This article was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I notice that
and remark that this looks like a textbook case of WP:COISELF: Mike Sutton is adding material to Wikipedia to promote himself and his work. (I also remark that the blog post linked above attempts to claim that if his self-promotion is removed or heavily modified it indicates "brute censorship" by "powerful Darwinian interests" (!).)
Gareth McCaughan ( talk) 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
TheScienceFraudSquad has twice replaced the "Cite book" template with a direct link to Amazon, claiming in edit summaries that the ISBN link does not work. I don't know what he/she is seeing, but for me, it links to Special:BookSources/9781938240515, which is perfectly functional and includes an Amazon link just a short way down. As I believe a properly formatted citation is far preferable, and that a direct link to Amazon feels too much like a tacit sales pitch, I have reverted the change both times.
TheScienceFraudSquad has also claimed in the last few edit summaries that a user named "Sam Spade" has been the one doing the reverting. This really leaves me thinking that something is up with his/her computer; I'm doing the reverting, and my name ain't Sam anything! -- Perey ( talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just read Sutton's extremely interesting article about Popeye and spinach, a good debunking of a very common error.
It's quite fun though that someone criticizing Wikipedia for a typo in the name of a scientist be himself unable to write correctly Elzie Crisler Segar's ("Crysler" in note 2 page 4) or the Fleischers' names ("Fleisher" p. 22).
Furthermore, he asserts Wikipedia can't be trusted quoting « (Spring 2000) » to strengthen his claim, without even caring about the fact that in 2000 Wikipedia was still to be created. If one has a closer look at the references section, it appears that Spring's article he refers to was published in 2006, so Sutton's mistake was only one of reference naming; as he himself writes with the pretentious tone common all through the article: "You have to wonder what he and his editors were thinking." (page 9)
Encolpe ( talk) 07:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Sutton (criminologist). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that the original author whomsoever they were, was obviously quite smitten with Sutton. So I've tried to straighten out some of the kinks, reduce the hagiography, and update one of the listed projects with latest developments evident at the Natural Histories site. Hopefully everyone will think the more balanced approach now evident here, is better than before. Two major sections on MRA and Matthew were simply repeating stuff already on the dedicated pages. The material is simply commented out, so it can be retrieved and relocated if there is anything not at those destinations. Jfderry ( talk) 05:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed a long section of unsourced negative material from the lede--even if sourced it would not have belonged in that section. I removed some similar material from later in the article. Anyone restoring the BLP violations will be blocked. I also removed two pieces of trivia.
In my opinion the balance of material now in the article is appropriate, and I sam removing some of the excessive and duplicative cleanup tags. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I should mention also the BLP applies to everywhere in WP, including the article talk page, though not to the same strict degree as the article itself.
DGG (
talk )
04:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The subject of this page is threatening legal action, “And for my next trick? I am now setting my lawyers onto Wikipedia for consistently publishing libel and malicious falsehoods about my peer reviewed work. Watch this space . #WhackWikiLiars” http://twitter.com/Criminotweet/status/957197062268956672
I would suggest “bring it on”. At last he will be forced to face the comprehensive refutation of his claims, about which he pretends to be ignorant, for example, mrsuttonntu.wordpress.com Jfderry ( talk) 18:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Dr Mike Sutton
@Criminotweet
I have a team of lawyers looking at suing Wikipedia for publishing defamation, libel and malicious falsehood. Here is why. This is legal evidence:
...patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Wikipedia...Sutton.pdf
@Criminotweet 9:02 AM - 30 Jan 2018 I have a team of lawyers looking at suing Wikipedia for publishing defamation, libel and malicious falsehood. Here is why. This is legal evidence:
http://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Wikipedia%20Editors%20on%20Patrick%20Matthew%20and%20Mike%20Sutton.pdf@justice4anni
I'll see what the lawyers say. So far I am informed by the tram[sic?] that some of the culprits are identifiable, traceable, solvent and not above the UK law.Dear @RachelHall_HE Yes I do have an HE story. Jimmy Wales, owner of Wikipedia, claims he will set up an anti fake-news organisation. Look at this example of hidden fake news & fact denial, biased, malicious & malevolent behaviour of Wikipedia editors:
http://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Wikipedia%20Editors%20on%20Patrick%20Matthew%20and%20Mike%20Sutton.pdfGeorge Orwell's pigs are at it again. Only now they have taken over #Wikipedia!
#WikimalFarm @faceblindandy @BiologiaPensamt @justice4anni @PerugiaMurderFiSee the independently verifiable fact-based evidence what mischief the grunts are up to here: http://patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews.html
It really is a fantasy world where anyone can go play #WikipediaWhackAMole with the #WikipediaEditors . What we need to do is archive & circulate the facts of who and what they are. We need to study this fast growing social menace cult that begs for $$££
http://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Wikipedia%20Editors%20on%20Patrick%20Matthew%20and%20Mike%20Sutton.pdfHey there Patar knight, would you like to talk about it here? I’ve reverted it but I would like to listen to your input before continuing on. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the passage from Dagg's paper is not relevant to Sutton's claim that Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew's theory. It deals with subtle differences between Matthew, Darwin and Wallace's ideas. The part of their theories of evolution which had such an enormous impact on society is the part they have in common not their differences. A number of influential biologists have tried to distil this to its minimal elements and the American Museum of Natural History have provided the mnemonic, VISTA, to help us remember what they are (Variation, Inheritance, Selection, Time and Adaptation) ( https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/natural-selection-vista). The first person to publish this idea and to specify that it could generate new species is the discoverer of what we now regard as the correct theory of evolution. Personally, I think this does seem to have been Matthews although earlier publications hinted at it such as Aristotle's. This is a problem for the notion Darwin and Wallace were first because even if they did not knowingly plagiarize Matthew they were not isolated from people who had read Matthew. Sutton has brought together a lot of information relating to the birth of evolution theory and made an interesting speculation about plagiarism and any article about him should cover that in a factual way. I would recommend removing the quote from Dagg and substituting it with salient facts from Sutton's work on this issue. Please let me know if you would like me to try and write something along those lines. Gourdiehill ( talk) 23:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I notice that
and remark that this looks like a textbook case of WP:COISELF: Mike Sutton is adding material to Wikipedia to promote himself and his work. (I also remark that the blog post linked above attempts to claim that if his self-promotion is removed or heavily modified it indicates "brute censorship" by "powerful Darwinian interests" (!).)
Gareth McCaughan ( talk) 11:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
TheScienceFraudSquad has twice replaced the "Cite book" template with a direct link to Amazon, claiming in edit summaries that the ISBN link does not work. I don't know what he/she is seeing, but for me, it links to Special:BookSources/9781938240515, which is perfectly functional and includes an Amazon link just a short way down. As I believe a properly formatted citation is far preferable, and that a direct link to Amazon feels too much like a tacit sales pitch, I have reverted the change both times.
TheScienceFraudSquad has also claimed in the last few edit summaries that a user named "Sam Spade" has been the one doing the reverting. This really leaves me thinking that something is up with his/her computer; I'm doing the reverting, and my name ain't Sam anything! -- Perey ( talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just read Sutton's extremely interesting article about Popeye and spinach, a good debunking of a very common error.
It's quite fun though that someone criticizing Wikipedia for a typo in the name of a scientist be himself unable to write correctly Elzie Crisler Segar's ("Crysler" in note 2 page 4) or the Fleischers' names ("Fleisher" p. 22).
Furthermore, he asserts Wikipedia can't be trusted quoting « (Spring 2000) » to strengthen his claim, without even caring about the fact that in 2000 Wikipedia was still to be created. If one has a closer look at the references section, it appears that Spring's article he refers to was published in 2006, so Sutton's mistake was only one of reference naming; as he himself writes with the pretentious tone common all through the article: "You have to wonder what he and his editors were thinking." (page 9)
Encolpe ( talk) 07:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mike Sutton (criminologist). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that the original author whomsoever they were, was obviously quite smitten with Sutton. So I've tried to straighten out some of the kinks, reduce the hagiography, and update one of the listed projects with latest developments evident at the Natural Histories site. Hopefully everyone will think the more balanced approach now evident here, is better than before. Two major sections on MRA and Matthew were simply repeating stuff already on the dedicated pages. The material is simply commented out, so it can be retrieved and relocated if there is anything not at those destinations. Jfderry ( talk) 05:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed a long section of unsourced negative material from the lede--even if sourced it would not have belonged in that section. I removed some similar material from later in the article. Anyone restoring the BLP violations will be blocked. I also removed two pieces of trivia.
In my opinion the balance of material now in the article is appropriate, and I sam removing some of the excessive and duplicative cleanup tags. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I should mention also the BLP applies to everywhere in WP, including the article talk page, though not to the same strict degree as the article itself.
DGG (
talk )
04:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The subject of this page is threatening legal action, “And for my next trick? I am now setting my lawyers onto Wikipedia for consistently publishing libel and malicious falsehoods about my peer reviewed work. Watch this space . #WhackWikiLiars” http://twitter.com/Criminotweet/status/957197062268956672
I would suggest “bring it on”. At last he will be forced to face the comprehensive refutation of his claims, about which he pretends to be ignorant, for example, mrsuttonntu.wordpress.com Jfderry ( talk) 18:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Dr Mike Sutton
@Criminotweet
I have a team of lawyers looking at suing Wikipedia for publishing defamation, libel and malicious falsehood. Here is why. This is legal evidence:
...patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Wikipedia...Sutton.pdf
@Criminotweet 9:02 AM - 30 Jan 2018 I have a team of lawyers looking at suing Wikipedia for publishing defamation, libel and malicious falsehood. Here is why. This is legal evidence:
http://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Wikipedia%20Editors%20on%20Patrick%20Matthew%20and%20Mike%20Sutton.pdf@justice4anni
I'll see what the lawyers say. So far I am informed by the tram[sic?] that some of the culprits are identifiable, traceable, solvent and not above the UK law.Dear @RachelHall_HE Yes I do have an HE story. Jimmy Wales, owner of Wikipedia, claims he will set up an anti fake-news organisation. Look at this example of hidden fake news & fact denial, biased, malicious & malevolent behaviour of Wikipedia editors:
http://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Wikipedia%20Editors%20on%20Patrick%20Matthew%20and%20Mike%20Sutton.pdfGeorge Orwell's pigs are at it again. Only now they have taken over #Wikipedia!
#WikimalFarm @faceblindandy @BiologiaPensamt @justice4anni @PerugiaMurderFiSee the independently verifiable fact-based evidence what mischief the grunts are up to here: http://patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews.html
It really is a fantasy world where anyone can go play #WikipediaWhackAMole with the #WikipediaEditors . What we need to do is archive & circulate the facts of who and what they are. We need to study this fast growing social menace cult that begs for $$££
http://patrickmatthew.com/onewebmedia/Wikipedia%20Editors%20on%20Patrick%20Matthew%20and%20Mike%20Sutton.pdfHey there Patar knight, would you like to talk about it here? I’ve reverted it but I would like to listen to your input before continuing on. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the passage from Dagg's paper is not relevant to Sutton's claim that Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew's theory. It deals with subtle differences between Matthew, Darwin and Wallace's ideas. The part of their theories of evolution which had such an enormous impact on society is the part they have in common not their differences. A number of influential biologists have tried to distil this to its minimal elements and the American Museum of Natural History have provided the mnemonic, VISTA, to help us remember what they are (Variation, Inheritance, Selection, Time and Adaptation) ( https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/natural-selection-vista). The first person to publish this idea and to specify that it could generate new species is the discoverer of what we now regard as the correct theory of evolution. Personally, I think this does seem to have been Matthews although earlier publications hinted at it such as Aristotle's. This is a problem for the notion Darwin and Wallace were first because even if they did not knowingly plagiarize Matthew they were not isolated from people who had read Matthew. Sutton has brought together a lot of information relating to the birth of evolution theory and made an interesting speculation about plagiarism and any article about him should cover that in a factual way. I would recommend removing the quote from Dagg and substituting it with salient facts from Sutton's work on this issue. Please let me know if you would like me to try and write something along those lines. Gourdiehill ( talk) 23:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)