Talk:Stephan Kinsella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An individual covered in this article, Stephan Kinsella, has edited Wikipedia as Nskinsella (talk • contribs).

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-04-15. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-19. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 28, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

talk:Stephan Kinsella/archive1 - material prior to first VfD.

Contents 1 deletion 2 Degree(s) 3 Irish descent 4 sources 5 "marginal, non-notable, and kooky" 6 London School of Economics, Kings College, etc.

[edit] deletion

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)

• I voted for delete. I would be willing to change that vote if you clean up this article and write it from an objective perspective (as if you're not writting it). Perhaps ask a friend to help/write it for you. Themindset 22:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned it up, and it is objective now. Please give me your thoughts. Nskinsella 01:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Note how many sentences start with 'His' and 'He', generally that is not good form. A biography is not important, simply note in a simple and straightforward way the important things the subject has done. If that is done, I will definitely change my vote. Themindset 02:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, you are right, this will improve it. The Palmer entry up for deletion Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tom_G._Palmer also probably has too many "his" and "he". --- I have now edited the entry, to have less sentences start with "he" and "his". I aslo shortened it and cleaned it up somewhat, tried to make it more objective; but someone else in the meantime also added some comments, which increased the length slightly; I edited this as well as it was somewhat sloppy. Nskinsella 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
        • After reading over Mr. Kinsella's autobio, it seems to me that the situation could potentially be best served by simply including the content of this entry in the entry on narcissism.

• • • • • • As a colleague, I would be very interested in the circulation numbers of the legal periodicals you have written articles for. Sprotch 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Degree(s)

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)

• My LL.M. is from University of London. It is an umbrella university that includes 5 law schools. They combine together for the LL.M. You have to pick one of them as your "home" school and you must take at least half your courses at the home school; the rest may be taken at the other 4 law schools. My home school was King's; I took half my courses at King's, and half at LSE. The wording on the current entry was not mine; it has been edited, and is slightly confusing.
• I see. I didn't know that was how Uni of London structured things; interesting. -Splash 22:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• If your LLM is from the UoL External Programme, that should probably be indicated. [1] --RyanKoppelman 18:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

[edit] Irish descent

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)

• My great-grandfather was born in Ireland. Then he moved to New Orleans.

Hey, Willow, are you gonna try to delete my entry yet again? I myself have doubts to its notability. :) NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 21:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sources

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)

what are you talking about? NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) 04:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "marginal, non-notable, and kooky"

• 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)

[edit] London School of Economics, Kings College, etc.

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...[2]). I would cite Kinsella's published self biography (found here: [3]) and his curriculum vitae (in PDF format here: [4]) 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)

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: [5]). 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)

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"[6] (emphasis supplied). Dpbsmith (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)