Talk:Stanley Kurtz

Untitled

This "article" on Stanley Kurtz is nothing but direct quotes from the Obama Action Line. The Obama Action Line is part of the Obama campaign. Its main purpose is to respond to negative press on Obama. It appears that the way they do this is by attacking the person breaking the story. This link is to the Chicago Tribune article that printed the email regarding Stanley Kurtz. The purpose of the email was to urge Obama supporters to call in to the WGN show and instead of arguing the points Kurtz was making, attack the station for giving Kurtz air time. 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not even accurate. For example, reference 4 doesn't even mention Kurtz or the Annenberg challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.40.164 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Locking

Immediately after cleanup.--75.178.92.119 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The final paragraph is sourcing a press release from a campaign for public office. Gabrielsutherland (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Protection is needed in order to prevent a smear assault by anonymous editors for obvious reasons. Freedom Fan (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Kurtz in the Chicago Tribune

Our article had a rather misleading quote from the followup Tribune story on his WGN talk-show appearance. I've attempted to make the report more balanced. I also titled all cites, and noted those that have expired. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much Obama

I cleaned it up a bit. This should be an article on Kurtz, not Obama.

Someone keeps adding the Obama/Ayers stuff. I removed it; it should be kept to its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.74.18 (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it should stay in this article but in a shortened format. The long quotes can be found in the citations. This section does not deserve its own article. 174.153.178.83 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's arguable whether a "selected works" section is ever appropriate in any article (who gets to do the selecting, after all). But to create such a section on this reasonably well known political figure, who has published tons of stuff over many years, and insert three articles, all of them about obama and from the last 12 months or so, is just silly.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Radio station

I've removed all the radio station stuff which has nothing to do with a biography of Kurtz's life, per WP:BLP. Please don't use biographies as tools to attack politicians. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what he is most notable for, the attack on his ability to discuss the issue on a radio show. 70.13.117.97 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No. He is notable for his reporting, and his acquisition of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge information. The radio station material is not biographical (it is not pertinent to Kurtz's life) and repeatedly adding this disputed material is a tendentious and disruptive violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with scjessey. Adding: It was also unsourced, with a little WP:SYN thrown in.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Howard Kurtz

I don't know if Stanley is related to Howard or not, but I think other readers would like to know. Can anyone find a reliable source on the question? RonCram (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please find RS secondary sources for the following text, which was removed from article.

During the 2008 election cycle, Kurtz published several editorials that discussed relationships between Barack Obama and some Chicago church leaders such as Jeremiah Wright, and former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. According to Kurtz, the educational program on which Obama and Ayers collaborated was ultimately unsuccessful. His 2010 book Radical-in-Chief claims that President Barack Obama is a socialist. In 2012 Kurtz reported the discovery of meeting minutes of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from the 1990s, describing involvement by Obama, then a candidate for the Illinois state senate. According to Kurtz, the minutes record that Obama asked for the New Party's endorsement and joined the group (claims denied by the Obama campaign and its Fight the Smears website) in addition to signing the New Party "Candidate Contract".