Talk:Technical analysis

message: 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 99.10.168.190 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok thank you. Let us keep it under "charts" and removed it from "concept."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.168.190 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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? --99.10.168.190 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Mislabeling of Point & Figure 

message: 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: http://stockcharts.com/help/doku.php?id=support:about_john_murphy
However when I change the Wiki to reflect these facts, someone keeps changing it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.168.190 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 99.10.168.190 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Murphy 

message: 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?-- — Kbob • Talk •  21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with these comments.  --99.10.168.190 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs some organizing 

message: (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 fool.com article from 2008, that is, after the quote appeared here.
Please comment below. Troed (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  False sourcing of statements 

message: 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 StockCharts.com
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Adding links to the article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Completely agree. Sposer (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Done. TradingBands (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Indicators to Present in the Main Article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cycles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The paper is online and was linked and taken nearly word-for-word. Sposer (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing the point 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes it needs clarifying. I suggest looking at the source and rewriting the text for the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Lui article 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. It exactly states what TA is.Sposer (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Removing short-intro template as there were no objections. TradingBands (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro too short? 

message: I don't know where to start. They are completely incoherent. What is going on here??? 76.191.143.69 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: First three paragraphs

message: 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)
thread_title:  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 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 'What the industry does' has no bearing on whether academics describe TA as pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience? 

message: 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,  nor 'Journals' produced by consulting firms  are likely to meet the standards required, per WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: :::::::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 , 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  ; 
:::::::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 ;
:::::::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 
:::::::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" , 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  based upon Kelly criterion to calculate how much of one's bankroll a trader must bet, optimally, without running the risk of ruin. 
:::::::177.33.179.94 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Technical analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325050543/http://mcgraw-hill.com.au/html/9780071766494.html to http://www.mcgraw-hill.com.au/html/9780071766494.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Technical analysis software article was recently trimmed down, removing some spammy links. See activity at WP:COIN It's now so short it could just be a paragraph here. Any objections to merging? John Nagle (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merging [[Technical analysis software]] into here. 

message: Here are some proposed minor edits for this page:
* Change the “Industry” section so it does not say “Market Technicians Association” but “CMT Association” as the company has gone through a name change.
* Fix any incorrect links at the bottom. The new company website for information is cmtassociation.org
Tyler wood (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: . ~Anachronist (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edits to this page 

message: This article is clearly biased. The introduction has a single sentence concerning what technical analysis is actually about, and then three sentences concerning objecting and competing methods. Furthermore, these other methods are presented as being more factual or reliable, despite the fact that the efficient-market hypothesis and active management theory are both unproven. I don't understand why there is such a concerted push to give this article a negative slant considering that trading would essentially be impossible without technical analysis, and it influences every single market considering that most price-action these days is driven by bots which act almost entirely upon TA signals. High-frequency trading, which makes the majority of trading volume in the US stock market and certainly in the crypto market, is entirely driven by TA.
The claim that TA is 'pseudoscience' is written by someone who lost a large amount of money in the dot-com bubble and according to this talk page has been up for, what, a decade now, and nobody is allowed to alter or remove it? Or even give it some context, or perhaps a differing perspective? In the introduction for the topic!? The defining aspect anyone who reads this article will be the implication that this is pseudoscience and therefore nonsense, and this all hangs upon one book written by somebody who is clearly going to be personally biased against the concept of trading itself.
I have tried to give that quote some further context considering that studies done on TA have been done in the abstract and do not actually reflect applied circumstances but it has been reverted twice. TA in the real world is not done in isolation, as the studies are conducted, but TA signals are used in conjunction with one another to construct a heuristic understanding of -price action-, which traders, and bots, then act upon if the risk to reward ratio is favourable. You cannot gain an accurate understanding of TA by running statistical analyses on individual signals without any context for how entities act upon those signals and then conclude that the method is nonsense. This article's introduction, the thing most people will read when looking up TA for the first time, is terribly biased and needs to be reconsidered. It should be rewritten with an emphasis on what TA actually is and how it is applied in markets rather than a emphasis on how other theories disagree with it. Hueycookafew (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use WP:SYNTHESIS to undercut the reliable sources (I use the plural because although we cite only one in the read, others are references further down in the article). Lots of things are widely used and studied but are still pseudoscience - Homeopathy, for example. This 'TA in the real world' stuff is a red herring. If the signals don't work, and you combine with something else that does work (for example, the overall upward trend of the stock market), you'll still see some benefit overall. But that does not mean that TA actually contributed anything. There is some legitimate work that gets done in studying behaviors in the stock market, but that work doesn't justify the large volume of pseudo scientific techniques in the field, just like the fact that counting calories works doesn't justify fad diets. MrOllie (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction to this article is clearly negatively biased