Talk:Head and shoulders (chart pattern)

Talk
A statement like "It is one of the most reliable chart patterns, and it reaches its projected target in 95% probability" needs a reference. I've seen this said, but I've never seen a reference cited.
 * I'm wondering about NPOV here. This article needs citations (and from neutral sources)! Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. The whole thing reads like it's been written by the technical charting marketing board.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.241.233 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirded 81.108.180.242 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This statement makes no sense, "On the technical analysis chart..." 24.160.109.122 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that the entire definition of head and shoulders is deficient by classical standards, and requires support through citations. The classical work for such definitions was "Technical Analysis of Stock Trends", by Edwards and Magee, however, I do not own a copy and I am sure they are both dead by now. I do recall that there were requirements that the neckline be level or downsloping, that the right hand shoulder not be larger than the left, and that the volume be supportive, in that it declined across all three peaks. The absence of these requirements in the current internet definitions has led to misidentification of virtually any three peaks as a head and shoulders, according to the predilections of the viewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.71.12 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)