Talk:Elliott wave principle

message: Having followed Elliott Wave and other Technical analysis methods for a long time, this article looks quite neutral to me.  Sure, Prechter gets a mention and links, and that is reasonable as he has written a lot more on the subject than anyone since Bolton and Elliott.  Does it still need the 'neutrality disputed' rider? HarveyStoatgobbler (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Under standard style, Elliott wave theory isn't capitalized because it's not a trademark name; Elliott is capitalized because it is a proper name, but the rest is decriptive and therefore lower-case. - DavidWBrooks 17:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under standard style 

message: The "Elliott Wave Theory" is used in the New York Times by Business Day writers Floyd Norris, Albert Sardino, and in the article of October 23, 1987 by VARTANIG G. VARTAN of the The New York Times Financial Desk. (GaryLKaplan (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: As used in The New York Times, Elliott Wave Theory

message: This is one of those financial-service articles that lures external links from Web sites selling such services. Please note that wikipedia is not a traffic-driver to commercial operations, and such links 
will be removed (hopefully in short order!) - DavidWBrooks 13:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: In the first paragraph, shouldn't it be "approaches the number pi" and not "phi"?  If it is supposed to be phi, then what is that number?
: Phi, better known as the golden ratio. - DavidWBrooks 10:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most definately not supposed to say pi, phi is 1.61803399 which is the Golden Ratio  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.191.58 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approaches the number Phi? 

message: Could someone who knows this theory do a little work on the "Specifics of the theory" section to make it a little more understandable to those who are unfamiliar to this theory?  I'm one of those people who is unfamiliar and after reading this section, I still feel unfamiliar.  Thanks.  --Rcronk 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifics of the theory 

message: Not sure what the "Rah-Rah" comment means. As for using "theory" vs. "principle," both could apply -- any good dictionary and Wikipedia's own entries for those words make this clear. The more practical and less argumentative solution is to defer to R.N. Elliott's own description, "wave principle."
Also, the technical analysis link needs to be included. Elliott wave analysis is the study of price action on a chart in order to forecast trends, which exactly how Wikipedia defines technical analysis.
Finally, investors "use" the method to forecast seems more relevant than investors "say" it can forecast, in that doing is more significant than saying. - Rgfolsom 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory vs. Principle 

message: Humans are nature's one experiment with higher intelligence.  Instinct developed prior to rational thinking and self-consciousness, thus making them secondary advantages.  Hence, the brain generally obeys instinct over rationality.  Within a group of people, a deviant is less likely to reproduce, so mimicking the behavior of peers confers an evolutionary advantage.  Here is where the Elliot wave succeeds and why current economics is a pseudoscience.  Every economics 101 course begins with the professor noting that the assumption all economists make is that people are rational in their decision making, a corollary of this theory being the efficient market hypothesis--currently the leading theory in explaining market activity.  People are not rational, they go from extreme pessemism to extreme optimism in a predictable pattern--a robust fractal governed by fibnanci mathematics, described the the rules Ralph Elliot brilliantly discerned from his hospital bed in the 1930s.  I won't go into the details of the theory, but I do want to make a point about the credibility of this theory.  No theory saw the current economic crisis comming, or could explain how it would play out the way Robert Pretcher via the Elliot Wave was able to do so.  Wednesday, July 1st 2009 im writing this-- stocks have rebounded since the March 9th lows- again as Pretcher predicted.  The bewildered herd thinks the worst is over.  Wave goodbye to 8000 on the DOW, within two years we will be at 2500, and we wont return to 8000 for a decade. Obama wont be relected, as 2012 will mark the first legitimate year a third party has a chance.  Hope your money isnt with some mutual fund, Adios- PJR   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.191.6 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature's Law, etc.

message: I removed this:
:In the 1999 article "A Multifractal Walk Down Wall Street," Mandelbrot also said: "I claim that variations in financial prices can be accounted for by a model derived from my work in fractal geometry."Benoit Mandelbrot (February 1999). Scientific American, p. 70. This claim failed to acknowledge R.N. Elliott's analytical work, which had identified patterns of self-affinity in financial prices 60 years beforehand.Details here. Mandelbrot did not fail to claim that modern portfolio theory, which holds that investors are "rational," is "flawed."
I don't see the relevance: Mandelbrot was not here talking about Elliott waves; the statement that Mandelbrot failed to acknowledge Elliott's work is not helpful (fractals are not waves), and the reference to the Elliotwave page fails WP:RS.  Semperf 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandelbrot 

message: It's unclear what a Grand supercycle is except a "small" part of the overall Elliott wave concept. I think its bulk could be shaved down and deposited here Smallbones 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd appreciate guidance on Grand supercycle.  The current article reads like a back and forth argument between 2 people, neither of whom really refer to anything specific, except Elliott waves in the first sentence, something about Kondratiev waves, and maybe 
* The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History (2000) , by David Hackett Fischer
which may be in the same ballpark (or at least the same metropolitan region) as Grand supercycle.  I may just propose it for deletion.  Smallbones 17:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the tag to {{essay-entry}, and taken off the merge tag here as well.  I think I'll just leave it alone for a week or two, but then if it doesn't refer to anything in the real world that can be judged to be true or false, then I'll propose a deletion.  Smallbones 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Grand supercycle]] to here 

message: You edit offered an interesting observation, namely that Elliott waves on a price chart are not defined by amplitude or frequency. Alas, I fear that the usefulness of this observation is probably negligible. One may reliably assume that readers will not mistake the price charts in printed matter or on a monitor for the literal disturbances that transfer energy from one point to another. By way of analogy, we can also assume that when the word "degree" appears in this article, readers need not be steered away from thoughts about the temperature scales known as Fahrenheit and Celsius.
Also, "the classification of degrees" does not "vary among practitioners." The classification hierarchy is fixed. This is why the degrees themselves had previously appeared in a bulleted, hierarchical list. Instead, it is the classification of a wave at any particular degree that can vary among practitioners, just as (again) the previous text explained. The bulleted list makes this hierarchy easier to understand.
With these issues in mind -- along with your recent assertion of speculation as fact regarding the mathematical analysis of price charts -- allow me to raise a friendly point of concern. To wit, your grasp of the wave principle, pattern analysis, price charts, and other technical issues may not equal your commendable desire to improve the quality of this article. Frost & Prechter's Elliott Wave Principle is considered the standard text. I humbly recommend it. --Rgfolsom 05:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Degree section 

message: The facts show that a large community of financial professionals accept the Elliott wave principle as a core method of their trade. Knowledge of this method is part of the necessary coursework that leads to accreditation; a highly respected financial institute offers the coursework. The SEC recognizes the Chartered Market Technician designation, as do the major self-regulating organizations of this profession (NASD and NYSE).
The facts show that large investment banks employ professionals who advocate and use the wave principle in their work. I have provided proof that immensely successful traders use the wave principle in their trading.
The facts show that prominent academics comment favorably on the wave principle.
On the other hand, Smallbones, the critics you quote offer not a word of evidence or research on behalf of their claims. At best they are outside their realms of expertise, and in one case demonstrably incompetent to make criticisms at all. Underwood Dudley actually says that "There is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians knew a thing about pi." He could benefit from more time spent reading Wikipedia articles.
I caution you now as I have cautioned you in the past. Your edits here continue the pattern of bias now in evidence before the Arbitration Committee. It would be wise for you not to make that evidence any stronger than it already is.
--Rgfolsom 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof, and the pattern of bias 

message: Nice post, Steven -- the article needed a section on wave "signature." I hope you're okay with my edits, and I tried to format the text for easier readability. Rgfolsom 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics and signature 

message: Half-life approximately equal to 3 months.  Pleclech 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubtless it will fractally degenerate into chaos again

message: Elliott Wave is a tool used to try to forecasts markets. From that perspective, it is no more, or less, a science than Economics, or other types of technical analysis. It attempts to measure changes in market behavior based on certain patterns, plain and simple. To be honest, I can understand the idea of calling ANYTHING THAT ATTEMPTS TO MEASURE HUMAN BEHAVIOR that is not chemically-based a pseudoscience. There is no way to prove or disprove anything, just an ability to find tendencies. So, if you are willing to put non-medically based psycho-therapy, economics, behavioral finance, etc. as pseudoscience, then EW should be called that as well. Absent that, I would not consider it to be pseudoscience. There is substantial work ongoing, as I understand it (I am not involved with it), attempting to scientifically show EW to be correct. I have seen some studies that do appear promising, but much more work needs to be done. Sposer 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Economics has falsifiable hypotheses.  The Elliott Wave does not: it is sufficiently malleable that any failed forecast can be retroactively explained with new parameters for the "wave."   THF 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:Talk: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.--Rgfolsom 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elliott Wave as pseudoscience and pseudohistory 

message: The criticism tag has been in place more than a week -- the editor who placed it has never contributed to this article, and no other editor has concurred or made edits in response. It can come down.--Rgfolsom 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem hasn't been solved.  There's no obligation for an editor who has placed a tag to fix the problem that the tag identifies; the tag is useful to notify other editors who might have more time to fix a complex problem, especially on a page where there is severe POV-pushing going on. THF 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three editors now say the tag belongs, yet Rgfolsom continues to edit-war contrary to talk-page consensus. His last edit had a positively misleading edit summary, something he regularly accuses other editors of. THF 03:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism tag 

message: 1) The article fails to adhere to WP:LEAD by failing to acknowledge relevant controversies in the lede paragraph. THF 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusation fails to identify what those “relevant controversies” are.--Rgfolsom 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article has a section filled with relevant controversies.  If they merit their own section, they merit mention in the lead.  THF 12:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not policy, and none of the other contributors to this article seem to agree.--Rgfolsom 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This accusation fails to acknowledge an instance of criticism that is included outside the criticism section (Fibonacci relationships section). --Rgfolsom 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for admitting the violation of WP:NPOV -- there is no criticism outside the criticism section, contrary to Wikipedia views.  THF 12:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn’t read the article before or even after my comment – when and if you do, perhaps you’ll even see the criticism that (once again) is outside the criticism section.--Rgfolsom 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're obviously missing the point; one instance of criticism outside the criticism section does not, by itself, outweigh the existence of a criticism section containing all the other criticism. Morgan Wick 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The accusation flunks in providing a single word about what the “mainstream view” is.--Rgfolsom 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The mainstream view [is] that this is pseudoscientific nonsense" -- my 17:15 comment.  THF 12:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote yourself about “mainstream” instead of a reliable source is stunt for self-amusement – and much like your other incivilities, name-calling and wikilawyering, the time will come when people whose opinions matter more than mine does won’t find it so amusing.--Rgfolsom 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, actually saying "THIS is the mainstream view" makes NPOV patrollers scream. Morgan Wick 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize -- in my economic circles, technical analysis is so obviously regarded as a pseudoscientific joke that I sometimes forget that outsiders might not immediately recognize it as such.  I quote Malkiel discussing what the mainstream view of TA is below, and here's a couple of Financial Times op-eds scoffing at it."Technical analysis is an oxymoron. It sounds technical, but it is not analysis. It is rubbish, plain and simple." "Technical analysis is a complete waste of time." THF 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You reverted a properly sourced, neutrally worded and good-faith effort to satisfy your and another editor's concern. Your penchant for wikilawyering notwithstanding I'll put those edits and sources back soon enough, unless another good-faith editor does so first. --Rgfolsom 04:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I'm going to ignore the valid concerns you have raised and edit-war contrary to consensus and accuse you of wikilawyering" is hardly "good faith." THF 05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: There was no consensus achieved in the 90 or so minutes between the time THF reverted himself “until consensus was achieved,” and the re-reverted needless edits: In the first sentence under “Degree,” there is no need to mention “proponents” – that is exactly the sort of vague word that using reliable sources help to avoid, hence the Poser cite. In the third paragraph under “Degree,” putting “practitioner” and “proponent” in the same sentence is unnecessary and redundant.--Rgfolsom 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits and sources 

message: Three reasons why this does not belong:
(1) The article is neither about Prechter nor his company?
(2) Choosing the performance of one company or analyst is not proof the Elliott does not work. I mostly used Elliott when I was working as a technical analyst, and if you look at my old web site (the company is no longer active, so I will leave it to you to find it), you will find that I was at the top (not the top) of the class in a trading contest two years running, the only two years I was involved in it. When I was on the Street, at least in the fixed income and currency arena, most of the top-rated technical analysts were users of Elliott Wave as well.
(3) Robert Prechter Jr. is not Elliott Wave and Elliott Wave is not Robert Prechter Jr. Every EW person does not agree on wave counts. Every technician does not agree on the stance of the market. Every fundamental analyst does not have the same call on the market or stocks. There is no reason to believe why they shoud. If you are going to quote the EWI product's returns, you need to have a survey of how the typical Elliott Wave analyst has done. Sposer 12:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance of Elliott Wave Forecast

message: I am removing this link temporarily, because it appears to be there as spam. Also, it seems to hang. However, I do believe this article could stand a section on the work of Rich Swannell at Elliottician. He has done a large amount of work in trying to count waves by computer systems, and has been more successful than most. I will add something about it in the next few weeks and will link the web site in line at that time. However, as it exists now, the link is definitely spammy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Elliottician.Com Link

message: There is no need to say Elliott Wave analysts "hold" or refer to "their" application after every sentence. The Elliott Wave Theory is applied by people who believe it to be correct. Saying that in the first sentence, which I have no problem with, is fine. It is implied throughout the rest of the section. Furthermore, the change to "their application" makes no sense. The description is how one applies the Wave Principle. Sposer 14:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Behavioral Characteristics Changes 

message: Okay, these Elliot waves just seem like a bad substitute for a Fourier transform. Running a Fourier Transform  on a signal, in this case stock prices, tells you straight up with no confusion how strongly each frequency is represented in the data. You could just as easily do the same calculations fitting |triangular waves to the data, since these elliot waves are just superpositions of triangular waves, but I guarantee you'll never see a strong spike on one of those frequency-amplitude graphs. I hope no one actually takes this type of analysis seriously and the article is just a historical reference about a time before it was easy to do a Fourier transform.
Sukisuki 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fourier transform 

message: I've cleaned up the language attached to the chart, but I am really not convinced the chart is a great example. First of all, the end of wave-4 is no place near any Fibonacci retracement level, and in fact the turn should be very close to one. The classic retracement turn is at 38.2%, not 50.0%, and the high so far of wave-4 is close to 50%. Also, the title on the image is definitely not "encylopedic", but rather is "newsletter-ish". The same user also added a link for a blog, which I have removed. I'd love to see examples like this added to the article, but I think we can come up with better choices. I welcome the editor who put this in to find a turn at a cross closer to a Fib retracement and to remove the "trading never been so easy, eh" tag line. 
Also, there is no real source for the chart and a personal web site, is not considered a "reliable source" in Wiki I believe (please, if I am wrong on this, correct me). I am not big on that type of policing, but others around here are.
Sposer (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently added GBP/JPY Chart

message: I think modern social science is too broad. Prechter et al argue that they have a more modern social science, which, though not generally accepted, would make this statement untrue. Additionally, EW is based on the same tenets as behavioral finance and technical analysis (TA). TA is only slightly accepted, but behavioral finance is accepted. By the same tenets, I mean that EW says that the patterns are based on crowd reactions. However, EW certainly disagrees with EMH -- which more and more people know is incorrect. That should be kept in though because it is accepted by most of academia, sadly enough. Based on the work of Taleeb (Black Swan), it is not proveable, but more importantly, it cannot be disproven either. Much as I hate it, I will leave the pseudoscience tag, since this is a statement of fact (that critics call it that), even if IMO, it is not pseudoscience, since, (a) it works, (b) it is not science. Sposer (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: At odds with modern social science, removal of EMH

message: Does anybody know the author or the book? It seems to only be published in Australia. Does this belong? I am not going to remove as that can be seen as COI. Others' thoughts?Sposer (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bell Does Ring

message: Elliott wave theory has a lot in common with astrology.  Both involve objectively verifiable facts - the planets really are at the calculated locations, and the prices really are at the levels recorded on the charts.  Both involve mathematics - and the claim that because the arithmetic is valid, other parts of the theory must also be valid.  Both involve subjective human interpretation of the objectively verifiable facts.  Both involve predictions about the future.  Both have at best very limited success when tested in well-controlled scientific experiments.  Both have practitioners claiming spectacular success in anecdotal form, outside of well-controlled scientific experiments.  Both have significant numbers of professional practitioners, who have internally-established certification programs and credentials they can display, and who get paid high rates for their expertise.  Both attract bitter controversy between believers and non-believers.
The observation that Elliott waves are very much like astrology is, as far as I know, original with me, so it's not appropriate to mention it in the article.  However:  Wikipedia has spent a lot of energy on figuring out how to deal with astrological articles in an appropriate way.  Maybe it would be good to look at how Wikipedia handles astrology, and try to handle Elliott waves in the same way. 216.59.225.176 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology 

message: I am gratified that the Elliot Wave section now looks like it should. The page I read a few months ago was a catastrophe and a disgrace to Wikipedia.
Anyone who criticises Elliot Wave here should also aim their guns at many of the chart oscillators that are given credence on other pages, many of which do not work, but here they stay in spite of that.
The fact that Elliot Wave has been included into advanced trading software like Advanced Get should silence the Astrology/Mumbo Jumbo critics for good.
The idea that fibbonacci retracements etc are largely imaginary is one that is preposterous to anyone who trades professionally. 
For the record, I am use Elliot Wave every day. And I make money. 
If you don't know the theory, don't contribute to the Wikipedia page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.143.103.138 (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  my 2 cents 

message: This piece, which keeps getting entered by an anonymous user, is an opinion piece written by somebody whose credentials are completely unknown. The user claims the person is an academic. It appears, from a google search the Orvin Five is some sort of computer/engineering type person and that person owns his/her own company. This does not in any way suggest that this person's opinion should be included as a criticism. I read the piece, and the article misses the point. Elliott Wave should not have to work with fundamental analysis. It is fully and completely independent of it. If there was a mathematical model, you would need to model the feedback loop between stock prices and future stock prices with human behavior. Elliott Wave should only be able to predict widely and freely traded securities. Processes are not necessarily reversisble. The author's own example regarding reverse engineering is flawed as well (taxes might be able to predict the S&P, but the S&P cannot predict taxes). There are plenty of valid criticisms of EWT out there, and we should all welcome them, but an opinion piece/blog entry does not fit the bill. Sposer (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orvin Five Blog Entry 

message: I appreciate you writing this article as a brief, very understandable overview of Elliot Wave Theory.  You did a great job.  I have read, or at least, attempted to read other articles which quickly degenerated into gobbily gook for me, but I was able to read yours all the way thru. It helped me to untangle an earlier paper that someone in a trading chat room posted a link for earlier today.   
I'm sorry to see that other people have messed up what you've written in the past.  While I didn't read every bit of discussion, it seemed many of the critisims were petty in nature.  I think you what you did was appropriate, & if anyone is interested learning more about that, they can do their own reasearch.  
I just have one question . . . or rather confusion.  You may have covered this in the discussion page but I just spent a couple of hours trying to grasp Elliot Wave patterns so I just couldn't read the pettiness.  At the end of the article it says, 
"Using data from newsletter tracker Mark Hulbert, syndicated columnist Eric Tyson showed that Robert Prechter, publisher of the Elliott Wave Theorist and leading practitioner, has underperformed the broad market averages by 25 percent per year since 1985.[22]. Mark Hulbert in November 2009 wrote "Prechter's advice over the last couple of years has been top-rated. It's not just that he was bearish during the financial meltdown -- he also did a good job of playing the various intermediate-term corrections along the way." [23]. 
Isn't under performace bad?  But his advice is top rated?  Then he did a good job playing the intermediate corrections which seems good.  I'm a little confused.  Should it be that he out performed?  That's it.  Simple enough question I hope.
Thanks again for all your effort in writing this article.  
98.192.186.158 (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people have contributed to this article over the years. Many of the attacks in her are on Robert Prechter Jr. and his record calling the market. There are many issues with that tact. One, is that he is not the only Elliott Wave analyst out there. He is certainly the best know, and highly respected. He has had many good calls and many bad calls. I am not and have never been a subscriber to Mr. Prechter's newsletters, but I honestly do not know what Hulbert's methodology is. Prechter makes many calls. Some have been great and some have been bad. His firm covers many markets and not all of the calls are even his. Bottom line is that, from what I can read in the comments, the Prechter newsletter was a poor performed for many years (1990s I think), but has done quite well in recent times. The bottom line though is that Elliott Wave does not equal Robert Prechter. There are many top notch Elliott Wave analysts. Most of them have to thank Prechter and Frost, since they repopularized it. But, since patterns are interpretive, there can be multiple opinions, much as there are among other technical analysts, and fundamental analysts as well. I hope that helps. Sposer (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You & a Very Simple Question 

message: I removed the first three sentences of the lead paragraph because they were taken verbatim from an Elliott Wave International publication. I also cleaned up some of the descriptions, and removed the reference to Hulbert -- aside from the fact that Hulbert's data is subject to various interpretations, a specific critique of Prechter is out of place in this article.
Rgfolsom (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions and deletions 

message: The beginning of this article should offer a clear authoritative definition, just say what it is.
 I have found a definition direct from Elliott, published in his 1938 book, The Wave Principle,   Book free online at , <http://books.google.com/books?id=y7gEG4PQIgoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ralph+nelson+elliott&hl=en&ei=Bwo7TMbFEca9rAf2r4m3CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false>GaryLKaplan (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the quote I used from "The Wave Principle" to start my book: "Very extensive research in connection with priactically all human activities indicates that social-economic processes follow a law that causes them to repeat themselves in similar and constantly recurring serials of waves or impulses of definite number and pattern." This can be simplified to say: "The Elliott Wave Principle is a framework for analysis of social-economic processes based on the idea that all human activities develop in specific patterns. These patterns are based on human interaction and behavior and may be used to forecast economic and market results." (or something along those lines)Sposer (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Either works. The one thing that you need to be careful of is an overly broad interpretation of what Elliott was saying. I only focus, in my book, on the markets, and probably some economic factors. It is possible, using Prechter's socionomics, to extend that, but I do not think that is the focus of the article. I kind of rephrased Elliott's quote in my post above.Sposer (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Beginning