquette". Not much good faith in the assumption that every editor is engaged in some kind of anti-Taleb conspiracy.

Yes Ibn Amioun, I have some sympathy with you (even if you don't want to believe it): there have been a small number of genuine anti-Taleb edits in the past, vandalism of a kind which was genuinely slanderous. I am strongly opposed to this. I would however suggest that your aggressive conduct is proving counter productive, and is losing you potential supporters. It is clear to me that the editors above are reasonable people who just want a few minor changes to the tone of the article.

To be blunt, I feel that if any of the issues with this article are to be resolved, arbitration will be required. This is the most professional & efficient way to resolve disputes on wikipedia. Inchiquin (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, Inchiquin, you gave EVIDENCE of bad faith in the past (Jan 2010 & Dec 2010). But my involvement here is not about the QUALITY of the article, which I may privately find lacking in proper phrasing, etc. I am not involved in the editorial issues: my function is ONLY to prevent copyright violations, protect privacy, and to correct vandalizing & slander, nothing else.IbnAmioun (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Talib's performance as a financial manager is questionable. When he ran a hedge fund, Empirica Capital, on his own, it didn't do all that well.. Scott Patterson, Wall Street Journal: "Nassim Nicholas Taleb was last seen holstering his trading guns in 2004 after his hedge fund, Empirica Capital LLC, posted several years of lackluster returns when the fund's bets on a market swoon failed to pay off as stocks rose steadily." That's about what you'd expect; Talib's strategy of buying out-of-the money options loses money unless something unexpected happens. Data is available for Empirica, as I cited above. Talib's next fund, Universa, is hard to track; they're reported to have had good results in 2008, as you'd expect, but what about the other years? What matters is results over a period of years.

Hedge funds don't have to report their results publicly, so they're hard to evaluate. For mutual funds, the SEC filings have solid data, and for newsletters, there's Hulbert Financial Digest. For hedge funds, there's nothing available for public view unless someone into one of the funds publishes their statement, which is why we have data for Empirica.

This matters. Talib's whole reputation as a serious player is based on his trading results. Otherwise, he's just another pundit. --John Nagle (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nagle, things are getting strange here; now you are changing "blew up his funds" (as you wrote earlier) to the statement "didn't do that well" while producing (finally) proper fact checked data (WSJ) contradicting it: IN FACT THE VERY ARTICLE you are citing shows it sticks to the properties it claims (betting on rate events) with around 60% in 2000 [and > in 2008] then small losses in between". Furthermore the funds were marketed as HEDGES, not funds.

Here is what taleb wrote in The Black Swan (2nd Edition):

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 vari- ations (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. IbnAmioun (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "Blowing up": I didn't write that. That's from "Blowing Up". The New Yorker. April 22, 2002. Re returns: we don't know much about what Talib's returns were during non-crash years. His strategy bleeds money during years when nothing much happens, because the fund has to pay for all those out-of-the-money options. Exactly how fast it bleeds money isn't well documented. Audited numbers for 1, 5 and 10 year returns for Talib's funds, the standard way fund returns are reported, seem rather hard to come by. The fact that Empirica was closed down, though, indicates that the returns didn't satisfy investors. Re "Hedge": few "hedge funds" really hedge; it's just a term for unregulated funds for "sophisticated investors". Incidentally, for background on investing for a likely crash, see Lewis's "The Big Short", which I highly recommend to people to whom the term "collateralized debt obligation" is confusing. --John Nagle (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1) the fund was closed as taleb lost interest in trading at the time. Universa had no problem pulling together a billion+ later, so it w taleb getting tired of trading. 2) taleb funds were explicitly sold as hedges "black swan protection protocol" and not as the usual hedge fund whose name is either a linguistic or abut balancing bets. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal says "In 2004, Messrs. Taleb and Spitznagel closed a previous fund, Empirica Capital, after two years of mediocre returns." (Re "the fund was closed as taleb lost interest in trading at the time". I'd like to see a credible cite for that, like the letter he had to send his investors when he closed out the fund. Self-serving statements made years later don't count.) --John Nagle (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It said AFTER "mediocre returns" not BECAUSE of mediocre returns. And this fund was about hedging.IbnAmioun (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No reliable source says he "lost interest in trading". If he says it himself, we have to say that he says he lost interest in trading. Reliable sources say his fund had mediocre results. It's common for fund managers to exaggerate their results; the SEC had to clamp down on that for publicly traded funds. As a money manager, Talib was not very successful. The article must reflect that. --John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Taleb was a trader over twenty years, producing huge revenues in various market shocks ( i.e. 87 2000 2007 etc.).

Four years for ine fund is a ridiculously unrepresentative sample (and even there he gave a nice yeary average in years when average funds were halved). Any income statistics should have everything included (and may also have to account to the added value of variance protection).

You say he was not very successful, which is extremeky misleading, and is contrary both to his known track record, and to the size of fn nder his management. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Every few weeks someone shows up here discredits everything about Taleb and lashes out. Any time we are going to discuss performance, we have to set some standards. If you say ohh Taleb lost money in 2009- the flip side would be - Dya know how much he made in 2008? I implore you to check the numbers for Universa. From 2000-2010 Taleb has had bonanza years where returns far outweigh the mediocre returns/losses in the others (over a 100% in 2008). The strategy is set up to accept small losses which are capped (clipped left tail) and delivers massive payoffs in times which happen more often that we think. Several funds and Managers like PIMCO, CSAM, SABA Capital among others are running this "failed" strategy in funds called "Black Swan Funds" to emulate the "so called failed trader". Remember s*** hits the fan a little more often than we think and not losing money isnt much different from making money over a decent time horizon (which includes years like 87 and 2008)- In fact its the same damn thing. In fact I will request you to read a paper by Taleb himself called "Bleed or Blow up". This will definitely educate guys like Nagle who are in dire need of such education. I dont blindly believe what Taleb suggests and you shouldnt either but dont blindly attack. Its funny that people attack his philosophical work using literature and attack his literary work using Philosophy. WHICH ONE IS IT??? this article like every other on Wiki can improve but this claim is not appropriate and I humbly suggest that we remove it --Asim Samiuddin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If his performance was that great, where are the audited financial statements? For successful find managers like Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett, their numbers are on record. The few sets of multi-year numbers we have for Taleb are not that impressive. The SEC standard for fund reporting is to report 1, 5 and 10 year returns. Let's see those for a Taleb fund from a reliable source. Otherwise, we have to view such statements as unsupported self-promotion. --John Nagle (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nagle- you are beginning to sound very ignorant now. What sets do you have and what are your reliable sources? My take on Taleb's investment philsophy is that over any significant time horizon, it will outperform most- not all. Because those extreme moves coupled with complex fragile systems make sure that those bets pay big as we underestimate their frequency of occurence. Taleb has more losing years than winning -sure but the losses were mild and the wins were spectacular and overall he has done great. Not the greatest but pretty damn good. Please name specific parts of the page you have issues with and lets try to address them and close this issue.

Nassim doesnt ever go out claiming to be the greatest trader ever and neither do I and the wiki page does not claim that he is. Nassim is proposing a new (to us- not to him)philosophy which people find impractical. His portfolio suggests otherwise. You DEF need to read that Bleed or Blow up paper. It addresses EVERY concern you have voiced so far. I am in favor or redoing or rephrasing some things on this page but your claims are bordering on pure hating and personal dislike of the individual. I dont know your background but I'll tell you this go to Amazon.com and read some reviews of his book Dynamic Hedging from 1997 - concentrate on the reviews given by Actual Traders- not some computer geek- It will help you reform your opinion. Another point- John Hull's book which is the bible of Derivatives has a chapter on Option Greeks - The ONLY reference for that chapter is Nassim's book. The man knows a thing or two about Derivatives Trading and that knowledge has come from being a VERY successful trader. Send me your address- I will gladly donate you a copy.Asim samiuddin

As a matter of fact, i tried to get the detailed trading history of waarren buffet, and realized that it is not easy to obtain (in actuality, i have not ogt the data, although i would be able to painstakingly gather it with much work). Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Its easy to get data for Buffet because its a public company- There were practically no regulations in the times of Empirica and Nagle would just dismiss the Universa performance of 2008 and tell you that its a poor trading shop for the rest of the years.

Asim samiuddin

if someone would love to collect the buffet transctions data (from the various SEC filling) it would be cool to make simulations etc. Very interesting Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

More pertinent to the current article are the returns achieved by Taleb's funds. Investor reports say the Empirica fund achieved the following annual returns in the years 2000-2003: 56.86%, -8.39%, -13.18%, -3.92%. A naive (or biased) reader might be impressed by the return in 2000 and glibly claim that the losses in other years were small in comparison. HOWEVER, the compounded return (far more relevant than the deceptively flattering arithmetic mean return - a classic way to deceive using statistics) over this 4 year period is a less than stellar 4.6% per annum. It is highly likely that the fund lost more money until it closed in 2004, and in the sideways market in 1999 before the market crash. But more relevant to the long term value of the strategies used by the fund is that crashes such as that in 2000 occur far less frequently than once in 4 years, strongly suggesting that a best estimate of the long term return available from this fund strategy would have been negative. One can conclude that this fund (and others using Taleb's "black swan" strategy) are far better categorised as speculative instruments used to reap large profits from a predicted market crash than as long term insurance against market crashes. 81.111.221.4 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

GQ SMEAR CAMPAIGN

Anyone referring to the GQ story should be made aware that the SMEAR CAMPAIGN died after this article on Reuters . Also note that it never made it to a real paper or reliable source, just a few blogs.

Editor John Nagle seems to be belatedly partaking of the smear campaign by citing it trying to override WSJ, Bloomberg and other sources. IbnAmioun (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to agree with IbnAmioun here - the GQ quote in question has been thoroughly discredited and should not be relied upon.--69.38.252.83 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop being so sensationalist, this is why there's a fan tag on this article. There is no conspiracy. Even Taleb now calls the GQ article accurate, apart from the claim he made $20b. Most discussions of the profile (including the one you link) highlight this mistake, not the rest of the article, and assume it is a genuine one. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not completely true: on another page, Nagle has been linking to an article on it in a tabloid blog (before the Reuter elucidation) and wrote that Taleb is well know for inflating his returns, a sentence most certainly smearing and meaning the degrade the subject of a bio.IbnAmioun (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That constitutes neither a smear nor a campaign. The subject of this discussion is the article in GQ, in which there was a minor factual error which has been clarified. The accusation you cite here is not a smear neither, but a reasonable complaint against a trader - whether or not it should be included in the article depends on the veracity of its source. Taleb himself has said much worse things about others, he is a big boy and doesn't need you to defend him. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

1) The accusation by itself may not be smear, the sensasonalization of the error and the dissemination of the story after it has been denied is smear. 2) What Taleb says about others is is not the point. You can go say whatever you want against him in the proper channels. But we would both agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for the expression about one's judgment concerning a living individual. IbnAmioun (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The resulting controversy is not a smear, simply a storm in a teacup. My second point was that criticism of the fund's returns is valid, professional opinion, you had claimed that a link to an article which did so constituted a "smear" (i.e., slanderous defamation). So we are agreed that there is no campaign against Taleb by GQ?

question is whether there are editors who look for degrading information, and squeeze as much ice as possible form wherever negative they can find. it IS a matter of degree etc. But anyway this cnroversy seems overYechezkel Zilber (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

1)Ktlynch there is misunderstanding. The problem is not GQ, it is a source and they have no smear campaign. The problem is a tabloid that made a big fuss about the mistake made there and attributed to Taleb not the journalist, and there was certainly a smear campaign as someone send 500 letters to every news agency in the world --and of course it was ignored. Remember one cannot be vigilant enough when the subject has reportedly been under death threats. 2) YechezkelZilber, it is not a question of negative bias. Criticism is healthy. Mainly use of sources that do not remotely comply with wikipedia BLP (blogs, especially tabloid blogs are not valid news sources for BLP, worse even for financial analysis). And bad specification by transforming the funds from insurance to total returns is also not acceptable.IbnAmioun (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

<unindent>I do not understand what you mean by the last part IbnAmioun: "And bad specification by transforming the funds from insurance to total returns is also not acceptable"? Best regards Ulner (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

the goal of taleb's various funds was to protect investors from market shocks. Returns must be seen with this a priority goal in hand.

a fund whose goal is to protect investor is measure by this and not by how it performs cummulativey per year. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should try to just try to state the facts, and cumulative returns (when available) is a clear fact. We should try to not interpret the numbers ourselves, and avoid such comments, if they not clearly cite a reliable source (interpretations can sometimes constitute original research). It is for me personally clear that strategies of the kind Taleb uses would have a negative correlation with the general stock indicies - if we can find a reliable source interpreting correlation between returns of certain funds and the general stock market indicies it would be interesting to publish such data in e.g. articles describing those funds. Ulner (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Related Articles