Talk:Mark Spitznagel

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Publications

It appears to be a little excessive to list everything he is ever written. I'm pretty sure the guidelines back me up on this one.--LedgerTom (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Spitznagel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Spitznagel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the article's excessive size

The current size of the article is approximately 64 kB. Per WP:SIZERULE, we should probably divide it into more articles, since the scope of the topic cannot be said to justify the extent of the reading material, or cut down its size. I suggest we proceed by cutting down the long and unnecessary section on the subject's person, which already sets the article off balance. -The Gnome (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Infobox is trimmed down: In 'occupation' the main occupation suffices; primary sources, e.g. own book, corporate website statements, etc, cited about education info, are removed; in 'contributions' one jargon term is enough; and so on.
  2. Image is reduced to a typical 150px size, approximately between the size of Muhammad Ali and Jesus, i.e. about the size of Taleb's. Dissenters are discouraged from invoking other bad precedents in Wikipedia.
  3. Sources that are inappropriate are thrown out. E.g. the blatant advertorial in Worth, a magazine that explicitly[1] offers a "pay-for-play opportunity for financial advisors who want to buy exposure to high net worth investors."
  4. Personal traits are almost all excised since they provide no encyclopaedic value at all. The extensive descriptions of the article's subject as being "secretive", "blond" (with citation), ultra "succesful" (a word appearing eight times}, and an economic theorist are put to rest. Same goes for the glowing descriptions (e.g. "the Babe Ruth of traders" for his trading mentor; Taleb's subsequent fame; etc) for the persons near and dear to the subject.
  5. Images such as that of Idyll Farms are removed since there is already a link taking is to the eponymous article, in which the farm's image is tellingly smaller than in the biography.
  6. Personal viewpoints are interesting only up to the point where genuine encyclopaedic value is imparted. That point may be subjectively placed but the space previously given for the subject's views exceeds that for prominent economic theorists. It's a case of seriously undue weight and therefore balance is restored.
And, of course, a general defenestration of ballast. All in all, a now arguably bearable article. -The Gnome (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: I think this cut-down was overly broad and indiscriminate. I invite the down-cutter to reconsider and make suggestions to re-do the effort. If not, I'll do so myself. Tapered (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on your remarks, Tapered? You assert "broadness" and "indiscrimination" but the editing has been amply supported by reasons. This is the WP:BLP of an entrepreneur; not of the most important entrepreneur ever, nor of a religious figurehead. (You may count text words and compare.) As to suggestions, by all means, please offer speficic and reasoned ones. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reacted reflexively to the removal of properly referenced material. For the most part, in error. My Bad. But...I thought that the excision from his goat farm was more than warranted. Ironically, the one piece I'd like to see restored is his adventure in urban farming in Detroit. Please see the last paragraph of the article as 11 Feb 2019. It's entertaining, brief, and says a lot about Spitznagel's character. Tapered (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of detailed information of a biography subject's personal life generally tends to correspond to the subject's level of notability. For example, we'd probably want to include as much info on Freud's personal life as possible in the article about him, but not as much in the article about a simply notable Austrian psychiatrist. Spitznagel is simply a successful businessman; we only need some elementary information about his personal life. Tidbits about pet projects and similar stuff, unrelated to his business, offer no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Southall, Brooke (16 November 2009). "Worth magazine's new owner rights ship by charging wealth managers for write-ups". RIABiz. Retrieved 12 February 2019.

Criticism and opposition

Greetings, one and all. Articles about persons with viewpoints on economics, especially economists, typically contain sections with opposite views, rebuttals, discourse, etc, for obvious reasons of balance and to, at least, avoid the appearance of having promotional material in an article or adopting an adoring slant. This article seems to be missing such balance, having only a passing mention of Paul Krugman's rejection of the claims about the alleged harm to the economy caused by government and central bank interventions. Any ideas? -The Gnome (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a casual perusal of online texts, it seems there's ample opposition to subject's views, presented quite strongly and practically unopposed in the article, about (a) the U.S. Fed's alleged culpability for “increasing wealth disparity,” (b) the economic "distortions" that ostensibly result from money creation, and (c) his ostensibly “perfectly predictable, by economic logic alone” point about the connection between monetary interventionism and subsequent stock market losses, in which he uses Tobin's Q-ratio. We may merrily proceed to restore balance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Spitznagel"