Talk:Mike Tyson

Convicted Rapist

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

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)

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)

It's in the intro section. Terrainman (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Section - Improperly labelled

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)

Agreed. There seems to be a clear effort among editors to obscure this detail of his image; many editors remain adamant that 'convicted rapist' stay far from his info box as well. 67.144.42.123 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

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

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. TarnishedPath^talk 11:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Reason, he lost to Jake Paul

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

172.56.164.118 (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

loses

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

Disputed Legitimacy of Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson Fight

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)

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)

Children with at least four women

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)

@2603:7080:1AF0:8040:7887:DA3:C8F7:C8B8 By my count, here's a summary of the children he had with different women:

• Robin Givens (1st wife) – no children
• Monica Turner (2nd wife) – two children; son Amir and Ramsey
• Sol Xochitl (not his wife) – four-year-old daughter Exodus, deceased
• Lakiha "Kiki" Spicer (3rd wife) – two children; daughter Milan and son Morocco

It also states that "in addition to his biological children, Tyson includes his second wife's oldest daughter as one of his own." I don't know if she's included in the total of seven children mentioned, but one or two are not listed. Anyways, while four women are mentioned, he only had children with three of them. Assadzadeh (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Assadzadeh, there is no good reason to include the names of people's children in an article unless those children are notable one way or another. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies OK, but it still doesn't resolve the discrepancy brought up. Assadzadeh (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop this here since you made that edit, and I made another. I can't help with the discrepancy--I have a hard enough time keeping up with my own children. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Add key to boxing record sections

Under the "Type" column are several acronyms. I know what KO, TKO, SD, UD, and DQ mean, but not familiar with RTD. Would someone please add a key to this table explaining all these acronyms, or point me to one, and I'll add it myself? 2600:100F:B1B8:4B4B:7DEE:CF66:7ECB:2BE (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

There should be a tooltip if you hover over the abbreviations on their first instance, starting from the bottom of the table. "RTD" stands for corner retirement. But you're right, a key would be very helpful to readers unfamiliar with boxing, and has been mooted a few times in the past. I'll put in a fresh mention at WikiProject Boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Mike Tyson's Politics

It feels slightly disingenuous to have such a short blurb regarding Tyson's political views — though it is true he publicly endorsed Trump in 2015, this article later states his support for Palestinian liberation, his continued advocacy for Islam , and his strong pro-drug beliefs. It is well-documented that Tyson has been infatuated with Communism and political revolutionaries following his stint in prison, and these details all paint a much more accurate picture of Mike Tyson's complex political views. 67.144.42.123 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2024 (2)

Tyson's biological father was Trinidad born and was deported to Trinidad before Mike was born. 47.17.208.195 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@47.17.208.195 Assadzadeh (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)