Gerald Joe Moreno

Posts Tagged ‘Citizen Initiative

Kevin R. D. Shepherd Left School At 15 But Thinks He’s A Scholar

Kevin R. D. Shepherd actually wrote the following blurb about himself in his self-published book “Pointed Observations”:

Kevin R. D. Shepherd: People often do look at the author data to be convinced of a scintillating career with due status honours. Do not buy this book, therefore, as you will be disappointed on that account. The author data can be given here instead of being placed enticingly on the opening page or back cover. In an attempt to beat the obituary, here it is:

Born a Brit in 1950. Left school at the age of fifteen. Lived in the town ghetto of Cambridge. Entered Cambridge University Library in 1981 as an unpaid and entirely unofficial researcher. Became an upholder of citizen initiative. Has written a number of minor books, none of them official, and only some of them having achieved publication (the missing books have never been seen by any publisher). Is getting old now, but still alive in 2003.

Is it any wonder why Kevin R. D. Shepherd was deemed non-notable on Wikipedia?

Kevin R. D. Shepherd castigated numerous people because of their lack of academic credentials (a well known tactic of his against various proponents of the Finhorn Foundation). Kevin R. D. Shepherd even said he would dismiss the PhD or M.D. status of anyone who holds New Age beliefs and boasted “The credential of M.D. can signify Mind Damage”! Kevin Shepherd even criticized the research and associations of MIT, Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge Universities.

Kevin Shepherd is in the same boat as all those non-academics he belittles and bemoans! As a matter of fact, Kevin R. D. Shepherd emphatically stated he is not an academic!

Kevin R. D. Shepherd is therefore a self-serving and duplicitous critic.

Advertisements

Kevin R D Shepherd Fails Notability Criterion On Wikipedia

On December 22nd 2009, Wikipedia gave vanity self-publisher and pseudo-philosopher Kevin R. D. Shepherd a firm slap on the face and deemed him wholly non-notable despite the fanatic and desperate blathering of:

  1. Alex Jamieson (an anonymous account who admitted having direct contact and affiliation with Kevin R. D. Shepherd and to whom Kevin R. D. Shepherd freely gave his picture’s copyrights).
  2. Simon Kidd (sockpuppet “The Communicator” and a relentless Kevin R. D. Shepherd propagandizer who tag-teamed with “Alex Jamieson” on Shepherd-related Wikipedia pages, discussions and issues).
  3. Ombudswiki (aka Brian Steel, a Sathya Sai Baba critic and vocal advocate of Kevin R. D. Shepherd). On Brian Steel’s official websites, he openly solicits, endorses and references Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Also, Kevin R. D. Shepherd cited Brian Steel as a reference in his self-published book Pointed Observations.
  4. ProEdits (aka Robert Priddy, a Sathya Sai Baba critic and vocal advocate, associate and co-conspirator with Kevin R. D. Shepherd). On Robert Priddy’s official websites and blogs, he openly solicits, endorses and references Kevin R. D. Shepherd. Also, Kevin R. D. Shepherd cited Robert Priddy as a reference in his self-published book Investigating the Sai Baba Movement.

See: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion / Kevin R. D. Shepherd.

Numerous Problems With The Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article

Numerous Problems With The Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article


Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article Deleted

Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article Deleted


It is also very amusing that Simon Kidd accused Wikipedia editors of “collusion” on the AFD for the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article (Ref). Needless to say, the only people factually shown of “colluding” were Simon Kidd, Alex Jamieson, Brian Steel (aka Ombudswiki) and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits).

DEC 23rd 2009 UPDATE: Simon Kidd (obviously sipping too much cuckoo juice) actually had the temerity to claim (like a conspiracist or a person afflicted with paranoia) that because this webpage was promply published when Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Wikipedia article was deleted, this MUST mean that Wikipedia editors involved with the AFD were in “collusion” with Moreno (Refs: 0102)! This is going to come as a surprise to Smartse, Dazedbythebell, Goethean, JN466, Atama, Polargeo, DGG, Fences&Windows, Collect, AEK and Kevin. None of these editors are known to Moreno and none of these editors had any sort of contact with Moreno when the AFD was filed. About Moreno, Simon Kidd said, “It seems to me that the horse is still whinnying!” If Wikipedia editors don’t know what “whinnying” sounds like, after reading Simon Kidd’s garrulous posts – they probably now have a good idea!

Relevant Comments About Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Non-Notability

The entire article is based on primary sources. I can’t find any secondary sources to demonstrate that this person meets Wikipedia:ACADEMIC#Criteria. Smartse (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All the books listed as bibliography are self-published. The publishers listed only publish books by Kevin Shepherd. Kevin_Shepherd#Bibliography Alex Jamieson appears to be Kevin Shepherd. Note he not only created and maintains the article about Kevin Shepherd but provided the self-made photo. [1] See his contribution history also: [2] There is a huge circularity going that appears to be self-promotion using Wikipedia. If not, then notability needs to be established in some neutral way. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This information about Kevin Shepherd found here is probelematic to say the least. I quote from it below.

Secondly, there are absolutely no online references about Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s qualifications, notability, personal information, credentials or schooling. There are also no media articles or University references to Kevin Shepherd although his books have been published as far back as 1983. The reason for this is probably because all of Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s books are self-published. Kevin Shepherd’s books were published by the publisher “Citizen Initiative” (Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom), which is not listed on booktrust’s UK publishers. The only books published by “Citizen Initiative” (utilizing an advanced search on Google for “citizen initiative” + “publisher(s)” / “publishing” / “publication(s)”) are those belonging to Shepherd, Kevin. No other books have been published by “Citizen Initiative”. I contacted the University of Sheffield UK (regarding “Citizen Initiative” and Kevin Shepherd) by email and Mrs. Barringer said: “Sorry – have never heard of them and can find no trace in any lists of publishers.”

Finally, if you examine the references in the Shepherd article carefully there don’t appear to be any quotes by Kevin Shepherd from any book other than books given in the Bibliography by Kevin Shepherd. This is also true of any statement about Shepherd. Not one statement about Shepherd is quoted from a non-Shepherd third party source. Numbered references appear to be sources to consult to see the the origin of concepts explained by the Wikipedia author. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The consensus when the COI was discussed at the COIN was that Simon Kidd and Alex jamieson do not have a COI. In this discussion it is not important whether or not anyone has a COI, we are trying to determine whether on not there has been enough significant independent coverage of this author to justify their presence on Wikipedia. As of yet no such sources have been provided. I’d never heard of Meher Baba or Sathya Sai Baba before this, but it doesn’t really matter – we are just here to discuss this article. It seems worth noting that recruiting people to vote elsewhere in AfDs is forbidden, please do not do so. Blog’s aren’t considered reliable so whatever it says doesn’t matter here. Alex, if you can provide sources to demonstrate notability then please do, I’ve looked myself but can’t find anything. Smartse (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: He sounds like a bit of a crank, sending letters to people and taking their lack of response as evidence that they are untrustworthy: [3] David Lorimer did not reply to the Letter of Complaint. Over sixty SMN members were named in the CC. lists, but only one of these responded. Professor Kurt Dressler of Switzerland promptly sent a courteous acknowledgement dated 13/05/06. With that sole and honourable exception, it is evident that a detailed complaint, complete with bibliography, has no chance of evoking due consideration from the Scientific and Medical Network. I am accordingly very sceptical of their agenda…The Letter of Complaint proved [via the non-response] that the SMN has marked limits in a worldview catering for in-crowd names and subscribers, a fair number of whom are said to be Grof-oriented…

(Text in brackets is in the original.) The logic is less than compelling. I may have a slight conflict of interest, having edited articles about people that he criticizes, but it seems like he criticizes a LOT of different people. — goethean 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Above, Simon Kidd writes: *Some secondary sources have been cited – see notes 9, 10 and 11. However, it isn’t clear what these citations are suppose to be citations for. For example, the statement in the article, According to Shepherd, Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (1988) is a non-sectarian work. sends us to note 9 which reads, A book not recognized by the leading Meher Baba Centres in the UK and USA; however, scholars were not sectarian in outlook and the book has been cited in, for example: Chryssides, G., Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, Scarecrow Press (2001); Srinivas, S., In the Presence of Sai Baba: Body, City, and Memory in a Global Religious Movement, Brill (2008). Which of the two books is the source and what is it a source for? What the editor seems to be saying is that the authors of these books were non-sectarian, as exemplified by their citation of Shepherd’s book. This seems to misunderstand what a citation is. Citations are meant as published sources for checking the accuracy of a fact stated in the article. What fact in the article do these two books mentioned in the note verify? Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this does not constitute significant secondary coverage, ideally we need an article in a magazine or newspaper to show this. Smartse (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it shouldn’t take long to demonstrate notability if he is indeed notable, as I said above a link to a magazine/newspaper article that had sinifigicant coverage would suffice. Smartse (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the COI thread and the GA delist, little or nothing of the material cited to Mr Shepherd’s own publications has been deleted. In terms of demonstrating notability, some citations of Mr Shepherd’s books have indeed been added to the article: [4]. However, evidence that an author is cited by other scholars, while it reflects a certain amount of acceptance in the scholarly world, is not by itself sufficient to satisfy WP:N, which asks for sources that “address the subject directly in detail”. There are many quite eminent and widely cited scholars who do not have Wikipedia biographies devoted to them; even if Mr Shepherd were more widely cited, he would be in august company in not having a Wikipedia biography. In conclusion, and with regret, I have to say delete, unless multiple other sources can be found that cover this author “directly in detail”. —JN466 23:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete – The walls o’ text above seems to really turn the signal-to-noise ratio into the negative territory. I don’t much care who has a COI with what here. The article doesn’t seem to meet our inclusion guidelines, either the general guideline or for academics. My suggestion to Alex and Simon: keep it brief and to the point if you want to sway anyone in this discussion. — Atama 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete – Not notable. His work seems generally self published and searchs through google scholar clearly show that he has had very little impact so fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) I admit to not having read the vast text above so I am not rating this with any COI in mind but on a straight forward assessment of the article. Polargeo (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability is established by one thing only: the presence of reliably published sources out there, writing about the article subject. Everything else is a red herring. Without sources discussing the article subject, we cannot write an article that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is the problem that is evident in the article (a problem which, it was promised well over a month ago, would be fixed). The article is still based on Shepherd’s own books and the original research of the editors who have written it. It is not based on any reliably published third-party sources discussing Shepherd. If such sources existed, they would have been produced by now. —JN466 19:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete with respect to WP:PROF. He has 13 books in WorldCat. There are 80 WorldCat libraries holdings Psychology in science 63 for Meaning in anthropos: anthropography as an interdisciplinary science of culture and after that 45, 36, 35, 33, 32, 37, 30, 13,… .WorldCat Identities Some of them are on quite obscure topics, where only a few holdings would be expected, but the two I mentioned and some of the others are in fields where I would expect hundreds of holdings for any important book. The very close similarity in counts for some of the books is because they are vols. of his series Intercultural research series of anthropography published by Anthropographia, a publisher that has published nothing else except Shepherd’s works. I think it would be fair to call him a self-published author. In Google Scholar I find only 6 citations of his work other than by himself. Even on the web, he seems to be known only through his own postings as a critic of Ken Wilber and, separately, of Sathya Sai Baba–there are are responses to the last part–it seems from a quick look that the discussion is so unpleasant that there can be expected to be some strong opinions here. And as far as I can see, he doesn’t meet the GNG either, or WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly expect his own books to reflect his views–especially when he is his own reviewer and editor! I don’t see how that makes for WP:N. Yes, it has happened that self-published authors have become notable, but it is so extremely rare that it’ll take very good evidence from reviews and citations of them by other people. I think in the last 3 years here there have been one or two–as I recall, they were very popular fiction writers. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note. I have raised this discussion at the admin’s noticeboard here. Fences&Windows 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Userfy As the article currently fails to give reasonable grounds to make me believe he is notable (I am one who tries his best to find notability, by the way), in the hope that possibly the user may be able to find additional reliable sources which really establish notability beyond doubt. I also suggest that the massive discussions above do little to influence the actual discussion as to deletion. Collect (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete – two issues. The first is the lack of notability, which has been discussed to death in the WP:TLDR verbiage above. The second is a lack of verifiability – even his supporters cannot supply one independent source that discusses his ideas. Either of these issues is enough to induce a vote of delete; together they would seem insurmountable. — ækTalk 02:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

COI etc. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd
I just tried to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd, and ended up having to relist after spending an hour on it. I believe more uninvolved eyes are needed on this AfD and its participants (I don’t mean Smartse, the nominator).

Kevin R.D. Shepherd is an apparently self-taught British scholar who writes self-published books on philosophy, including criticising certain groups, gurus and sects, e.g. Sathya Sai Baba. There seem to be issues with COI on both sides: some editors supporting deletion may be associated with the sects he criticises, and some editors opposing deletion may be closely associated with Shepherd or otherwise be opposed to this sect. Note that there has been arbitration in this area before: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2.

If this was a simple judgement of the WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:CREATIVE, Shepherd would undoubtedly fail. The only coverage I can find is in a book by Marianne Warren, excerpted here. His work has been cited a handful of times over the decades, certainly not enough to say he has had an impact on his field. But it is not that simple. Editors are supporting inclusion despite the apparent failure to meet notability guidelines. The arguments to keep are lengthy but weak: appeals to OTHERSTUFF, JUSTNOTABLE, IKNOWIT, GOOGLEHITS, COMMONSENSE etc. DGG’s deletion argument is a good barometer – if he agrees with deletion, there’s usually no hope for an article. And yet, I am wary of closing as delete and having this explode in my face. Maybe I should grow a pair, but here I am.

User:Dazedbythebell has linked to a blog that is critical of Shepherd, there appear to be two or three such attack blogs against Shepherd that chronicle the activities on Wikipedia to do with him, so I am concerned about off-wiki goings on. Just Google ‘kevin shepherd wikipedia’ to get an idea of the material out there. There seems to be a vendetta between Shepherd and someone called Gerald Joe Moreno.

User:Simon Kidd and User:Alex jamieson are new SPAs that wrote this bio, though Simon Kidd says they have previously used another account (which they say has been disclosed in ArbCom). Alex wrote it and Simon gave it a Good Article Review three days after his first edit. Both deny being the subject of the article. Alex jamieson took the photo of Shepherd, so must know him. Being suspicious, I note that there are behavioural similarities between these two accounts, in particular their lengthy style of writing, and I wonder whether checkuser should be used? There’s at least some tag teaming going on with the GAR.

I was perplexed by the keep ! votes from User:Ombudswiki and User:ProEdits, but ProEdits has frequently added criticism to Sathya Sai Baba, and that article was one of the first that Ombudswiki edited in 2006, so neither are neutral in this area.

Thoughts? Advice? Fences&Windows 02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (Reference)

COI etc. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd
Resolved. AFD was closed as delete: “The result was delete. I’m deliberately closing this soon after a relist, as I see little hope of gaining a clearer consensus than already exists. The arguments for deletion are well grounded in that reliable coverage of either Shepherd or his work must have been the subject of independent, reliably published material. This has been clearly articulated, particularly by DGG, and the lack of such coverage has not been refuted. The extremely lengthy arguments to keep provide some interesting commentary, but no substantive argument that Shepherd passes any of the notability criteria. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)” –Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (Reference)

Moreno’s Argument About Shepherd’s Non-Notability Is Vindicated

Kevin Shepherd wailed considerably about Joe Moreno’s objection on Wikipedia to the inclusion of a quote from Shepherd’s self-published book, “Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism”.

Andries Krugers Dagneaux (an ex-devotee and critic of Sathya Sai Baba) was the only person supporting the inclusion of the Kevin Shepherd citation in the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia Article. Jossie, Alecmconroy (a non-involved party who answered Andries Request For Comment) and Moreno (SSS108) all disagreed with Andries Krugers Dagneaux.

Wikipedia generally does not allow self-published material to be used as sources in Biographies of Living People (Refs: Self Published SourcesVerifiable SourcesBLP – Reliable Sources). Even more so when the self-published material in question makes derogatory and highly questionable hearsay allegations that have never been referenced in reliable or reputable sources (Ref: Reliable Sources). Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s book and citation fell into this category of self-published and non-notable material.

When Andries Krugers Dagneaux realized that Kevin Shepherd’s book was self-published and the citation did not comply with Wikipedia policy, Andries Krugers Dagneaux no longer sought its inclusion (Reference). Kevin R. D. Shepherd purposely ignored these facts and deflected from the issue by resorting to spin, paranoia and “cult” & “sectarian” accusations.

Moreno’s past argument about Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s non-notability has now been vindicated by multiple & independent Wikipedia editors who neutrally investigated the matter thoroughly. Simon Kidd, Alex Jamieson, Brian Steel (aka Ombudswiki) and Robert Priddy (aka ProEdits) banded together and attempted to deceive various Wikipedia editors by resorting to circumlocution and rhetoric. Needless to say, it didn’t work.

Kevin R. D. Shepherd Wasted No Time Linking To His Wikipedia Profile

Kevin R. D. Shepherd was so enamored with the idea of having a Wikipedia profile, he actually provided a picture of himself for the page and gave permission to Alex Jamieson to write about him! Almost immediately Kevin R. D. Shepherd linked to his Wikipedia profile on three of his official domains. See for yourself:

Kevin Shepherd Wasted No Time Soliciting His Wikipedia Profile


Now that Wikipedia deleted Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s profile (due to his non-notability), there is little doubt that Kevin R. D. Shepherd will soon write a foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe against Wikipedia that will invariably (and predictably) make accusations of “sectarian polemics”. Kevin Shepherd upheld Wikipedia’s views and policies when Moreno was banned on Wikipedia for exposing Mel Etitis and his Peter J. King Sockpuppet Cover-Up. Any argument that Kevin R. D. Shepherd may make against Wikipedia will ultimately compromise his former arguments against Moreno and Wikipedia!

Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Non-Notability – In Conclusion

In conclusion, the self-described “philosopher” Kevin R. D. Shepherd (who admitted he is not an academic) has been shown to be nothing more than a vanity self publisher. To Date: There have been no reliably sourced, third-party media references to Kevin R. D. Shepherd. This is an irrefutable fact that no amount of deflections, distortions or ad hominem attacks is going to change. It is Moreno’s personal opinion that Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s moralistic, puritanical, self-promoting, self-centered, self-serving, bigoted, narrow-minded, dogmatic and poorly researched views will keep him out of the Wikipedia spotlight for years to come.

Alex Jamieson – Internet Hit Man And Internet Terrorist

Kevin R. D. Shepherd is a pseudo-philosopher, fanatic and extremist who wrote a rambling and obsessive diatribe composed of 48,188 words (as of December 7th 2009) attacking Gerald Joe Moreno simply because Moreno succeeded in getting a reference to Shepherd’s self-published material removed from the Sathya Sai Baba Wikipedia Article. Kevin R. D. Shepherd called Gerald Joe Moreno an “internet hit man” and an “internet terrorist” simply because Moreno’s webpages are indexed on search engines (!!!) and because Moreno defended himself with factual information against Shepherd’s numerous misrepresentations, shabby research and outright prevarications.

Enter Alex Jamieson

On September 11th 2009, a dubious character using the name “Alex Jamieson” created a Wikipedia page for Kevin R. D. Shepherd that was exclusively and entirely sourced to Shepherd’s self-published books and self-promoting websites. Despite Alex Jamieson’s desperate attempt to cite numerous references supporting the alleged notability of Kevin R. D. Shepherd, Alex Jamieson could not cite a single reliable source referenced to reputable media in favor of Kevin R. D. Shepherd. As such, a “primary sources” tag was attached to the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article that said:

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (November 2009)

Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article Has No Reliable Sources

Kevin R D Shepherd Wikipedia Article Has No Reliable Sources


Please note that the picture of Kevin R. D. Shepherd used on Wikipedia has been released by Alex Jamieson under the Creative Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and can be copied, saved, distributed and/or modified by internet users under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (Ref).

The Wikipedia article for Kevin R. D. Shepherd is biased and employs clever rhetoric and relies on important omissions to mislead readers about Kevin Shepherd’s alleged notability (although Kevin Shepherd admitted he possesses no academic credentials).

Alex Jamieson Is An Associate Of Kevin R. D. Shepherd

Alex Jamieson (who claimed he is from the UK) is closely allied with Kevin R. D. Shepherd and said the following on the Wikipedia COI noticeboard:

Alex Jamieson: The author (ie, Kevin R. D. Shepherd) gave permission for me to upload his photograph and was quite happy for me to be the known as the copyright holder. The picture box was uploaded following the assessment request. Also, as a matter of courtesy, I had informed the author I was going to write an article about him for Wikipedia (he expressed no objection), and I advised him of the article’s existence shortly after I had completed that article to my satisfaction. (Ref)

The fact that Kevin R. D. Shepherd gave his picture’s copyrights over to Alex Jamieson strongly suggests behind-the-scenes scheming and subterfuge (a sentiment shared by Wikipedia admin). In the past, Kevin R. D. Shepherd pathetically whined, hissed and sniveled about the copyrights regarding his pictures. Kevin R. D. Shepherd would never give his picture’s copyrights over to any casual outsider.

It is Moreno’s opinion that Kevin R. D. Shepherd heavily influenced and dictated content on the Wikipedia article about himself through private email correspondence with his puppet and devotee “Alex Jamieson”. This suspicion is supported by the fact that the very first edit made by Alex Jamieson was a completed page with all the correct link, reference, category, title and writing codes that are specific to Wikipedia only (Ref).

Needless to say, even seasoned Wikipedia editors are not fully conversant with all the link, reference, category, title and writing codes that are used on Wikipedia. Alex Jamieson created a fully functional, fully linked and fully categorized Wikipedia page on his first edit (rightly raising the suspicion that Alex Jamieson is no newbie to Wikipedia and the name “Alex Jamieson” appears to be a pseudonym, sockpuppet and/or anonymous account). Some have suggested that “Alex Jamieson” may be the former Wikipedian Jedermann.

Kevin Shepherd Approved Alex Jamieson’s Attacks Against Moreno

Alex Jamieson (who admitted corresponding with Kevin R. D. Shepherd in private emails) apparently received permission and guidance from Kevin R. D. Shepherd to attack Gerald Joe Moreno on Wikipedia. Alex Jamieson wrote a fairly lengthy section on Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s official Wikipedia page entitled “criticism” that specifically attacked and targeted Gerald Joe Moreno. Needless to say, Alex Jamieson would not have published the potentially libelous content against Moreno on Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s official Wikipedia page had he not obtained permission to do so.

Alex Jamieson’s Potentially Libelous Attacks Deleted By Wikipedia Admin

Alex Jamieson even created a “sandbox” page where he thought he could safeguard his defamations and potentially libelous attacks against Moreno.

The entire “criticism” section created by Alex Jamieson on the Kevin R. D. Shepherd Wikipedia page was removed by Wikipedia Admin Hersfold with the comment: “Criticism: removing per WP:BLP, this section is incredibly inappropriate” (ReferencePlease Note: The potentially libelous “criticism” section was completely purged from Wikipedia and no longer shows in the diffs).

As a result of Alex Jamieson’s defamatory, malicious and potentially libelous attacks against Gerald Joe Moreno, Jamieson’s sandbox page was deleted and he was given the following warning by Wikipedia Admin Vassyana

Deleted contributions and warning
I have deleted your user sandbox and some of your recent contributions to Kevin R. D. Shepherd. The sandbox and those edits were deleted as inappropriate and potentially libelous. The edits violated our principles protecting living persons, against original research, and prohibiting the use of Wikipedia for agendas and axe-grinding. Any restoration of the deleted material or further such actions will result in an immediate block. Please reconsider your approach and intentions here. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page or utilize the “e-mail this user” link in the sidebar when viewing my page. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Reference

Click Thumbnail To Enlarge:

Alex Jamieson Defamatory Tactics Get Him In Trouble On Wikipedia

Alex Jamieson Defamatory Tactics Get Him In Trouble On Wikipedia


Alex Jamieson & Kevin R. D. Shepherd – In Conclusion

In conclusion, Alex Jamieson and Kevin R. D. Shepherd have exposed themselves to be bitter and biased extremists who rely on scheming, subterfuge and collusion to attack those who dissent with their hate-based agendas.

Alex Jamieson (a proxy defender of Kevin R. D. Shepherd) obtained permission to attack Gerald Joe Moreno on Shepherd’s official Wikipedia page and various Wikipedia admin confirmed that Alex Jamieson’s attacks against Moreno were defamatory, malicious and potentially libelous in nature. As a result, Alex Jamieson’s sandbox page and “criticism” section were deleted in their entirety from Wikipedia (with the content being purged so it could not be sourced elsewhere via diffs).

Consequently, one could argue (using Kevin Shepherd’s logic and standards) that Alex Jamieson and Kevin R. D. Shepherd are “internet hit men” and “internet terrorists”. Even independent Wikipedia administrators easily identified Shepherd and Jamieson’s potentially libelous attacks against Moreno.

Jamieson and Shepherd think they are paragons of morality and wisdom. They obviously have been sipping too much cuckoo juice. Observant readers will notice that all writings associated with pseudo-philosopher Kevin R. D. Shepherd are rich in rhetoric, poor in research and propagandistic in nature. This is not surprising considering that Kevin R. D. Shepherd is a fierce defender and promoter of Psychic Trance Medium Conny Larsson and LSD Advocate Robert Priddy.

As H. L. Mencken once said:

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.

Moreno Critic Kevin R.D. Shepherd Admits He Is NOT An Academic!

Ex-Devotees Take Note (underlined emphasis added by Moreno):

kevinrdshepherd.info/internet_terrorist_gerald_joe_moreno.html
Kevin R.D. Shepherd: “The misconstruction imposed by web harassment takes extreme liberties with basic formats. Moreno even describes me as an alleged ‘academic’ author, which is flagrantly untrue. I have never described myself as an academic, as informed readers well know, and my own basic description of my career is completely ignored by the harasser. The role of a citizen philosopher is distinct from sectarian polemic, it may here be emphasised.”

Thank you, Kevin R.D. Shepherd!

Kevin Shepherd’s statement should set to rest Ex-Devotee’s misrepresentation of him as being an academic or scholar. He is neither. Rather, Kevin R.D. Shepherd is a sectarian bigot who obsessively, unremittingly and fanatically attacks and stalks everything and everyone affiliated with the Findhorn Foundation. Kevin R.D. Shepherd even goes to the extent of vanity self-publishing because respectable and notable publishers do not wish to be affiliated with his non-academic “sectarian polemic” publications and viewpoints.

Needless to say, Gerald Joe Moreno does not believe that Kevin R.D. Shepherd is an academic or scholar, which Moreno made abundantly clear on his webpages about Shepherd. Apparently, Ex-Devotees of Sathya Sai Baba need to take note as they constantly refer to Kevin R.D. Shepherd as a “scholar” whose writings are comparable to those of bona-fide academics.

Although Kevin R.D. Shepherd described himself as having “no academic role”, he praised his own writings as following “academic rules in citing sources to a greater extent than many academic philosophers” (a self-laudatory comment unsupported by other academic philosophers)!

Amusingly, Kevin R.D. Shepherd often points out other’s lack of academic credentials as something compromising their credibility, as he did with Craig Gibsone (a vocal member of the Findhorn Foundation) and others. If a lack of academic credentials is a negative, then Kevin R.D. Shepherd just shot himself in the foot! The only thing that trumps Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s non-academic role is his big ego.

Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Comical Citations To Anonymous Scholars

Kevin R. D. Shepherd displayed amazing naiveté and gullibility when he claimed matter-of-factly that an anonymous Wikipedia editor named Jedermann was an editor with “Ph.D status”. Kevin Shepherd cannot back up this claim with any sort of verifiable sources. As a matter of fact, “Jedermann” (who is no longer a Wikipedia editor) never made any comment about himself being of “Ph.D status” on his userpage (Jedermann Reference).

Kevin Shepherd again displayed amazing naiveté and gullibility when he claimed matter-of-factly that an anonymous Wikipedia editor named The Communicator (IP 203.59.51.58) was “An academic assessor in an Australian University”. Once again, Kevin Shepherd cannot back up this claim with any sort of verifiable sources. Even on his userpage, “The Communicator” never claimed he worked at an Australian University. The quote that Kevin Shepherd cited from “The Communicator” stated:

“Shepherd’s case is unusual. He is an atypical writer, a non-academic who has researched in Cambridge University Library and published a number of scholarly books. His Mind and Sociocultures Vol. One is over 1000 pages long, has maps, appendices, notes and an index. There are 461 notes to the main text (with a further 280 notes to the introduction), and the index alone is 43 pages long. His other books are similar with respect to the quality of scholarly apparatus. It is unlikely in the extreme that any publisher would have taken on such a book, especially from a non-academic. Shepherd is realistic about his abilities, and prefers to be regarded as a scholarly amateur. He is scrupulous in his use of (citations of) specialist scholars, though he is occasionally critical of academics (and academic publishers) when they endorse what he regards as dubious persons and practices. By self-publishing, he maintains his authorial independence, although he suffers from the lack of resources provided by commercial and academic publishing houses. His books have high production values (I speak here as a professional bookseller) and are presumably expensive to produce. He does not seem to gain financially from their sale, nor in any other way as far as I can see. He does not promote any organisation or religious persuasion.” (Reference)

It is apparent that Kevin Shepherd is unaware of the Essjay Wikipedia Controversy in which a well-known Wikipedia Administrator blatantly lied about his credentials on Wikipedia. Essjay claimed he was a tenured Professor of religion at a private University with expertise in canon law. As it turned out, Essjay was really a 24-year-old college drop out named Ryan Jordan. So when Kevin Shepherd attempted to cite anonymous Wikipedia editors (“Jedermann” and “The Communicator”) on his behalf, he attempted to con the general public with anonymous and alleged “scholarly” references (whose credentials he exaggerated and embellished) that cannot be verified whatsoever. Anyone can anonymously claim to be a “scholar” under a pseudonym on a website.

It is also important to point out that “The Communicator” has very close ties to Kevin Shepherd. This opinion is supported by the fact that “The Communicator” mostly edited articles (view contributions) that Kevin Shepherd is deeply involved with (i.e., Stanislav Grof, Holotropic Breathwork and the Findhorn Foundation). “The Communicator” added links to Kevin Shepherd’s Citizen Initiative website (Refs: 0102030405) and continually cited Kevin Shepherd, Stephen Castro and Kate Thomas (all affiliated with each other and the Citizen Initiative website) as sources on articles and on talk pages (Refs: 010203040506070809101112131415161718192021). Kevin Shepherd is also intimately aware of “The Communicator’s” activity on Wikipedia and even discussed him on his Citizen Initiative website (Ref). Kevin Shepherd’s references to “The Communicator” (and vice-versa) indicate some sort of collaborated scheming on Wikipedia against Stanislav Grof, Holotropic Breathwork and the Findhorn Foundation. Therefore, The Communicator’s comments about Kevin Shepherd are inherently slanted, subjective and defensive and cannot be considered neutral or unbiased.

Update: October 6th 2007: After publishing this webpage, Kevin Shepherd attempted to do damage control and had “The Communicator” update his Wikipedia page. “The Communicator” now claims (when formerly he did not) he works at an Australian University (Ref). Since “The Communicator” did not divulge this information on Wikipedia prior to October 6th 2007, one is left to wonder how Kevin Shepherd knew this information about him if they are not collaborators. Just because “The Communicator” claimed he works at an Australian University does not make his comment factual. He is still anonymous and his alleged credentials cannot be verified whatsoever.

Kevin Shepherd (who can often been seen advocating against Stanislav Grof, Holotropic Breathwork and the Findhorn Foundation) publishes the writings of Stephen J. Castro and Kate Thomas through Citizen Initiative Publishing. Stephen Castro and his ex-housemate “Kate Thomas” (real name ‘Jean Shepherd’, Kevin Shepherd’s mother) lived down the road from the Findhorn Foundation’s Cluny Hill College and were in constant conflict with the Foundation for many years. This would explain why Kevin Shepherd is involved in these controversial issues and why he constantly cites Stephen J. Castro and his mother Kate Thomas (aka “Jean Shepherd”) in his writings.

Kevin R.D. Shepherd – An Introduction

Kevin Shepherd is a garrulous writer adept in writing loose, tabloid-like diatribes composed of rumor, hearsay and poorly researched claims. This blog was created to refute and respond to Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s articles against Joe Moreno located on KRD Shepherd’s citizeninitiative.com and kevinshepherd.net domains.

Although Kevin Shepherd can often be seen boasting that his research is objective, well researched, serious, etc., he never attempted to contact Moreno before publishing his rambling slop against Moreno on his websites. Judging from Kevin Shepherd’s article against Moreno, it is easy to ascertain that he is a thoroughly biased conspiracy theorist incapable of formulating a sober argument, let alone conducting any semblance of adequate or impartial research.

Kevin Shepherd is a self-publisher via:

  1. Philosophical Press
  2. New Media Books Ltd
  3. Citizen Initiative
  4. Anthropographia Publications

Kevin Shepherd self-publishes his books for various reasons he tries very hard to justify. It is Moreno’s personal opinion that Kevin Shepherd self-publishes his own material (rather than by established third-party publishers) because:

  1. Kevin Shepherd’s material is controversial, convoluted and conspiratorial and publishers do not wish to be associated with his works. Even Routledge (a well-established and giant publisher) turned away Shepherd’s manuscript.
  2. Kevin Shepherd has no academic credentials and his authority on the subjects he writes about is highly dubious.
  3. Kevin Shepherd’s subject material interests a very small and exclusive reading population.
  4. Kevin Shepherd’s books are biased and push a self-serving agenda.
  5. Kevin Shepherd’s publications under various self-publishing names is indicative of vanity publishing.

Kevin Shepherd has no claim to any sort of academic credentials (which Moreno discussed in his original article). Even on Kevin RD Shepherd’s pesonal website (Ref), he failed to list any verifiable academic credentials he may possess. Rather, he stated he undertook a private research project” at the Cambridge University Library (not to be confused with Cambridge University itself) “with a reference from Corpus Christi College”. He alleged that he established the Intercultural Research Centre of Anthropography in the town of Cambridge (again, not to be confused with Cambridge University) in the 1980s. Needless to say, the IRCA was short lived and no remnants of it can be found in any credible or scholarly sources or references. Kevin R.D. Shepherd refers to himself as a “serious amateur”, a term he described as:

“…a phrase in use at Cambridge and Oxford Universities that describes a writer who does not hold academic honours but who does attempt serious work with annotations.”

A search of the Oxford University website reveals that the term “serious amateur” is rarely used. The term is used exclusively in relation to astronomy and photography (Ref). A search of the Cambridge University website reveals that the term “serious amateur” is used exclusively in relation to astronomy and botony (Ref). Contrary to Kevin Shepherd’s erroneous claim, the term “serious amateur” is not a well known term relating to writers at either Cambridge or Oxford (despite their scholarly, extensive and heavily sourced websites).

Kevin Shepherd fully conceded that he has “no academic role” although he boasts that he follows “academic rules in citing sources to a greater extent than many academic philosophers” (a self-laudatory statement not backed up by any independent academic philosophers or scholars).

Kevin Shepherd is the registrant for citizeninitiative.com, kevinrdshepherd.info, kevinrdshepherd.net & independentphilosophy.net:

Domain name: CITIZENINITIATIVE.COM
Administrative Contact:
Shepherd, Kevin kevinrdshepherd@btinternet.com
PO Box 5757, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 7ZX GB
+44.1935826757 (Ref)

Domain name: KEVINRDSHEPHERD.NET
Administrative Contact:
Shepherd, Kevin kevinrdshepherd@btinternet.com
PO Box 5757, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 7ZX GB
+44.1935826757 (Ref)

Domain name: KEVINRDSHEPHERD.INFO
Registrant:
Shepherd, Kevin kevinrdshepherd@btinternet.com
PO Box 5757, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 7ZX GB
+44.1935826757 (Ref)

Domain name: INDEPENDENTPHILOSOPHY.NET
Registrant:
Shepherd, Kevin kevinrdshepherd@btinternet.com
PO Box 5757, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 7ZX GB
+44.1935826757 (Ref)

Robert Priddy And Kevin R.D. Shepherd

Ex-Devotees Of Sathya Sai Baba have attempted to assert Robert Priddy’s notability by citing a reference made to him in the following book:

Title: Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism
Author: Kevin R.D. Shepherd
Publisher: Citizen Initiative, Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom
Book Release: 2005-10
Format: Hardcover
ISBN: 0952508931

Ex-Devotees alleged:

“According to Kevin Shepherd, the former national leader of the Sathya Sai movement in Norway Robert Priddy expressed the opinion that Sathya Sai Baba was an accomplice to the 1993 murders, among others based on information given to him by his friend V.K. Narasimhan.”

First of all, V.K. Narasimhan was a staunch Sai Devotee to his death and exclusively referred to Sathya Sai Baba as “Bhagavan” (i.e., “God”) and “Lord”. As a matter of fact, V.K. Narasimhan wrote about Sathya Sai Baba (in Sanathana Sarathi, Special Issue, November 1999) about 3 months before he died and this is how he introduced his article:

“There are certain periods in the history of mankind when the mortal beings of this earth witness epoch-making divine events with their own eyes. By far the most astounding event of this century is the Advent of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.” (Reference)

V.K. Narasimhan wrote two favorable books about Sathya Sai Baba and not only referred to the Guru as “Lord”, he also compared the Guru with Mahatma Ghandi and Lord Krishna:

  • “From Bapu to Baba” V.K. Narasimhan, Kalakshetra Publications, Madras 1985. Republished by Sai Towers Publishing, Puttaparthi, 1990. ISBN-10: 8186822186 – ISBN-13: 978-8186822180
  • “Devoted to the Lord. Beloved of the Lord” V.K. Narasimhan, 1992, 80th birth anniversary offering to VKN, edited by his son, V.N. Narayanan. Contains a letter from the President of India, R. Venkataraman and from the Governor of Maharashtra, C. Subramaniam.

Therefore, Robert Priddy’s claims about Sri V.K.N. are highly suspect and wholly unbelievable.

Secondly, there are absolutely no online references about Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s qualifications, notability, personal information, credentials or schooling. There are also no media articles or University references to Kevin Shepherd although his books have been published as far back as 1983. The reason for this is probably because all of Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s books are self-published.

Kevin Shepherd’s books were published by the publisher “Citizen Initiative” (Dorchester, Dorset, United Kingdom), which is not listed on booktrust’s UK publishers. The only books published by “Citizen Initiative” (utilizing an advanced search on Google for “citizen initiative” + “publisher(s)” / “publishing” / “publication(s)”) are those belonging to Shepherd, Kevin. No other books have been published by “Citizen Initiative”.

I contacted the University of Sheffield UK (regarding “Citizen Initiative” and Kevin Shepherd) by email and Mrs. Barringer said:

“Sorry – have never heard of them and can find no trace in any lists of publishers.”

I also contacted booktrust.org (regarding “Citizen Initiative” and Kevin Shepherd) by email and Mr. Smith said:

“I have never heard of Citizen Initiative, but their titles – almost exclusively written by Kevin Shepherd – are listed on the Nielsen BookData database of books in print. CI also appears to act as a distributor for titles published by Anthropographia Publications (again, these books are all by Mr Shepherd), Philosophical Press and New Media Books Ltd.”

“Anthropographia” and “Philosophical” publications are other publishers that are in exclusive association with Kevin Shepherd (publishing no other books by no other authors).

Publications By “Citizen Initiative”, all by Kevin Shepherd:

  1. Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals
  2. Investigating the Sai Baba Movement
  3. Pointed Observations

Therefore, Kevin Shepherd’s books are vanity self-publications and his reference to Robert Priddy’s Anti-Sai Propaganda is obviously non-credible and highly biased.


Gerald Joe Moreno Archives

Gerald Joe Moreno Categories