Jump to content

Talk:Mike Cox (American politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV

[edit]

This guy isn’t important enough to mention in other Wikipedia articles. Why does he even have a page? He spouts off enough about things that have nothing to do with him or his job. Is this some weird attempt to push this guy as some future politician? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.255.30 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, um, I'm a republican from michigan, and I still think that this page is in no way objective. How do I flag it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spotle (talk • contribs) . 01:42, June 22, 2006

Spotle 01:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I flagged it for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epsoul (talk • contribs) . 05:35, August 14, 2006
And I removed it. Is there something specific you object to? If you check the history of the article, at the time Spotle made the comment above, the article was pretty much nothing more than a copy and paste from various Cox websites. I removed all of the copy and pasted material. What is it that you think it POV in the remaining stub? older ≠ wiser 12:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I wrote the wrong tag in. I meant to put a stub tag. No clue what I was thinking.

Epsoul 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a campaign website in some places. Pdcook (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the best article, but it's pretty neutral...who wrote it? Andrew Shirvell? 99.41.172.28 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DCX (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adultry law

[edit]

I added in some addational facts about this case. The way it was writen originaly made it sound as if he is a fundemental zealot that just wants to toss people in jail for breaking their mariage vows. However, the extra facts I added in wind up making this sound like it has POV in the oposite direction. Couls someone who is better than me at removing POV please see what can be done about this part? --TheHungryTiger 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cox did not commit adultery with an employee. This is libelous and slanderous and whoever is doing it should stop. --209.124.40.183 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article already contains three four sources (two three news, and the top link when Google searching for "Mike Cox" adultery) supporting the possibility of adultery, and I found more with Google. Can you find us some sources that dispute this, so that it may be added to the article? —LOL 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a ridiculous discussion to have on this page. He is the Attorney General of Michigan. Why put this on his page and nothing else is ridiculous and I would warn you to be very careful. You should remove this criticism. You personally have something against the Attorney General and you are using this page for personal politics. If this entire section isn't removed, I will alert the entire editing staff on wikipedia and ask for your removal. this was started out of mean-spirited politics and you should knock it off.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.124.40.183 (talk • contribs). 12:42, April 8, 2007 (UTC)

If he didn't have an affair that is great and I respect the guy too, but the recent critisism brought up the alleged affair and Democrats claim he should turn himself in. This is why someone added the alleged incident. If there was no confession or proof of an affair then it can only be stated as alleged. Instead of deleting it you should find articles defending him as I did by adding Rusty Hills' comment. As far as lack of content, you have every right to add factual sourced information. The content can't be opinionated though. There are alot of negative attacks on these pages and there are many who will protect them by reverting the bad edits if the info is untrue or unsourced. Jjmillerhistorian 13:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To 209.124.40.183, please don't simply remove appropriately sourced details just because you don't happen to like the criticism. Through an unfortunate confluence of his personal affairs and choices he made in prosecuting cases, Cox opened himself up to this line of criticism. It has been actively represented in a variety of published sources and is certainly fair to at least mention in his article. Yes we need to be careful that the criticism is appropriately sourced and is not overweighted to give an unfair characterization. But that doesn't mean wholesale removal of the criticism. older ≠ wiser 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an overwhelming slight on this page. You site ^ Thorp, Wes (2005-11-30). Attorney General Mike Cox's explanation of affair is not enough. Retrieved on April 8, 2007 as a source. It is an attack blog site. The sources you cite are liberal attack sites. If this continues, there will be legal consequences. You cannot hide behind the legal disclaimer you sent me after the number of times I have documented inaccurate cites on the website, and your not allowing me to correct the inaccuracies. This is your last warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.124.40.183 (talk • contribs).

The blog can probably go because it’s self-published, and there’s another source beside it. It’s funny that the two references you removed were the San Francisco Chronicle — a top-1000 site on the Internet and top-30 news site[1] — and WorldNetDaily — a conservative online news site — but did not remove the blog. Please tell us which sources are liberal attack sites, and explain why. I do not “personally have something against the Attorney General”, nor am I “using this page for personal politics,” but I do have a problem with people who accuse others of doing so while repeatedly removing sourced information and making legal threats. —LOL 00:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
San Fransisco is a liberal attack city, but on the other hand the Chronicle is a proper source. I added an older source from when he admitted to the affair since the brief info in the Chronicle is vague. Remember (209.124.40.183) the critisism is not the article and it has been expanded as you can see. If you can add more verfiable info add it, don't just delete a negative verifiable source. Jjmillerhistorian 08:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Cox have an affair with a man or a woman? That fact is not clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.40.117 (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP Issues

[edit]

This article has serious issues, to the point where I would say it should be stubbed down and a rewrite carried out. At first read, instead of a balanced, neutral article that states facts dispssionately, I see a glowingly positive section that reads like PR, followed by a very negative section that reads like an attack. Without commenting on the statements about various negative sources, I will say that much of the positive material preceding it is a direct lift from here which is the State's official site. This is all copyrighted material and needs to be removed. (for example see the text at the head of "FIGHTING FOR MICHIGAN'S CHILDREN" section in the state site, it's word for word identical). Removing all this copyvio puffery would leave only the negative. Thus, I think stubbing this down is the way to go, and I plan to do so shortly unless there is serious objection coupled with a rewrite to correct the issues. ++Lar: t/c 10:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, this article needs stubbing down. I'm going to commence doing just that shortly. ++Lar: t/c 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done so. I will happily work with other editors to construct a neutral, reliably sourced and factual biography, either by discussing it here, or by building it up on the article page, but reversion of my removal is not advised without considerable discussion and consensus reached first, per the WP:BLP policy. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Hi, I don't know whether it's appropriate to mention on the 'Mike Cox' page, but in case there was any question, Attorney General Mike Cox definitely did publicly admit to having an extramarital affair, as you can verify from, for instance, an Associated Press report by David Eggert on November 9, 2005, available at the following Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902365_pf.html

Presumably, the reason why it might have been considered appropriate to mention on the page, beyond mere public completeness, is because of the irony of Cox's prosecution of Mayor Kilpatrick. Just my 2 cents, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.241.105 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this material could be presented factually neutrally, sure. But I fear the article turning into the same thing it was before I stubbed it out. Compare the stubbed out version to how it is now: [2] once again several hagiographic paragraphs about how wonderful his initiatives are have worked their way into the article. Time to stub it again maybe. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manoogian Mansion

[edit]

I'm not going to invest the time it would take to get into an edit war over correcting libelous statements about the attorney general of the State of Michigan, but if you're going to write an article by selectively stringing together a number of negative "facts" from substandard local reporting into a JFK grassy knoll theory implying that Mike Cox failed to investigate the mayor of Detroit for murder because he was being blackmailed by him, you're libeling everyone involved.

This whole article is an argument against the very existence of wikipedia, it's that stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.124.131 (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the statements are libelous, my anonymous friend, then provide links to where the reports being quoted have been retracted. It is not our role as editors to arbitrarily declare certain local reporters "incompetent" because some nameless person on the Interwebz declares them so. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The major issue with the "article" is the "use" of "scare quotes".
the police could have "went" to Wayne County Prosecutor
allegations were "only" about a misdemeanor
allegations of a "wild party"
These are not quotes, they're stated as misinformation (whether or not they're true is not the issue). "Went" is not a proper quote. "Only" is not a proper quote. The way this section is stated is with a very suspicious and sarcastic tone that does not belong on Wikipedia.
(freehunter 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC))
(I apologize for the following text, I can't seem to make my browser not append that to the end. If someone wants to get rid of it for me, thanks)

Open in Google Docs ViewerOpen link in new tabOpen link in new windowDownload fileCopy link address Open in Google Docs ViewerOpen link in new tabOpen link in new windowDownload fileCopy link address

I reverted edits by Billyjoeyjimmybobby as several sources were non reputable blogs and a Youtube video. This is a biography article and has no place for undue emphasis on speculation. If charges are filed or credible evidence of criminal wrongdoing come forth, then this should off course be included.Boromir123 (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored vandalized text. Youtube video of television newscast is entirely appropriate source.--Billyjoeyjimmybobby (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

revision needed

[edit]

It would be great if someone with more energy and interest than I have could revise this article for a more concise picture of Cox and his generally conservative politics/actions. He recently filed a brief in support of California's Proposition 8, which is interesting given the hullabaloo about asst. AG Andrew Shirvell. I think that kind of thing, along with his opposition to the health care bill, accomplishments, and so on, could be neatly encapsulated in one section, rather than laid out as separate items.11 Arlington (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised mayor's party section for NPOV

[edit]

Some very excited person has written a number of paragraphs, complete with typos, poor grammar and ALL CAPS, essentially insinuating that Cox was impeding justice or covering up the murder of Tamara Greene. I have shortened this. People who want to read more about the unsolved case can go to Greene's or Kwame Kilpatrick's articles.11 Arlington (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The shortened version is much, much better. Including this much detail and speculation is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, specifically Undue Weight. We are also violating Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as this material is poorly sourced from old TV news reports. In addition these paragraphs are written in an extremely opinionated fashion. It is not acceptable to write things like 'he can also be seen smugly giving his "Urban Legend" speech at the end of the news story', 'Mike Cox stammers out an excited denial', etc. Rhobite (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over the Manoogian Mansion section to take out some of the worst POV statements. This paragraph was brutally sarcastic in its treatment of Cox. Please talk here before reverting - happy to discuss. Rhobite (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section not at all "terrible." It is detailed, well-sourced, interesting and informative. After months of re-writes and compromises it hardly serves any constructive interest to baldly tag it as "terrible" in the opinion of one reader. For every reader who believes it is terrible, I assert there are 100 who believe it is interesting and informative. Many past edits have simply served to delete information and detail.--Billyjoeyjimmybobby (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article semiprotected for 3 days due to Biographical article policy violations

[edit]

I have semi-protected the article, preventing edits by new or anonymous editors, for the next 3 days due to violations of WP:BLP, our Wikipedia policy on biographical articles. Content discussions on the talk page are welcome, of course. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Mike Cox (U.S. politician), as well as Michael Cox (politician) to Michael Cox (New Zealand politician) No such user (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Mike Cox → ? – Mike Cox (lawyer) or Mike Cox (attorney general) or Mike Cox (attorney)? Not more significant or popular than Mike Cox (American football) or other people named Michael Cox. Edit: The name "Mike Cox" must redirect to the "Michael Cox" disambiguation page. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - per nom, very common name, with any of the above dabs. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided at the moment, but the request is malformed — unless the disambiguation page is also to be moved (or the base name redirected) as result, the proposal is incomplete. Also, the Michigan attorney general is quite a bit more significant than a fullback with an entirely unremarkable playing record. Whether any of the several Michael Coxes are also commonly known as Mike Cox is unclear at the moment. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Oppose. I see no evidence showing any others, apart from the unremarkable fullback, are commonly known as "Mike Cox". The current hatnote is sufficient. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added another request accordingly. --George Ho (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Mike" and "Michael" are distinctive enough; why extra precision? --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This Mike Cox is also called "Michael" Detroit Free Press (the major Detroit newspaper) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Were you not aware of Mike Cox (American football)? --George Ho (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware of Mike Cox football. I made a mistake in my comment. I support adding the "Attorney" to the name article because like you said, there is a football player with the same name. My bad! CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment: I did not redirect Mike Cox to Michael Cox, as it should be, because of ~40 mainspace links to Special:Whatlinkshere/Mike Cox. I'll leave that to any good soul which would volunteer to retarget them. I did fix the Michael Cox per MOSDAB. No such user (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mike Cox (U.S. politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mike Cox (U.S. politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mike Cox (U.S. politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mike Cox (U.S. politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Cox (U.S. politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Cox (U.S. politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Cox_(American_politician)&oldid=1201210346"