Talk:Technical analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Investment  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Mislabeling of Point & Figure[edit]

Point & Figure charting is redundantly listed twice under the general heading "Charting Terms & Indicators." It is listed as both a "concept" as well as "type" of chart. Moreover, the abstract general idea or concept that is signified by the word "Point & Figure" must be, by definition of the word "concept," a collection of those characteristics which are common to all types of charts. It is quite proper to list Point & Figure as a "type" of chart. It is not proper and is in fact incorrect to label it as a "concept." Why are you disallowing this correction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, the abstract general idea or concept that is designated by the word "red" is that characteristic which is common to apples, cherries, and blood. The abstract general idea or concept that is signified by the word "dog" is the collection of those characteristics which are common to Airedales, Collies, and Chihuahuas.

The abstract general idea or concept that is signified by the word "point & figure" is the collection of those characteristics which are common to....??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I missed the spot it was put in and didn't notice that it was duplicative. At this point, the discussion should be with TradingBands. It should be in one place or the other.Sposer (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok thank you. Let us keep it under "charts" and removed it from "concept." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Mr TradingBands can you please support your claim. What collection of characteristics signified by the term "Point & Figure" is common to all charts? For example. Momentum is a concept shared by all types of charts. Support and resistance are concepts which are shared by all charts. P&F is a TYPE of chart. But why should P&F be labeld a "concept" and not, for example, standard OHLC charts, too? And why do you insist on duplicative entries? -- (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, P&F charts are a type of chart, but the concept of P&F extends well beyond charts into the realm of pure price analysis. It is unique in this regard in TA. (Some rare types of swing charts also ignore time.) So, you have two parts and thus two entries, a charting technique and a timeless -- literally -- approach to price and indicator analysis. As for the naming, that was done more than 100 years ago and we live with those naming conventions. TradingBands (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

John Murphy[edit]

John Murphy is not an Economist by trade. According to his bio, he is most well known as a technical analyst and book author. See:

However when I change the Wiki to reflect these facts, someone keeps changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Just what discipline do you think financial market analysis belongs to? He even has a degree in economics. Being a book author has never disqualified anyone from being an economist or any other professional. Financial institutions hire economists to do their market analytics. Kbrose (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but he would not consider himself an economist. Just ask him. When I was sitting on a desk, I called myself a financial markets analyst. I have a degree in economics. I did not consider myself to be an economist. I know John personally. I am pretty confident he would blanch at the thought of being called an economist.Sposer (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It's almost laughable that anyone would even try defend themselves on the question of whether John Murphy is an economist. Donald Trump has a degree in Economics. Does that make him an economist? Gloria Estefan has a degree in Psychology, does that make her a shrink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Article needs some organizing[edit]

Whats the difference between Principles, Characteristics and General Description? We have three sections with virtually the same title. We need to combine and sort these out. Any suggestions?-- KbobTalk 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. -- (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

False sourcing of statements[edit]

(I last commented on this talk page on the same subject back in sept 2007. That comment is no longer visible, but the error still stands)

None of the quotes attributed to Warren Buffett are available from the link given as source - (Warren Buffett has said, "I realized technical analysis didn't work when I turned the charts upside down and didn't get a different answer" and "If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians."). A quick non-exhaustive search turns up one reference from the year 2000 to the librarians-quote, here, but I'm less sure of the tech analysis charts quote. A similar use of Google Timeline to find its first use results in a article from 2008, that is, after the quote appeared here.

Please comment below. Troed (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Found my earlier comment, will let it stand since it documents for how long these uncited quotes have been left without action. I'll correct this in two steps and document how here. This page seems to be seldomly updated, but I don't want another 2.5 years to pass before something happens. I will start by removing the listed reference since it does not contain the quotes in question, and replace with [citation needed] for a few days/a week or so. If no one has made any comments or added references by then I will remove the quotes altogether, after having done another attempt to find them myself. Troed (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh my. While not applicable to the above (verified by checking earlier versions) I see now that there are serious problems with references at this page. The section just below the one I edited contains a sentence obviously meant to reference Brock et al - reference numbered 12 at the moment - but instead links to reference 30. It seems prudent to look into this further and I will likely do so when correcting the above quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troed (talkcontribs) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to the article[edit]

Though the external links section asks us not to include links in this article, I thought that the following links would provide useful contents with respect to Technical Analysis. Introduction to Technical Indicators and Oscillators on I do not understand why links should not be added. I feel that links serve as verifiable references even though it has not been used for a reference to a particular instance of information. DiptanshuTalk 10:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that this is a commercial web site and that is not permitted. I am removing for now, but let's see what some other editors say in response to your link. If we get a great hue and cry, we can think about it.Sposer (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC).

Drummond Geometry[edit]

Ted, Drummond Geometry is known by very few people. The book you are referencing is only available through people, like you, who are selling the information and classes. Unless something has changed, the product is extremely expensive. Because Drummond is not available to the whole world, freely, and is not part of any TA Body of Knowledge, it really does not belong in this article.Sposer (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sposer,
well...yes, Drummond published his books privately, and I agree that the methods should be wider known. But even if we take these two reasons as valid exclusionary criteria (which I would dispute) my second supporting reference is to a recent book published by Bloomberg Press, which is freely available and is neither expensive nor exclusionary. and which places Drummond solidly in the mainstream of TA and is edited by the chair of the New York Region of the Market Technicians Association. Certainly this belongs in an article about technical analysis. In addition there are a number of articles that have been published in various professional TA magazines discussing the fundamentals of Drummond Geometry that are all in the public domain. Furthermore the cost of the methods have been dropping and the entry level software and education is now $250, which cannot be said to be extremely expensive nor exclusionary.
I suggest that I take your point regarding the first edit that you made and the second edit supported by the Bloomberg Press book be restored.

best regards Tedtick

Tedtick (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Both Sposer and Tedtick have valid points. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, an exhorbitantly-priced book that isn't even likely to be available in libraries is a poor source because it isn't verifiable by the general population.
However, Drummond Geometry is notable. Few technical traders know the details, but I would bet that most technical traders have heard of it. It is also mentioned or described in many widely-available books (some of which are considered 'classics' such as Pruitt & Hill). I think it's notable enough to warrant its own article, and one has been created recently, so it is not wrong to mention it in this article. The text that is sourced to something verifiable should be restored. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I had missed the chapter in Dave's Bloomberg book (I had a chapter in the earlier edition). I am not really convinced that pl dot is notable, since it is used probably less than market profile, which is far more notable (and not used very much I am told either). It might desrve a "see also", if there is an article on it. I am not going to kill it for now, because I am not into policing this article. But, it is not currently part of the MTA Body of Knowledge, and is right now not widely known, which makes it hard to suggest belonging in this article, which should really only talk about the most widely used tools. I will need to look at the article in the book, and find some magazine articles, to see if there is enough info to make it meaningful enough to keep. Still, this article should really only refer to the most widely used methods, and Drummond barely registers. Let's see what other editors say. I will give Dave and Robin M. a call on it when I have a chance. Ted should have mentioned his COI, and if you sell it too, you should let us know as well.Sposer (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right about the PLdot and other specifics (honestly, I didn't read carefully the text I restored; I restored it on the basis of having a verifiable and reliable source). I have no COI -- I don't even own any Drummond stuff but I have reviewed material that a friend bought some years ago, and found it incredibly complicated. Nevertheless, I do see it mentioned in books, some of which I consider notable books on technical analysis, so in that sense Drummond Geometry is widely known about, not widely known, because it's widely mentioned.
I'm not sure that presence in the "MTA Body of Knowledge" is meaningful in the context of this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
MTA is the main professional organization. I think it is relevant. Be that as it may, I do not think it is in any of the major books: Murphy, Pring, Edwards&McGee, Kirkpatrick/Dahlquist. The article is not about indicators, but TA itself. I am not taking Drummond out, but this article should not become a link farm for everybody's favorite indicator.Sposer (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Indicators to Present in the Main Article[edit]

Only mainstream indicators, tools and techniques that are widely used and widely available ought to be presented in a generalist TA article. Presenting odd or niche indicators, tools and techniques only serves to obfuscate when our goal ought to be to inform and enlighten. Hence, I agree with Dee Dee's deletions. TradingBands (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In line with the above, I propose the removal of the PAC chart and Strat indicators from the main article. I'll do so in a week unless discussion intervenes. TradingBands (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Completely agree. Sposer (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. TradingBands (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Random Walk Hypothesis[edit]

For NPOV's sake I removed some extremely strong statements added recently such as the following (emphasis added):

The random walk hypothesis - now refuted - may be derived from the weak-form efficient markets hypothesis

positively proving the random walk does not exist and never has. Several years passed before the acadmics finally and reluctantly admitted they were right.

It is patently obvious that prices mostly trend, which randomness would not support.

The random walk hypothesis article does not seem to support such bold claims (although it does discuss Lo's paper as evidence against RWH), so I toned them down in this article. Can anyone provide some enlightenment on whether the RWH has been conclusively disproven as the author (User:JMcGoo I think) asserts? Destynova (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I would argue that anybody that is willing to look at the evidence would agree with User:JMcGoo, the majority of the sadly misinformed world of academia, and even many non-academics, would disagree with those assertions. Those assertions are not backed by academic consensus. If there is a source that shows consensus that Random Walk is no longer considered valid, I would be more than pleased to include it. There is growing believe in that, although less so for EMH in general. They are not the same. Sposer (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The statements quoted above are indeed POV and incorrect. The random walk hypothesis isn't derived from the efficient markets hypothesis. It's the other way round.
There are reliable sources, such as the book Chaos and Order in the Capital Markets by Edgar Peters, and A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street by Andrew Lo and Craig MacKinlay, that soundly refute[1] the hypothesis that the market's behavior is a random walk -- and this is clearly demonstrated by anyone by plotting a distribution of returns and observing that the distribution is not gaussian (whereas a gaussian distribution can't be avoided in a random walk). ~Amatulić (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a common misconception -- a random walk need not involve Gaussian increments. Btyner (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
What misconception? Nobody has claimed that gaussian increments are required. A random walk does, however, result in a gaussian distribution of returns, and the increments themselves need not be gaussian. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You said "a gaussian distribution can't be avoided in a random walk". Can you please elaborate on this statement? Btyner (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of Magoo's points are correct, even if the volume was a bit high. Random walk has been disproved in dozens of papers and much of the edifice of Modern Portfolio Theory is crumbling under an onslaught of reality. However, the proof you seek comes not from papers, but from the massive exodus of Phds and academicians from the academy to Wall Street. Thus the very people who taught the theory now seek to take advantage of the consequences of the acceptance of their teachings by the masses. Really quite a fine game! TradingBands (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the edits made by Destynova are correct, in that they removed POV adjectives and wording. If anyone wants to add something on that topic to the article please feel free but please also make sure it is backed up by a reliable secondary source and not an editor's self knowledge. Thanks to all who are working to improve the article. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


The cycles topic in the main article is most welcome and long overdue. Unfortunately, there is no matching Wiki article. Would someone please start one? TradingBands (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Removals[edit]

Not sure what to do about industry section. I added a reference from FINRA regarding MTA/CMT. Not sure what kind of articles exist.

For the history tends to repeat itself, that is common knowledge and is a sentence in almost every single book on the subject and there is no way it should be removed. The evidence/rule based work is covered in multiple of the referenced books (Aronson, Kaufman, Murphy). I do not have time to find exact page references. That statistical evidence section cites a paper, and academia is clearly more and more in line with the idea that TA is of value (and the market are neither random nor efficient). The use section refers to books written by the people that cover the topics and should not be removed. Sposer (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Full citations with page numbers are needed for verfiability. Simply mentioning the book title is not sufficient. Yworo (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Why did you not simply add a {{cn}} tag to the material you are challenging to give other editors a chance to provide citations? That is the standard practice. Nothing is gained by arbitrarily removing the material from sight, leave it where it can be seen and discussed. --CliffC (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Because the sections and other material removed were (mostly) already tagged. Plus I happen to agree with Jimbo that
"I can NOT emphasize this enough.
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information ..." [2]
Yworo (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I removed content which had been added to the article with {{cn}} tags. That's a very bad thing; it's perhaps understandable that content gets added to articles without source, but when content gets added with a tag that says "I know there's no source, somebody else expects a source, I haven't found a source but I'll add the content anyway" - that's very hard to reconcile with WP:V.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talkcontribs) oops, sorry I forgot to sign - bobrayner (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Every sentence cannot have a tag on it. You removed basic statements that are in virtually every technical analysis book. You also removed an item that said that there is increasing evidence that TA added value and there was a paper referenced. You can't just remove stuff because you don't like it. I could probably have sourced some of the items from my own book, which is RS, but felt it was not appropriate. I don't have time to source every sentence, and you have removed much TA 101 and History of TA, making the article far less valuable to readers, and probably less correct. I have edited this article over the years, and removed spam, items that were even correct if I thought they were too biased, etc. Some of the items you removed needed cleaning up, but none were wrong. You should not remove text just because of citations, if you are not initimately familiar with the subject or subscribe to a school of thought (not accusing you of this) that disagrees with the article. I do see some was added back (the paper and industry sections by you and others), which is appreciated. I will attempt to get cites for others later. Good faith would place much of what you removed back as there is nothing controversial in there. I should add that though the paper provided evidence, the edit made is misleading, since it sounds as if it is the only paper that says so. There are 100s of papers from academia that show TA of value, some of which note the rightly removed interpretive statement.Sposer (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Any editor may remove unreferenced material. It is edit warring to put it back without citing it. See WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. Yworo (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

While its true an editor "may" remove unsourced content it is usually more appropriate to place a cite tag there and wait a few weeks to see if an editor can produce a source, meanwhile the tag alerts the reader that the text is not referenced and that it's accuracy may be in question. Regarding this specific instance, Sposer says it's a statement in almost every technical analysis book, so why not cite the text and end this discussion?-- KeithbobTalk 18:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Jimbo, quoted above. Most of the material I removed had already been tagged some time ago and so far no citations had been provided. Someone with the sources is welcome to cite. I don't have them. Yworo (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Yworo. If the content had been tagged for some time than I agree removal is an valid option.-- KeithbobTalk 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of the section had been requested to add cites. I never said otherwise. I really don't have that much time for this. Much of the article though was common knowledge and in intro sections of any book on TA, which is why I didn't think there was a need to cite. Two items were cited, but removed anyway. I didn't know how to cite the industry info, since that is typically not written about anywhere, and requires, in most cases, using the actual organization as a source, which obviously can be questionable. I found quotes in a book I had, which surprised me, and found an order for a regulatory exception that highlghts at least some of the industry info. At this point, almost everything Yworo removed has been put back. I think the only items that are missing are sort of inside baseball and not terribly important (i.e., do technical analysts prefer to be called technical analysts, technicians or chartists). That is largely opinion anyway and I had considered removing it in the past. I don't have time to find a source giving credit for "the trend is your friend". That provides color, which makes the article more interesting, but doesn't add a huge amount of value. I am willing to bet we can find that quote attributed to many different people. I think we should re-cite request the bit about trading with the trend being more profitable. I believe RS sources it exists somewhere for that statement, but to be honest, I do not know where. We also need to fix the section on the paper saying that TA is of value, as though it is cited, it is currently misleading. There are 100s of papers saying that TA works(and 1000s saying otherwise). It should not be presented as a lone article, but it shouldn't imply proof that TA works, regardless of which camp you are in. The rules-based section needed work, but was correct, and currently remains out of the article, which is a pity. I only have very old editions of books that could be cited for that, though the Aronson book that is cited elsewhere in the article is essentially a whole book on the subject. That is not my expertise, so hopefully somebody else will provide a cite so that we can put the article back to the way it should be.Sposer (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
One final note. There was no edit warring. I reverted once, because the cites were not up there very long and because they are largely common knowledge. Once it got reverted again, I did not put back anything without a cite, although those were removed again by Yworo. In fact, he made more than reverts and would be guilty of 3RR. Everything I put back, after the first revert, was cited.Sposer (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The things that were cited and inadvertently removed were restored yesterday. Don't you even look at the article before discussing? Other than that, all I can say is there is no hurry on Wikipedia. Per Jimbo, it's better to have nothing than uncited material. Finally, I did not break 3RR in any way and I insist that you retract that accusation. Unbroken series of edits count as a single edit for the purpose of 3RR. Yworo (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
If I miscounted, I apologize, but you removed the material, I added it back. You reverted my revert. I cited material and returned it, and you reverted it again. That seems to be three. If I am missing something or should not count the first revert, then I truly do apologize. However, you accused me of edit warring, which according to the edit warring link you cited, I did not. I stood down and cited only after your revert of my one revert. Furhtermore, you cited WP:BURDEN, which suggests that the cite requestor/material remover might want to look for cites themself. The statement about uncited material I thought was referring to false material, and is really opinion. Most of the material you removed was verifiable, as I did find cites in minutes, once I looked. Although you accused me incorrectly of edit warring, I do not seek an apology. It was an honest mistake.Sposer (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I never accused you of anything. I simply made a statement that restoring material removed by another editor without improving it could be considered edit warring. You weren't mentioned or accused. Finally, when one reverts, then continues to work on the article to correctly integrate material, then the whole series of edits is taken as one, which in total is not a revert. Since after my initial edits, I only made three series of edits (one interrupted by Amatulic while I was still working on it), and the last series contained no reverts, I could not possible have broken 3RR which requires four reverts. Yworo (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Yworo (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Jimbo "quote" above can be found in its entirety at WP:BOP:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[emphasis added]

--CliffC (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not a quotation of what Jimbo said, it's a quotation of the current policy wording. I provided a link to where he said it, here: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." The original quote simply says that this is particularly true for material about living people, it does not exclude other material. Again, the rule is that a person adding or restoring material to an article must provide references. As I don't have sources handily available while the other editor does, removing the material seems to be the best way to get it cited. Yworo (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


This article doesn't seem to do justice to EMH or RWH. It doesn't at all mention the strong, semi-strong, or weak variants, and when claiming it has been shown to be false doesn't state which version was so shown. Also, it doesn't mention that Malkiel doesn't say that trends cannot sometimes be predicted. He says that given the costs of trading, the amount of prediction that can be made does not result in making more money than investing in an index. These costs are not just commissions, but bid/ask spread, market action, etc. None of this is mentioned in the article: the opposing positions need to be made more accurate and detailed. Yworo (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please self-revert the "dubious" statement since that is your interpretation. The detailed review of EMH belongs in that article. Lo wrote a whole book debunking Random Walk in the late 1990s. There is no need to identify which form of EMH he questions, since there is nobody that believes that the strong form is correct and if I recall correctly, few abide by semi-strong. I can provide 100s of articles that support TA from highly respected academics. That is not the point. The Lo quote should stand. At a minimum, remove dubious. I will think about rewording the remainded if I have time.Sposer (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
What quote? Nothing was quoted. Quotes have to either be in quotation marks or blockquoted, and must have an immediately following citation. Somebody (you?) added an uncited unencyclopedic colloquial-language "explanation" complete with contractions (you do know we do not use contraction in an encyclopedia, right?). In any case, I left the cited material and only removed the uncited "explanation". I dispute that the material removed is accurate. Yworo (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I eas referring to the bit where you altered the cite of the Professor Lo article and added the term "dubious". If it wasn't you , then I misread the diffs. But the addition of dubious certainly is not in the cite and is opinion of the editor.Sposer (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Dubious is a tag that's used when an editor believes that the description of what a source says does not accurately reflect what the source says. I don't have a copy of Lo, so I request a quotation of precisely what his conclusion is, and which form or forms of EMH he says it applies to. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The paper is online and was linked and taken nearly word-for-word. Sposer (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The paper is online and linked, yes. However it is only available for purchase or to subscribers. Since I cannot access it, I am requesting quotations, which is my right. Yworo (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing the point[edit]

I am not sure on your background, but it seems to me you are all missing a point. TA rejects the EMH as one of its premisses. It does not concern itself with the strong\weak versions, or the Random Walk idea. The EMH is unproven. It is statistically supported (perhaps) but not proven. By contrast, the Euler identity is proven. You are not going to save or destroy TA on wikipedia, and the question of EMH is irrelevant. It is a point of fact that TA exists. It is point of fact that many people use it. It is a point of fact that many more people will turn to Wikipedia to find out introductory explanations about TA, about what it does, and if they are interested, which books to buy to find more info. In light of this, I think it is enough to say that TA does not accept the EMH as a premiss, as some stricter theories of FA do. It is a matter of opinion really, do you believe in the EMH or not. But matters of opinion should not be expressed in an article. Even if we feel the EMH is relevant, there should be an article on the EMH, with a disussion there. It is not a relevant part of TA, but a mere remark. The page should be written better, with a crossreference on the EMH, not a discussion about it being proved or disproved on the main article page on TA. Sandro Skansi 14:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horao (talkcontribs)

Reference to Lui article[edit]

Can this statement be clarified? I've read it several times and don't understand. What is the being referred to by 'index composite others' or between 'Han Seng index' and 'index'?

"Recently, Kim Man Lui, Lun Hu, and Keith C.C. Chan have suggested that there is statistical evidence of association relationships between some of the index composite stocks whereas there is no evidence for such a relationship between some index composite others. They show that the price behavior of these Hang Seng index composite stocks is easier to understand than that of the index.[24]" --Golden Eternity (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it needs clarifying. I suggest looking at the source and rewriting the text for the article.-- KeithbobTalk 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Four years later and it is still word salad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


I propose removing the npov tag from the head of the article as opposing/contrasting points of view are well represented throughout the article. This may have been a problem at one time, but it is clearly no longer one. I will wait for a week to allow for discussion. TradingBands (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, removing it as there were no objections. TradingBands (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro too short?[edit]

I propose taking down the intro too short notice. At this stage the intro actually seems quite adequate. I'll wait a week before taking action to allow discussion. TradingBands (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It exactly states what TA is.Sposer (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Removing short-intro template as there were no objections. TradingBands (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Second line of Intro section is NOT correct[edit]

The second line of Intro says "Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis incorporate technical analysis, which being an aspect of active management stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory."

Behavioral Economics DOES NOT "incorporate" technical analysis. Also, SOME quantitative models use technical analysis, but the introduction makes it sound like ALL quantitative models use technical analysis. Also, what does active management have to do with MPT? It is EMH that says active management is not possible (as captured in the third line). I am taking out that second line.

Here is the low down on Behavioral Economics:

(1) According to the book "Advances in Behavioral Economics":

"This conviction [use of psychological realism] does not imply a wholesale rejection of the neoclassical approach to economics based on utility maximization, equilibrium, and efficiency. The neoclassical approach is useful because it provides economists with a theoretical framework that can be applied to almost any form of economic (and even noneconomic) behavior, and it makes refutable predictions. Many of these predictions are tested in the chapters of this book, and rejections of those predictions suggest new theories. Most of the papers [in Behavioral Economics] modify one or two assumptions in standard [Economic] theory in the direction of greater psychological realism. Often these departures are not radical at all because they relax simplifying assumptions that are not central to the economic approach."

So, please understand how behavioral economics fits into economics.

(2) In the world of mathematical modeling, the approach followed by technical analysis falls under the category of Empirical Modeling. There is nothing wrong in using empirical models to predict future outcomes (and I am not interested in a debate of whether empirical modeling is the correct way to predict future stock prices -- To Each His Own!). Models incorporating behavioral economics tend to fall under the category of explicative or simulation modeling. Yes, volume and price generated from the markets are used -- not as inputs to the model, but to validate the model. The use of market generated volume and price in such manner does not make it technical analysis (if it does, then the sections "Description" and "Principles" in the the article are invalid). In other words, models based on behavioral economics try to EXPLAIN a market phenomenon and use market generated information to VERIFY the validity of the model. In comparison, technical analysis DOES NOT explain anything but tries to predict future outcomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF. Nobody's abusing anything. The whole point of Wikipedia is that you can edit it for any good reason. In your case, editing to correct errors and misunderstandings and using reliable sources (as opposed to original research) is what it's all about. "I will wait for a week before I take out the second line." Why a week? If it's wrong, be bold and go for it now. CityOfSilver 20:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. Thank you. I have edited my previous entry to reflect your point.
I believe that quote that you were mentioning is taken from a reliable source. Technical analysis tries to predict the future, but it tries to predict the future using the same basis and reasons as behavioral economics/finance. All of TA is based on psychological reaction to various stimuli. Behavioral economics, which came after TA, built on TA's base. Whether academics like it or not, TA is part of behavioral finance, a truism that many academics absolutely agree with. The exact wording might need to be made more clear (and I will get the quote from the source I refer to tomorrow, but the general theme remains 100% correct. No technician believes he/she can predict the market for any reason other than due to the same principles that behavioral economists use. The difference being that technicians do not use everything that behaviorists (or quants) use. The overlaps are substantial. They are not the same, but all three fields are close relatives.Sposer (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with your assertion that there are people who practice TA influenced by the psychology of human decision making under uncertainty. However, I don't agree with your statement "Behavioral economics [is] built on TA's base." Behavioral economics got started based on the work done by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, two psychologists who tested the validity of rational expectations theory assumed in economics. Just because SOME people who use TA take into account psychology of human decision making under uncertainty, and behavioral economics also defines CERTAIN behavior of economic actors in terms of psychology DOES NOT mean Behavioral Economics INCORPORATES TA (as the intro previously claimed). You also seem to use behavioral economics and behavioral finance interchangeably -- remember finance is a subset of economics and so is the behavioral inputs to these fields. Finally, you said "TA is part of behavioral finance, a truism that many academics absolutely agree with." I would like to know which academics agree with that statement!!! I can understand an academician agreeing that TA practiced by FEW individuals uses the SAME psychological underpinnings used by Behavioral Finance, but NOT to your statement. The reason, as I mentioned earlier, is that TA is a Empirical Model while NO behavioral model that I know of till date is an Empirical Model (they are all Explicative Models) -- your statement is really comparing apples to oranges. On a separate note, why are you so keen on linking TA and behavioral finance? Does TA need APPROVAL from academicians to exist? I personally don't care if academicians approve of TA or not, as long as I make money using TA! If you are so particular to have a link between the two that will "please" academicians, say something to the effect "Some types of TA and Behavioral Finance both rely on the idea of bounded rationality of human agents". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, behavioral economics/finance was started long before Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. Though they made amazing contributions, they were not the founders. The best candidate for that honor is Humphrey B. Neill. RogerBabson (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I get where you are coming from and I also agree that the sentence in the article was not really correct. The quote I thought I had was not present. My point about TA and Behavioral Finance is essentially that, especially chart patterns, are 100% psychologically based, and TA books go to great lengths to explain why they should work, on a behavioral basis. I cannot know what was in Tversky's and Kahneman's minds as they developed BE, but I would be amazed if they were not at least partially led there from TA. As far as my statement about professors, it is from personal conversations. My bugaboo about technicians is that they had the opportunity to be quants and Behavioral Economists, and were too lazy to spend the time to work it out (maybe they were too busy making money). As far as a desire to have TA approved of by BE academics, the Market Technicians Association, which is the professional organization, does work with academia as does the MTA Education Foundation to reverse the misinformation on TA and the (in)efficient markets.Sposer (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[ I have removed this outlandish and irrelevant statement. Even if it is true, it should not be there, but I agree it is factually highly questionable. Incidentally, this whole article reads like a defense of the methodology and an attempt to jsutify it, as opposed to a dispassionate statement of what it is. Nexus501 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC) ]

I will provide references in the next couple of weeks, but I have spoken to many academics in Behavioral Finance, and many openly acknowledge the connection. Was at a conference yesterday, and multiple quants there agreed that the statement: "much of your work is built on more sophiscated usage of technical analysis tools and methods." Obviously, that is not a reliable source, but not one disagreed.Sposer (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This content has been removed. While we value and welcome subject-matter experts to participate in editing articles, we do not base encyclopedic content on word-of-mouth, assumptions, or personal convictions outside of reliable and independent sourcing. Additionally, we do not allow ownership of articles by individuals who wish to assert their preferred version of an article bypassing policy, guidelines, and consensus. To this point, you may want to consider a Request for Comment, content dispute resolution, or the Fringe theory noticeboard. In either point, do not restore this questionable content outside of established consensus. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Further to the edit summary, I clearly stated that I was not using my anecdotal notes as reason to revert. The reason for the revert (beyond the fact that there were grammatical errors, which obviously I could have corrected), is because there are papers and books that state these points as facts. I can point to academics who use TA to prove BF. If you ever looked at quantitative tools, they use rich/cheap analysis (overbought/oversold), moving averages to determine how rich or cheap things are, etc. I know this, because I also worked as a quant and an economist before I was a technical analyst. The tools are the same in many many cases. I will provide the required cites, but do not have the time to search right now, but will in about a week. As for fringe theories, TA is accepted by a large and growing number of academics. And, just to be clear, I have not worked as a technical analyst in many years.Sposer (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and offered a list of policies and guidelines on your talk page. It doesn't appear as though you have been properly introduced to the community. Please spend some time reviewing the policies, particularly in regards to reliable sources, edit wars, and adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. It is clear from the dialogue on this page that consensus has not been met. Do not continue to revert the work of others. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Further information has been provided on your user talk page. Options are available to you. Continued disruptive editing is not one of those options. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You should read the policies, not me. I reverted and added a cite, that clearly stated that quants use technical analysis. I have a further cite now, with a WHOLE book that ties behavioral finance to technical analysis. And, if you are going to revert, it would have helped if you corrected the grammar at least. I am following the rules. You are just trying to force your opinion. I am providing sources while you are just saying that you disagree. That is edit warring.Sposer (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC) There was never any consensus that the tie-in between TA and Behavioral and/or Quant was wrong. There were editors that felt it was all out wrong, but there was more a disagreement about the wording, which was substantially altered. What was there earlier was not correct. Somebody then reverted what was there without achieving consensus, which I reverted. Then, I added a reference on quants using TA tools, and that was reverted. That link is here: [1]. Further, here is an academic paper that directly states the ties between behavioral finance/economics and TA [2]. And there is a whole book on the role of Behavioral Finance in Technical Analysis called "Behavioral Technical Analysis". The two subjects are intertwined and inextricably linked. I understand the points made earlier that TA is predictive, but you will not find a TA book that does not point out that TA works due to psychology and human emotion. The tools Behavior Finance depends on, includes the same tools TA uses. One is not a part of the other, but the basis for both - human emotion and irrationality are one and the same. As for Quants, read any book on quantitative analysis. It is about measuring supply and demand changes via information from the markets. That is technical analysis. Except quants tend to use far more complex statistical and analytical tools, in addition to the ones that they borrowed from TA (such as moving averages, momentum, trend detection, etc.). I know the Wiki rules. I have been editing here for years. Cindamuse is clearly even more experienced than I am, but I suspect she did not read through the whole thread. I have followed all the rules and I am not in any way, shape or form, edit warring. I should also add that it is ironic that the sentence from the Lo book is being used to question the validity of TA. Andrew Lo is a supporter of technical analysis and wrote the book, "A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street". Sposer (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The issue here is that there is a current lack of consensus in this article. Rather than engage with the editor, you have chosen to continue reverting content. You additionally add unsourced content stating, "I will provide the required cites, but do not have the time to search right now, but will in about a week." This is inappropriate. Please respond fully to the concerns over article content with the editor above, Nexus501 to discuss reliable and independent sourcing for disputed claims to reach consensus. Once consensus is met, that would be the time to edit the article, as well as providing the citations to support all claims. Pointing to academics and knowledge gleaned from attended conferences and personal background does not meet our guidelines for reliability. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The text that is there now is not grammatically correct. I had changed the text previously and I see now it said before Nexus altered without discussing that Behavioral Finance and Quants incorporate TA. What it should say is that BF and QA incorportate and are built on many of the same tools and theories that TA is built on. The cite that Cindamuze reverted showed that for QA and the ones I noted above shows that for BF. I will put that in next week when I have time. Sorry for posting under an IP, but I am not on my PC. This is sposer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
As promised, I have altered the text to more correctly state that TA, QA and BF all use many of the same tools and techniques. I've provided cites, including a full book on the relationship between behavioral finance and TA, as well as a paper describing same. Given that every pattern used by TA is always described based on the psychological and behavioral reason for why it should work, and given that other types of TA, such as Elliott and Dow Theory are 100% described behaviorally and psychologically, it is 100% irrefutable that both TA and behavioral economics and finance are based on the same thing. And, given that quants use many of the same exact measures as technical analysts (and many more complex ones, but still using the same underlying reasoning), it boggles the mind that anybody could question these relationships. I fully understand how a person who incorrectly believes in the validity of random walk or EMH would consider TA, QA or behavioral finance as being invalid, but questioning the noted relationship is illogical.Sposer (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Some interesting additional reading from a quant forum. I know this is not RS, but it should be instructive for those that seem to think that QA and TA are not highly related. (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

First three paragraphs[edit]

I don't know where to start. They are completely incoherent. What is going on here??? (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, they are unintelligible garbage. Probably intended to disguise the fact that the whole article is about pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. Technical analysis doesn't work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If this article is not rewritten in intelligible English, and in compliance with Wikipedia policies, I intend to stubbify it, and/or move for its deletion[edit]

This article is a god-awful mess. The lede is utterly incomprehensible, and violates pretty well every requirement of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The remainder of the article is almost as bad - scattered with poor grammar, jargon, non-sequiteurs and bizarre statements (e.g. "Technical analysts believe that prices trend directionally, i.e., up, down, or sideways (flat) or some combination". What else could a price do? Perform handstands while whistling Colonel Bogey?). I have to conclude that either (a) there is no subject here worthy of an encyclopaedic article, or (b) there is one, but those interested in the subject would prefer that the article be as obscure as possible in order to hide what appears on the surface at least to be self-evident - which is that "technical analysis" is pseudoscientific hocus-pocus if it is anything at all. I suggest that those responsible for this heap of unintelligible gloop do something about it - and soon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Qoute: "it is still considered by many academics to be pseudoscience". Are there any academics who consider 'technical analysis' to be something other than pseudoscience? What is the balance of opinion amongst those acedemics who are qualified to make such a judgement, and have done so? Simply leaving a statement like that hanging is untenable. If the only academics who have expressed an opinion on the subject do indeed consider the subject to be pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Fringe theories guidelines apply: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views". As to where on the spectrum between 'Obvious pseudoscience', 'Generally considered pseudoscience' and 'Questionable science' (as discussed in the guidelines) the topic falls, it is difficult to say without further evidence. However, since the article states that some academics at least consider the subject pseudoscience, there can be no reasonable doubt that Wikipedia:Fringe theories guidelines need to be taken into account - which this article singularly fails to do. I would remind contributors that there have been several arbitration cases relating to fringe topics over the years, and such matters are taken seriously by the community. As with all the other issues raised in the section above, this clearly needs prompt attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The pseudoscience statement does not belong in the article and I am not sure why it is in the article, as that is, at this point, a fringe opinion on TA. I cannot use in the article, but I've spoken to many academics, and there is growing acceptance of technical analysis, probably due to the success of its close cousins, behavioral economics and quantitative analysis. There are 100's of academics that believe that technical analysis (TA) is valid. Andrew Lo, whose work is quoted in the article is among them. Blake LeBaron is another. Didier Sornette has also use TA in his work. The NY Fed has written papers pointing out the validity of some patterns (and has written others that are less positive). The London School of Economics wrote severl papers in the 1990s pointing out how some TA methods led to outsized alpha. For all intents and purposes, quantitative analysis is TA on steroids, and few doubt quant's efficacy. I don't argue that the article needs a good deal of work. There have been multiple poor attempts at either trashing my ill-informed people that think TA is invalid, and equally ill-informed technical analysts that are incapable of writing a complete sentence. The article, however, has necessary cites and TA is most certainly anything but fringe.Sposer (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I haven't looked at the lede in a long time. This is atrocious. We probably need to go back a year to find what is reasonable.Sposer (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
for Mark, who reverted everything I added, the Seeking Alpha article exactly stars that quants use technical tools. In fact that is pretty much the title of the article. The author notes that quants follow trends and use the same tools. That is one if the points the article actually raises. Read on in the article. That is what TA is all about. It also notes, I think I saw, that they use moving averages as well. As for the Capco paper, it exactly says that behavioral finance jumped into the fray after technical analysis and attempts to explain why TA patterns might work. That is on the first page of the paper. Do not like is not a good enough reason to revert. Sposer (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the academics you have 'spoken too', I somehow doubt that we will accept that as a citation - we need published works. And as for "quantitative analysis [being] TA on steroids", unless this article (or at least, what I can make of it) is wrong, or our Quantitative analyst article is wrong, they are very different beasts: "A typical problem for a statistically oriented quantitative analyst would be to develop a model for deciding which stocks are relatively expensive and which stocks are relatively cheap. The model might include a company's book value to price ratio, its trailing earnings to price ratio, and other accounting factors. An investment manager might implement this analysis by buying the underpriced stocks, selling the overpriced stocks, or both...". Rather different from the "Market action discounts everything" principles expounded here, at least to my non-expert eyes. Still, if you can find a reliable source that supports "quantitative analysis [being] TA on steroids", then by all means cite it in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not looking for you to accept that as a cite, because it is not. I am just trying to teach here. I did mention multiple sources though, but listing me is of no value anyway. I am just letting you know what the industry says and does.Sposer (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
'What the industry does' has no bearing on whether academics describe TA as pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(non-english native speaker writing) Sposer&Andythegrump, I read with great interest your arguments and It seems to me that you do not disagree so much. While it is true that Andrew Lo's paper states that "several technical indicators do provide incremental information and may have some practical value", it also says that "informativeness does not guarantee a profitable trading strategy". As an academic myself I conducted some (randomized) tests with simple TA indicators and my conclusion is compatible with that: a fair ROI is indeed attainable under some strong constraints on the fractional Brownian motion generator. BUT these results do NOT include broker fees, which practically make these gains disappear. To summarize, TA MIGHT bring some usable information theoretically, but practically the profitability is not proved. As a matter of fact, TA perfectly meets the definition of a heuristic (see the related article), but not of a science as used in the academic vocabulary. Anyway its sensibility to (too) many parameters makes its (best) profitability very low even for skilled people, thus obviously negative for the others. --Scoulondre (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. The point I was making is that it is not pseudoscience and it is misleading to describe it as such. Lo's work mentions that some in academia suggest it is, but it is far from unanimous. Others in academia have written articles showing profits that are economically significant if I remember correct. Look for some older work from the London School of Economics, the Fed, Blake LeBaron and Didier Sornette amongst others. Much of electronic market making and quant is really just TA on steroids (I know since I've done both), although the quants don't like to admit it. Bottom line is I do neither quant nor TA anymore and have no skin in the game any longer and do not have the time to really edit this piece, but pseudoscience is an incorrect and misleading lie.Sposer (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


If this article is to make claims asserting scientific credibility for Technical Analysis, it will need to cite sources which back this up. Neither blogs, [3] nor 'Journals' produced by consulting firms [4] are likely to meet the standards required, per WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Problematic sentence in the lede[edit]

User:Sposer just restored a sentence to the lede: " Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis". I had removed this sentence in its previous form (" Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis build on and incorporate many of the same tools of technical analysis") because the sources given do not support that assertion and because, well, because it's simply false (Behavioral economies most certainly does not "incorporate" or "build on" technical analysis, perhaps vice versa).

Sposer's edit summary was: Given that sources almost exactly stated what was in sentence, reverting. Will soften text momentarily however.. This isn't true (and it would be weird if four different sources stated exactly that). And in fact, the sources do not even support the milder wording.

One by one:

Seeking Alpha - first, this is a blog more or less so doesn't meet WP:RS. Still, the word "behavioral" does not appear in the article (only in comments) hence the assertion that behavioral economics uses many of the same tools as technical analysis is NOT supported by this source. The word "quantitative" occurs once in the article, basically saying that "quantitative strategies" involve looking at past trends. It doesn't say anything about quantitative analysis building on the tools of technical analysis. Hence this source does not support the sentence at all, even if we do ignore reliability issues.

Mizrach and Weerts - this appears to be a working paper which runs into WP:RS issues. And also again, the source simply does not support the sentence. Yes, it does talk (and define) what behavioral economics is, and it does talk (and more or less define) what technical analysis is but nowhere does it state that one builds upon or incorporate the other. If I'm missing where it is supposed to do that please provide a quote and page number.

Capco - again I'm not 100% sure that this can be considered a reliable source, though it does have some academics on its editorial board. Anyway, once more, the article talks about "behavioral finance", it talks about "technical analysis" but it does not say that one builds upon or incorporates the other. If I'm missing where it is supposed to do that please provide a quote and page number.

The last source [5] is a book and judging by the title maybe it does support the claim. However, without a page number it's impossible to verify and I'm not going to read the whole thing. The burden of proof is on the person inserting the text to provide the page number.

There are some additional problems here.

First, there is a bit of a definition confusion in regard to the word "quantitative" can mean pretty much anything involving numbers, as the wlink to quantitative analyst indicates. In fact these terms can be equivocated and using "quantitative" does not add to the article.

Second, and more importantly, even if you can find a source or two which makes the claim above that does not imply that this view is well established. Essentially, while some technical analysts may believe that the behavioral economics are building upon their work, they're not. Even the converse statement - that technical analysts are building upon the work of behavioral economists is not really true. Basically, behavioral economists for the most part regard technical analysis as the same kind of mumbo-jumbo that the more traditional "efficient market hypothesis" see it as (in fact Becon is not necessarily conflict with some forms of EMH). The sentence which is being included is a very strong (and essentially false) claim and hence really needs some very high quality sources to back it up. Right now it has no sources which really back it up. VolunteerMarek 05:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "build and incorporate" portion as I believe that was too strong as well. The articles cited do not each validate all of the statements. However, they either support the statements about Behavioral Economics or Quants. They specifically refer to use of things like moving averages, or explaining TA terms, such as channels and support and resistance. There is certainly no attempt to state that behavioral economics makes any attempt to validate TA. I worked as a quant and later shifted to TA (and now am involved with neither). Quants do rich/cheap analysis often by measuring things like moving average of price expected price (i.e., something can remain rich or cheap for longer than you can afford to hold a position). These are exactly what technicians may use, but just on price. The lede is suggestive that there is an overlap, which there clearly is. You will not find a whole lot of academic work stating that, largely because there is no reason to do it. It is industry practice. Again, I don't mean for this to be meant as a cite, but just stating observations over the years. As for Seeking Alpha, blogs are okay, in some cases. SeekingAlpha is a widely read blog and is often used as a source in the financial press. I am just trying to get us back to a point where the lede is intelligible and largely correct. It might be that the info on quants and behavioral economics belong elsewhere in the article. But, they are valid points. I am happy to consider some movement around. We certainly should state that TA's validity is questioned by many academics, and that, like fundamental, quant and behavioral analysis, flies in the face of EMH. However, if you want balance, you need to point out that there are many academics that support it as well.Sposer (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, look, I don't know what "quantitative analysis" is supposed to mean here - the linked article mentions people like Merton, Black, Scholes, Engle and Fama, all of whom are very "mainstream" finance/econ dudes who don't do anything resembling TA, just use "quantities", i.e. math - but in regards to behavioral economics, the claim "Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis" is simply false and NOT SUPPORTED by any of the source given. Yes, those sources discuss Becon, and TA but none of them say that they use the same tools. I am removing this claim until a source which actually supports it is provided.VolunteerMarek 07:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are missing. The Capco paper directly states the cognitive explanation for technical channels. Cognitive/psychological = Behavioral: "It should be pointed out that certain market practitioners, the so-called technical analyst ornchartists, never paid any attention to the results of mathematical finance and EMH that are against the very grain of their work. These practitioners believe that certain price patterns repeat themselves and provide profit opportunities. Consequently, they pore over historical data and draw charts with acronyms such as “support,” “resistance,” “channel,” “head-and-shoulder,” and “momentum,” which according to EMH have no informational value whatsoever, in order to gain insight into market sentiment that hopefully will give them a trading edge. Justification of chartists for their approach to market is very intuitive and suffers from

a lack of quantification though they use certain statistical terms such as moving averages or ratios. To justify some of these approaches psychologists have joined the foray and tried to provide an explanation for the way market behaves using psychology. Figure 1 is a cognitive psychology explanation of oscillation of prices that fall into a rising or falling band called a “channel.” The Seeking Alpha story title: "Beating the Quants at Their Own Game" relates how both quants and technical analysts both use moving averages for investing/rich/cheap decisions: "Many quantitative investment strategies are based on some sort of trend following - very simply put they buy an uptrend and sell a downtrend. The “trend” is typically determined by a moving average. For the sake of this analysis I will be dealing with simple moving averages as opposed to exponential moving averages due to the fact that I was not prepared to spend my whole weekend creating the necessary calculations in Excel. The general take-away of this exercise will be the same for either. A simple moving average is the average price of the last “X” number of days. Popular moving averages used in technical analysis are the 50 day, 100 day, and 200 day. A technical investor wants a signal that is clear enough that they will not miss a big portion of the price move but also slow enough that they will not get whipsawed around from trading “noise”." The SSRN article points out that behavioral researchers and technical analysts focus on high and low prices: "Psychological, behavioral, survey and experimental evidence appears to support our choice of simple, widely reported, and graphically oriented rules like the n-day high and low." Graphically = Technical = Chartist. I am honestly confused what you are missing? I very much watered down the lede, and did not put it as same building blocks, although that is arguable, and rather said they use the same tools/indicators, as clearly stated with three different examples (highs and lows, moving averages, channels) in three cites.Sposer (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please find a source that states explicitly that "Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis". You are engaging in WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
How is it OR when the whole Seeking Alpha article is about TAs using the same tools as Quants. That is even the title. There is no OR in what I said. The words there are synonyms. If it says in one sentence about technicians use n-day highs and lows and in another psychological explanations of focus on highs and lows, that is not OR. That is English. Same for the direct statement about technicians and quant using moving averages. And, in the Capco piece it directly states the psychological explanation for the TA channel. Technical analysts specifically state that they believe their patterns are based on crowd behavior. Same thing. No OR. Period. If you do not know the nomenclature, I guess I could see how you could miss this, but this is as far from OR as Earth is from Pluto. Sposer (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
There's no way to state it more clearly - the sources DO NOT support the claim the text is making. In all of the passage that you are quoting above there is NOTHING which would support the contention that Behavioral economics or quantitative analysis (whatever that is in this context) use many of the same tools of technical analysis. Moving averages are just averages, so this is basically like saying that because both TA and Be and quant use these magical things called "numbers", they both "use the same tools".
And "cognitive" is a particular word, while "Behavioral finance" is a very specific discipline. The OR is in you jumping from one to the other.
At this point this has become an instance of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT which is turning into a slow moving edit war.VolunteerMarek 05:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is more like youdon't like. Cognitive relationships are part of behavioral finance. Moving averages and momentum are used by quants and technical analysts and are specifically mentioned either in the cites or in the additional materials I put in. A moving average is not just a number. You apparently do not understand what is meant by a tool (I do not mean this in a disparaging or argumentative way). Technical analysts and quants both use moving averages in the exact same ways. They use it to help identify a trend, or how far a price is from the norm. Again, not RS, but I started out as a quant, and used many of the same things I used later on as a technical analyst. The book noted also directly said that they use the same thing. I know what Behavioral Finance is. BF is based on the psychology of the markets. So is technical analysis.Sposer (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Unsourced, so irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to help you guys not appear so ignorant and explain the world of quants, behavioral analysts and technical analysts. Yes, my experience is anecdotal, even if it is what everybody else does. People don't write papers saying: "Hey, what I do is exactly what the guy who doesn't have a PhD does, and by the way, I actually stole his idea." Surprisingly, though for some reason there is blindness here, the sources in the article and the additional five or so I noted last night in the talk section actually do EXACTLY say this, and use proper English and apply synonyms in some case so they don't use the same word over and over again. If you are talking about the moving averages statements, you are just plain wrong. The moving averages part is not unsourced, but rather need not be sourced. The article does not need to explain how moving averages are used as that is not what the article is about. That is common knowledge and probably exists in articles on them. Plus, I think it was mentioned in context in one of the sourced pieces. I suggest you try to understand using words in context. A moving average is never considered just a "number" in TA or quants. It is calculated as part of a methodology and for trading systems. For example, "moving average cross overs", etc. Your saying the moving average usage being unsourced is like saying that in an article about the history of Disney, that I mentioned Pluto, and I would need a source to say Pluto was dog Disney character and not the planet. It is understood in context.Sposer (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The Seeking Alpha source (which is of questionable value as WP:RS anyway) describes how some investors that primarily use other strategies may sometimes use the 'tools' of TA. It does not in any way support a definitive and unequivocal claim on the lede that "Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis". Incidentally, there seems to be a little confusion in terminology here. By 'tool', do we mean the charts themselves, or algorithmically-based trading systems? The former is a means to visualise data, while the latter is a decision-making system. It is entirely possible to 'use' a chart in the sense of looking at it to get a better understanding of data, and then, based on other information, ignore its implications. Does this count as 'Using the tools of TA'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Technical analysts look at charts. Their tools may include that visualization, but it is much more than that. They write indicators that measure momentum and price direction. Technical analysts also write trading systems as well. When I was one, I wrote systems that were purely technical, measuring momentum with cubic splines, and other mathematical tools. Regardless,here is more evidence: In "Behavioural Technical Analysis": "I examine the behavioural finance concepts supporting three strategies which technical analysts have utilised over the years. The three strategies are extreme prices, trend following, and support and resistance. I chose those strategies because they are well supported by the evidence and offer good prospects for profitable trading in securities." (page xiii) He also states that some put quants as part of fundamental analysis, though techncial analysts point out they quants are just using their tools. That is not good enough, because clearly that is what technicians have said (although, again not acceptable for the article, but I have worked as a quant, with quants, and with finance professors who have said exactly the same thing). Here is a blog that points out they use the same things: Finally, this paper states: "it should be kept clear that technical analysis due to its visual and qualitative nature still plays a central role in professional trading and investment, and provides a main source of empirical inspirations to the development of quantitative analysis.", which is actually more in line with the stronger idea that TA is at the core of quant (and BF), and which I removed and have no intent of adding back. Sposer (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
This is all irrelevant OR. The given sources simply do not support the claim.VolunteerMarek 05:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest Lede Change Sections and Forecasting[edit]

The text was not removed due to the content. It was due to the fact that nobody has any idea what you are trying to say. I read the text multiple times. I am a former technical analyst and a former quant, and I have no idea what you are trying to get across. There were some things in there that I think are points I've been trying to get across as well, but I am not even sure. As far as forecasting, I am not sure what you are getting at. However, TA most definitely attempts to model expectations for future prices or trends, and some types of TA absolutely do attempt to forecast and time future prices and price turns. If you are trying to say that is not possible, you are not alone, but that was not clear either. If you are saying TA does not attempt to do that, you are incorrect. Sposer (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sposer, regarding forecasting, which I'm trying to say, based on both:
- Writings made ​​in recent decades by authors such as Mark Douglas, Alexander Elder, Scott Patterson (Quants), Larry Williams, Mandelbrot, Mark Tier, etc;
- In the history of several crashes that occurred in the last 25 years,
- In the testimony and in the history of famous Markets practioners, as Ed Thorp, Nassim Taleb, Victor Niederhoffer and George Soros
- And in my own experience, as individual trader in the market,

is that:

whether by following the signs indicated by a trading system, or contrary to them (practicing the technique of "fading")
TA (as well as other forms of analysis) is no longer used as a forecasting tool in strict sense of the word "forecasting" (what almost certainly WILL be), but it has been increasingly used as a tool of probabilities (what are more likely or not to happen) - with all procedures relating to the risk taking and protection, that it implies
And I strongly believe that this subtle difference, however obvious or implicit, and therefore perhaps unnecessarily, it may seem to those who know the subject, should be emphasized to the countless people who have their first contact with the subject, through this article.
Hoping to count with your support to make this point as clear as possible,
best regards (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Firstly, I recommend you read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Note in particular that the article lead section is supposed to summarise material which is discussed in greater depth in the body of the article. If it isn't discussed there, it shouldn't be in the lede. Note also that we discourage excessive citations in the lead - they are unnecessary if the material is covered later, where the citation is more appropriate.
As for your issues with the term 'forecasting', you need to understand that your "own experience, as individual trader in the market" is not relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned - article content needs to be based on published reliable sources. I'd assume that you are correct about 'forecasting' being about 'probabilities' though - as I'd hope the article would state anyway. Even the most ardent supporters of TA don't seem to suggest that it is right all of the time. Maybe the article needs to be clearer about this.
AndyTheGrump, I mentioned my own experience in the same sense that Sposer mentioned his own. Obviously, both for the purpose of the article, as to the rules for this environment, I agree on this point. (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Finally, I think we need to address the issue raised by Sposer, and previously by others in edit summaries. English is clearly not your first language, and the material you added simply wasn't comprehensible. It is no use trying to edit an article if others cannot understand what you are trying to say. I suggest that rather than editing the article directly yourself, you provide the necessary cites etc here, and ask others to include material in an appropriately-written and understandable manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding to the concordance about the term "forecast" be better replaced by "estimation of probabilities" or so, to avoid confusion by people who aren't familiar with the subject; for a long time I also hoped that this be corrected somehow, making the article clearer about it, right from its lead section.
However as this hasn't yet occurred, I then decided edit to renew the debate.
Anyway, for now on I hope that any misunderstandings have been cleared up, and that we can work together to correct this flaw, that in my view can really undermine the credibility of the article by unvoluntarily reinforce old prejudices and biased practices generally assigned to TA
Thank you (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Does TA normally produce an "estimation of probabilities" as a numerical value? The article as it stands doesn't seem to suggest so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly. Estimation of probabilities related to the price and volume levels of some financial assets (although TA is still and widely misused outside its scope), more as reference points, which through TA can be visually identified more easily as most likely (or not) to happen, so that (when and) if confirmed, can be used by traders to open and/or close positions.
Indeed, I don't know if the term "estimate/analysis of probabilities" would be the one more appropriate for describing the using of TA as a method of analysis of competing hypotheses applied to markets and assets (liable to be efficiently analyzed by TA). Which (by the references mentioned above), in recent decades has proved the best, if not (as far as known by now, the) only way to efficiently use not just TA, but any form of analysis of assets without incurring in big financial risks, be individual bankruptcies or systemic (by financial contagion). (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I do agree on the probabilities statement, but that was not clear at the time. There has been work with the idea of a proability, and when we write trading systems, and there might be cites for that, nobody expects to be correct all the time. You do typically test and see likelihood of an indicator or suite of indicators working. There is also definitely been a great deal of wrk done (whole books) that show how often a given pattern works (including by the Fed's economists and others). This is almost certainly in the Kirkpatrick book.Sposer (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for citations[edit]

Well Sposer, I put quotations related, but beyond that I wasn't clear, I also recognize as AndyTheGrump mentioned, that were too many book citations for a lead section.
Anyway, now that you both have guided me on how to present my arguments (thanks!), below I lay down some cites that I used or saw in previous editions, as well as with what they're related:
About the unpredicability of the markets and its reasons:
Watts; Duncan J. "Everything is Obvious; Once You Know the Answer" Random House 2011, Part I "Common Sense" Chapter 6 "The Dream of Prediction";
Mandelbrot; Benoit & Hudson; Richard "The (mis)Behavior of Markets; a Fractal view of Risk, Ruin & Reward" Basic Books 2004
Patterson Scott; "Quants; How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed It" Crown Business 2010 Chapters 9-10 & 12-13
Arnold; Glen "The Great Investors: Lessons on Investing from Master Traders" Financial Times Press 2011 - in the chapter about George Soros, see section about "Reflexivity" in markets
Douglas, Mark "Trading in the Zone" Prentice Hall 2000 ISBN 0735201447, pages 93 to 100
About classical (and still prevalent) examples of misconception about the TA as a tool for forecasting things that in their essence are unpredictable:
Schwed Jr; Fred "Where are the Customer's Yachts?" John Wiley & Sons 1940 ISBN 0471119792;
in Part II, "Financial Seers" see 'Chartists'. Author's impressions related to the then prevalent behavior (strongly anchored in optimism bias) of chartists who saw and used the chart reading to try (unsuccessfull) forecast the markets (any markets, any assets) with consistency
Niederhoffer; Victor "Practical Speculation" John Wiley & Sons 2003 Chapter 3 'The Hydra Heads of Technical Analysis'. It would be a perfect criticizes to the TA if it weren't outdated. Due to regard it as something scientific (which it isn't), or contain any pattern that can be used for reliable and undoubtful predictions (which it also doesn't have). But anyway, a good example of how many people still see the TA, both the critics (as Niederhoffer), or those who advocates the misusing of TA outside of its scope.
About the misuse of TA outside its scope (this can became a section apart in the article):
Brown; Aaron "The Poker Face of Wall Street" John Wiley & Sons 2006, page 10 - 2nd paragraph until page 12
Mandelbrot & Hudson 2004, pp. 9, 97-98 & 253-60
Elder; Alexander "Come into my Trading room" John Wiley & Sons 2002, in Part 6 ("Trading"), see Chapter "Choosing What to Trade"
About psychological obstacles and counterproductive behaviors, that often compromise and undermine the performance of traders in markets (another one that may also became a section apart):
Gunther; Max "The Zurich Axioms" Souvenir Press 1985. Into the Fifth Major Axiom: 1st paragraph of the Minor Axiom VI
Elder; Alexander "Trading for a Living; Psychology, Trading Tactics, Money Management" John Wiley & Sons 1993 ISBN 0-47159224-2;
Intro - sections "Psychology is the Key" & "The Odds are against You"; And Part I "Individual Psychology", Section 5 "Fantasy versus Reality"
"Using Psychology To Save You From Yourself" | interview with Alix Spiegel on NPR June 8, 2009
Douglas, Mark "The Disciplined Trader" New York Institute of Finance 1990; Part II - "The Nature of the Trading Environment from a Psychological Perspective"
Kahneman, Daniel "Thinking, Fast and Slow" FSgBooks ISBN 9780374275631
Examples of how markets' practioners and scholar have agreed in how to deal with the market unpredicability and psychological barriers, in pratical ways:
Duncan 2011, Part II "Uncommon Sense" Chapter 7 "The Best-Laid Plans"
Mauboussin; Michael J. "Think Twice; Harnessing the Power of CounterIntuiton" Chapter 8 "Sorting Luck from Skill"
Elder 1993; Part X "Money management", Chapter 46 "Emotions & Probabilities"
Elder 2008 "Sell and Sell Short" ISBN 9780470181676, Chapter 5 - section "The Iron Triangle"
Taleb; Nassim "Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets" Random House 2004 Part II, Chapter Eleven "Randomness and our Mind: We are Probability Blind" section "We are Option Blind" pp. 207 to 210
Scott Patterson 2010; page 300 Thorp's warning
Mandelbrot & Hudson 2004, page 29 last paragraph; Chapter VI "Turbulent Markets: A Preview"; Chapter IX "Long Memory, from the Nile to the Marketplace" and Chapter XIII "In the Lab" pp. 255 (from 2nd paragraph) to 260
Mark Douglas 1990; Parts III & IV
A online calculator [6] based upon Kelly criterion to calculate how much of one's bankroll a trader must bet, optimally, without running the risk of ruin. (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


More than 3 months have passed, more than enough time to both evaluate necessary changes as its bibliography, so I put down my amendment about the definition of the term:

"Technical Analysis is a heuristic tool used by both professional as amateurs traders for acting over price movements of some financial instruments, with the purpose of profit by buying or selling them, trying identify best possible points for entry or exit in a trade.[1][2]

It is also interpreted both as a form of opinion research, [3] where the trend lines and other visual or statistical patterns are perceived as "photos" of the behavior of most market participants at any given time; [4] as well as a form of probability analysis based on the idea that prices, since they are reflections of cognitive biases of the crowds, would move according to recurrent and identifiable patterns.[5]

And that although it is impossible to forecast when and to what degree these patterns will recur in the future (due to the fact that financial markets are social environments), as well as be impossible in the moments which negotiations are occuring distinguish real signs of such patterns from false alarms,[6] is fairly possible to traders take advantage of this heuristic tool, provided One knows its limitations added to a rigid risk control.[7]"

Numbers in brackets indicate references (one or two at each point) to be added.
I'm open to suggestions, reminding that the biased character of the supposedly predictive characteristic of this tool, will begin to be corrected in its definition section, but should be extended to the whole article to avoid the current tendentious aspect of this article. (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems the person who left this excelent bibliography of reference above, also seems to have forgotten or lost the disposition to implement the changes proposed.
Necessary Changes BTW!
For example, I made a Ctrf + F research in this article for the word "forecast" and came and eleven!!! results.
Definitely this article can not continue like this. So, I support the proposed changes and I don't see any problem in the proposed opening text above. It is longer than the current, but nothing that can't be improved, besides, more than size what matters is the accuracy. (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
If you "don't see any problem in the proposed opening text above", can I suggest that you leave editing articles in the English-language Wikipedia to people with proficiency in the language - it is an ungrammatical mess, and entirely unacceptable as content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It's mess, true; but if someone thought the content was heading in a good direction they could edit the language easily enough. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Possibly, if (a) it was clear what was intended, and (b) the sources being cited for the content were actually given. I get the impression that this is the 'write first, and then find sources to back it up' editing that this article has suffered from before. There is a long history of IPs contributing almost incomprehensible WP:OR to this article (see for example [7]), and adding more in the hope that someone will sort it out later just isn't acceptable. I suspect, given the fact that the IP responsible for the earlier incomprehensible edit I linked was from Sao Paulo, Brazil, like the current one, that it is the same individual, who simply isn't capable of writing in English to the degree required - and perhaps more to the point, isn't capable of understanding why their edits are problematic. It is entirely reasonable to make allowances for contributors who don't have English as a first language - but only to the extent that it doesn't make a nonsense of our articles. This is a difficult subject, and it needs careful editing, based on a clear understanding of appropriate published reliable sources, and of Wikipedia policy regarding how such sources are used. Without this, the article will revert back to the mess that it has been in the past. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
That makes more sense than attacking the poor writing skill of the editor. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Stating the self-evident isn't an 'attack', and nor does it lack sense. The IP seems still to fail to understand what the problem is with their contributions, and bogus obfuscation wouldn't make it clearer. If someone is incapable of communicating in the relevant language, it isn't in anyone's interest to pretend that they can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, what is "self-evident" to some, for others it may be simply considered absence of arguments or selective ones (for example, the "'write first and then find sources to back it up' editing" way, it seems to be one of main problems of the present version), not to mention that try to emphasize an ad hominem reduction to close the question don't help nothing...
Also, history and everyday life is full of examples regarding problems of language even among natives of an same language used to selectively ignore issues, use double standards or itimidate impressionable people.
Anyway, in order to not make this too long and considering the good faith of most people, and not lose the focus here, for each one, what aren't clear in proposed paragraphs? (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
(a) The meaning. (b) The source being cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, first thank you Dicklyon and and for your patience
Now, let's work piece by piece to see if we got some progress
What especifically in the 1st paragraph you didn't understood ?
I split it here:
I - Technical Analysis is a heuristic tool used by both professional as amateurs traders for acting over price movements of some financial instruments,
II - with the purpose of profit by buying or selling (short) them,
III - trying identify best possible points for entry or exit in a trade. ---- Bold letters would be wiki links (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not written in grammatical English. It is entirely unacceptable as article content - and would add nothing but platitudes to the article if it were corrected. You clearly lack the skills necessary to edit an English-language encyclopaedia. If it is added to the article, I will revert it. That is all I have to say on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, as noted by other users, ad hominem remarks, personal attacks, and empty threats don't add or contribute with anything, so I'll ignore your troll, cabal, negative, counterproductive, desperate, (racist?) behavior
Anyone else? (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
User:, please assume that other editors are acting in good faith or risk being reported to an administrator and blocked. More to the point, User:AndyTheGrump's assessment of the material you offer is accurate. --CliffC (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
For the benefit of others reading this, please note that and both geolocate to Sao Paulo, Brazil. I see no particular reason to assume that they aren't the same person, in spite of 189... attempting to imply otherwise. Or has technical analysis suddenly become the hot topic of the day in Sau Paulo? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sao Paulo is the seventh largest city in the world,
  • its Stock Exchange is the largest in Latin America,
  • I have no idea how many people from English speaking countries live/work now in Sao Paulo, or somehow deal with the financial markets (local or abroad), but I suppose not a negligible number, as well as their variety in the use of English, of Australians to Nigerians
These are Facts
If others prefer to appeal to the emotions, to the hysteria, to the disruptive behaviors, empty threats, jump to conclusions instead of arguing about the topic covered, this it only made points against them, not me! (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW, CliffC - There is no accuracy in statements like "because I said so" (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:COMPETENCE you clearly lack the necessary skills to edit an English-language encyclopaedia. If you edit the article in the manner you propose above, I will revert it. There is nothing more to be said here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As I said before "because I said so" isn't an argument for anything.
Well, for who didn't have anything else to say up there, you still down here quite wordy, without substance avoiding argue the subject, but I guess isn't possible to require individuals what they can not afford to offer... (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)