Talk:Stephan Kinsella

message: This is a nice little ad for an otherwise thoroughly obscure figure.  Am I wrong in surmising that this "encyclopedia" article was written and posted by Mr. Kinsella himself?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.189.67 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement

message: If anyone wants to submit this page for votes for deletion, please be aware of the following.
Several months ago someone put up my bio entry (I cannot remember who, but I did not know him or have anything to do with it). My page was put up for VfD, and Willmcv, among others, voted to delete it, for vanity, and non-notable. It was not vanity, as I did not publish it. Anyway, autobio is not prohibited, just discouraged. 
Now, I have since learned several things. First, The Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies states who is "notable" enough for a wiki biography entry. Given the critieria, it is clear my entry should not have been previously deleted. Note, e.g., it says:
Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. ...    Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.    Well. I don't need to list my legal and  libertarian publications yet again, but I have easily exceeded these, many times. A glance at these sites will make this clear.
Moreover, there are "Alternate tests" listed that would suffice:Other tests for inclusion that have been proposed include:   The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.
Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?Oh, easy. Google turns up hundreds of entries (actually, 19,900, at last count). The info can easily be verified. I'm more well known and more published than the average college provessor, so my entry "can and should be included."
True, the rules on Wikipedia:Autobiography autobiographies</a> is that they are discouraged; but they are not banned. A couple of comments about this. First, the info I put up is easily verified. Second, an entry was originally put without my involvement; given that I satisfied then as I satisfy now several criteria for "notability," it should never have been deleted. Had I been aware of these clear rules back then, I would have pointed it out, but the deletion of my entry clearly violated the rules listed above. So I am just putting up a version of what was there before. It's more like an edit of a bio entry by the subject himself, than a brand new autobio entry (the entry is very similar to what was there before, which is now lost down the memory hole; I didn't save it b/c I didn't realize deletion was really permanent).
Finally, the policy ought to discourage anonymously-posted biographies even more than it discourages self-posted (auto)biographies, since someone can post an autobio anonymously, without being honest about it. Tom G. Palmer's entry is not being deleted (yet), even though it was created anonymously, and appears to very likely be an autobio. 
Also--note, I and one of my IP publications is mentioned in the Wiki Intellectual Property entry; and in the Wiki Libertarian_theories_of_law entry.
Nskinsella 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: deletion

message: How does one obtain an LLM from both KCL and LSE? Do you have two LLMs, one from each? -Splash 21:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is not from the external programme. I lived in London a year. I did enroll afterwards in the external programme, working on a PhD in Laws, but eventually dropped out, as never found time to finish the thesis. And I believe since then the external programme has been greatly curtailed. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 05:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Degree(s)

message: Were you born in Ireland or in the UK to Irish parents (re your surname)??  What is your opinion re the status of the IRA "peace process"?? My mom's Irish by the way, so I was just curious when I saw your surname.
Rms125a@hotmail.com 19:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish descent

message: Please review Wikipedia:Cite sources.  This page will be much improved if you cite sources, especially if they are (1) written by someone other than you and (2) complete citations for the articles written by you to which the article refers, vaguelly.  I understand this page may be vulnerable to accusations of vanity, and that these accusations will be stronger if you have a complete list of everything you have written.  Nevertheless, you mention having published articles on various topics in the main text of the article.  You should provide citations, following the above linked policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: what are you talking about? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 04:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: *Among the few mainstream libertarians who know his name, Kinsella is generally considered marginal, non-notable, and kooky.
POV assertions of this type need to to be attributed to sources. Has anyone said this in print? -Will Beback 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha I will vouch for it! Ikilled007 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "marginal, non-notable, and kooky" 

message: User:CMUAfroAmerStudiesKid requested verification of a source in his last edit summary (RV edit. I've just come from seeing the controversy on this man at the LewRockwell.com article. DMC you say it's easily sourced but where are the sources? Let's see some proof he has those degrees...). I would cite Kinsella's published self biography (found here: ) and his curriculum vitae (in PDF format here: ) as the primary sources of the claim. I am not sure how to go about checking such a thing with King's College, but since the c.v. is a source available for public review online (and therefore verifiable as per WP:V) I don't think it really matters. I've never heard of any other Wikipedia biographical article requiring a check with the school, or a photo of the diploma, but I'm sure that Kinsella's potential customers and other interested parties would be interested in a 3rd party check regarding his education credentials. Unfortunately, I would argue that such a check (like a call to the school, for example) wouldn't be usable for Wikipedia purposes due to WP:NOR. Dick Clark 19:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another edit summary from User:CMUAfroAmerStudiesKid: RV to reflect info about degree to which Kinsella lacks notability, and also he clearly isnt an alum of LSE as he doesn't even claim to have a degree from there (diff here: ). I would respond to this by referring the user to the Alumnus article, which clearly states that an alumnus (masculine) or alumna (feminine) of a college, university, or school is a former student. It continues, The term is often mistakenly thought of as synonymous with "graduate." Kinsella does not claim to have graduated from LSE, only to have attended some program there of some sort. Since I can't find a verifiable source where he claimed this, I am not reinserting the claim in the article at present. As noted above, however, his graduation from King's College is noted on his c.v. Dick Clark 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I just want to chime in, since the same question about "alumnus" came up elsewhere, that the dictionary definition of alumnus is, as I had always thought myself, "A male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university" (emphasis supplied). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw all this discussion. Let me clear a few things up. First, I have never, ever stated I graduated from, am an alumnus of, or have a degree from, LSE. I have always stated the truth, which is that I have an LL.M. from King's College London--The University of London.  Now, given this discussion about "alumnus," I suppose I am an LSE alumnus, since I was a student there. I enrolled in University of London's LL.M. program 1991-92 (in London--so it was not the "external degree" that someone else mentioned; I lived there and took the courses there for a year).  The LL.M. program there consisted of courses from 5 of the school's several colleges: LSE, King's, UCL, SOAS, and Queen Mary. You had to select one as your home school, the one that accepted you. I applied to both LSE and King's, and got accepted by King's.  I was waiting on LSE's answer, but King's student housing was filling up so I decided to accept King's to make sure I had a place to live, and I canceled the LSE application. In the program, you had to take at least half your courses from your home school; the rest could some from the other 4 law schools.  I took half my LL.M. courses at King's, and half at LSE; both are part of the U. London LL.M. program; and my degree is from U. London--King's.  NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London School of Economics, Kings College, etc.

message: Isn't it a philosophical contradition to be a libertarian and an intellectual property attorney?  Unless of course you are arguing against the protections of intellectual property law?  Kind of like being an anti-war militarist ...  Stevenmitchell 08:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages are not intended for discussions about (or with) subjects. The reasin this page exists is to discuss the article. If you'd like to ask the subject a question you might try contacting him directly through his website.  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 10:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxymoron? 

message: Due to its absence of neutral or credible sources, this piece clearly fails to meet Wikipedia's criterion of notability and should therefore be deleted unless neutral sources can justify Kinsella's claim (literally speaking, since Kinsella admits he wrote the page after one created by an ideological fellow traveler who has taken it upon himself to create dozens of pages for obscure libertarian thinkers) to prominence. I will give three reasons as to why this should be the case, although there are undoubtedly many more. I invite those who care about the Wikipedia criteria for deletion to do the same.
1) The criterion of notability asserts that "multiple sources are generally expected" of notable figures, and affiliated sources don't count as multiple sources; yet every citation on this page either comes from Mr. Kinsella himself (which doesn't count as a source, according to the rules) or comes from the anarchist libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute and its various publications (The Journal of Libertarian Studies, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and LewRockwell.com]. I fail to see a compelling reason as to why Kinsella should be exempt from this "general" rule.
2) The claim that Kinsella is a prominent legal theorist is sourced by his publication in the above-mentioned journals. Yet the scholarship portion of the "neutral source" requirement of the criterion of notability clearly indicates that "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." The only "peer-review" process of the above-mentioned journals are by Austrian Economists, a fringe group of extreme (almost all anarchistic) libertarians who reject the scientific method in their methodology (in other words, they wouldn't even been considered "economists" by mainstream thinkers). In other words, the sources of Kinsella's academic notability fail the neutrality test.
3) The scholarship portion of the neutral source requirement of the criterion of notability also indicates that scholarly sources should have entered (or in some way impacted) mainstream academic sources. This is supposed to be measured by " checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes." As far as I can tell, those mainstream scholarly citations are virtually non-existent; the only citations are from ideologically affiliated "Austrian" (i.e., mostly anarchist economists who reject the scientific method applied to economics) sources.
Steeletrap (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Petition for Re-Deletion due to Lack of Notability

message: Okay, so I fixed some templates for the latest AFD and was subsequently asked for assistance with some related articles by the nominator and so have elected not to contribute to the AFD discussion itself. However, having cleaned the article up a bit I couldn't help but notice that it is (effectively) an unsourced BLP which is a major problem. 
I'm conscious that the article subject is an editor here and feel confident that any problematic unsourced claims would be highlighted fairly quickly. That said, it does need to be fixed as soon as possible, in my view.
I have split the "sources" into two parts - notes (those sources written by the subject; WP:PRIMARY sources) and references (secondary sources written by others). However, of the secondary sources, two are used to reference claims about the theories of others on which the subject is said to have expanded (they're not actually about the subject, per se). The last is a source by someone who has previously co-authored work with the subject (hardly "independent"). All of this spells serious problems in terms of notability because there are effectively zero sources that confer notability. 6 by the subject, 2 not about the subject and 1 by a non-independent author, for a total of 9.
Anyone keen to have a crack at finding some sources? Stalwart111 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are any such sources to justify the claims made about Mr. Kinsella in this article. I guess I could be wrong, but certainly a fifth nomination for removal may be in order if (within a reasonable timeframe) no one can? "Consensus" should not, in my view, override a crucial staple of Wikipedia like notability. Maybe contact Dick Clark Mises; he is the original creator of this piece (kinsella himself created this mirror version after Clark's version was deleted) and may know of some independent (i.e., non-Mises Institute) sources that attest to his notability. He also may be inclined to look, since he has the opposite bias as I do; namely, he is a friend of Kinsella's and a former Mises Institute employee. Steeletrap (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectively unsourced 

message: is not that old of a catalog and other SK books are available through oceana on an active basis; moreover, his digests and compendenums are updated continuously, as is typical for legal publications. Accordingly, "are published" by UOP, Oceana law, is appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and would hope you get a third opinion on this. But I don't feel too strongly on that matter. What is important is distinguishing between the (mainstream/RS) publishing houses which have published his credible-yet-un-notable 3-4 legal papers from the self-published/Mises Institute/fringe sources that have published his libertarian theory (which is the source of his alleged notability).  Steeletrap (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You edit, parsing the legal works and political stuff, are just fine. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishers 

message: The following statement does not appear to be verified in the cited source: "he extends Murray Rothbard's and Williamson Evers's title transfer theory of contract" also the existence of the list of books is a primary source but we need a secondary source or a statement by Kinsella in order to state that they are about "libertarian subjects."  I believe that my last edit here should be restored unless we can find appropriate sources to verify them.  SPECIFICO talk  14:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This line has been tendentiously inserted in the article, and was used by User:Srich32977 among others to stave off an AfD attempt a year ago. It is false. Kinsella was published by Oceana , a small legal publishing house that was purchased by OUP years after publishing Kinsella's work. OUP is offering to sell its copies of the Kinsella book on its website, but it lists Kinsella's publisher as "Oceana" and has published no new editions (meaning the editions they're selling were published before OUP owned Oceana). Moreover, Oceana is still a distinct entity from OUP. According to the accepted rules of citation, we cannot say Kinsella was published by OUP. Steeletrap (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Why are you saying "tendentiously"? The listing of books has been improved by several editors and explaining Oceana's parentage or acquirer (post-2002) was helpful, although not needed. But this was not a very collaborative statement. 2. Why are you removing WorldCat data? Because the links serve to tell readers who's publishing the books & where they are located in libraries? 3. Most importantly why did you remove Thompson West (publisher) as the current publisher? Look at      & Thompson/West website. (Moreover, these books receive regular updates.)  – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article should be deleted. The reason it wasn't was that you and all but one of the other "keeps" erroneously argued Kinsella "has been published by OUP." He has never published with OUP, and if you (or he) says he has you are violating the accepted rules of citations.  Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD issue was debated several times previously and has nothing to do with correct citations. The books have been published by two different publishers. The current publisher is Thompson/West.  And Thompson West regularly sends out monthly updates (at a cost of $100+/$200+ per month). Oceana might list the older versions on their website, but no law library is going to buy them when the current issue is available from West. Look at the West website for update info.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can re-list Thompson/West for the final book. I think the citation is mistaken and is confusing a listing on Westlaw with publication by Thompson/West. But at least there is a citation. We have clear evidence that Kinsella has not been published by OUP. Steeletrap (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guys, Thomson publishes all kinds of stuff.  That doesn't mean it's all scholarly or even noteworthy.  SPECIFICO talk  18:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally thought that! I know little about the law (both Rich and I showcased our ignorance of the source by our spelling of West/Thomson as "Thompson"), but I have some friends who do. They say hundreds of law students get published on Westlaw every year. The OUP issue I know more about; it's obvious he hasn't been published by them, yet alleged 'OUP publications' were the basis for retianing this article at the last AfD.Steeletrap (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tpyos (such as "retianing") don't display ignorance. Your friends are not quite accurate. Westlaw is a different animal from the publishing company. The citation you provided (googlebooks) shows that he "has been" published, in the past, by Ocean. So that portion of the publication listing gets copy editing.  – S. Rich (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm just teasing Richie. You men need to be less sensitive. (See the outcry over my use of the term "Binkie.") Steeletrap (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   I know you may think you're being cute, teasing with the male editors, but you don't know their sexual or social preferences and your flirtations could be offensive. It's best to stick to business here.  Please consider.  SPECIFICO talk  21:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. I apologize to both Bink and Rich. I need to be more sensitive to their needs. Steeletrap (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "published by Oxford U Press"