Content deleted Content added
m Added 1 {{Bare URL PDF}} tag(s) using a script. For other recently-tagged pages with bare URLs, see Category:Articles with bare URLs for citations from June 2022 and Category:Articles with PDF format bare URLs for citations Tag: Reverted |
Anachronist (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1303383846 by 106.219.142.111 (talk) - no context, not an edit request, and this isn't a forum |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Finance
{{WikiProject Economics
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
Line 59:
[http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:technical_indicators:introduction_to_tech#oscillator_types 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.
<
: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.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]])` <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 11:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated-->
Line 94:
==Random Walk Hypothesis==
For NPOV's sake I removed some extremely strong statements added recently such as the following (emphasis added):
<blockquote>''The random walk hypothesis - '''now refuted''' - may be derived from the weak-form efficient markets hypothesis''<br
'''''positively proving''' the random walk does not exist and never has. Several years passed before the acadmics '''finally and reluctantly admitted they were right'''.''<br
''It is '''patently obvious''' that prices mostly trend, which randomness would not support.''</blockquote>
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? [[User:Destynova|Destynova]] ([[User talk:Destynova|talk]]) 10:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Line 226:
]
::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.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 22:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::*This content has been removed. While we value and welcome [[subject-matter expert]]s 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 [[WP:OWN|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 [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment]], [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|content dispute resolution]], or the [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard|Fringe theory noticeboard]]. In either point, do not restore this questionable content outside of established consensus. Best regards, [[User:Cindamuse|<span style="color:navy; font-family:'Tahoma';">Cind.</span>]]<
:::*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.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Cindamuse|<span style="color:navy; font-family:'Tahoma';">Cind.</span>]]<
:::::*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.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk: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: <ref>http://seekingalpha.com/article/114523-beating-the-quants-at-their-own-game</ref>. Further, here is an academic paper that directly states the ties between behavioral finance/economics and TA <ref>http://www.eurojournals.com/irjfe%2014%20dimitrios.pdf
{{reflist-talk}}
::::::*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, [[User:Nexus501|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, [[User:Cindamuse|<span style="color:navy; font-family:'Tahoma';">Cind.</span>]]<
::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.238.127.242|24.238.127.242]] ([[User talk:24.238.127.242|talk]]) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::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.[[User:Sposer|Sposer]] ([[User talk:Sposer|talk]]) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Line 450:
== Proposed edits to this page ==
{{
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.
| |||