Talk:Elliott wave principle

NPOV?
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)

Under standard style
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)

As used in The New York Times, Elliott Wave Theory
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)) No part of this name is decriptive for spelling mavens, it is though descriptive for investors.

Approaches the number Phi?
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)


 * 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)

For clarification only, pi is approximately 3.14 (refer to ) and phi is approximately .618 or 61.8% (refer to )

Propensities for reversals of trend occur near phi, extensions of phi (1.618, 2.618), compliments and inverses of phi (.382, 1.382, etc.) as well as multiples (including divisions, squares and square roots) of phi.

As well, phi can be used in calculations to estimate the length of Elliott waves that should aid in revealing future potential turning points.

Lastly, Fibonacci sequence numbers (refer to ) are ultimately based on phi and they also can be used to aid in forecasting. RLVerble (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifics of the theory
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)

Theory vs. Principle
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)

Discussion of fractals
The description of Elliott wave structures as fractals is common factual knowledge and on-point for this page. In the February 1999 issue of Scientific American, Benoit Mandelbrot published "A Multifractal Walk Down Wall Street." He said, "The geometry that describes the shape of coastlines and the patterns of galaxies also elucidates how stock prices soar and plummet."

When you delete a contribution made in good faith, I politely suggest that you at least cite an authority or source to support your action. Comments like "hoo-hah" and "New Age foolishness" are not productive or respectful. --Rgfolsom 14:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Edit Summary was unnecessarily snarky of me, and most unhelpful; I apologize. Fractals are one of those topics which draw tons of pseudo-scientific gibberish (sort of like "quantum" or "energy"), and I thought your un-referenced comment was more of the same. Could you include a reference or two, to prevent ill-thought-out removals (like mine) in the future?
 * Frankly, I suspect the fractal connection is gibberish, Mandelbrot be damned - I'd love to hear of any market watchers who actually used the mathematics of fractals, rather than vague comments about natural patterns, to make a buying decision. I doubt they exist. But I'm not certain enough about it to remove the statement - although I did trim it a bit. People can see about snowflakes and the like at fractal if they're interested. - DavidWBrooks 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, fractals sometimes do attract more fiction than fact. I mentioned Mandelbrot in the hope that you would recognize his name, but didn't include a reference to him in the article because Mandelbrot doesn't embrace Elliott wave analysis. The quote I have included now is from a reputable publication, and mathematician John Casti -- he is friendly to Elliott.

As for investors or traders using the mathematics of fractals to follow markets, I think you are correct; I don't know any who do. What many do use as a complement to Elliott waves is Fibonacci ratios, which can provide support and resistance levels on a price chart. Fibonacci does "connect the dots" from Elliott waves to fractals, which I hope to mention soon in this article. --Rgfolsom 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nature's Law, etc.
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)

David, you left the edit summary blank so I'm not sure why you deleted the mention of Nature's Law -- your change makes the start of the next paragraph ("This law...") really unclear. The edit also blew up the footnote that other references in the piece relied on. Finally, I think the mention of waves being based on Fibonacci numbers should come later in the piece; Elliott saw the patterns before he even realized their relationship to the Fibonacci ratio. Rgfolsom 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We might not want to be so easily dismissive of the use of fractals in finance - Nicholas Nassim Taleb, author of the black swan, fooled by randomness, and dynamic hedging (an exotic options pricing textbook) mentions the use of fractals in finance and their superiority over gaussian distributions in finance in his most recent book, the black swan. 63.118.68.2 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fibonacci study
The discussion of the B&R working paper was deleted from socionomics because it was more strictly about Elliott waves. Therefore I moved it here.

There was some discussion calling the paper "self-published." It has been delivered at at least one academic finance conference, but more importantly was reviewed in The Economist Buttonwood column on Sept. 21, 2006. Though the Economist doesn't specifically mention Elliott waves, the paper is clearly about Elliott waves and cites Prechter. Also, it should be noted that working papers reviewed by the Economist usually end up in very good journals. Smallbones 09:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Smallbones, I had nothing to do with that other editor's changes to socionomics. I didn't even revert one of his edits there last week that was obviously botched. We're both better off right now by observing the cease-fire. You can undo this edit and put the cease-fire back in place, no harm done.
 * --Rgfolsom 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, guys. First, I think the idea that you should stay away from these pages is not a good one. Instead, you should edit, edit, edit, but do so in a way that avoids provoking one another. As for these papers, it seems to me that it's a question of reliable sources. One the one hand I would not in other circumstances be opposed to an article like the Batchelor-Ramyar one: a self-published version of what was probably a serious conference. My problem is especially with the two responses of Prechter and the Socionomics Institute, since these really are self-published. Removing the latter, means leaving the former un-opposed, which doesn't strike me as especially fair. Now, if it were a peer-reviewed article, and there was no peer-reviewed article in response, I would say let it stand unopposed. So I would argue against including any of it, or (in lieu of that) including it all as you've done here. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Semperf 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reasonable points about the research paper(s). As for trying not to provoke one another while editing, I'm sad to say that we're two edits wars, a failed mediation, and a seven-week old Arbitration request beyond that.
 * --Rgfolsom 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't like this idea of user:Rgfolsom declaring an "unspoken" ceasefire, however I have mixed feelings about editing while mediation, Rfd or RfA is going on. To my mind it just shows some politeness to those making the decision(s) not to keep on changing the articles, and possibly confusing the issue or adding new issues, to not edit while the process is going on.  My major reason for not editing has just been a lack of time, which will (finally!) be alleviated for at least this next weekend.


 * On the other hand, moving a deleted section from one article to another, that has not been directly at issue, seems easy enough to keep straight. There are also opinions like User:Semperf's that abstaining is not a good idea, and it does not seem to be even recommeded in RfD and RfA rules.  I'm also wondering whether administrators think that if there is a "cease-fire" then the problem has gone away.  It definitely hasn't.  I may limit myself to 2 or 3 edits (that should be noncontroversial) this weekend.  Any reasonable feedback welcomed.  Smallbones 13:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In this, I think I agree with Smallbones--as long as the edits are not controversial, it doesn't matter, and in this case it seems (I think) that you both agree on including the material cut from socionomics. So go for it.  As for ArbComm, they will always be looking at diffs, not the present state of articles, so it is really no help to them to stop editing.  I would say that if you two can agree on something like this, there is no reason not to go ahead and do it.  Semperf 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mandelbrot
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." This claim failed to acknowledge R.N. Elliott's analytical work, which had identified patterns of self-affinity in financial prices 60 years beforehand. 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) As evidenced in the statement above that fractals are not waves, it is very possible that waves can share a fractal relationship. That fractal relationship is exactly what the Elliot wave theory purports. Within each of the A,B,C,D, and E waves are smaller, time-increment defined, wave patterns of A,B,C,D, and E. Thus, all Elliotwaves formed by time-defined measures of stock prices form a fractal pattern. Fractals are relationships that may be found among anything that can be measured. To miss Elliot's findings in a scholarly article on stock prices forming fractal patterns or omit it in published research is therefore a serious omission.

Merge Grand supercycle to here
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)


 * 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

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)
 * The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History (2000) ISBN 0-19-505377-X, by David Hackett Fischer

Oppose Merge - The term appears in both Elliott Wave and Kondratiev Wave theories, with different meanings. -- Orange Mike 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Edits to intro and criticism
I don't see exactly what the rewrite in the lead accomplished; I tried to tighten it up with Semperf's edits in mind. I do think it's best to have a first sentence that simply states what the WP is and who uses it for what, then a second sentence about Elliott himself.

As for price chart analysis, Elliott's model absolutely is mathematical, from simply counting waves to calculating support and resistance based on ratios in the price pattern. Please don't assert speculation as fact, especially given that the correct information about math and charts was already there to read right in the article.

Regarding Mandelbrot and Scientific American, I suggest that the burden rests with you to demonstrate that Prechter is not a reliable source. He is held in the highest regard by his technical analyst peers, particularly when it comes to Elliott wave. And Prechter's letter to the editor appeared in the same magazine as Mandelbrot's article. The relevance you don't see has been seen by others. It's not very sporting to suggest it's not relevant and then remove the evidence that it is.

Speaking of reliable sources, the edit to the Paulos quotes removed facts that go directly to his credibility and authority as a critic of anything related to investing. He's wasn't just a novice investor; he was a novice investor who failed miserably. If I build a treehouse that falls apart, and then I write critiques about woodworking theories, it doesn't make me quotable in Wikipedia -- unless the part about the treehouse makes it in as well. --Rgfolsom 21:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to separate the two discussions of the intro and the criticism. First, I hope you'll recognize that I didn't do much to the intro paragraph except re-arrange the ideas.  I think we need to get Elliott into the first sentence because it is the Elliott principle, and the first sentence should be the one-sentence nutshell-summary of the concept.  From there I think the logical order is who Elliott was and what his publications were, what the core principle was to his system (humans have patterns); then, the application to the financial markets; finally, Prechter as the most notable current practioner.
 * Looking at it now, we need another sentence on application before Prechter. Semperf 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is self-evident that "forecast" refers to an expectation of future events. People make forecasts to help themselves or others make decisions. Every major bank and Wall Street firm has economists who use data to make forecasts. Meteorologists use climate models to forecast the hurricane season. And so on. These are standard descriptions of what people do and what they use to do it with. A given forecast may be brilliantly accurate or laughably off the mark, but saying the someone uses "x" to forecast "y" does not imply that "x" works. What the WP is and how people use it is more significant than who invented it.--Rgfolsom 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, economists make forecasts, as do meteorologists. And within the range of their respective professions those forecasts either succeed or fail.  But whether the forecasts of EWP-practioners work is very much in dispute, as you surely know better than anyone.  If you can come up with an alternate formulation, I'm happy to entertain it.  (If this is your only problem with the new intro, please only revert the word or two in dispute, not the whole paragraph.)
 * The very practice of market forecasting is in dispute, as are all the methods and systems and models people use to make those forecasts. Buy & hold strategies are in dispute. Value investing is in dispute. Those criticisms -- and rebuttals -- absolutely should have their proper place. But alluding to pro/con issues in the lead section of this article (or any one like it) doesn't help the reader. My concern is 100% practical. Wikipedia users who look up "Elliott wave principle" are best served by an introductory sentence that says 1) what it is, 2) how people use it. That's as neutral as it gets. No implied endorsement, no implied deprecation, no bias.
 * On the other hand, a hedge phrase like "investors attempt to forecast" is not descriptive, and does have a non-neutral implication. It's straight out of WP:WEASEL and WP:WTA. So can we agree that the first sentence should provide a practical description (what it is, how people use it) with no assessment of the tool's merit or efficacy?
 * --Rgfolsom 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

 * What I find problematic is any statement that Mandelbrot "failed to acknowledge" Elliott's work, which seems to imply that both that Elliott's work is of the same kind as Mandelbrot (who is an academic mathemetician) and that Mandelbrot was somehow negligent in not acknowledging it. And why mention his views on efficiency of markets in this article?
 * On Paulos. Personally, I'd prefer to replace Paulos with something a little less "popular". But are you sure your WP:COI isn't overtaking your judgement here? You seem to want to include twice as lengthy a criticism of the criticizer as his words about EWP.  Semperf 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the "failed to acknowledge"; removed it, along with the non-neutral "did not fail to claim" wording. -- Orange Mike 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Mandelbrot and Paulos, it wasn't me who didn't put their comments in the article, and my potential COI has nothing to do with the facts about them. Neither one is a financial professional -- as in money manager, trader, economist, analyst, etc. If their criticisms are relevant, so are critiques of their criticisms. Prechter said that the ideas Madelbrot claimed as his own actually originated elsewhere. That is a serious charge, and Prechter didn't make it lightly; Scientific American saw fit to publish Prechter's comment. Mandelbrot/Paulos can come out of the article, or the rebuttals should be part of a package deal. Fine by me either way.
 * --Rgfolsom 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mandelbrot's claim "variations in financial prices can be accounted for by a model derived from my work in fractal geometry" has nothing to do with EWP and should be deleted, obviously.  Semperf 05:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are making a claim about Mandelbrot's claim. Due respect, but what you think about his claim is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Prechter says about Mandelbrot's claim, because Prechter is an Elliott wave authority. That is why Scientific American published his letter. Where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, etc., etc. I changed the text to attribute the argument directly to Prechter.
 * --Rgfolsom 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Scientific American article does not mention EWP so does not belong, imo, in a section about criticisms about EWP. I can't see why anyone would have added it. Perhaps we should look for another opinion. Semperf 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can suggest an alternative suggestion, I'm open to consider it. Semperf 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the assertion is precisely that: that the article about Mandelbrot included a claim that Mandelbrot had "discovered" something; and that Prechter's letter, which Sci-Am took seriously enough to publish, refuted Mandelbrot's claim to a new discovery specifically by pointing to EWP as prior art (to borrow a term from patent law)! That is why Rgfolsom feels it belongs in the article; and on this I can follow his reasoning.-- Orange Mike 19:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But I don't see the connection between Mandelbots Sci-Am article (which is in fact a criticism of Modern Portfolio Theory) and EWP in the first place. Mandelbrot's criticism of EWP is in the 2004 book.  And while it's necessary to include relevant counter-points (when they meet WP:RS), why is a counter-point about Mandelbrot on portfolio theory be relevant to Mandelbrot on EWP?  Semperf 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Semperf, the connection is the one which Prechter makes in his letter to Scientific American. On its face that connection becomes a legitimate issue once Mandelbrot is introduced as a critic.
 * As far as the intro goes, I thought that the first sentence I previously had there met the goal that (I think) you and I agree on -- what the WP is & who uses for what. I'd like to know if you agree before I revert to it.
 * Perhaps you (and Orangemike) can also offer your opinion on whether a pejorative remark from a questionably reliable source like Paulos should be in the lead section, plus your view on some of the other very recent edits.
 * --Rgfolsom 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to Prechter's letter leads not to Scientific American, but to one of Prechter's sites. Was this letter ever published?  What is the refernence?  Semperf 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Prechter's site claims that the letter and a response from Mandelbrot were both published in the June 1999 edition. Perhaps User:Rgfolsom can provide the text to Mandelbrot's response.  Frankly, I must say that this tempest in a teapot only brings out how little Prechter and User:Rgfolsom know about math or science.  Almost any academic looking at this will only laugh at Prechter's presumption.  Apparently, Prechter had been bothering Mandelbrot about this for some time, so he wrote a response earlier (as taken from Prechter's website)

'Here is the citation in full from his (Mandelbrot's) book, Fractals and Scaling in Finance – Discontinuity, Concentration, Risk (1997):

"Elliott Waves: This section devoted to miscellanea is as good a place as any to mention Ralph N. Elliott (1871-1948). A former peripatetic accountant and expert on cafeteria management, he studied Fibonacci, the Secrets of the Great Pyramid and the prophecies of Melchi-Zedik, and in 1938 announced a great 'discovery,' a 'Wave Principle' that 'really forecasts.' A claim that he was a precursor of the use of fractals in finance prompted me to scan Elliott [in] 1994. It is true that some of Elliott’s diagrams are qualitatively reminiscent of certain self-affine generators of the kind studied in Section 4 of Chapter E6. That is, they embody the wisdom present in Swift’s qualitative metaphor quoted earlier in this section, but nothing more. Elliott’s work fails the requirements of objectivity and repeatability: in his own words, 'considerable experience is required to interpret [it] correctly' and 'no interpretation [is] valid unless made by [him or his direct licencees].'1 '"

Swift's qualitative metaphor, if I remember it correctly - refers to Jonathan Swift's response to his critics:

So naturalists observe, a flea

hath smaller fleas that on him prey.

And these have smaller fleas to bite 'em

And so proceed, ad infinitum.

--edit by Smallbones 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My only claim regarding mathematics was to inform Smallbones that simple arithmetic is math. I was trying to help him overcome his lack of knowledge of chart analysis. As for Prechter's grasp of math and science, one has to ask why Smallbones posted Mandelbrot's quote by itself. Apologies for the length of the following excerpt, but readers who have Prechter's reply can judge for themselves what he knows about math, science, and honest scholarship.


 * "…Mandelbrot’s introduction reads as if someone today were trying to claim that he had recently invented the theory of evolution while dismissing Darwin as 'a lifetime wanderer who suffered from chronic nausea and who could barely be bothered to write about his own rather vague ideas.' There may be some truth to the words, but as a summary, it is a misrepresentation tinged with meanness.


 * "In the Scientific American article, Mandelbrot says about his model, 'These techniques …provide estimates of the probability of what the market might do and allow one to prepare for the inevitable sea changes.' In other words, he claims to have discovered a technique that 'really forecasts.' He makes the same claim as Elliott, yet he mocks Elliott for it.


 * "Mandelbrot does not comment on any fact relating to Elliott's identical claim. Mockery is used in place of argument….Far worse from a scientific standpoint, Mandelbrot does not describe any method for using his model to achieve his own dramatic claims of 'predicting what the market might do' or allowing one to 'prepare for the inevitable sea changes.' The forecasting and application methods to which he refers thus do not appear to exist. In contrast, R.N. Elliott and later writers elucidated how to do exactly these things with the Wave Principle.


 * "If Mandelbrot did not "scan Elliott" before 1994, I will eat my hat. As a writer on finance since 1962 when he first investigated the distribution of cotton prices, he could not have helped hearing about the Wave Principle, if not prior to 1962. The well-known editor of The Bank Credit Analyst, A. Hamilton Bolton, who served as president of the Financial Analysts Federation, published widely-read Elliott wave commentary annually from 1953 to 1966…. (Gleick says that it was in 1960 when Mandelbrot first had "...a ghost of an idea, a faint, unfocused image..."5 that started his search for fractals.) Because I sent them to Mandelbrot (to no response), he had in his possession Elliott Wave Principle (1978) and my essay, "The Fractal Nature of Social Progress," at least as early as 1986.


 * "Elliott discovered so much more than Mandelbrot (much less Swift) about market behavior that the gulf is unbridgeable. Mandelbrot’s main thesis in the article, that the market is an indefinite multifractal, is a comparatively simple observation….It is also ultimately secondary to Elliott’s… unifying recognition that Fibonacci mathematics govern the market's self-affine behavior…. If he disagrees with either Elliott’s detailed observations or his wider conclusions, he should say so, not claim that they are not there."


 * There's more beyond these excerpts, including comments from PhDs about the controversy. See for yourself if they "laugh at Prechter's presumption."
 * --Rgfolsom 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Degree section
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)

WP:COI of User:Rgfolsom
Please don't just revert my edits. We've been through this before. You have a documented conflict of interest and should leave this article, Robert Prechter, etc. alone. Please do not say that you have a potential conflict of interest - the conflict is very real, and you act on it with almost every edit. Simple reversions that further your boss's intersts are just one example.

re: my edits - if something is described as a wave, most people will think in terms of amplitude and frequency. Indeed, if something doesn't have amplitude and frequency, can you really call it a wave?

I've cut down the criticism of the critics (see above). Keeping these responses to their basics keeps everything more transparent. Smallbones 09:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we've been through this before, which is why I asked you not to edit an article that is at issue in the arbitration case. You chose to disregard my request and make provocative changes, such as putting overtly negative opinions in the lead section and using words to avoid like "presumed." Do not complain to me now about a result that you knew was entirely predictable -- and avoidable.


 * I will revert when the edits are biased (Paulos in the lead section), misstate and confuse the facts in the content ("the classification of degrees varies among practitioners") and make the article more difficult to read (removing the hierarchical bulleted list). The quote about Paulos you removed was not, as you put it, what "critics note." It was a summary of what Paulos said about himself. He has zero competence or experience that makes him a reliable source of commentary on finance -- unless you have a rebuttal to my point (above) about tree houses that fall down, etc.


 * As for what to call something that doesn't have amplitude and frequency, my Random House Unabridged Dictionary shows 27 definitions under the entry for "wave." Given that this article includes an illustration which actually shows the waves, it's fair to say (again) that readers won't be thinking about disturbances that transfer energy -- or about the hand gesture people use when they go "bye-bye."
 * --Rgfolsom 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to ask other editors here on how they think that User:Rgfolsom can best avoid the problems caused by his COI, working for Robert Prechter. Smallbones 17:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"critics in intro"
It won't surprise you that I happen to disagree that "critics need to be in intro." Perhaps you can offer a reason why "critics need to be in intro." Whatever that reason, please know that I'll also ask if it applies to this article only, or to all articles about topics/people that receive criticism.

Because, as you know, not all articles about topics/people that receive criticism have those criticisms summarized "in intro." George Soros, for example. The intro for his article concludes with a glowing quotation from a famous person about what a fine fellow Soros is. The quote is from a book that Soros wrote, but, whatever, nothing wrong with that.

It's just that there's lots of books and lots of quotes to choose from, including some quotes about a book that would be relevant to this article. You may even have heard of the guy who offered this quote:


 * "When I meet someone who is interested in learning the trading business, I always refer them to what I consider to be the four Bibles of the business: Reminiscences of a Stock Operator by Edwin Lefevre, the fictionalized biography of the fabled Jesse Livermore; Technical Analysis of Stock Trends by McGee and Edwards, which was written in the first half of the 20th century and whose tenets still hold today; The Elliott Wave Theorist by Robert Prechter and A. J. Frost, a classic; and finally Market Wizards by Jack Schwager, which is a compilation of interviews with great traders. Reminiscences is a wonderfully entertaining read that mostly illuminates the emotional highs and lows that go with trading and tape reading. Technical Analysis of Stock Trends and The Elliott Wave Theorist both give very specific and systematic ways to approach developing great reward/risk ratios for entering into a business contract with the marketplace, which is what every trade should be if properly and thoughtfully executed."

So, will it be the "critics need to be in intro" model, or, the "Soros glowing quote in intro" model? Please do let us know. --Rgfolsom 19:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether your question is sincere. Nonetheless, here's my position.  I think that the question of whether it is appropriate to mention the critics in the lede depends on how controversial the person and/or topic is, and what the point of reference is.  In this case, it seems to me that EWP is controversial enough that there should be mention that some people don't think it works.  Still, I don't think that naming the critics that are quoted below is particularly helpful.  (Whether the intro to Soros needs to be rewritten is something that I have no opinion on.)  Semperf 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks, Semperf -- I guess. Please note that I won't be questioning the sincerity of your answer; at least you took a shot at the question. That said, I have to politely point out (again) that how "it seems to you" is irrelevant. EWP is absolutely not controversial to most members of the technical analysis community. There are of course exceptions, as you managed to discover in one of the very books I brought to your attention. But, as I've pointed out already (again), there are always exceptions to just about every freakin' financial model under the sun. That doesn't make it okay to wave a red flag in the introduction, nor to make "criticism" the longest section of the article. I've been waiting for days for someone to tell me why Paulos or his quote should even be in the article. Anyway, I've rectified the balance issue. There is more to do, of course.
 * --Rgfolsom 09:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Proof, and the pattern of bias
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)

I suggest that you stop using ad hominem arguments and reply to the points about content that I make. For starters, perhaps you can explain how your charge of "pseudoscience" squares with the fact that the SEC, NASD, and NYSE all recognize technical analysis and the Chartered Market Technician designation (which, by the way, includes the knowledge of Elliott wave analysis). --Rgfolsom 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Detailed explanation
I have reverted several of your edits based on the facts and relevant Wikipedia policies & guidelines cited below. My comments on this talk page are per WP:EQ, which says:
 * Argue facts, not personalities.
 * Don't ignore questions.
 * If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.

Lead section: The article's body has exactly two sentences that are about Prechter directly; this is hardly enough to merit an additional mention of him in the lead. If you disagree, then please explain why fibonacci ratios shouldn't also be in the lead. As for criticism, WP:WEASEL says avoid these constructions: Criticism section: It was the longest section of article, which on its face is not neutral. Furthermore, the Paulos, Colvin, and Dudley criticisms fail WP:NPOV, specifically:
 * "(Critics, detractors, fans, experts, many people, ...) (contend, say that, ...) ..."
 * "We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'"

Their criticisms also fail WP:RS, specifically:
 * "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community."

The relevant community in this case are financial academics, such as those listed here. Given that the Market Technicians Association includes Elliott wave theory as part the knowledge that establishes competency in technical analysis, it is safe to say that the relevant academics do not consider Elliott wave theory to be peudoscience, etc. --Rgfolsom 18:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The critics are cited in the criticism section - which you remove! You need to reread the WP:'s that you misquote. Why do you think that the Mathematical Association of America is not an expert on numerology? Smallbones 18:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Those critics use inflammatory words like "looniness," "peudoscience," and "numerology" -- and you quote them without any accompanying evidence, which means their words assert opinions instead of facts. Critical facts are neutral; critical opinions are not neutral. What's more, those inflammatory opinions do not come from the relevant academic community. Aronson is a market technician, meaning he speaks as a reliable source; his comment includes at least some facts to support his conclusion, which is why it should be in the article.


 * Please respect WP:EQ by replying to these points, and the issues in the lead section regarding Prechter and WP:WEASEL.
 * --Rgfolsom 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EQ, I welcome a reasoned reply to the points above regarding the introduction and criticism sections. Short of that, I'm editing those sections per WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Interested editors may wish to note that this article was part of a Arbitration Committee ruling in March 2007, available here. Rgfolsom 21:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics and signature
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)

NPOVing (insofar as that's possible)
The article was heavily biased with a number of self-serving references and heavy lashings of pseudoscience. I've made an attempt to NPOV it - although it would be better to just delete and start over, I don't have the time. Doubtless it will fractally degenerate into chaos again - any Ellioticians care to predict the downward trend? My personal guess is that Robert Precther will be the first person to be restored - but then what do I know? Pleclech 13:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Pleclech,
 * I've reverted the edits you made to this article. It may help you to please review the exchanges on this talk page, and also to read this recent Arbitration Committee case available here. Elliott wave principle (among others) was at issue in that case, as was the suggestion that Elliott's wave principle is pseudoscience.


 * Please note that the mention of EMH was already in the criticism section, and that "claim" is a loaded synonym. Also, the large section of text you removed was from a published author who is on the board of directors of the Market Technicians Association.
 * Rgfolsom 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, if you don't like the word "claim" then suggest a substitute. "Teach"? "Allege"? "Believe"? "Theorize"? "Assert"? The problem is that the article, as written, simply says that Ellioticians can do these things; an assertion widely disbelieved. -- Orange Mike 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Elliotticans say the method works, critics say it doesn't. I don't see how it could be any simpler or more neutral than that. WP:WTA spells it out in detail, but if you read it I think you'll agree that I've accurately summarized the idea.
 * Rgfolsom 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I predicted Prechter would reappear. I'll have a look at what Arb Com said, but pseudoscience is pseudoscience in my book.  The Market Technicians Association clearly cannot be taken as an unbiased source.  And Czech physicists, whatever their standing in their own field can hardly be authoritative either! Pleclech 22:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I've read Arb Com and there do seem to be some constructive attempts to edit this article. I'm going to attempt a few more - the triumph of hope over experience.  Pleclech 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only made one edit - the article had substantially improved since I last read it. Pleclech 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reading the Arb Com ruling, I'm glad that you think the work on this article has been constructive. That said, I don't get why the question of bias comes up based only on the fact that an editor is competent in the subject matter of this article. In addition to WP:AFG, we should want such editors to contribute.
 * I can't agree with the mention of critics in the first paragraph. It invites a rejoinder, at which point the text starts to look more like a debate transcript than an encyclopedic article. Criticism gets a full hearing in the section by that name. Rgfolsom 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be disingenuous. The concern is not about "the fact that an editor is competent in the subject matter of this article." Bluntly, it is about the fact that you, as a Prechter employee, have a vested financial interest in having Prechter and Elliott wave theory look as good as possible. Whether or not such an interest influences your edits, it is bound to be in everybody's mind, and it would be absurd to pretend otherwise. That said, the Arb Com ruled that there was no evidence that you were falsifying the article, but that the other guy was unable to contain his animus. -- Orange Mike 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-read the thread more carefully. 1) I said Pleclech deleted a contribution from a board member of the MTA, 2) Pleclech said the MTA is not an unbiased source, 3) I asked why bias came up regarding an editor competent in the subject matter. I wasn't talking about myself, and your accusation that I'm disingenuous is uncalled for. You owe me an apology. Rgfolsom 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had not meant to reference the Pleclech thread alone. It appears to me that you have in the past taken a stance that there is no reason to think you might show bias; that, and that alone, was what I was referencing, and I apologize if I implied otherwise. I cannot pretend that this COI issue does not influence how every other editor looks at your edits, and I can't apologize for that. That said: I think Pleclech misunderstands the variety of approaches which the MTA encompasses, and the extent to which its members are rivals, not allies, of each other; so I support you in your rebuttal of Pleclech's assumption. -- Orange Mike 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (a fundamentalist, not a technician, by approach)
 * I am not asking you to pretend anything about what influences other editors. I am not asking you to apologize for other editors. What I do ask -- and have every right to insist upon -- is that you assume good faith about my edits. Short of those edits giving you obvious cause to do so, please don't bring up COI again. Rgfolsom 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I was the MTA board member deleted by Pleclech, it is worth explaining a few things. First of all, I did not write the explanation of wave characteristics as a member of the MTA board. I wrote it as an Elliottician (I do not sell any service, in case you were wondering, although I used to, and have written a book on the subject). You can be quite sure that there are many members of the MTA, including Dave Aronson, who is quoted in the criticism section of the article, that do not believe in Elliott Wave. To suggest though that the article should say "claims" in front of every descriptive regarding the theory is just plain wrong. The article describes how those who believe it works use it. If you add "claims" in front of each and every point, then you better start editing every article on religion too. As far as pseudoscience goes, there are many people doing a great deal of research on Elliott, in an attempt to prove it -- people not named Robert Prechter. Personally, my background is in Mathematics and Economics. I came to technical analysis late, and Elliott even later. It was through the trials and tribulations of trying to make sense of the markets, that I discovered that the only thing that worked was TA. I still look at the markets from a fundamental, technical and quantitative perspective together, but TA gets the biggest weight in my book. Throwing out anything is just closing your eyes.Sposer 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Elliott Wave as pseudoscience and pseudohistory
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Criticism tag
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

NPOV tag
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)


 * The accusation fails to identify what those “relevant controversies” are.--Rgfolsom 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Not policy, and none of the other contributors to this article seem to agree.--Rgfolsom 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

2) The article fails to integrate criticism into the text of the article in violation of NPOV, instead segregating it to a section at the end, and even there failing to present the criticism forthrightly and fairly, a separate violation of NPOV. THF 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

3) The article flunks WP:WEIGHT. The mainstream view that this is pseudoscientific nonsense is not adequately represented; even other TA proponents have criticized the Elliott wave.  Instead, the minority view of wave proponents constitutes the vast majority of the article.  THF 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The accusation flunks in providing a single word about what the “mainstream view” is.--Rgfolsom 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The mainstream view [is] that this is pseudoscientific nonsense" -- my 17:15 comment. THF 12:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Yeah, actually saying "THIS is the mainstream view" makes NPOV patrollers scream. Morgan Wick 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

This edit improperly makes it seem that the wave is a matter of fact, rather than the opinion of wave proponents. Simply adding a footnote doesn't change the fact that the phrasing violates NPOV. THF 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * "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)

These issues were tried and decided months ago
WP:Talk says:

Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject…. if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues….The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.

Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.

In each case THF failed to observe those guidelines:
 * 1) He criticizes, picks apart and vents on this talk about the article, and is not positive in asking for suggestions.
 * 2) He argues his own POV with no citation of referenced material.
 * 3) He presents no contradictory facts from other sources, and does not ask for supporting references regarding any article statements.

THF’s solitary edit in the article itself does not seem like an effort to improve the text, but instead a maneuver to get around the fact I noted in my previous post here -- namely that he had never before made any contributions.

THF says this article violates several Wikipedia policies, yet offers no details or specific examples to support his allegation. It is well worth noting that THF’s first appeared here on July 18, only two days after a member of WikiProject Economics gave this article a B-Class grade, "the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process.” One wonders how the issues that THF finds so conspicuous somehow escaped the notice of a unbiased editor whose only interest was a good faith assessment of Elliott wave principle.

July 18 also happened to be the day when THF began a dispute with me and other editors on the Technical analysis talk page – with similarly arrogant, dogmatic, and unsubstantiated criticisms. Although, that dispute preceded his visit to Elliott wave principle; an editor motivated to check my edit history would see that I had just spend time working to improve this article.

As for pseudoscience (etc.), this quote from the article itself is relevant: “Elliott Wave Theory is among the methods included on the exam that analysts must pass to earn the Chartered Market Technician (CMT) designation, the professional accreditation developed by the Market Technicians Association (MTA). Comprehensive coursework (including Elliott theory) is offered by the MTA and the New York Institute of Finance.”

Finally, as is obvious here, these same issues -- controversies/lead, pseudoscience/weight, and criticisms/POV -- were brought by Smallbones in the arbitration case (as was COI), and the Arbitration Committee went along with NONE of it.

THF has yet to raise a topic that is different from the issues in the case that was already decided.--Rgfolsom 08:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rgfolsom wildly misunderstands the purpose of arbitration. An arbitration decision does not frame an article in amber, and it most certainly did not grant him ownership of the article.  I was not a participant in the arbitration, which made no decision on the NPOV status of this article, only on whether Smallbones could edit, and the arbitration obviously does not forbid me from editing this article, which plainly violates multiple Wikipedia policies.  This is not the first time that Rgfolsom has attempted to use a narrow arbitration decision to inappropriately bludgeon editors he disagrees with, and it resulted in him getting blocked for his edit-warring on the technical analysis article. THF 12:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If I wildly misunderstood that purpose, then the outcome sure was a nice piece of dumb luck on my part. While the Arb decision didn’t speak to the POV of this article, it certainly did identify the POV of one editor (smallbones), and not of the other (me), who has written most of this article. Like you, he accused me of wp:own, and claimed that this article (among others) “plainly” had multiple policy violations. As I said, you have yet to raise a topic that is different from the issues in the case that was already decided.--Rgfolsom 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not smallbones, so your citation of the arbitration decision is utterly irrelevant, exactly as it was on technical analysis when your throwing out there didn't stop you from getting blocked for inappropriate edit-warring. THF 20:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: Mixed decision. 0. I'm going to ignore the ArbCom case because of such things as WP:CCC, which Rgfolsom would do well to remember. In future, when listing on WP:3O, link to the relevant talk page section. Also, I'm not sure the dispute was phrased in an NPOV way. 1. The lead section issues are inextricably linked to the "mainstream view" issue, so I will ignore it. 2. Wikipedia tends to frown on placing criticism in "criticism" sections, and tends to want to obliterate them as much as possible. See Criticism. 3. While I do think the article is a little pro-Wave, THF needs to provide citation of reliable sources that suggest that "the mainstream view" rejects this, stronger than the ones in the (woefully short) Criticism section. (When I say "woefully short", what I mean is that, considering the weight of the article's criticism placed there, there isn't much.) Until I can get a real good picture of where this stands, I can't make a firm decision. Morgan Wick 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Chapter 6 from Burton Malkiel's A Random Walk Down Wall Street: "Technical analysis is anathema to the academic world. We love to pick on it.  Our bullying tactics are prompted by two considerations: (1) after paying transactions costs, the method does not do better than a buy-and-hold strategy for investors, and (2) it's easy to pick on.  And while it may seem unfair to pick on such a sorry target, just remember: it's your money we are trying to save." (139)


 * "It seems very clear that under scientific scrutiny chart-reading must share a pedestal with alchemy." (158)


 * "Technical strategies are usually amusing, often comforting, but of no real value." (159)


 * Chapter 7 from Malkiel: "But even on Wall Street, technicians are considered a rather strange cult, and little faith is put in their recommendations." (165)


 * Malkiel also spends two pages criticizing Robert Prechter, the lead proponent of the Elliott Wave. In 1987, after the stock market crash, Prechter used his Elliott Wave to predict that the Dow would drop from 2000 to 400.  Instead it reached all-time highs. THF 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert Prechter Jr. is not Elliott. He also forecast a crash from around 4,000. At the same time I wrote that it was possible, but a move over 4,100 would mean Dow 10,000. Unfortunately, nobody read that one. I also was quoted in Barrons Online the day the Nikkei bottomed that it had actually bottomed and was an enormous buy. I've also been wrong lots of times. If you are correct 55% of the time in the markets, you are a god. Picking one person as an example is meaningless. Many of the top technical analysts use Elliott as part of their work. Sposer 01:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Morgan, thanks for your thoughtful comments. You're right that consensus can and does change -- please do remember though that Arbitration cases are as much about editors' conduct as they are about content policy. I raise the Arb case not to defend the article, but instead my contributions to it. Read the the decision, including the workshop and evidence, if you're really interested: that dispute parallels this one to a remarkable degree. Please also note that THF quotes Malkiel’s criticism of technical analysis, not of Prechter. And Sposer is right that one person does not amount to "mainstream." See more about Malkiel here. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article says "Robert Prechter came across Elliott's works while working as a market technician at Merrill Lynch. His notoriety as a forecaster during the bull market of the 1980s brought the greatest exposure to date to Elliott's theory, and today Prechter remains the most widely known Elliott analyst." There's no mention in the article that "the most widely known Elliott analyst" fell flat on his face, and is used as an example of why following TA is (and I quote) "alchemy."


 * I don't wish to personally attack Rgfolsom, but I find it frustrating that his representations of outside sources is frequently incorrect. His claim that Malkiel's criticism of Prechter has nothing to do with his criticism of technical analysis is in that category.  Google books has what Malkiel said about Prechter and it's part of the entire critique of technical analysis. THF 02:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits and sources
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)

Performance of Elliott Wave Forecast
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)

Elliottician.Com Link
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)

Behavioral Characteristics Changes
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)

fourier transform
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)

Recently added GBP/JPY Chart
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)

At odds with modern social science, removal of EMH
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)

The Bell Does Ring
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)

Astrology
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)

my 2 cents
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)

Orvin Five Blog Entry
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)

I should add that although I wrote a book on the subject, I have not been actively in the technical analysis business (Elliott Wave is a form of technical analysis, although the author doesn't seem to acknowledge that in his opinion blog engtry) in more than four years. From practice and use, I know it works, but there is no reason to believe that it can be proven (or disproven) mathematically, as it is not a formula. Sposer (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I misread the comments on Kyle1278. I thought the comment was that the author was an academic. That is was linked by Orvin Five, and is that person's blog makes it completely unacceptable according to Wiki policy as I understand it. I have personally even removed published articles that I've written that were in this article and used as justification, even though according to Wiki rules, it was considered a verifiable and reliable source. A blog commentary, whether it is commercial or not, does not belong as a link.Sposer (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You & a Very Simple Question
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)


 * 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)

Additions and deletions
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) This article needs some work, it is far short of ideal. That quote came from an Elliott Wave publication. Short quotes I believe are fair use or would you have any words from 35 years of publication not be public? Some decent charts are sorely needed to illustrate the grandsupercycle and supercycle. People are curious now. Would you guys, I'm asking you as a representative of Elliott Wave International to donate to the public a definition of The Elliot Wave Theory or The Elliott Wave Principle? The article needs some decent detailed charts of different waves. I haven't to find anything clear and great in the public domain. Also note my post on a new beginning. I think some progress towards making this a better site can be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryLKaplan (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A New Beginning
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, GaryLKaplan (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC).

The quote that seemed the most detailed, concise and straight forward is:

"because man is subject to rhythmical procedure, calculations having to do with his activities can be projected far into the future with a justification and certainty heretofore unattainable.   Very extensive research in connection with human activities indicates that practically all developments which result from our social economic processes follow a similar  and constantly recurring serial of waves or impulses of definite number and pattern.  It is likewise indicated that in their intensity, these waves or impulses bear a consistent relation to one another and to the passage of time.  In order to best illustrate this phenomenon is is necessary to take, in the field of man's activities, some example which furnishes an abundance of reliable data and for such purpose there is nothing better then the stock exchange." Ralph Nelson Elliott, 1938.

If someone has something better please suggest it.

From this quote one can see the relationship between the Wave Principle and the stock market. The principle is that man is rhythmical, his activities have patterns and you can predict the future based on the patterns. This theory is about human behavior. The stock market comes in as a source of data to be used to predict the future. Technical analysis uses the theory and market data to predict the markets. But the principle remains that there is a pattern to human activities.

GaryLKaplan (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Gary L. KaplanGaryLKaplan (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

That is the same quote you use to start your book, it is well chosen. It's the best choice of a direct quote from Elliott that I could find and better then secondary interpretations. I have a couple of days to read some of the Elliott Wave literature on books.google.com., Richard Russell, A. J. Frost etc. If anyone questions the use of this specific quote your book is my reference. I not sure whether to use the exact quote from Elliott or to change a couple of words to make better sense. I read the parts of your book available online doing research and was pleased to see someone with a depth of knowledge and experience agreed. GaryLKaplan (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Elliott Wave Principle → Elliot wave principle –

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. extremely strongly relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Tony   (talk)  00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with you. I think I've seen it referred to, within articles on the subject as "the Principle". It is always capitalized. I would consider it a proper name and not a generic or common term.Sposer (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take into account that WP normally downcases laws, rules, models, and theories. I see mixed usage in a google search. Elliot, of course, is always upcased; but the other two words are treated inconsistently.  Tony   (talk)  06:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that Wiki Policy does not override the proper name for the Wave Principle. Inconsitency may be due to lack of knowledge by the authors of the books. R.N. Elliott himself capitalized it, as do the main authors on the EWP, with the best know being Prechter (and yours truly as well). This absolutely must remain capitalized.Sposer (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – though Elliot naturally capitalizes his own baby, reliable secondary sources quite often do not. The idea that an eponymous principle is a proper name is really contrary to MOS:CAPS, especially when there are so many sources that use lower case for it.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The acknowledged expert in the field, Robert Prechter Jr. capitalizes it. I capitalize it always in my book. All the people who are experts capitalize it. I am sure you can find cases of those that do not, but it is a proper name and should be capitalized. Kirkpatrick/Dahlquist's text on technical analysis also refers to Elliott Wave in caps when referring to the theory/principle (he uses Theory as do I instead of Principle - Elliott called it the Principle but also discussed it as a theory). He refers in the text itself to "Elliott's waves", which is fine, but when referring to the name of the theory/principle it absolutely is either "Elliott Wave Principle" or "Elliott Wave Theory" in caps.Sposer (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rebut – experts in fields very commonly capitalize the Things that they are expert on. That is not relevant to our consideration, which is about whether the term is consistently capitalized by reliable secondary sources, especially those somewhat independent of the subject and thereby avoiding a conflict of interest in the capitalizing-for-promotion game.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I referred to a text book on technical analysis in generator, and is co-written by a professor of finance. They use the proper capitalization of the terms. I cannot help it if people incorrectly sometimes fail to capitalize. The common usage is with capitalization. The NY Times seems to capitalize "Wave", but not "Theory". Bloomberg News also seems to follow this pattern when using theory, but they capitalize when referring to the "Elliott Wave Principle". So, the most reliable sources, being those that know something about the subject (i.e., Bloomberg News plus the experts in the field and academics) seem to either wholly or partially capitalize. Note that I have not questioned other changes to technical titles, such as Relative strength index and Bollinger bands. This is a full-fledged market model and has a proper name and would be absolutely incorrect if not capitalized in my opinion. I have no skin in this game. Although I wrote a book on the subject eight years ago, I no longer even work as a technical analyst. I just think that this is a term that is properly capitalized. I admit that the evidence is mixed. Andrew Lo's "Heretics of Finance" does not capitalize, but that seems to be in the minority among those that are knowledgeable on the subject (and I find the idea of allowing people who know nothing about a subject being the arbiter of proper naming somewhat subjective).Sposer (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources that "fail" as you describe are just those whose style you disagree with then? We can't just accept that different reliable sources use different styles?  Some capitalizing their terms of art for emphasis, and some not?  WP decided to not.  See MOS:CAPS.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not true. The NY Times is mixed. They seem to mostly capitalize "Wave", but not the next word. The point is that correct usage should not be based on mass market magazines and papers that neither know, nor understand, the proper usage or the 100s of misinformed authors who have written books and made a mention of Elliott Wave without knowing its proper usage as well. Bloomberg is now possibly the largest news outlet in the world, and supplies stories to all major newspapers throughout the world and they capitalize the first two, and seem to capitalize the last when it is "Principle". We cannot change something because we don't like it. As has been presented by others, the main text book used to teach capitalizes as well (I have not checked this fact). Let's stick with true RS, and ngrams doesn't distinguish.Sposer (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment - please dial it down and restrict comments to Supports/Opposes. Using the words Extremely and Strong hold little weight in these discussions, amount to WP:SHOUT and tend to cloud the issue. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The majority of theories, laws, principles, etc. are usually downcased in sources. A few of them have a predominance of capitalizing sources. But in general, most don't, and the rule is to downcase the lot of them. So support (I have sometimes pointed out that fictitious laws receive a different treatment, and are usually uppercased, but this is not a fictitious law). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Isn't this the Hindenburg Omen issue again? If so, there is not much point in voting. It seems that the business press is Really Into Capital Letters. But here is the The New York Times: "There was talk of the Fibonacci system, Bollinger Bands and the Elliott wave theory." Kauffner (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I notice in that NYT article Fibonacci system and Ponzi scheme. On this occasion, I think it's fair to point out that the NYT is writing for a reasonably wide readership, as we are—not only for highly specialised readers, especially those who might want to indulge in boosterism. Tony   (talk)  01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. And here is a link where the NY Times capitalizes "Wave", but incorrectly does not capitalize "Theory/Principle": . Interestingly, the example noted by Kauffner above capitalizes "Bollinger Bands", which is having this same discussion. It is clear that there is absolutely no consistency, except for Bloomberg, which seems to know the right way, and capitalizes, at a minimum, "Wave" (not sure how they take care of Bollinger).Sposer (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Common usage should trump. "Elliott Wave Principle" and "Elliott Wave" are far and away the most common formattings. See Kirkpatrick and Dahlquist. MarketTechnician (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at book n-grams, it's true that "the Elliott Wave" is considerably more common than "the Elliott wave" (lowecase) (with notable exception of in 2002). But it's also true the next word is very inconsistent (such that if you add another word it sometimes doesn't make the threshold for the n-gram list, so it less easy to count).  Here it is for "theory".  In the case of "Principle" you get a lot of hits that are probably from the book title.  Anyway, this evidence strongly suggests that we should not regard any more than Elliott as proper, since sources don't support such an interpretation.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thnk it is fair to say that you are making your own interpretation of the evidence to make it fit with your theory [or is it Theory? :-) ]. Although my book used "Elliott Wave Theory", "Elliott Wave Principle" is more common. Bloomberg capitalizes Principle, and they are the best source for this. Most books I have seen capitalize at a minimum, Elliott and Wave, and many capitalize Principle as well. To me the evidence presented shows the "Elliott Wave Principle" is the proper way to title this article and that anything else would be incorrect. Please also note that I have not weighed in on other technical terms that Dicklyon has proposed changes on, because the evidence is less compelling, but for Elliott, it is 100% clear. Capitalize. I also am not "protecting" anything. I no longer work in the field, my book uses "Theory" and not "Principle" and I would defend all technical analysis terms equally if I felt capitalization was a must(I am a former member of the board of the Market Technicians Association). My initial reaction was to argue for RSI and others too, but when I reviewed the evidence, on my own before posting, I chose not to. The evidence supports caps here and is different than the other cases (although trademarked indicators like Bollinger Bands may have an argument too, although I am not expert enough on trademark issues to comment on that).Sposer (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Elliott Wave Principle" is more common, especially since there was a book by that title and many other books mention it. Still, it's pretty close, with the sum of "Elliott Wave Theory" of various capitalization exceeding it in many years, as shown here. Isn't evidence interesting?  It certainly shows that the term is not widely adopted as proper.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.