Talk:Mike Sutton (criminologist)

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Self-promotion

I notice that

most of the content here was written by User:Bustermythmonger
much of that content has a distinctly promotional air (as already noted by others, hence the tags on the page)
the edit by User:Bustermythmonger at 2014-08-04 10:29:44 adds a section titled "Big Data Discovery that Patrick Matthew did influence other Naturalists before 1858"
Mike Sutton's blog post dated Aug. 4, 2014 9:03 am (Wayback Machine archive from 2014-08-07) indicates (it doesn't *quite* explicitly say, but I don't think there's real room for doubt) that Sutton added that very text to Wikipedia. (Despite the timestamp on the blog post, this part at least seems to have been written later -- "At the time of writing 13.32 (GMT) on August 4 2014 ..." which in particular is a little later than the time of that edit.)

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)[reply]

Book link: "Cite book" versus Amazon link

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)[reply]

L'arroseur arrosé

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001101111/http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf to http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Sutton

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)[reply]

WP:BLP

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Litigation

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)[reply]

Oh brother. Does he still have any active accounts here, or have they all been banned? I'd link to some relevant sockpuppet investigations but I'm not sure which accounts he admitted to owning and I don't want to be accused of "outing" anyone. But IF he has a live account here, a legal threat like that is grounds for an immediate ban. --Krelnik (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trawl, wading through the copious accounts that he already has used, and there's likely more. When someone is demonstrably abusing the system from the outset, it is galling that they are protected by "outing" - they're already outing themselves with their conspicuous misbehaviour. There are live accounts, but I'll not go there, for fear of getting sent to the naughty step, again. I welcome the involvement of all and anyone on this -- the ongoing attempt to halt the dissemination of misinformation to academia and the public and consequent abuse of literature and fraudulent appropriation of public monies -- I invite you read up, and, make contact and please take a chunk of the work off my shoulders: I'm considerably shorter than when I started! Now, people over here have a reason to, too. Krelnik, good to see you again. Please raise this with the elders. It is time. Latest on litigation is,

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

src: https://twitter.com/Criminotweet/status/958249083243782144

Jfderry (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 31-01-18 -- Continued slander -- Note that this rebuke stems from the OED and Wikipedia snubbing Sutton's self-belief in rewriting etymology -- namely the origin of words and phrases, earlier than currently reported by those comparatively official sources. His pride and ego was severely dented. However, kudos to each for standing their ground. It transpires that Sutton is mistaken in pretty much every manifestation of his supposed myth busting activities. If it were ever to reach a court of law, his failure will be held to the light of the horrid accusations he hurls their way, the latest being,

The fake news cultish website Wikipedia gleefully plagiarizes the work of original expert discoverers under their philosophy that "experts are scum" http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=20733

src: https://twitter.com/supermyths/status/958763306273079296

Jfderry (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 6-2-18 -- Apologies for accidently dumping this on the main page. Undone and hopefully no harm done -- Continued slander & aggressive calumny

@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

@Criminotweet 10:08 PM - 30 Jan 2018

@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.

@Criminotweet 7:43 PM - 31 Jan 2018 As an organisation responding to newly discovered #paradigm busting facts, #Wikipedia has a history of pseudo scholarly behaviour. Besides what they are currently up to: patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews… Check out this dreadful plagiarizing behaviour from 2013 archive.is/PjS7e

@Criminotweet 9:46pm - 1 Feb 2018

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.pdf

@Criminotweet 1:12 PM - 2 Feb 2018 True. & Some malicious falsehood nonsense, written on it by misogynistic & obscene individuals, is treated by the moronic encyclopedia known as #Wikipedia or #Wikimalfarm as superior to independently verifiable fact-based knowledge that its editors fear:. patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews.html

@Criminotweet 2:59 PM - 2 Feb 2018

George Orwell's pigs are at it again. Only now they have taken over #Wikipedia!

#WikimalFarm @faceblindandy @BiologiaPensamt @justice4anni @PerugiaMurderFi

See the independently verifiable fact-based evidence what mischief the grunts are up to here: http://patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews.html

@Criminotweet 5:54 PM - 2 Feb 2018 On the origin of the term "living fossil". There is evidence George Orwell's pigs are running the cult of Wikipedia ( #WikiMalFarm ) to deny facts in order to pour petrol on the bonfire of their own debunked beliefs. Are they anti-#Welsh as well?

@Criminotweet 11:32 AM - 3 Feb 2018 Yes. I would certainly put Wikipedia Editors of the Patrick Matthew page and their Mike Sutton page in the same "state of denial" lying malicious falsehood authors category as Creationists - massively intellectually challenged neerdowell fools - the lot of them.

@OnNavalTimber 11:10 AM - 5 Feb 2018

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.pdf

Jfderry (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Db-5

Hey 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)[reply]

WP:G5 does not mean that any page created by a banned/blocked user must be deleted. G5 only applies if there are no substantial edits by users besides the banned/blocked user. Looking at the page history, there are multiple substansial edits by multiple users besides the banned/blocked user, so G5 would not apply. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bustermythmonger was not blocked when they created this article so neither criteria required for a valid G5 nomination apply.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even check that since the edit history is easier to check, but you're right. In the future, Oshawott, you should make sure your CSD tags strictly meet the listed criteria. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, thanks. By the way, I found an IP connected to him, but I can't report it. Where do you think I can do that? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you report it? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you'll get banned from editing for a fortnight, as was I, when trying to collate a comprehensive record of his many sockpuppet accounts. A quite considerable section of several detailed paragraphs was deleted from that page. Meanwhile, the personal page was assessed for deletion and IMHO mistakenly allowed to remain, on the basis of there being a number of references citing his research. Most are his own, citing himself, from his blogs. From personal experience, he has little to say outside criminology, a subject about which I claim no knowledge, unlike the total unfounded rubbish he has published about my area, and my colleagues' area of expertise. Suffice to say, it is a travesty, but my hands are tied; he has manipulated a cease & desist letter takedown of my blog that exposed his multiple examples of misconduct-like behaviour, and his employer's cover up, to keep their research integrity record clean, allowing them to win awards and keep the income flowing. Jfderry (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Matthew and natural selection

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)[reply]