Talk:Mike Cox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.

If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Mike Cox is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.

[edit] POV

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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 (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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)