This blog post reveals the absolute proof that Wikipedia's paid employees are dishonestly and systematically hiding from the wider public the 100 per cent verifiable fact that Charles Darwin lied about the readership of Patrick Matthew's original conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection.
Anyone trying to put the facts - with references to their validity in the publication record - on Wikipedia will be blocked by its paid employees. As a money-making organization, Wikipedia is punterizing us all by fund-begging from the general public for its so called encyclopedia. The following sorry tale reveals all.
On September 7th 2015, on my Best Thinking blog, I wrote:
I challenge anyone to get the biased Darwinist Wikipedia editors to allow them to include on the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page the hard fact led 100 per cent proof that Darwin lied about the reality of who really did read Matthew's book pre-1860. Try it. I double-Darwin- dare you!
Tonight, am perturbed to learn from a close friend - the producer of an undercover TV documentary on the biased behaviour of Wikipedia's paid administrators - that Wikipedia's employees are using the encyclopedia as a private glee club to hide the reality of Charles Darwin's proven lies about who read Patrick Matthew's book, which contained the original theory of macroevolution by natural selection almost 30 years before Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent replications.
The dreadfully biased behaviour has been taking place on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page. Readers will be glad to hear the behaviour was filmed live as a Wikipedia administrator named Dave Souza deleted the proven facts of Darwin's published lies under the pretence that their source was a vanity publication by me. In reality, their source was a peer reviewed British Society of Criminology journal article (Sutton, 2014) Here.
After a battle of deletion and re-insertion Dave Souza was informed his behaviour was being filmed for a documentary. Only then did he cease deleting the facts that were added only today about Darwin's proven lies - the facts that were first disclosed in my peer reviewed journal article.
The independently verifiable published historical facts in question remain on the page at the time of writing. Here they are - cut and pasted from Wikipedia today - for the historical record:
'However, there is no direct evidence that Darwin had read the book, and the fact that he wrote that he sent out for a copy after Matthew's complaint, only if true, meant that he did not have a copy in his extensive library or access to it elsewhere. In subsequent editions of The Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledged Matthew's earlier work, stating that Matthew "clearly saw...the full force of the principle of natural selection". From 1860 onward, Matthew would claim credit for natural selection and even had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection". Significantly, new analysis of the literature has called Darwin's legendary honesty into question. Sutton (2014) "[21] presents published evidence from Matthew's and Darwin's 1860 letters in the Gardener's Chronicle that Darwin published a falsehood by claiming in the Gardener’s Chronicle and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Matthew's original ideas went unread, because Matthew had already informed Darwin in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860 that his original ideas on natural selection were read by the naturalist John Loudon, who reviewed his book in 1831, by an unnamed naturalist who feared pillory punishment if he were he to teach Matthew's ideas on natural selection, and that his book was banned by the public Library of Perth, referred to by Matthew by its nickname in Scotland: "the Fair City". Darwin's citation after 1860, and his published fallacy that Matthew’s ideas went unread before 1860 has done little to garner recognition for Matthew, since he is still generally unknown.'
I've just checked the history page of Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page and all the recent history has been deleted by Wikipedia administrators back to November 2015! What on Earth are they up to?
At the time of writing 22.45 GMT 24/02/2016. the text below is cut and pasted here from the Patrick Matthew edits "revision history" page in question. They have deleted the entire history for February and January 2016 and December 2015. Wikipedia is, it appears, hiding from us the historical record of what its administrators have been up to. Thank heavens it's been filmed in the public interest.
I can't wait to see the documentary when it comes out.
Perhaps Wikipedia will eventually restore its Patrick Matthew 'revision history' page intact, rather than delete the facts of its own dreadfully dishonest behaviour?
The telling question is: Why has Dave Souza - a Wikipedia administrator been busy deleting the facts of Charles Darwin's proven lies about the readership of Matthew's book? Moreover, why has Wikipedia deleted the revision history evidence from public view?
Wikipedia's employment and empowerment of personal hobby-horse fact censoring petty martinet administrators such as Dave Souza is what makes it so untrustworthy.
 |
| Wikipedia is ultimately controlled and edited by its paid "hobby-horse" unqualified, biased and gleefully under-educated chip-shouldered administrators. |
POSTSCRIPT 16.59 GMT 25th Feb 2016
Wikipedia have now restored the deleted Patrick Matthew Revision History Page. Their administrator Dave Souza then once again deleted the facts that Darwin published falsehoods about the readership of Matthew's book. Once again he did so by writing fallacious excuses for his censorship of the facts. He fallaciously claimed this time that Darwin did not write, in the Gardener's Chronicle, that Matthew's ideas were unread.
When the full facts Souza is censoring from Wikipedia were yet again un-deleted and further full references, including the quote of what Darwin actually wrote, were added to the page to prove Souza wrong, he then deleted that information!
For the forthcoming TV documentary historical record of pseudo-scholarly "Darwin Worship friendly " fact deletion on Wikipedia, here is the factual information that Souza refuses to allow on the Patrick Matthew page of Wikipedia (full embedded Wikipedia indexed references to the original text were included in the text below - now shamelessly deleted by Wikipedia employees):
However, there is no direct
evidence that Darwin had read the book, and the fact that he wrote that he sent
out for a copy after Matthew's complaint, only if true, meant that he did not
have a copy in his extensive library or access to it elsewhere. But it is a
fact Darwin did write falsehoods about the readership of Mathew’s book. Matthew
(1860), in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle ,claiming priority for his discovery of
natural selection, informed readers that his book had been ‘… reviewed in
numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity… by Loudon, who spoke of it
as the book…’ Loudon was a famous naturalist. Darwin knew this, because the
‘books read’ section of his notebook of ‘books read and books to read’ Darwin
(1838) proves he read and heavily annotated at least
six botanical publications authored by Loudon. Yet, in his published reply to
Matthew’s letter Darwin (1860) wrote the falsehood: ‘I think that no one
will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had
heard of Mr Matthew's views.’ Significantly, the naturalist Loudon, had written
in his 1832 review (Loudon, J.C. (1832) ‘Matthew Patrick on Naval Timber and
Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the
Subject of Planting’, Gardener’s Magazine, Vol. VIII. p.703. of Matthew’s
(1831) ) book: ‘One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the
puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has
hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he
has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.’ In subsequent
editions of The Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledged Matthew's earlier work,
stating that Matthew "clearly saw...the full force of the principle of
natural selection". From 1860 onward, Matthew would claim credit for
natural selection and even had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of
the Principle of Natural Selection".
New
analysis of the literature has called Darwin's legendary honesty into question.
Sutton (2014) [24] presents published evidence from Matthew's
and Darwin's 1860 letters in the Gardener's Chronicle that Darwin published two
falsehood, by way of claiming in the Gardener’s Chronicle that no naturalist
had read Matthew’s ideas and by claiming from the third edition of the Origin
of Species onward that Matthew's original ideas went unread, because Matthew
had already informed Darwin in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860 that
his original ideas on natural selection were read by the naturalist John Loudon,
who reviewed his book in 1831. Then, in his second (1860) letter in the
Gardener’s Chronicle, Matthew directly corrected Darwin’s fallacious claim that
no naturalists had read his book, by informing Darwin that an unnamed
naturalist had informed him that he feared pillory punishment if he were to
teach Matthew's ideas on natural selection. In that second published letter,
Matthew further informed Darwin that his book was banned by the public Library
of Perth, referred to by Matthew by its nickname in Scotland: "the Fair
City". Darwin's citation after 1860, and his proven published fallacy that
Matthew’s ideas went unread before 1860 has done little to garner recognition
for Matthew, since he is still generally unknown.'
Dave Souza - an employee of Wikipedia is systematically deleting all independently verifiable, fully referenced facts that reveal the reality of the importance of Matthew. He and his team consistently delete any information about Matthew being accredited by the World's leading evolutionary biologists as being first with the theory of macroevolution by natural selection - and promote instead the unevidenced and proven wrong biased mere-unbaked-opinions of the Darwin historian James Moore that many others understood natural selection in the 19th century. Moore also claimed, fallaciously, that I have discovered nothing new about who actually did read the unique ideas in Matthew's book pre-1858 - as opposed to the old myth started by Darwin and parroted by Darwinists since that no one read them! How do we now newly know they read them? Because thanks to my original research we now newly know they actually cited them!
The facts - contrary to the Darwin glee club claptrap published by Wikipedia on their Patrick Matthew page are:
1. Many writing on the history of the discovery of natural selection and Patrick Matthew, including Charles Darwin (1860)[1], (1861)[2]Alfred Russel Wallace (1879)[3], Donald Forsdyke (2008)[4], Milton Wainwright (2008)[5], Christopher Hallpike (2008)[6], Richard Dawkins (2010)[7] William James Dempster (1983)[8], Mike Sutton (2014)[9], and Mike Weale (2015) [10]conclude that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture[11] - published the full theory of natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private notepaper on the topic and 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society. Dempster (1983) [12], Dawkins (2010) [13], Sutton (2014) [14] and Weale (2015) [15] conclude that only Matthew got the entire complex theory of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) [16] and Darwin (1959) [17] replicated it.
2. Charles Darwin's biased historian James Moore is 100 % wrong. My research findings are new and, outside of his addled Semmelweis Reflex blurting, have never been interpreted in any opposite way to the independently verifiable facts - simply because it is not rationally possible to do so. But good luck to anyone trying to explain such simple logic to irrational fact deleting donkeys such as Wikipedia's daft-as a-brush administrator David Souza.
As opposed to the old Darwinist paradigm that none read Matthew's original ideas before 1858, I have originally proven that the ideas in Matthew's (1831) book in actual fact were read by seven naturalists. Four were known to Darwin and three played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace, which replicated Matthews original ideas but failed to cite Matthew. My peer reviewed Journal article provides the fully referenced proof that supports these facts, the exact same facts that Wikipedia editors are slyly deleting in order to hide those facts from the wider public.
Patrick Matthew: Revision history
For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary.
(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
External tools:
(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
Talk:Patrick Matthew: Revision history
For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary.
(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
External tools:
(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
Diligent research proves the very silly @DarwinAwards majority Darwinist view 100 % wrong: https://t.co/TYFnbq2kBz pic.twitter.com/xZgKORTSSV— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 22, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment
Spam will be immediately deleted. Other comments warmly welcome.
On this blogsite you are free to write what you think in any way you wish to write it. However, please bear in mind it is a published public environment. Stalkers, Harassers and abusers who seek to hide behind pseudonyms may be exposed for who they actually are.
Anyone publishing threats, obscene comments or anything falling within the UK Anti-Harassment and the Obscene Communications Acts (which carry a maximum sentence of significant periods of imprisonment) should realize Google blogs capture the IP addresses of those who post comments. From there, it is a simple matter to know who you are, where you are commenting from, reveal your identity and inform the appropriate police services.