Talk:Edward R. Dewey

message: I am posting a proposed new page under FSC
:I am also interested in this. If there are no objections, i can use one of the relevant redirects and begin a stub;  or . I see that back in 2006 there was an AfD, where there was no consensus to delete the article, but its content was later merged with this one, without any prior discussion; as far as i am aware of. By the way, i did a quick search and found two additional sources that could be used for the proposed article:
:*The Foundation for the Study of Cycles (1943) by Ellsworth Huntington – Annals of the Entomological Society of America, Volume 36, Issue 2
:*The Foundation for the Study of Cycles (1944) – Science, Volume 100, Issue 2606
:I don't have full access to the last one, so if any of the readers has full access to Science (journal) and can assist, it would be much appreciated; if not, i can make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed reinstatement of separate article for Foundation for the Study of Cycles (FSC) 

message: Shouldn't this be moved to Edward R. Dewey (with a dot after R initial? Also, Category:Sociologists may fit here - may, I don't know if he was an academic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle synchrony. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cycle synchrony (Dewey)]] merged here 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory. 
I have rewritten the article to counter the claims by the FSC crowd that legitimate research in physics, biology and economics which rests upon dynamical systems theory somehow "validates" the mystical numerology of Edward R. Dewey.  Sheesh!---CH 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hillman once again makes things up so that he has an easy target. Dewey never did anything that in any way resembles numerology. He did observe that commonly reported cycles (mostly by others) from many disciplines had common periods and that these periods often had periods related by simple ratios such as 2 and 3. Such observations are not numerology and may be found in recent peer reviewed papers on solar phenomena with periods of 154 days, 77 days and 26 days. Produce some evidence of Dewey and numerology Hillman! Again, Hillman does not understand the difference between observation and theory. Dewey's observations do not rest on any theory. Theory comes after observation and is an attempt to explain it. Ray Tomes 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The second or third RfA related to this article

message: Is it just me, or do the references here have nothing to do with the article? Were they meant for another article? If not, what is their relation to the text of the article? --Philosophus 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I swear I answered this, but...) This is my fault. I took out a section of material about dynamical systems that wasn't about Dewey, but didn't notice that it came with references. · rodii · 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the references have nothing to do with the article. This is partly because of the silly act of merging FSC with Dewey when they are two separate but related topics. That needs to be reversed at some time. However Hillman keeps adding references and material about theories to explain cycles. The material belongs somewhere else it has nothing to do with Dewey. He thinks he is disputing Dewey's theory when Dewey had no theory. Ray Tomes 23:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: Please see these related current AfDs:
* Cycle Theory/Cycles Research Institute/Unified Theory of Cycles (one AfD for three articles)
* The Foundation for the Study of Cycles
# Cycle studies
and these related past AfD/CfDs:
* Harmonics Theory (this article was deleted after the AfD)
* :Category:Cycles (this category was deleted after the CfD; sorry, I lost the link to the archived CfD)
TIA!
BTW, I have reverted to my version with the section comparing Dewey's vapid numerological mysticism (preceeding section) to a some genuinely important theorems from dynamical systems theory which mention cycles.  This section was deleted by another skeptic who misunderstood my motivation, which was to contrast a real theory (dynamical systems) with vapid dreck (Dewey's tables &c.)  I reverted because I refer to what I wrote in my comments in various of the AfDs.  I don't disagree that this one section might be worth saving in some other article, so I am copying it to my user pages.  But for the moment let us let all these related AfDs run their course.---CH 06:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't misunderstand your motivation at all, as I explained on yout talk page, I just don't believe that your section belongs in an article about Dewey.  But I won't revert war about it. I appreciate your efforts. · rodii · 12:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just realized what you meant--yes, I did misunderstand at first, until I realized it was by you and not Tomes. Got it. · rodii · 13:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please see these AfDs

message: The result of the AfD was inconclusive between delete and merge (with Edward R. Dewey), so I have boldly merged what little there was that was clearly relevant to Dewey and the FSC and turned The Foundation for the Study of Cycles into a redirect to Edward R. Dewey.  Without independent and reliable sources, I felt it appropriate to cut down the description to a minimum, but kept the link to their website, so curious WP readers can easily find out what FSC says about itself.
I deleted mention of the competing organization founded by Ray Tomes as per several recent (and some not so recent) AfDs which have resulted in deletion of articles pertaining to his splinter group.---CH 08:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section on the Foundation for the Study of Cycles

message: I have removed material that has nothing to do with Dewey that was placed by Hillman. This includes theories by Sarkvski and Hurwitz and other such. Also removed references to "Dewey's theories" because he did not propose theories but reported only the presence of cycles.
I would also note that Dewey was well aware of a variety of different types of cycles including regular, irregular and so on. Cycles such as the sunspot cycle which are not strictly periodic are still cycles. They may be difficult to predict however and many have got it wrong.
Hillman is a debunker on a witch hunt, and he is going about trying to destroy anything that I have had something to do with. That is not a proper basis of work in WP. The life and work of Dewey entirely predates my knowledge of his or the FSC existence and this great man does not deserve to be listed as a pseudo-scientist by people who know nothing about his work or the history of the field.
Ray Tomes 23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of material totally unrelated to Dewey

message: Unless these claims can be supported by independent and reliable sources, they should be removed:
#Dewey used Feynman's recommendations as a basis for his research and found that many cases of cycles were significant and because of relationships with other unrelated phenomena, statistically could not result from causes within systems based on traditional scientific disciplines.
# the quote from Feynman---can someone not affiliated with the pro-Dewey orgs verify that he said this?  I suspect the quote has been taken out of context.
---CH 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your heading shows that you are indeed biased against cycles material. A person intersted in the truth would frame the heading entirely differently. The entire article is  in which this appears. There is nothing out of context about it. As the foremost expert in cycles, Dewey went to Feynman, the foremost expert in physics, to get recommendations on what the implications of his work were for physics and what was the standard of proof required. As he says, he then used the advice given as a basis for all his analysis and conclusions. Yes, it would be nice if an expert on Feynman could find some reference to this also. Ray Tomes 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further suspect claims introduced in recent edits

message: User:Cycles posted the text of the obituary of Dewey from the International Journal of Biometeorology on the article page. We can't use it in that form (copyvio) and it doesn't really fit the article's structure as is, but it has a lot of information that would answer many of my objections about the poor quality of the article as biography. So I'm moving it over here as source material to be worked back into the article. We should probably delete it for copyright reasons as soon as we're done processing it. Thanks. · rodii · 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the references section of the article, I have fixed the mangled link to the on-line abstract for this obit provided by Springer.  ---CH 01:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that kinda figures :-/  The IP 12.73.122.30 of the anon who signs (not wikisigns) as "S.L., Fridley, Minnesota, USA" is registered to AT&T Corp. and hosts dialup access from the twin cities area, which includes Fridley, MN. ---CH 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dewey obit text 

message: Can someone honestly tell me why this section is here? A simple look at the FSC website will reveal that it is an absolutely outlandish group which has no business being promoted on Wikipedia.
:Two reasons. The factual one is that it was founded by Dewey and published much of his work; if Dewey has any intellectual legacy at all (disputed), the FSC is probably it. The procedural one is that in a recent AfD covering several articles on cycles, the consensus was to merge the FSC article to this one. So here it lies, for better or for worse.
:As to the "promotion" idea, Wikpedia is an encyclopedia, as much as people persist in the idea that inclusion here is equivalent to "promotion."  But it's not; our job is to report verifiable knowledge about notable subjects in a NPOV manner. In this case, the "correct" POV is disputed. Some folks think the FSC are wackos and charlatans, some think they're insightful and underrecognized. In a dispute like this, it's probably not the best approach to just delete material you disagree with; instead , in the interests of NPOV, we try to state their claims and those of their critics clearly and fairly. The problem is that the FSC is so marginal and obscure that they haven't really attracted any critics, so the article gives the appearance of leaning in the pro-FSC direction. (And, of course, they're wackos and charlatans. :) · rodii · 02:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation for the Study of Cycles 

message: Having added Dewey to economists and american economists categories I note that he appears under "E" and not "D" whereas others appear in surname order. I do not know why this is but it needs correction. It does seem that it is correct to have his name as "Edward R. Dewey" and not "Dewey, Edward R." so can someone knowledgable please assist on this? Ray Tomes 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surnames in alphabetic order in categories 

message: Quoted material was removed. It is unsubstantiated and quite meaningless...
"Much of Dewey's work made claims about Business cycles."
What claims?
"This subject has been hotly debated; for instance Philip Ball in his book Critical Mass: how one thing leads to anotherBall, P., Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another Random House 2004. . remarks:
:The truth is that dips and peaks in the economy resolutely refuse to recur in any predictable manner, making attempts to construct cyclic theories of economics look increasingly like Ptolemy's elaborate scheme for predicting the motions of the planets"
Dewey never claimed that all cycles are regular. Philip Ball gives no statistical analysis to support his conjecture (which is being kind to him). Ball never makes any criticism of Dewey and so this does not belong in this article. There are many people who use proper statistics to test whether cycles are regular or real (Dewey included) and these would be much more relevant than this twaddle. Ray Tomes 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still criticism which applies to Dewey. If you have a better source for the same criticism, do improve the article. Septentrionalis 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how narrowly one defines "subject".  I would say that if a work discusses general problems with members of class Q, that it pertains to any member of Q.  To take a not uncommon case, a proof of the impossibility of any perpetual motion machine is relevant to any particular alleged perpetual motion machine.  In this case, the fact that the comment is general, and not specific to Dewey's theory is relevant, and should be made clear. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have left the cricism by Rothbard because it is relevant even though it displays ignorance on his part (specifically he thinks that a restoring force in the economy will cause a displacement to just disappear - evidently he has never heard of simple harmonic motion which happens from just such a restoring force, and totally failing to grasp the notion of momentum). However the Ball material is not even relevant. He states "Much of Dewey's work made claims about business cycles." ... What claims? Evidence please. Actually much of it did no such thing. In the CCLC (Cycles Classic Library Collection) there is a list of 100 cycles subjects and "business cycles" is not even 1 of them. Also "The whole subject of business cycles has been hotly debated;". So what? The main claim that has been made in support of this is that business cycles might not be regular. Dewey was well aware of cycles being regular or not and I see no evidence that he claimed that "the business cycle" is regular. Ray Tomes 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated criticisms removed 

message: If I read the history correctly, the "removal" of categories consisted of 
#not having both a category and a proper subcategory, which is advised against (Wikipedia:Categories#Some general guidelines – "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory."), and
#placing the surviving category at the bottom of the article, as is customary, rather than at the top.
Since the article has at least one valid category, I removed the tag. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I have added a quote from a published article that shows clearly that Dewey did not consider "the business cycle" to be a true cycle. Considering that Ball criticises "the business cycle" and never mentions Dewey in his book, I expect that you will now stop putting that nonsense back in this article. Ray Tomes 11:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Business cycle criticised by Dewey himself / No disparity between Ball and Dewey on this 

message: I find it disappointing that the text "Much of Dewey's work made claims about business cycles. The whole subject of business cycles has been hotly debated;" keeps get put in this article. I have repeatedly asked "what claims?" and this has been repeatedly ignored. I point out that this phrase is under the heading "criticism" and if you are going to criticise someone then you should at least quote them or give a reference to what they said that you consider wrong. It seems that perhaps none of those involved actually know what Dewey said or why it is considered wrong! If you are unwilling to actually say what is being criticised then I suggest that we seek mediation.
I do not consider John Quiggin's statement that I am in a minority is at all relevant to what is good practice. It is good practice mentioned under NPOV that the article should be "presenting each point of view accurately" and that cannot be said for "Much of Dewey's work made claims about business cycles" because it is a very imprecise statement. What claims? Ray Tomes 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also need to consider the undue weight policy. You appear to be the only one who disagrees with the text, and you also have serious conflict of interest policy problems. --Philosophus T 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about undue stupidity. The sentence is nonsense. It makes a criticism of something without saying what it criticises. I will continue to delete the nonsense. If someone wants to make a sensible and meaningful criticism then I will not object. Ray Tomes 07:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mediation? 

message: The link "war cycles" at the bottom of the page redirects back to the article. Shouldn't this be fixed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.82.187 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recursive Article? 

message: CYCLES: The Mysterious Forces That
Trigger Events
https://web.archive.org/web/20131202222127/http://www.techsignal.com/library/BEST_CYCLES.pdf
It's a good read!  He admits that the sunspots "causing" human rebellion come a year afterwards,
and suggests some other force is causing both.
174.56.108.198 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full text of 1971 book online 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edward R. Dewey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923212116/http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-research/general-dewey to http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-research/general-dewey
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified