Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mike Cox (American politician): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:21, 5 October 2010 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,292 editsm Signing comment by Fpetes - "Is Mike Cox gay?: "← Previous edit Revision as of 17:31, 5 October 2010 edit undoDave Dial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,119 edits Reverted to revision 388186805 by Rhobite; Restoring version before BLP violations and before removal of valid edits. (TW)Next edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
==Revised mayor's party section for NPOV== ==Revised mayor's party section for NPOV==
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.] (]) 05:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 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.] (]) 05:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
:The shortened version is much, much better. Including this much detail and speculation is a violation of Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy, specifically ]. We are also violating ] 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. ] (]) 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


==POV== ==POV==
Line 85: Line 86:


Restored vandalized text. Youtube video of television newscast is entirely appropriate source. Restored vandalized text. Youtube video of television newscast is entirely appropriate source.

== Is Mike Cox gay? ==

I saw him on CNN and he looks gay but the article doesn't mention it. Obviously Andrew Shirvell is closeted, did you see him on CNN? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Yes, definitely the assistant attorney general that Mr. Cox has been protecting is battling self loathing but he may in fact be in such denial that he is not aware of his obvious internal conflict. This is HIGHLY relevant because it show the harm and hypocricy of anti-gay politics that are rooted in mean spirited falsehoods. Mike Cox could have gay tendencies but it is far more likely that he simply will do anything (including act without integrity) for political gain such as supporting anti gay homophobia and unconstitutional bans on gay civil rights because they are "icky" in the minds of conservatives (and ignore Roemer v Evans supreme court precedent to do so), back Romney over McCain because he guessed wrong, file briefs in wing nut cases in Arizona and California wasting michigan tax payer dollars and letting Kwame Kilpatrick skate on the Manoogian Mansion investigation because he thought Kwame would not fight his AG reelection and he guessed Kwame would own detroit for years. The AG has admitted he cheated on his wife (presumably with a woman) so it is more likely he is a narcissist and opportunist than gay himself. Signed, Fpetes <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 17:31, 5 October 2010

WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconMichigan Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Michigan may be able to help!


The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Upload

revision needed

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)

Revised mayor's party section for NPOV

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)

The shortened version is much, much better. Including this much detail and speculation is a violation of Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy, specifically Undue Weight. We are also violating Misplaced Pages: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)

POV

This guy isn’t important enough to mention in other Misplaced Pages 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)

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 (talkcontribs) . 01:42, June 22, 2006

Spotle 01:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I flagged it for you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epsoul (talkcontribs) . 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? olderwiser 12:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

This article reads like a campaign website in some places. Pdcook (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

adultry law

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)

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs). 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)
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. olderwiser 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs).

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 — 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)
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)

WP:BLP Issues

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)

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)
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)



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)

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: 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)

Manoogian Mansion

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)

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)


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 Misplaced Pages.
(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)

Restored vandalized text. Youtube video of television newscast is entirely appropriate source.

Categories:
Talk:Mike Cox (American politician): Difference between revisions Add topic