Talk:Kevin Gutzman

Notability
I linked the three independent reviews of one of Gutzman's books as a demonstration of his work as an author having been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" per BIO. The fact that he has been published by the folks who published him would probably satisfy notability on its own, but the reviews unquestionably satisfy the easier test, so we don't need to worry about it. DickClarkMises (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on "M.P.Aff." Title
Why is his Masters of Public Affairs degree listed as M.P.Aff. instead of the usual MPA? Thanks! --98.122.160.88 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that "MPA" is normally used to refer to a Master of Public Administration, not the degree that Gutzman received, which is a Master of Public Affairs degree. "M.P.Aff." avoids ambiguity, so I think it is more informative and correct here. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Revamped article
I kept most of the original information as best I could; I added more references, expanded the LEDE, added an infobox, added new sections about his books; still don't know his birthday, and the article still needs a picture; I added new categories.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One other thing: I think there are too many external links at the bottom of the page; I'm not sure this is what Wikipedia wants; usually there are one or two links at a page bottom, that's it. I suggest removing them or summarizing the material in some way without external links.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this article
Biggest one: the article is way out of proportion to the subject's notability as per WP:UNDUE; it's simply too long suggesting the subject is more notable than he is -- he's an author of books critical of politics. There are too many references to website, book sites, etc which should be removed; too much reliance on WP:PRIMARY; excessive external links (over 10) to various interviews have been removed; generally too many quotes. References must satisfy the WP:NOTE test. Also too many lists of TV & radio shows, scholarly publications -- do readers really need to know this. Generally needs substantial trimming to conform to WP's standards.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tighter, better now, in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability

 * I stumbled across this very well footnoted article and I have to say that all the footnotes appear, to me, to be a lot of puffery. Maybe this guy is more notable than he appears, but I'm not seeing it so far, at least as reviewed under WP:PROF.  Here's the text of the article:
 * Kevin R. Constantine Gutzman is an American historian, and constitutional scholar notable for writing The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.[1] He is a professor of history at Western Connecticut State University.[2] His views have been characterized as libertarian, conservative,[3] and anti-Federalist. He has published numerous book reviews.[4][5][6][7][3][8][9][10] He has been on radio and television broadcasts.[11][12][13][14][15] He published in numerous history-related and law-related journals.[16][17][18][15] His book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution was reviewed positively by Human Events Magazine.[19] He has been described as a supporter of states' rights.[20][2][21][22] In addition, his book Who Killed the Constitition? was published in 2008.[23] He has criticized decisions by the United States Congress.[24]


 * "notable for writing The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. This is one book in a series of "politically incorrect guides", and while the series may be notable, it's a higher bar for the individual titles, and a much higher bar for a scholar to .  I note that in google books the title seems to have received 20 times.  18 of them are goodreads and 2 are other blogs.   So not highly notable in terms of reviews.  Looking at the work under scholar.google.com, there are 12 cites, which is pretty low for an individual work of scholarship and also very low for an individual nonfiction work aimed at a popular audience.  I haven't assessed these articles to see if they are significant treatments of the work, or just passing references, but on the quick title-and-blurb review Guzman's book doesn't appear to the be the subject of any of these titles.  So no scholarly reviews of the work, which isn't too surprising since it's a popular not a scholarly publication, but very few popular / political press reviews either.  So if the work itself isn't notable, I'm not sure how the author of it can take notability from the work.
 * "He is a professor ..." statement of fact.
 * "His views have been characterized as ..." - This was in a review of a different publication, A Nation of Sheep; but I can't find much else on this publication either in google scholar or google books.
 * "He has published numerous book reviews..." Yes, he has, but this fact is utterly non-notable, and I'm not sure why it's in here.
 * "He has been on radio and television broadcasts..." -- This might start to suggest notability. Is he the go-to guy on some issue or for his perspective (politically incorrect or anti-federalist constitutional law, for instance?)  Umm, I might start with John Yoo for that one, but maybe Mr. Gutzman has more going on than I can tell.
 * "He published in numerous history-related and law-related journals." -- Not notable under WP:PROF by itself. Usually we look for 3 or more publications with a high number of citing references (say, 100+) to establish notability under WP:PROF.
 * "His book ... was reviewed positively in ..." -- This is AFAIK an entirely non-notable fact and I'm not sure why we would put it in here.  One positive review.  Again, if the book itself is notable, it would go there, but in a biographical article on a putatively notable person, we would rarely see this sort of commentary.
 * "He has been described as a supporter of states' rights" - Another fact relating to his perspectives (I would move it to the material about his views). Not going to establish notability.
 * A note about another publication -- won't establish notability.
 * He has criticized -- won't establish notability.
 * This article has been around a few years so I'm not doing a WP:AFD right away, but maybe one of the editors who's worked on this before can provide a little informal explanation of why this guy stands out among a variety of political commentators.
 * --Lquilter (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm the contributor who worked on this before, but you make a persuasive argument, above, so I'm inclined to agree with you. When I wrote it before, I had not known as much about the rules as I do now. If you AfD it, I'll probably vote delete with you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you; that's really open of you -- most editors are not so agreeable!
 * I also note this earlier note from User:DickClarkMises from 2008: "I linked the three independent reviews of one of Gutzman's books as a demonstration of his work as an author having been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" per Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals. The fact that he has been published by the folks who published him would probably satisfy notability on its own, but the reviews unquestionably satisfy the easier test, so we don't need to worry about it. DickClarkMises (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)".
 * I'm not sure what he means by "the fact that he has been published by the folks who published him would probably satisfy notability on its own". Any thoughts?
 * And then he says he linked "three independent reviews of one of Gutzman's books". I think that my understanding of BIO is not "reviews", as in a book review, but "reviews", as in a review article -- i.e., a significant scholarly work dedicated to analyzing the work.  Three independent book-reviews isn't really cutting it in the AFDs I have followed.  But before I take it to AFD, I'd like to hear any other explanations or thoughts about Mr. Gutzman's notability on this front.
 * And, let's see if we can shake the notability tree for anything relating to the media stuff.
 * --Lquilter (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wondering if DickClarkMises has any comments here, or if this contributor is still active in Wikipedia. My sense is the subject of the article is borderline-notable, like it could go either way. I have sometimes used a different kind of test for notability -- which is obviously not policy of course -- but I've usually found it to be a fairly good predictor of whether an article will stick around or not. And it's page viewership. An article with high page viewership (30+ pageviews per day or more) will usually stick around, or if put up for AfD, can be fixed so that it will stay (the article might still get deleted if it was written badly, or crafted by contributors who didn't know the rules, etc). And this Kevin Gutzman article averages about 15/day. So it is AfD-able, probably, depending on the sources, just like an article with low pageviewership like Natalie Brown (singer) is AfD-able. I'll follow your lead here, Laura.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting test! I always like to have another way to look at things.  ... I'll drop a line to User:DickClarkMises; it looks like he's still active.  --Lquilter (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article subject is closer to the notability line than some, but I believe Gutzman is notable such that Wikipedia ought to include an article about him. Though he is a college professor, he is not notable for being a college professor; I don't think WP:PROF is the best notability standard to look to. I think WP:CREATIVE is more appropriate because he is notable for his books and other writing. When considering the notability of an academic, WP:PROF advises that their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article. Some of his work is academic in nature, but he has also had success as a popular writer. He wrote one of the books in Regnery's popular Politically Incorrect Guide series, and he co-authored a book with New York Times bestselling author Thomas Woods. As the external links section noted in this previous version of the article, Gutzman's work has been substantially and critically reviewed by a number of notable writers and organizations, including Paul Gottfried, Thomas Woods (before they worked as co-authors, I believe), the Claremont Institute's Matthew Franck, the Mises Institute's David Gordon, Daniel J. Flynn, and Thomas DiLorenzo. I appreciate Tomwsulcer's previously expressed concerns about the article. I do believe that it needs to be improved. However, I don't agree with Tomwsulcer's analysis of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTE. WP:UNDUE does not tie article length to the subject's relative notability. This would be an impossible standard to live up to in an encyclopedia project with four million articles. WP:UNDUE simply directs that undue weight ought not be lent to a particular point of view, because doing so makes the article non-neutral. The book reviews I mention above contain some positive material and some critical material. If there were ten reviews of the article subject in reliable sources that were equally divided between positive and negative, and this article were to report that five reviewers wrote glowing reviews and only mentioned one negative review, that would be an example of lending undue weight to one particular side of a controversy, and that wouldn't move us towards our goal of writing articles from a neutral point of view. Likewise, if nine of the reviews were negative and one was positive, focusing on that one positive review and failing to mention the nine negative reviews would be another example of lending undue weight to a particular point of view in the discussion of a controversial topic. Again, though, I agree that the article was already in a sorry state before Tomwsulcer made his bold edits. For example, that long strong of external links should have been used to add content to the body of the article and then moved from the external links section to footnotes supporting that body content. The fact that an article is poorly written or poorly organized doesn't really bear on the question of notability. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I should also mention that Gutzman unquestionably meets the general notability guideline, since he is the subject of substantial discussion in multiple published, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and each other. DickClarkMises (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

One more thing that clearly supports notability: at least one of Gutzman's books has been a New York Times best-seller: DickClarkMises (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * DickClarkMises makes some interesting points, and what I am thinking at the present, after going over the article and the references, and reading the comments above, is that perhaps within the relatively small libertarian community, (of which DickClarkLudwig-von-(?)Mises is also presumably a member?), Gutzman may meet the notability criterion, perhaps as a libertarian spokesperson of sorts. That is, in a libertarian encyclopedia, Gutzman would be notable, in my view. Problem is, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. So let's look again. If we take a closer look at the WP:CREATIVE test, it has five major tests, of which perhaps the closest ones applicable to Mr. Gutzman are: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors -- and whether he is seen this way is sort of a judgement call; his writings have been cited by libertarians such as his fellow colleague Thomas Woods but perhaps it might be a hard case to make that Gutzman, a professor at a community college, would be regarded as an "important figure" or "widely cited by peers or successors" in the more general political community. A second WP:CREATIVE test is The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and again, I think there has been some attention given to Mr. Gutzman's writings in libertarian (or sometimes conservative) media such as The American Conservative or Human Events Magazine but these are somewhat fringe-y publications. He was quoted in The New York Times, a mainstream source. If one of his books was a "bestseller" it was most likely due to the popularity and marketing of the series, with catchy titles, not necessarily because his work could stand on its own, outside of the series; further, my sense is that political books in general do not sell well at all today (see how the politics sections at Barnes & Noble is barely a shelf or two these days); so any "bestseller" status would be within a barely-moving category. I went through the references once again, and removed primary sources such as ones listing him as the author, as well as evidence of his publishing in various journals which is really not very notable, or dubious sources such as LewRockwell.com or the Tenth Amendment Center, and deleted the deadlinks, and kept the solid sources of which there are perhaps a handful, and then perhaps a better estimation may be made based on a tighter article. And regardless of whether the WP:UNDUE rule specifies formal ties between article length and notability, I think we can all agree that borderline-notable articles should not be too long. My sense is the subject's notability is borderline, and perhaps the article should merit a "notability" tag. At least we should get more views from others (non-libertarians?) perhaps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think trying to draw some attention to the article would be helpful. The problem with lack of notability of course is that lack of attention doesn't positively demonstrate lack of notability.  At any rate, within a subject, my test is whether the person would be included in a subject encyclopedia.  So if there were a subject encyclopedia on, say, libertarian philosophers/theorists, would Gutzman be included?  I think that itself is borderline, and that doesn't make a strong case for his inclusion in Wikipedia.  Anyway, let's see if a notability tag can help solve the question.  BTW, I appreciate the willingness of editors to work on the article and simultaneously discuss notability of the subject without becoming cheerleaders for its inclusion -- it's great when we are all able to maintain a professional and neutral approach. --Lquilter (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've found I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia more when I stop cheerleading, put my pom poms on the ground, and go back in the stands and read my wikipedia rule book. :) About the question whether Gutzman would be included in a subject encyclopedia of libertarian philosophers/theorists, probably not, but he might be included in an article about libertarian constitutional law thinkers, based on his two books; it is hard for me to say, since I am not a constitutional scholar, whether Who Killed the Constitution and The Politically Incorrect Guide...' are groundbreaking works or popular accounts (simplifications) for contemporary issues in constitutional law; my sense is the latter.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My political affinities are not relevant to this conversation on the notability of Kevin Gutzman. Gutzman is a New York Times best-selling author (on the paperback nonfiction list, not some "political books" sub-list as suggested above), he has had at least four books published by sizable publishing houses the latest of which was nominated for a Pulitzer prize, he has co-authored works with other notable writers, he has been critically reviewed in both the popular and scholarly press, he has made more than twenty appearances on major network television programs as a commentator on constitutional issues, etc. Also, I would dispute the assertion that Gutzman teaches at a "community college" (WCSU is a four-year college with thousands of full-time students and a modest number of graduate students). But even if he did, this would not be relevant to his notability under WP:CREATIVE. I would again draw your attention to the admonition in WP:PROF that an article subject's primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article. This seems to me to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with a clear bias demonstrated above against reliable sources simply because of their particular political bent, discounting reliable sources because they are "libertarian" or "conservative." In an article about a conservative or libertarian, one would expect many of the most useful sources about that subject and its notability to be in conservative or libertarian media. Gutzman clearly meets the general notability guideline and as someone whose work has been the subject of numerous critical reviews he also meets the WP:CREATIVE notability standard. There are adequate reliable sources to compose a useful encyclopedia article, though the current article is not very useful. DickClarkMises (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Tomwsulcer says regardless of whether the WP:UNDUE rule specifies formal ties between article length and notability, I think we can all agree that borderline-notable articles should not be too long. This statement assumes the intended conclusion, by using the loaded phrase "too long." No articles, whether "borderline-notable" or not, should be "too long." The clear community consensus is that notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. WP:NOTE states that The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.... Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. [emph. added]. DickClarkMises (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Noted. Still, I have issues. Consider the overall picture. Gutzman teaches at Western Connecticut State University, in Danbury, Connecticut, and while it may not technically be a community college, it is perhaps just a step up from one with its bank-bursting endowment of $12.8 million. Such a sizeable endowment might not be enough to fund not professorial chairs, although I admit that it could fund, well, chairs. In terms of WCSU's notable faculty, as of this writing, Kevin Gutzman appears to be the only one; why? I would expect top-notch faculty to teach at schools with other top-notch faculty rather than at one with only six notable alumni. If Mr. Gutzman is an impressive scholar or historian, then wouldn't he hold a position at a more prestigious university? See, something is off; something does not add up here; does it make sense to others here? And if he is a bestselling author, please provide reliable sources; this NYT reference from above suggests that in 2007, the Politically Incorrect book was in the "also selling" category, ranked 33rd; if 33rd is a "bestseller", then it seems somewhat similar to third-grader-ish softball trophies in which every kid gets one. A bestseller -- 33rd? If his book was nominated for a Pulitzer, please show us and please provide references to the numerous critical reviews using WP:RS, and please try to avoid referencing partisan-leaning fringe publications. About article length: simply, the article had been too long; it has since been trimmed with sub-par references and external links removed. And while our personal political leanings should not matter to this discussion, I realize that it can be tough for a libertarian lawyer looking at a libertarian lawyer/author to see this article in neutral terms -- I sympathize. A notability tag might help resolve these issues by bringing in neutral eyes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's drop the various comments about user views. Suffice it to say we each have perspectives and views and would certainly agree with Mr. Gutzman about some things and disagree with him about others.  Let's just try to assess whether the article -- admittedly borderline -- falls better on one side of the border than the other.  To that end I tagged it with the notability tag per User:Tomwsulcer.  --Lquilter (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My question is that as an academic scholar, he seems to have done nothing notable but rather simply have done his job. The majority of university professors have written and published biographies, published articles in peer reviewed publications for their field, and frequently speak as a subject matter expert.  This is all part of the requirements for their continued employment as university professors and scholars.  What has he done beyond his job as a history professor and research that makes him stand out as notable in regard to his academic peers?  I don't see anything that stands out and would recommend either deleting this article, or start adding articles for every college professor out there with published articles.  I recommend deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.82 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing prod, tag
Granted, it's a paltry article, mere promotion. However, this guy would pass WP:AUTHOR because his Virginia book garnered respectful reviews in multiple academic journals, and his Politically Incorrect got attention in conservative magazines. We cannot delete an author because because we find his politics distastefulE.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

For me, his politics aren't an issue. It's his lack of anything that stands out beyond that of any other typical tenured university professor. He hasn't won any awards in his field, nor holds a distinguished chair, he hasn't presented anything ground breaking in his field, and his publications aren't beyond the scope of what would be expected from a tenured professor in his current position. He's just another history professor. This is why a recommend deletion. He's just simply doing his job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.78 (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This disruptive IP needs a block for repeated attempts to delete a page over the consensus of editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please take the time to understand WP policies and procedures before pushing deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that more discussion about this article is warranted. Hence the flag to open debate.  This man is no more noteworthy that any other published and tenured professor, thousands of whom do not have pages dedicated to them but with larger bodies of work than the subject.  What has he done outside the scope of his job to warrant an article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.81 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Revised page and notability
I have revised the page, removing the hype. Page could be expanded with material about his subsequent books, I only sourced, wrote up one book, his book on Virginia. But notability as an author is not in quesiton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)