Jump to content

Talk:Mike Tyson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMike Tyson was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 3, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 22, 2004, November 22, 2005, and November 22, 2020.
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2024

[edit]

It says that Mike tyson's stance is orthodox, while he publicly converted to Islam whil he was in prison. Kindly fix this error. Thanks. 2001:8F8:1D51:C20A:5952:60F1:EE98:D426 (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orthodox boxing stance, you moron. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: Is that kind of tone really necessary? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When one sees that exact same edit – and there's no other way of putting it; it is moronic – across various boxing articles for over a decade, civility tends to go out the window in that moment. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, no, you were gratuitously uncivil in response to a question you knew was asked in good faith? I guess it's good that you can admit that, but could you please, like, not do that in the future? Editors have a right to ask questions, even questions based on misunderstandings, without being insulted. (And if this misunderstanding is so uncommon as to provoke this response in you, perhaps that's a sign that boxing infoboxen shouldn't use this jargon so... jargonistically? Changing "Stance" to "Boxing stance" and/or "Orthodox" to "Orthodox (left foot forward)" would likely reduce all the confusion.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no need to make any change to {{Infobox boxer}} to expand upon something as obvious as a boxing stance. If readers (and they have been exclusively drive-by IPs making that same edit) genuinely cannot understand what "stance" means in the context of an infobox about a boxer, above which there are already relevant stats including weight/height/reach, then the burden should be on them to refrain from editing WP with such limited common sense. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The defining aspect of jargon is that its meaning is non-obvious to outsiders. And there's no reason to expect everyone who reads an article about a boxer with cross-cultural relevance to be an insider. If you can't see that, hey, I'm not saying the template needs to be changed, but I am saying maybe you're a bit too far deep to be a good judge of what misunderstandings qualify as "moronic" (hint: not this one) and which it's appropriate to call out as such (hint: none of them). Please see also xkcd:2501. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was hilariously moronic, Mac Dreamstate did the right thing. 2607:FEA8:5199:C800:C872:C6C2:D713:817C (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted Rapist

[edit]

Why isn’t there more info about him being convicted of rape or his domestic abuse? 2607:FEA8:5199:C800:C872:C6C2:D713:817C (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia aims to reflect reliable sources and achieve a neutral point of view. If you think the article isn't doing that, propose changes backed with reliable sources on this talk page. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight may be relevant. I haven't read the article or looked at sources so I am not sure about its adherence. Commander Keane (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested above that State v. Tyson should probably be its own article, which would allow for a more in-depth discussion of the trial without giving undue weight here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I missed that discussion, thanks. I haven't read up on if Wikipedia editors are meant to tailor articles for mobile viewers but I will note that on mobile the intro ends at the Buster Douglas sentence and is followed by two screens of infobox. Then immediately the rape is mentioned. If you want to skip to the meaty part of the article after blasting past the infobox you are faced with collapsed section headings. To read about the rape you need to guess that it's under "Professional career" (a massive guess if you ask me). If you get here there are no more section headings to choose from, you must scroll through more than 10 screens of prose to finally arrive at "Trial and incarceration". I am noy surprised the IP complained, assuming like (most?) readers they are on mobile. To me it almost seems like a neutrality (an official policy I might add) issue on mobile, it seems like we are burying what we don't like. A simple step to help solve the issue is to mention the rape in the first sentence paragraph before the paragraph break. Then a life by era restructure as suggested by Tamzin above. Commander Keane (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as no-one tries changing the lead, yet again, to "[...] professional boxer and convicted rapist". Not happening. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane: Definitely onboard with the resectioning, although I'm not sure when I'll have time to do it personally, so I welcome someone else to. I don't think that a quirk of how mobile lays things out justifies moving something to the first paragraph, though. Having recently written the guideline MOS:CONVICTEDFELON, I can say that while there isn't a firm rule on this, second-paragraph treatment is pretty standard for someone whose conviction is notable but, by a significant degree, is not the main thing they're known for. Usually the main deciding factor just comes down to how much else there is to say in the first paragraph (e.g. Rolf Harris 1st graf, Harvey Weinstein 2nd, Roman Polanski consensus to allow 1st but wound up in 2nd). And there's a lot in the first paragraph here. Also @Mac Dreamstate, it may please you to know that this guideline exists now. If you see "... and convicted X" in an article, feel free to change it in line with the guideline. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rolf Harris, Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polanski all mention something about crimes in the first para, they then tend to have further info in later paragraphs. Not that this article can be directly compared to any other.
MOS:OPEN (incidentally I am discussing adding a note about mobile on the talk page there) says the first para should also establish the boundaries of the topic, to me this reads that if the article contains substantial material on Tyson's personal life then we should somehow let readers know that personal details will be covered.
I agree that we shouldn't pander to mobile if it compromises policies like WP:NPOV. But maybe a satisfying experience can be achieved for both mobile and desktop, how I am not sure. Perhaps links to State v. Tyson and Mike Tyson in popular culture could wrap up the first para. Commander Keane (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there's a feeling that the first paragraph is too boxing-focused—which is totally possible, since boxing is not all Tyson's known for by any means—then it's better to have a discussion about whether to reword the lede, and then see how a potential earlier mention of the conviction works as part of that. (Also yes, Weinstein was a bad example. Harris and Polanski are the products of RfCs, so more representative of best practice.) P.S., I'm putting State v. Tyson vaguely on my radar as an article to write someday, but have no immediate plans to, so if you're interested in tackling it yourself, by all means please do. I imagine it could make for a GA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

[edit]

I can’t find a reference to Tyson’s conviction of rape in the article. 2A02:14F:1F4:68B:E9EA:D57A:13F8:D058 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is in there, but maybe hard to find at first. Try searching for "convict" using your browser's find function. Note this is being discussed in the section directly above.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the intro section. Terrainman (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Section - Improperly labelled

[edit]

Why is the section about his rape trial and conviction hidden in the middle of his boxing career? It should be in the controversies section and it should state "Rape Trial and Conviction." 2601:840:8001:9500:D5EF:D667:1FD6:92D3 (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

[edit]

please make record tyson +1 loss bc of jake paul Koomix1PYZH (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2024 (2)

[edit]

Losses = 7 2403:5819:60DF:0:854:5F8A:374A:8901 (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reason, he lost to Jake Paul

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2024 (3)

[edit]
172.56.164.118 (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

loses

[edit]

8 loses now 2603:8000:1AF0:8D20:C10C:C34:34D9:7AAD (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Legitimacy of Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson Fight

[edit]

It has come to light that Jake Paul's boxing license with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) expired on August 9, 2024, as reported by World Boxing News. This raises significant concerns about the legitimacy of the fight held on November 15, 2024.

According to TDLR regulations, all participants in sanctioned boxing matches must hold a valid license. Jake Paul's participation in the fight with an expired license constitutes a violation of these regulations, thereby affecting the legitimacy of the event. Bettors and fans placed their trust in the assumption that both fighters were properly licensed and that the fight was conducted according to regulatory standards.

This revelation calls into question the fairness and legality of the fight, and it is crucial for regulatory bodies and betting platforms to address this issue promptly. 108.31.5.118 (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it wasn't 3 minute rounds and the fighters gloves were 14 oz clearly not a sanctioned fight more of an exhibition like Jones vs Tyson 2601:3C5:8180:31D0:FD31:8D1A:5A41:1B0E (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Children with at least four women

[edit]

There are mentions of children with at least four women noted in the personal life section, not three. 2603:7080:1AF0:8040:7887:DA3:C8F7:C8B8 (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]