I personally am unbiased towards Bobby Cox, but honestly the Spousal Abuse section should not be in here. This is an encyclopedia. You would never find a section like that in Encarta..etc.
Im taking it out. If i am completely wrong on this one, revert to the old copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.149.55 (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I deleted entirely the section on spousal abuse. The section had a reference to an NYT article from September, 1995 which did not say anything about there being a history of spouse abuse (which the section said was true) and that the charges had been dropped. Dropped charges are dropped charges. Mantuan (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Mantuan
- Just removed spouse abuse section from main article. I am going to copy the information that is cited here, but I have removed severals statements which are not cited such as "a number of incidents" - that kind of statement MUST be cited thoroughly and reliably with reliable refs. A reference for a single incident does not do that. Also, labeling the section "History of Spousal abuse" really gives this undue weight - If anything it needs to be called "Personal life" and needs more details in addition to these incidents. The details of his personal life, if citeable, are certainly fair game, but having a section only on this topic that is equal in length to the section on his legacy is overkill in my opinion.
- Below is what I think can be included based on the quoted refs with a little bit of rewriting to include the facts as presented in the ref. I also removed the last sentence about abuse being a black eye on baseball as I think it doesn't belong in this article and seems like POV-pushing.
- In May of 1995, police were called to the Cox's home northwest of Atlanta. Pamela Cox told the police that her husband struck her, but she retracted the statement the next day. Pamela Cox was instructed by the court to attend a battered women's program and Bobby Cox was told to complete violence counseling and an alcohol evaluation. In September of that year, the wife battery charges against him were dismissed.[1] [2]--Roswell native (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, and let's remove anything about dog-fighting from Michael Vick's article. Of course this is relevant, he's a public figure that broke the law.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say it does not belong, but it must be cited with reliable sources per WP:BLP. The cited article does not support the first sentence, and this paragraph needs to be mentione that the charge was dismissed. The last sentence doesn't belong at all in my opinion in an article specifically about Bobby Cox, but I'd like to hear other's thoughts on that. --Roswell native (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Charges are dismissed when the courts reach a SETTLEMENT with the parties. There was no acquittal or any other statement of innocence. There were rumors for years that such things were happening, and this one particular incident was the most noteworthy since there were many articles written about it and it appeared in the court system. The second article cited talks about the fact that this incident was a black mark on the sport as a whole. Everything in that section is supported by citations in American newspapers. 64.253.96.96 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- And what is with the "this is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be in there" excuse. This isn't Bobby Cox's PR media guide. In an encyclopedia, positive and negative information are both presented. You might be right that Encarta wouldn't include this, but that's why Encarta is so incredibly flawed. Microsoft has to make corporate decisions that are not based on truth or information. They make decisions based on profits, and they may choose not to anger Bobby Cox, the Atlanta Braves, AOL-Time Warner, or the MLB. I believe Microsoft still makes one of the more popular baseball video/computer games, and might not want to deal with hassles in licensing if they include article information the MLB doesn't like. But that is the type of decision making process that makes Encarta and other "commercial" encyclopedia's so flawed. Wikipedia has a much nobler purpose and role in safeguarding information 64.253.96.96 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - it is offical Wikipedia policy and states "[e]ditors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy I quoted the article as cited in my suggestion above, please do the same. If you want to quote anything else about this you MUST cite it from a reliable source as it is controversial." The articles cited state nothing about additional incidents, only the one in May of 1995.
- Also, the title of the article cited states "Battery Charges Against Cox Dismissed" and states that "a judge dismissed wife battery charges against him" in the first paragraph. That needs to be included with the rest of the information, otherwise it looks like POV-pushing.
- Finally, please read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule to avoid violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule. --Roswell native (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to claim that Cox has a history of this behavior, please cite high-quality sources that mention any incident other then the one in 1995. All the ones added so far only mention the 1995 incident.--Roswell native (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Roswell native, you are getting positively pathological with your refusal to "permit" (as if you are some Wikipedia God) this very truthful aspect of Bobby Cox's history from being included. After reading the discussion here, I decided to do some additional research, and found more information about his spousal abuse history. The 1995 incident gets the most attention because it was the only time the police were involved. If you want to understand more about the issue, try reading some of the cited sources.
- The spousal abuse section now has ** 6 ** citations, in an entire article that only has 16. Almost 40% of the entire article's citations exist to verify just ONE section. That is more than enough cited backup for the section to be left intact. Nothing written in that section is false, misleading, or sensationalistic. Bobby Cox is a public figure, and thus there is much wider latitude under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. So please cut it out and find some other article to ruin. I refer you to Wikipedia:SOAP. You are trying to enforce your own personal belief that a biography of a living person should not include negative information. You are incorrect, so please get off your soap box. . Cambios (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Cambios, have you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? None of the citations mention any incident other than the 1995 one. If you can find reliable citations that cite additional incidents, then the claim of repeated behavior can remain, until then it has to be removed per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Readding this uncited allegation is in direct violation of that policy, and I'm just following that. I suggest you do the same. --Roswell native (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I originally deleted entirely the section on Spouse Abuse. It stated things as fact using sources that didn't support what what the writer stated. Love BC, Hate BC, but the man is over 60 years old. To have his life defined in terms of what happened one night and appranetly not before or since just doesn't seem very scholarly .... Mantuan (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) mantuan
- I just returned the Cox material to the previous version. The additions/corrections by Cambios consisted of: The Village Voice quoting that Bobby Cox had been charged, an article that said Bobby Cox had been charged, a Colorado Springs Gazette article that doesn't even mention Cox, and an AJC blog where a person on the blog mentions the charge. Is mentioning the charge additional evidence? The remarks by various sources (Voice, Gazette, AJC), which are not in fact about Cox at all or are by bloggers who are only quoting the earlier charge w/o new information, all hinge on the one event and do not add any facts to the contribution, just comments on the "charge". Mantuan (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Mantuan
1) The fact that Bobby Cox was never punished for his domestic abuse has major factual and historical value. It is something that get frequently mentioned whenever a player gets suspended for domestic abuse.
2) The John Rocker incident has major historical value. When it happened, Bobby Cox's spousal abuse was part of the story. That is why it needs to be mentioned.
3) This has indeed put a black mark on his legacy. It continues to be written about 10 years later.
4) Personal bias should not come into this. I lived most of my life in Georgia. I have been a fan of the Braves since I watched Dale Murphy hit home runs as a kid. I went to the University of Georgia School of Law. I LIKE Bobby Cox and think he is a great manager. But nobody, no matter how great, should beat their wife, and if they do, they should have to face the consequences of that action. One of the main consequences of that is having it remembered as part of your legacy.
5) So I highly recommend that people who keep trying to minimize this issue and pare it down should find a better crusade than helping cover up wife battery.
Cambios (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is non-negotiable, and I am not above requesting a block if you continue to blatantly and knowingly violate that policy. You have been informed about BLP; now it is time for you to comply. Dlong (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- No one is trying to sweep anything under the rug, Cambios. It's just that most of what's in your edit is either trivial, misleading and/or not relevant. The Cox issue was NOT widely brought up during the Rocker incident, that's just a fact. Because one crappy newspaper mentioned it in the same breath does not make it notable even if it is verifiable. Secondly, it has certainly not put a black mark on his legacy - it just is not true. 99 out of 100 people would not think of that when talking about Bobby Cox. No one cares. Finally, your last source was a COMMENT on a BLOG from some nobody in Internet land. If you think this is relevant and that it proves people still talk about it all the time, you're out of your mind. I have no problem with stating the facts and I'm often trying to keep the truth present on Wikipedia when others are doing what you think we're doing here. I'm not removing your stuff because I'm a Braves fan or because I'm biased or because I want to hide the truth. I'm ditching the irrelevant and misleading aspects and just keeping the facts. You're not going to win this argument because you are 100% wrong, sorry.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BLP doesn't actually say that negative material mustn't be posted. The main thrust of it is that information about living people has an even greater requirement for verifiability. Cambios's edit has plenty of references. Dlong, rather than simply reverting Cambios's edits, could you possibly state here what's actually wrong with the material, and seek to achieve consensus? Rosuav (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problems with the edit have been covered by both Chrisjnelson and Roswell native. If you cannot take the time to read the talk page, then you should not edit the article. You are being irresponsible and lazy. Dlong (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The problems that they have described are based on a couple factors: A) They did not fully read the sources posted and did not see the relevant information to Bobby Cox. B) Their arguments seem very biased toward Mr. Cox (and quite possibly the Braves in general).
Just because Mr. Cox bullied his wife into dropping charges does not mean that this incident is not referenced in popular culture today (run a google search for "Bobby cox arrest" or "bobby cox domestic violence" or "bobby cox wife"). Personal blogs are a valid source of "Popular culture" because, let's face it, people write them. When you can find many hundreds of blog posts referencing a person's legacy, saying that this incident is a part of his legacy is completely valid. —Preceding Leshrak comment added by Leshrak (talk • contribs) 00:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Blogs fail WP:RS. Dlong (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Because of the number of users here who are only here to defame Bobby Cox instead of improve the project, I have taken this matter elsewhere Dlong (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on Bobby Cox's spousal abuse is supported by multiple New York Times articles, multiple Atlanta Journal Constitution Articles, an article from the Village Voice, the Official Code of Georgia (OCGA), the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Northern Iowan, South Coast Today, and a variety of other sports media web sites and news outlets. The section in question is nothing but facts, explaining not only the incident itself but its long term impact on the sport. As recently as July 4, 2007, Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial writer, Mark Bradley, wrote about the issue.
I have spent an enormous amount of time working on this section to get all the details right and to fully explain the incident and its long term effects. I have meticulously worked to remove all opinionated sounding language so the article is as encyclopedic in nature as possible.
I believe there is some WP:SOAP going on because certain people are fans of the Atlanta Braves and do not want anything negative to be written about them. In particular, at least one of the people habitually reverting out the factual information is from Roswell, Georgia - a suburb of Atlanta. WP:BLP specifically states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
This incident is not going away, no matter how much Bobby Cox or his supporters want it to. It is a part of the permanent record, and there are an enormous amount of first, second, and third party sources that reference it. The entire Bobby Cox article has a total of 21 citations, and 11 of them are from the Spousal Abuse category. That more than meets any burden of citation needed for the section. There are 14 sentences in that section, and 11 citations. Lets get real - the section as written is truthful, accurate, and incredibly well researched. Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is time to let the facts stand. Cambios (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Really. Please stop removing these factual, cited edits and claiming them as uncited and/or cited from bad sources. There are reputable sources for each of the statements within this edit. Leshrak —Preceding comment was added at 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
These "factual, cited edits" can't be added when you, User:Leshrak, and User:Cambios are pushing your POV in the article. Kingjeff (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody is trying to "make this go away" Cambios, jesus freaking christ. We're simply trying to keep irrelevant and misleading excess out of the article. You think your post is factual, but I'll re-write it and paste here how it would be if it were truly factual and not at all misleading. Give me a few minutes.►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've given up. Between Cambios' and Leshrak's anti-Bobby Cox fanaticism and the administrators' just not giving a shit whether or not WP:BLP is followed we have no chance of ever making this article worthwhile. Dlong (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- We need a checkuser requested on Cambios and Leshrak. Leshrak hadn't edited for a year then all of a sudden popped up to support Cambios, that is obviously as hell.►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've already done this. It came back unrelated. Kingjeff (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:Okay, so here is what Cambios' edit would look like with full discloure:
(Note: I do not believe the following edit should be used, it's just to point out how misleading his actually is.)
In May of 1995, police were called to the home of Bobby and Pamela Cox in northwest Atlanta, Georgia. Pamela Cox told the police that her husband struck her. Bobby Cox was charged under Georgia's Domestic Violence Act[3] with simple battery. He was accused of punching his wife, Pamela, and pulling her hair.[4]
In a court settlement, Pamela Cox was instructed by the judge to attend a battered women's program and Bobby Cox was told to complete violence counseling and an alcohol evaluation. [5]
This incident of domestic violence is a permanent part of Bobby Cox's legacy. When John Rocker was suspended by the MLB for making inflammatory remarks to the media, it the issue of Bobby Cox's wife battery was brought up by The Colorado Springs Gazette'.[6]. It receives consistent mention in the sports media. In 2000, the incident was described as a black eye for the entire MLB.[7]. As recently as 2006 and 2007, BaseballSavvy.com has labeled him "wife beater"[8] and a student newspaper in Northern Iowa called him "nobody's role model"[9].
Bobby Cox was never punished by Major League Baseball or the Atlanta Braves. This lack of punishment has been noted by South Coast Today as a lack of consistency in the way it deals with criminal behavior and spousal abuse. [10]. Further, Bobby Cox has refused to discuss the issue with the media and has never admitted his guilt to the public. As recently as July 4, 2007, Mark Bradley[11] of the Atlanta Journal Constitution noted "He refuses to discuss the 1995 incident that ended with him being arrested and charged with simple battery."[12]
- As I see it, here are the problems with Cambios' edit:
- The part about it being a permanent part of Bobby Cox's legacy is misleading, since there are essentially no mainstream sources that still talk about it. As you can see, most of these sources are from absolutely no one important (BaseballSavvy.com, Gulf Coast Today, a student paper in Northern Iowa, and AJC blog comment, etc.)
- The part about it being brought up again during the Rocker incident is also misleading, because was certainly not a widely discussed topic during the story. Just because the Colorado Spring Gazette brought it up doesn't mean it's intertwined with the Rocker story.
- The comment "It has received consistent mention in the sports media" is completely misleading, as a few mentions from trivial sources is certainly not "consistent mention." Not by along shot. The truth is the exact opposite - it rarely receives attention in the sports media these days.
- The labels of "wife beater" and "nobody's role model" are from sources that no one has ever heard of and thus make them unimportant.
- The "lack of consistency noted by the sports media" mentioned in the last paragraph is also misleading, because its sources are an unknown website and an unknown user comment on AJC.com. Neither is reputable enough to be present here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I very much concur, should I revert to this version then? Rudget (review) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's what most of us believe. No one is trying to sweep anything under the rug like Cambios seems to believe. But I personally feel, and I think others agree, that he is painting a picture that isn't exactly truth. While his edits are technically sourced, a lot of the sources are so non-notable it'd be no different than you or I starting up a website and calling Cox a wife beater. Also, anyone that follows sports, and baseball in particular, knows that Cox's incident is essentially never brought up in the media today. I've lived in Atlanta my whole life and follow baseball extemely close, and I hadn't heard it brought up in years until the incident on this article.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Removed. Full-protection has been reduced to three days also. Rudget (review) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Commenting here because the section was removed a few months back with no discussion on this page. In light of the extensive discussion here and eventual agreement to settle upon the current, heavily cited paragraph relating to the charges, I think those seeking complete removal should state and explain their positions here before doing so. I fully agree with the previous 2008 consensus to remove the POV portion of Cambios' edits that were drawn from non-notable sources, but also feel that the event itself merits mentioning and should remain in the article in the current form.71.179.175.84 (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It's undue weight that the only mention of his personal life is a charge that was dropped 18 years ago. I can see cutting it back on one sentence, and leaving the details to thecsources, as part of a whole section that metions his family. Note that the section was titled "personal life" in 2008, and changed some time later. - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- While I'm not going to reinstate the changes I made yesterday (not yet anyway), which again added a section on the allegations of simple battery made by the police against Bobby Cox, because I don't want to get into that sort of contest, I am going to say that in a balanced biography this incident deserves much more comment than it currently receives. Currently the incident is mentioned in passing in a way that, if anything, by it's briefness and emphasis on the fact that the charges were withdrawn, lacks neutrality and implies that the allegations are not to be considered relevant. Incidentally the existing comment is cited using perhaps the least authoritative of all the reliable journalism that is out there on this incident. There are all manner of good reasons to consider this incident noteworthy in Cox's career, even if it was not commented on greatly at in the 1990s.
- Spousal abuse was perceived very differently in the 1990s, and the MLB had all sorts of reason to smooth over the incident in a way it would not do today - that's why the policy has changed.
- The story was a major news story, albeit one that was quickly forgotten.
- The story is well sourced, and it is clear that although charges were withdrawn in return for a promise of counselling, the police had ample reason to believe Pamela Cox's initial accusations were accurate.
- The story still receives frequent note and is often brought up for discussion again in reviews of Cox's career.
- Current attitudes to spousal abuse and sexual assault (which, to be clear, is not alleged here) make it important that historical incidents are noted, even if they were not considered important at the time.
- The history of spousal abuse and violence against women is littered with cover-ups, belittling of significance and charges made by abused women that were afterwards withdrawn.
- There are many books-worth of literature on why, just because a charge is withdraw, that does not mean an incident is not relevant, and comment can be made in a way that is entirely neutral but not lacking in relevant content. Many people, in particular and people interested in the history of men in positions of influence and domestic violence rather than Cox's baseball career, would consider this incident by far and away the most noteable incident in Cox's life.
- There can be little doubt if the same incident happened today, even though charges were dropped (as happens notoriously in the vast majority of such cases), MLB would act in a different way, as it has done in other recent cases of players alleged to have been violent against women which did not reach court.
- The fact that the incident has 'undue weight' in a section on Cox's personal life is not relevant. That could mean simply that no other incident in Cox's personal life is worthy of encyclopedic note.
- Repeatedly removing balanced/fair content on the incident opens up Wikipedia editors to accusations of wishing to whitewash an important in the history of alleged spousal abuse in sport.Benmoreassynt (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion this incident deserves the same level and quality/neutrality of treatment as is accorded a similar allegation of spousal abuse in the career of Aroldis Chapman. I agree that the section on this subject created by Cambios lacked the necessary neutrality. Benmoreassynt (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to discuss this issue further with the editors of this page with a few to agreeing a way to add a fuller comment on the simple battery charge. I don't want to reinstate my edit without finding a reasonable way forward, but I do believe it is important the incident is given proper coverage.Benmoreassynt (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
