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

Herald Sun reference

[edit]

@Jahalive I have removed the Herald Sun reference which you reverted the article to reinclude. The Herald Sun is Tabloid Journalism and per WP:RSP#Tabloids, is unsuitable for usage in WP:BLPs. Further there is established consensus at WP:RS/N that it is unreliable. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 426#Reliability of the Herald Sun for the most recent discussion of this. TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

professional criminal?

[edit]

"Trial and incarceration" is not a subordinate component of Tyson's "Professional career" and should not be organized & presented as such, here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For celebrities with very well-documented personal lives, often the solution is to not make a professional/personal distinction, and instead divide the article by life era. See, for instance, Madonna, which has a "Life and career" section with subsections like "1984–1987: Like a Virgin, first marriage, True Blue, and Who's That Girl". Now might also be a good time to note that we're at 9,561 words of readable prose, which per WP:TOOBIG puts us in the territory of "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". Given how much of the article is about fights that have their own articles, it's probably time to switch to a more aggressive summary style in fight descriptions. Other options include splitting Boxing career of Mike Tyson (cf. Ali, Pacquiao) and splitting the rape trial to State v. Tyson. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]