This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This whole article (and pretty much everything touching Taleb in Wikipedia) feels like an advertisement, with tons of Taleb-specific jargon which is out of place in an encyclopedia article. I removed a couple of really-egregious paragraphs, but it might be worth taking a pass-through and cutting out the majority of this and related article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.161.162 ( talk) 20:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed a digression on how to logically categorize the Green Lumber Fallacy. Though an interesting logical point, I think it distracts from the article on antifragility.
The Green Lumber Fallacy has a truth value of "T" per the Material conditional in logic because the consequence of the statement is true and therefore the statement holds true even if the antecedent is false. This would suggest it is not a fallacy. However, it is a fallacy as per the Logical consequence in logic where the relationship between statements holds true when one logically "follows from" one or more others. Valid logical arguments are ones in which the conclusions follow from its premises, and its conclusions are consequences of its premises.
It isn't referenced as having come from the book, so I don't see a reason to keep it in. Esplinr ( talk) 16:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The opposite of fragile is tough. The author may coin antifragile and sell more books, as English has infinite room to change over time. Still, the article reads like a puff piece for the book because it does not question an obviously fallacious claim that our language falls short on antonyms. I'll do a little research and edit in a more neutral tone soon. Meanwhile, I'll monitor the talk page. Jimgettman ( talk) 17:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on not liking the book. Did you read the part where the author studied hundreds of languages and couldn't find a word to describe what he was thinking or did you just want to bitch? 2601:681:4801:7AF0:900F:2251:FA6B:B53A ( talk) 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Amazon is claiming the book was published in 2014, which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supremedemency ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Why on earth does Taleb's criticism of Alan Blinder get its own section in an article of this brevity? It reads like someone has a vendetta. dweinberger 14:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger ( talk • contribs)
I plan on removing the template that says this article reads like an advertisement. I’m struggling to see how this should be edited to correct b/c it doesn’t read like one to me. If the editor felt that strongly about it, he should have posted his concerns to this page rather than simply throwing up a template. VergilDen ( talk) 18:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed another of the long quotes from the summary section. If Taleb's ideas are not able to be summarized, perhaps they are not coherent enough to warrant the effort which has gone into this page. Either way, a lack of editor skill at clarifying and summarizing—especially in a page that is so closely watched by fans of the subject author—is no excuse to leave in extended quotes which, frankly, poorly explain the ideas themselves. Please consult WP:OVERQUOTE and refrain from reflexively reverting edits which remove long quotes from this article. Handpigdad ( talk) 07:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This whole article (and pretty much everything touching Taleb in Wikipedia) feels like an advertisement, with tons of Taleb-specific jargon which is out of place in an encyclopedia article. I removed a couple of really-egregious paragraphs, but it might be worth taking a pass-through and cutting out the majority of this and related article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.161.162 ( talk) 20:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I removed a digression on how to logically categorize the Green Lumber Fallacy. Though an interesting logical point, I think it distracts from the article on antifragility.
The Green Lumber Fallacy has a truth value of "T" per the Material conditional in logic because the consequence of the statement is true and therefore the statement holds true even if the antecedent is false. This would suggest it is not a fallacy. However, it is a fallacy as per the Logical consequence in logic where the relationship between statements holds true when one logically "follows from" one or more others. Valid logical arguments are ones in which the conclusions follow from its premises, and its conclusions are consequences of its premises.
It isn't referenced as having come from the book, so I don't see a reason to keep it in. Esplinr ( talk) 16:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The opposite of fragile is tough. The author may coin antifragile and sell more books, as English has infinite room to change over time. Still, the article reads like a puff piece for the book because it does not question an obviously fallacious claim that our language falls short on antonyms. I'll do a little research and edit in a more neutral tone soon. Meanwhile, I'll monitor the talk page. Jimgettman ( talk) 17:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on not liking the book. Did you read the part where the author studied hundreds of languages and couldn't find a word to describe what he was thinking or did you just want to bitch? 2601:681:4801:7AF0:900F:2251:FA6B:B53A ( talk) 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Amazon is claiming the book was published in 2014, which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supremedemency ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Why on earth does Taleb's criticism of Alan Blinder get its own section in an article of this brevity? It reads like someone has a vendetta. dweinberger 14:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger ( talk • contribs)
I plan on removing the template that says this article reads like an advertisement. I’m struggling to see how this should be edited to correct b/c it doesn’t read like one to me. If the editor felt that strongly about it, he should have posted his concerns to this page rather than simply throwing up a template. VergilDen ( talk) 18:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed another of the long quotes from the summary section. If Taleb's ideas are not able to be summarized, perhaps they are not coherent enough to warrant the effort which has gone into this page. Either way, a lack of editor skill at clarifying and summarizing—especially in a page that is so closely watched by fans of the subject author—is no excuse to leave in extended quotes which, frankly, poorly explain the ideas themselves. Please consult WP:OVERQUOTE and refrain from reflexively reverting edits which remove long quotes from this article. Handpigdad ( talk) 07:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)