In this blog post, I, Mike Sutton, stand boldly in the field to ask Wikipedia to explain why, when it is forever fund-begging from the general public, it pays administrators such as "Dave Souza" to hide behind pseudonyms in order to gleefully and systematically delete significant, embarrassing, 100 per cent proven, facts regarding Charles Darwin's dishonesty about who really did read Patrick Matthew's book before he replicated the original ideas in it without citing 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.
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!
Yesterday, someone tried.Then they showed me what happened. I'm reliably informed that the entire incident has been filmed for a TV documentary on the subject of Wikipedia administrators engaging in systematic fact-deletion on particular hobby-horse topics to which they have assigned themselves custodians of public knowledge.
In this particular incident, a Wikipedia administrator calling themselves "Dave Souza" fact-deleted the independently verifiable knowledge that Charles Darwin is 100 per cent proven to have published falsehoods about the readership of Patrick Matthew's original ideas before he and Wallace replicated them without citing Matthew.
On the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page, references to Darwin's actions were supported by my scholarly, peer reviewed British Society of Criminology journal article (Sutton 2014). On the "Revisions history" page of Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page, Souza excused his historical revisionist behaviour - whereby he deleted the recorded and referenced facts of Darwin's behaviour - with the falsehood that my journal article is self-published!
When Souzas revisionist edits were reversed, a battle of deletion and undoing of his deletion ensued. In the "Revisions history" page, reasons were given for restoring the facts and Souza was informed in writing that he was publishing falsehoods on Wikipedia about my British Society of Criminology journal article. Only when Souza was informed in writing on the "Revisions history" page that his historical revisionist behaviour was actually being filmed for a TV documentary did he cease his fact-deleting behaviour!
At the time of writing (8.51 am GMT 25/02/2016), the real facts of Charles Darwin's dishonesty have finally been allowed to stand on the Patrick Matthew page. However, readers might be interested to learn that Wikipedia has currently deleted its entire "Revision history" page for the Patrick Matthew page by three months back to November 2015!
I think it is pretty clear that they have something to hide, simply because because they've currently gone and hidden it!
The telling question now is: what will they do next with the Patrick Matthew page?
Rest assured dear readers, whatever it is, I'm reliably informed that it will be filmed in the public interest and then broadcast.
Wikipedia's employment and empowerment of personal hobby-horse fact censoring petty martinet administrators such as Dave Souza is what makes it so untrustworthy.
PLEASE NOTE: The facts that irrational Wikipedia employees don't 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.
The text Dave Souza was systematically deleting before being ethically informed his activities were being filmed for a TV documentary on Wikipedia bias.
'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) "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.'
Please Note: Further details and updates on this sorry saga are available on the Patrick Matthew Blog
Postscript 11.29 am GMT 25/02/2016
At the time of writing, Wikipedia has, currently, restored the incriminating Wikipedia revision history page on Patrick Matthew. This is what it currently looks like:
Patrick Matthew: (Wikipedia) Revision history page
(cur | prev) 19:22, 24 February 2016 BiasMonitor (talk | contribs) . . (33,387 bytes) (+1,172) . . (This fact deletion session by Souza is being filmed for a TV documentary on Wikipedian editor bias. Undid revision 706690883 by Dave souza (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:19, 24 February 2016 Dave souza (talk | contribs) . . (32,215 bytes) (-1,172) . . (Undid revision 706690259 by BiasMonitor (talk) nope, ungrammatical and its in the wrong paragraph: take it to talk, or try adding it to the Sutton claims) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:15, 24 February 2016 BiasMonitor (talk | contribs) . . (33,387 bytes) (+1,172) . . (Souza is deleting significant verifiable facts from Sutton peer reviewed article. This serious and unwarranted verifiable fact deletion will be reported. Undid 706679280 by Dave souza (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:45, 24 February 2016 BiasMonitor (talk | contribs) . . (32,215 bytes) (-1) . . (Souza writing fallacious excuses. He is fact deleting a information from Sutton peer reviewed article Extreme bis displayed. Vandalism of facts. Undid revision 706680142 by Dave souza (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:42, 24 February 2016 BiasMonitor (talk | contribs) . . (32,216 bytes) (+1) . . (Sutton's is a peer reviewed article not self published. Souza is seriously vandalising verified valid facts..Undid revision 706681665 by Dave souza (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:13, 24 February 2016 Dave souza (talk | contribs) . . (32,215 bytes) (-1) . . (null edit: on review, better summary is that the edits were changing the response to Sutton's views into a reiteration of his dubious claims, thus undue weight.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:02, 24 February 2016 Dave souza (talk | contribs) . . (32,216 bytes) (+1) . . (null edit to note removed undue weight to self published "big data analysis" which hasn't gained credence from historians) (undo)
(cur | prev) 16:00, 24 February 2016 Bustermythmonger (talk | contribs) m . . (33,387 bytes) (-1) . . (Deleted a stray inverted comma) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:59, 24 February 2016 Bustermythmonger (talk | contribs) m . . (33,388 bytes) (0) . . (Corrected typo "form" to "from". "From 160 onwards...") (undo)
(cur | prev) 14:57, 24 February 2016 Bustermythmonger (talk | contribs) . . (33,388 bytes) (+1,173) . . (Added independently verifiable factual information with reference to peer reviewed journal article by Sutton that Darwin published fallacies in both the Gardener's Chronicle and from the third edit of the Origin of Species onwards') (undo)
(cur | prev) 03:59, 24 February 2016 Donner60 (talk | contribs) . . (32,215 bytes) (-65) . . (Reverted good faith edits by 220.127.116.11 (talk): Spoiled link. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 09:47, 1 January 2016 BG19bot (talk | contribs) m . . (32,537 bytes) (-123) . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB (11756)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 21:16, 31 December 2015 Dave souza (talk | contribs) . . (32,438 bytes) (-599) . . (→Later opinions: remove unsourced and anachronistic speculation: CD had already written out his theory before Vestiges was published, and no nat selection in Vestiges) (undo)
(cur | prev) 19:52, 31 December 2015 BiasMonitor (talk | contribs) . . (33,037 bytes) (+212) . . (→Later opinions: added further text on Darwin's relationships with those who had pre 1858 knowledge of the ideas in Matthew's book - because they cited it.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
(cur | prev) 18:27, 31 December 2015 BiasMonitor (talk | contribs) . . (31,660 bytes) (+694) . . (added information about what Sutton originally discovered) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
(cur | prev) 02:57, 31 December 2015 Rjccumbria (talk | contribs) . . (30,966 bytes) (-170) . . (→Naval Timber: rejig to remove recent POVvy spin-edits and to give the defence the last word) (undo)
(cur | prev) 02:03, 31 December 2015 Rjccumbria (talk | contribs) . . (32,044 bytes) (-106) . . (rejig to undo series of recent POVvy edits) (undo)
(cur | prev) 01:38, 31 December 2015 Rjccumbria (talk | contribs) . . (32,150 bytes) (-53) . . (Undid revision 697484378 by 18.104.22.168 (talk) one of a series of POVvy edits by 22.214.171.124) (undo)
(cur | prev) 01:32, 31 December 2015 Rjccumbria (talk | contribs) . . (32,208 bytes) (-10) . . (Undid revision 697489000 by 126.96.36.199 (talk) one of a series of POVvy edits by 188.8.131.52) (undo)