Talk:William Delbert Gann

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Delbert Gann article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Astrology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives

Comments

The link to Hexagon refers to the shape; the article is lacking in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.99.118.9 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Preposterous Puff Piece

This silly bit of propaganda has no place in Wiki.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Delbert Gann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

W.D.ギャン.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Pseudonym for The Ancient Science of Numbers and Astrology and Stock Market Forecasting

The article now says that Gann may have written The Ancient Science of Numbers (1908) and Astrology and Stock Market Forecasting (1937) using pseudonyms. No cited source actually asserts this, they only say that it is possible, and give no basis for the statement (nor have I found a better source), and the books do not appear to be separately notable. Are they even worth mentioning here? I suggest not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE concerns

User:Licks-rocks deleted most of the text in this article on the basis of WP:FRINGE. Perhaps Gann's methods do not need to be discussed in full detail, but the article can at least state that he used such-and-such methods, and fringe theory concerns are a spurious basis on which to remove a discussion of whether his methods were effective. 2601:642:4600:3F80:5CFD:C6C4:93AD:AB62 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:FRINGE is a very good reason to delete huge walls of humbug. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what I said. There had been a section directly discussing the evidence that Gann was a humbug, and it was deleted along with the "methods" discussion. 2601:642:4600:3F80:5CFD:C6C4:93AD:AB62 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps Gann's methods do not need to be discussed in full detail, but the article can at least state that he used such-and-such methods, and fringe theory concerns are a spurious basis on which to remove a discussion of whether his methods were effective." I concur, which I'm a bit confused that you seem to have undone my changes, thereby reintroducing the enormous section dedicated to explaining his methods, up to and including that hilarious rye price chart. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: removing reliably sourced material because you feel it is posthumous speculation and not something that Gann himself admitted isn't supported by Wikipedia editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite well supported by verifiability policy. If one says that Gann reasoned so-and-so, that must be verifiable from Gann, and not someone else supposing how Gann might have reasoned. 2601:642:4600:3F80:5CFD:C6C4:93AD:AB62 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You understand that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable third party sources, rather than restricted to material found by original research from the primary source (Gann)? You need to stop making edits like this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]