Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection
Showing posts with label Wikipedia bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia bias. Show all posts

Tuesday 28 April 2020

Patrick Matthew, Mike Sutton and Wikipedia Fraud and Falsehoods

If ever you doubted the claims made by proper academics that Wikipedia is the world’s worst encyclopedia full of fake news and bogus, biased claims made by dishonest fabricating fanatics who've found their niche amongst cultish, obtuse, idiots then please read on.

Examining the archived  Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew you’ll find the most hilarious endlessly obsessive nonsense written - mostly by the whack job obsessed stalker who pretends to be professionally affiliated to Edinburgh University (but isn't) Julian Derry who repeatedly cites the ludicrous falsehoods written by Darwin fanatic  Dr Dagg in nothing more than his anti-academic blog site in non-peer reviewed ludicrous hatchet job blog posts created by his own dishonesty and lies. Dagg is so jealous of my unique discoveries that he even blatantly plagiarised (see the facts here) my original bombshell discovery that Wallace's Sarawak paper editor editor Selby, who was also a friend of Charles Darwin's father and Darwin’s great friend, Jenyns, cited Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it in 1842.

The Wikipedia Matthew  page cites a totally disingenuous fact denial and Darwin rambling desperate deification tract written by Malec, but fails to cite my fact-based refutation response to Malec's disingenuous nonsense in the very same journal (here). (archived here). How biased is that?

By way of just one more example amongst all of Derry and Dagg's totally fabricated lying nonsense on this Wikipedia page about me mistaking things for things they are not (note in my 2014  e-book, Nullius. I don't mistake the publications for anything other than what they are. Namely, published sources that are independently verifiable as named publications.  I only ever say these are the first currently discovered/now known places the terms, words or phrases are used that were either perhaps overheard thereafter, or more likely than not read by those who were apparently first to be second in using them).

Moreover, Dagg the Plagiarist wrongly claims (because he makes a habit of being either dishonest, maliciously fraudulent or plain wrong throughout his Darwin deification work) that I made a mistake in discovering a Matthewism later used by Selby. Dagg, credulously cited on this particular falsehood in Wikipedia by his co-nutter, lazy academic failure and obsessive and delusional Wikipedia editor, Derry, wrongly co-claims Selby did not even use the term "greater power of occupancy". In reality, the total 100% proven and independently verifiable fact is that I originally found Selby was apparently first to be second with it in published print. The image below is of my List 2 published in my 500 page e-book (Sutton 2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.




The falsehood created by Dagg and replicated on Wikipedia that Selby never used the term 'greater power of occupancy' is just one amongst all of Dagg and Derry's mere blog post fact denial falsehoods. Because you can independently verify here that it is used in the very source I cite in my e.book along with an image of the term in my e-book on my Kindle. Click here to see that the term IS in Selby's (1842) book A History of British Forest-trees: Indigenous and Introducedon page 391.

Wikipedia has done the world a great service in allowing these Darwin worshiping vacuous morons to edit its page with their comprehensive dog’s breakfast fake facts malicious attack on the discoverer of painful and independently verifiable truths. They have provided the world with wonderfully concentrated proof of just how useless, dishonest and totally biased Wikipedia is.

Ultimately, fact denial fake news about scientific and other discoveries of the kind published by gleefully imbecilic Wikipedia editors will cost lives. If you think that is an exaggeration then please read my blog post on the Crime Talk site: Here

Friday 21 February 2020

Samuel Butler Nails Charles Darwin's Sly Glory Thieving Plagiarism in the 19th Century

Samuel Butler's identification that Darwin in 1859 plagiarized Matthew's 1831 book is strangely absent from Wikipedia - the world's worst encyclopedia. Wikipedia paid, astroturfing (fake grass roots), Darwin worship cult editors have a habit of slyly deleting uncomfortable, yet independently verifiable, facts about Matthew to continue the Darwin supermyth. Wikipedia editors were caught out in an editor fraud trap doing just that HERE


.




'Mr Patrick Matthew epitomised their doctrine more tersely , perhaps, than was done by any other of the pre-Charles-Darwinian evolutionists.' 




What Butler failed to understand without the benefit of my BigData IDD method is that Matthew (1831) was first to coin the term 'natural process of selection' in published print and Darwin (1859) was later first to coin the exact yet slyly four-word-shuffled term 'process of natural selection'. Most importantly,  the IDD method also unearthed that Robert Chambers (anonymous author of the best selling Vestiges - see page 249 below), who cited Matthew's book decades before Darwin and Wallace had put so much as pen to private notebook on the subject of evolution, was apparently first to be second in print with Matthew's original term (see the facts newly unearthed in the historic publication record: Sutton 2014, 2015, 2016). Matthew's four word term was plagairised by Darwin because it is so essential to explain the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, it being (a) natural (b) a process and (c) selection by nature. For the same reason of requiring Matthew's essentially necessary components, Darwin and Wallace were also compelled to plagiarise his unique artificial versus natural slection explanatory analogy of differences. Darwin - in a private essay (Darwin 1844) which was later published, even plagiarized Matthew's highly idiosyncratic, arboricultural and foresters, artificial versus naturally selected trees explanatory analogy of differences to make the theory understandable (read that story here). 

Page 87 of Butler's 'Luck or Cunning'

Above we see Butler suggesting (as Darwin's biographer Clarke later did) that Darwin suffered from cryptoamnesia when he plagairised Matthew. (see a relevant blog post on this page of Butler's book Here)


On page 249 of his 1887 book 'Luck or Cunning', Samuel Butler quite rightly points out the historic habits of plagiarism among key writers in this particular field. Not only was Darwin a dreadful plagiarist, who passed the theory of others off as his own, but so did Matthew and those who came before both of them. 

The key point Butler failed to comprehend, however, is the fact that (as Sir Gavin de Beer, Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins all later showed) only Matthew was first in published print with the complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Butler also failed to realize precisely what Darwin and Wallace stole from him and the number of their prior-influencers, influencer's influencers, friends, and even Wallace's Sarawak paper editor - Selby - who prior read and cited Matthew's (1831) book and the orignal ideas in it (see Sutton 2016) before Darwin's' and Wallace's great science fraud by plagiary and lies.

Are the questions actually the answer to Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew and Dagg's sly and jealous plagiarism of me? 



1. Did Matthew's failure to cite his influencers allow Darwin and Wallace to neutralize their guilt in plagiarizing Matthew's book and lying about who they knew who prior read and cited it? 

2. Did the fact Matthew, the regional atheist Scottish Chartism leader, broke all the rules of the scientific community in his heretical mocking of "God" and Christian religion, inclusion of politics and news in his book allow Darwin and Wallace the guilt neutralization excuse not to cite him as their influencer?

3. Does the fact I mock credulous Darwinite cultists, who refuse to face the newly unearthed facts on Darwin's lies about Matthew and plagiarisng science fraud, political leaders, religious folk, and Richard Dawkins for not admitting that he never coined the term selfish gene give Dagg and the dreadful Linnean journal editors the guilt neutralization excuse they need to jealously and slyly plagiarize my Selby cited Matthew original discovery? (see the facts on Dagg the Plagiarist Here). See the facts on Dawkins and the Selfish gene supermyth here and here.


Saturday 3 February 2018

Bonfire of the Insanities in the last bastions of Darwin worship on Wikipedia


We are defined by what we do. Wikipedia - the world's most reliably unreliable encyclopedia - is defined  as such by what its long term prolific editors do. As are they.

SOME THINGS IN THE PAST CAN'T BE TAMED


















Outside the contorted newspeak nonsense of the weird cult of Wikipedia editors, back in the real world, my British Society of Criminology journal article was thoroughly peer reviewed by two anonymous experts in the field, and I had to edit and re-submit it accordingly. In typical neerdowell pseudo scholar style, these weird cultists refuse to publish the independently verifiable proof that it was peer reviewed. The reason they are doing this appears to be simply because they cannot bear the independently verifiable newly discovered facts in it that show Charles Darwin was a serial lying plagiariser of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-published conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Unable to deal with those facts and more besides they are desperately writing deliberate and malevolent falsehoods (archived here) to deny they are in a most highly respected peer reviewed scholarly journal.





Such deliberate and dishonest malevolent and malicious falsehood spreading and fact denial behaviour is not at all untypical behaviour among prolific Wikipedia editors of long standing


This is exactly why, worldwide, all university students are forbidden from citing Wikipedia unless they are referencing its editors academic wrongdoing and persistently reliable inaccuracy.  Here is the fact based independently verifiable proof that the article in question -  The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery (the article is here) - was peer reviewed (that proof is here). This published proof, freely available in the public domain, is just one among a multitude of verifiable facts prolific Wikipedia editors of long standing are desperately denying in the last throes of their credulous Darwin worshipping unscholarly and unscientific fact denial behaviour http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume-14/ cult.

Here is the editor's revisions page of the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia where these facts are being denied with malevolent and malicious falsehoods https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Matthew&action=history  (archived here because the most senior of Wikipedia editors have been deleting the entire history (verifiable evidence here in their own published words) of what the one prolific Wikipedia editor of long standing, he who has been prolifically editing Wikipedia's page about me - the very same one who sent me the malicious and malevolent obscene misogynist tweet below - has published in one of their weird cultish silly Billy "chat rooms" in the public domain. Of course, what these poor fools don't realise is that on the Internet "delete never means delete". The defamatory published statements, and evidence of Wikipedia's guilt in deleting the lot, have all been archived for forthcoming action.

 More independently verifiable proof from the publication record of malicious and malevolent behaviour of Wikipedia editors, and of  published Wikipedia falsehoods, are available in this portable pdf file. And further details can be found on the relevant page on Patrick Matthew.com . Why are these fact deniers so desperately exposing their dishonesty?  Just Google "Darwin Science Fraud" - what is your first hit? Here is mine at the time of writing.
+
+



+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Wednesday 24 January 2018

Whac-a-Mole Wikipedia

The Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia has been taken over by those obsessed, corrupt and pseudo-scholarly malicious falsehood spreaders known as 'The Darwin Deification Lobby'

+

Tuesday 23 January 2018

We May Now Have to Add Darwin to the List of the Most Famous Plagiarizing Science Fraudsters

This document contains independently verifiable evidence from the publication record that the original findings in Mike Sutton’s (2014) book ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ have been interpreted as being so significant the author’s write that Darwin’s name may now have to be added to the list of the world's most famous plagiarising science fraudsters.

French astronomer Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace was suspected of stealing ideas “outrageously, right and left, whenever he could,” and German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was also suspected of similar acts. Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei was  said to “shamelessly” have stolen ideas from German astronomer Johannes Kepler and others. Likewise, Graeco-Egyptian mathematician and astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, as well as Dalton, Lavoisier, and Pascal, may have all been involved, and possibly guilty of, some form of deceit in their work. 80'


80. Given Sutton’s previously mentioned work, Darwin may have to be added to this list’

See the full scholarly conclusion Here: 
http://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Sutton2%20Cited%20Fraud%20and%20Scientific%20Misconduct.pdf


Tuesday 10 May 2016

Live Experiment with Corrupt Wikipedia Agenda Editor Bias

This is me. I stand firm and
 challenge the corrupt
Darwin Deification Industry
with 100 per cent proven facts
Here on the Patrick Matthew Blog, I have blogged several times on how corrupt Wikipedia is facilitating the deletion of significant facts in order to pursue a propaganda-driven Darwin deification agenda at the expense of the independently verifiable facts.
To date, these Wikipedia-Agenda-Editor-Clowns immediately delete any fully referenced - even scientific journal peer reviewed (Sutton 2014    and Sutton 2016   ) - mention of the 100 per cent proven, and independently verifiable fact that Charles Darwin lied about the prior-readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book, containing the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection.

Academic corruption in an area such as the history of science is likely to be subtle. Were it any other way, perpetrators who deliberately hide significant facts from the public and their peers and students, would not be able to get away with it for very long. Subtlety is not evidence of any kind of conspiracy, it is simply the only effective way that so many criminal offences are committed by those who wish to avoid detection. And just as so many legitimate members of society facilitate crimes such as theft by selling highly specialist tools such as crow-bars, bolt cutters lock picks and slide hammers to the general public, so to do many of those involved in what we might name "academic agenda project fraud" work anonymously from the inside, slyly astroturfing   , or else simply assisting salaried academics to hide facts from the public by brute censorship in publications where they have power to delete facts that undermine any extremely carefully crafted and orchestrated agenda-view. Such subtle academic fraud, is today, and has for some time been happening, on the Patrick Matthew page on the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. Let me explain and reveal the facts:


This morning, using a relative's laptop PC - revealing it's IP address to Wikipedia and the public - I personally corrected the misleading information on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page   , which gave the typical Darwin deification inaccurate impression that Matthew's heretical ideas on natural selection were not noticed pre-1860. The new - 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable facts, that I added this morning, set the record straight, and are highlighted in this blog post in bold and italics:

Reviews[edit   ]

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11]   . However, it did, in Part II, on page 457 stridently criticise Matthew's then heretical conception of macroevolution by natural selection, which in fact runs throughout his entire book intertwined with his then seditious chartist politics: "But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."
Let us now wait, observe, and see if the Wikipedia Darwin deification agenda editors allow this disconfirming fact to survive on their so-called publicly editable "encyclopedia".
I predict that this fact will be deleted as part of the 156 year old Darwin Industry's corrupt propaganda campaign to deny Patrick Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. If it is it will not be the first time they have deleted this very same fact!
The deeply entrenched Darwinist myth, started as a deliberate proven lie by Darwin in 1860, that no naturalist read Matthew's ideas before 1858 was first blown to smithereens in my Thinker Media book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" (Sutton 2014). Moreover, this 100 per cent proven fact, proof of Darwin's lies, along with the new 100 per cent proof of the newly discovered existence of many routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of both Darwin and Wallace, passed scientific peer review in March 2016. See: 'On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis'   
Wikipedia and the personal pocket lining lying Darwin Deification Industry will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the disconfirming facts for their published pseudo scholarly fallacies, myths, lies and corrupt propagandising.

Experiment result 1


Postscript 10th May 2016 15.38

Within 90 minutes of the correct information being added to the Patrick Matthew page, about what is 100 per cent proven to have been written about Matthew's book in a published book review of 1831, we see The Wikipedia official editor Dave Souza - who is systematically deleting facts about Darwin and Matthew on this page - has deleted the fact just as predicted. And he did so inside 90 minutes of it being put onto the page.
Even though the source of this fact is cited to the very same source already referenced, Wikipedia editor Dave Souza brazenly, fallaciously claims that it is both un-sourced, contrary to the published source, and "dubious": CLICK HERE to see his edit of 8.58.
Proof Dave Souza is misleading the public and systematically deleting facts on Wikipedia in order to hide the fact Matthew's ideas on natural selection were read and understood by many others pre 1858.
Here is the proof from page 457 of the United Services Journal review of Matthew's (1831) book :CLICK HERE    to access the actual book and the very text on the page he claims does not exist:




Page 457 of the United Services Magazine 1831, book review of Matthew's On Naval Timber and Arboriculture
Wikipedia Editor Souza has done this same thing before (Click to see the facts and discussion of his past behaviour) regarding fully cited sources to Darwin's proven lies on the prior readership of Matthew's book. He claims the cited sources don't exist and when met with protest that he is lying he then is able to actually ban's the complainer from editing anything ever again on Wikipedia! How corrupt is that? 

Is there one or many people hiding behind this Wikipedia editor name Dave Souza?
Here is an image of the entire page containing the text Souza wishes to hide from the general public as part of a systematic Darwin Industry uncomfortable fact deletion campaign Page 457 of the United Services Journal (1831) book review of Matthew's "On Naval Timber"   


image










. .






Thursday 5 May 2016

Wikipedia Agenda Editor Fraud



Wednesday 4 May 2016

Criminologist Calls For the FBI to Investgate Wikipedia

 – By Dr Mike Sutton (criminologist) –

wikipusI am relieved to learn that my prior observations (see also Sutton 2016) that Wikipedia’s paid personal agenda editors are operating throughout the entire Wikipedia encyclopaedia to subvert the truth and bury annoying and uncomfortable dis-confirming facts for the “majority view” has been firmly confirmed by the research of other academics. Click here for an overview of my personal experiences with Wikipedia editors engaging in systematic fact deletion.

Please view Sharyl Attkisson’s “Bombshell” Ted Talk on “Astroturf and manipulation of media messages”

 “But no matter how hard he tried, Wikipedia’s editors wouldn’t allow it. They kept reverting the edits back to the false information.”
                                                                            Sharyl Attkisson 
Wikipedia needs investigation by the FBI, because its owners claim it is an objective encyclopaedia edited by the general public. On those grounds it seeks sponsorship via the public for donations to keep it going. In reality it is secretly earning money on a “fact deleting paid-to-lobby” basis.
This corporate activity stinks to high heaven of corruption, fraud and organised crime. Wikipedia editors are gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. I am prepared to testify!


Sunday 10 April 2016

Wednesday 24 February 2016

Shocking Fact: Wikipedia Administrators in Disgraceful Revisionist Cover-up of Darwin's Lies About Matthew

Unless they are writing about bias and errors in the Wikipedia encyclopaedia, the reason university students worldwide are forbidden from citing it in their coursework, dissertations and other assessments as a source for facts is because its content is consistently plain wrong, or else fails to include the most important facts.



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.
PLEASE NOTE: The facts that Wikipedia does not want you to know about Darwin's lies about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's book can be found on my RationalWiki page on Patrick Matthew.

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
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)



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


POSTSCRIPT 11.42 am GMT (25/02/2016)

At the time of writing Wikipedia has currently restored the deleted Patrick Matthew History of  Revisions page


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
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)