Talk:Mike Tyson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Who is "Stewart?"

"Stewart knew the respected trainer Cus D'Amato and in 1980 D'Amato was introduced to the boy." Who is Stewart? Gyrofrog 17:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, it says "Stewart knew the respected trainer Cus D'Amato and in 1980 D'Amato was introduced to the boy." Who's Stewart??The name is mentioned only once. Please elaborate a little more in the article. 129.97.224.85 06:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm editing Stewart out of there, feel free to add him in wit more info Cokehabit 19:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stewart is Bobby Stewart, the prison gaurd and boxer in Cus's stable that dicsovered him.

Clean up

Tomforrest 18:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Furthermore we are going to report what you are doing to Wikipedia... e.g. http://jco.usfca.edu/works.html this site is all about JCO not Mike Tyson. Is she your friend or is it you? You are very wrong to be promoting yourself or your friends with sites that are 5% about Mike Tyson and 95% about Joyce Carol Oates.

75.82.249.29 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC) I am very unhappy about some of the bully volunteers in Wikipedia, and will contact Wikipedia to discuss this. I see too many people coming in and deleting good links and adding crap external links. This may be do to volunteer editors putting in sites or they friends own. I have good data to support this. Please contact me so we can discuss this in detail. This includes the Mike Tyson page. Please phone or email Tom Forrest at: 805-493-4450 or email tomforrest@htpcompany.com Some of what you are doing on this page is wrong.

I've partially cleaned up, wikified and corrected the spelling on this article. Still needs a lot more work. I agree with Cyprus2k1, a lot of these quotes are at best unneccessary, and at worst complete rubbish! I also think quite a lot of detail about his bouts could come out too - do we need to have a description of every single one? I've already deleted some of it.

Stu 15:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

btw, "Hitting rock bottom" is POV, I suggest we rename it. Shawnc 13:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

WRT a neutral POV, I've changed the wording from "Still denies raping Desiree Washigton who came to his hotel room at 4 in the morning" to "Still denies raping Desiree Washigton" as the last few words add nothing and are definitely not neutral. --NIck Miles 12:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tupac Under Cameos and Parodies

"Tyson was good friends with legendary rapper and black activist Tupac Shakur." Why is this under the wrong section? This has nothing to do with making gun of Tyson. It does under "Trivia" at best but even then, it's questionable whether it should be in the article at all.

je suis francais et je voulais dire que Mike Tyson est pour moi le meilleur boxeur de tous les temps il n'y a que M Ali avec qui on peut le comparer.Et je suis triste de voir la réputation que l on donne a Mike sur tout aux Etats Unis et dans le reste du monde .Mais c est vrais que si l'on ne cherche pas a connaitre la totalité du personage et que l on le juge avec les medias qui cherche a faire de l argent en montrant qu'une face du personnage un homme avec une rage phenomenale qui déborde quelque fois a cause peut etre d'une enfance de chien que la plupare des gens qui le critique n'auraient pas supporter alors juste pour ça je pense qu'on lui doit un minimum de repect je m arret içi mais svp arreter de manipuler Mike car il a eu largement sa pare

I don't see why not. I think it should stay under this article.

Mug shot

Is a mug shot really appropriate as the main, primary (and only) photo of Tyson?

Honestly? I'd say yes in this case. Nothing against Mike, I'm a big fan actually, compared to most mug shots it's actually a fairly good photo of the man. Zoe 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A MUG SHOT is appropriate? That's messed up. The guy wasn't born in prison. Use a regular picture.

I agree completely. This only enforces the fact that most people forget about Mike Tyson's legendary career, and only think of him as an ear biting criminal

Punch out

"In 1987, Nintendo released Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!, an NES game based on the arcade game "Punch Out!!", although there was later a version released in 1990 that replaced Mike Tyson with a fictional character, "Mr. Dream" after Nintendo's license with Mike Tyson expired. It is considered to be one of the best games released for the NES, and is highly regarded to this day."

From what I've heard, Nintendo stopped using Mike Tyson's name on purpose after he was convicted of rape. I doubt that thier licence expired.

It was in fact him losing the championship, not being convicted of rape that caused the game to be changed. The release dates prove this. Punchout with Mr. Dream was released in 1990, Tyson wasn't convicted until 1992. Zoe 14:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed "gynecologist" quote

I removed the quotation supposedly by Tyson after receiving his doctorate because I couldn't find a source for it. The quote was:

Upon receiving his doctorate, Tyson said, "I don't know what kind of doctor I am. But watching all these beautiful sisters here..I'm debating whether I should be a gynaecologist."

I would assume such a statement WOULD provoke a great deal of controversy, espeically among women's rights activists, but the only controversy I found was regarding the awarding of the doctorate itself. So I removed the quote and made the blurb focus on that, which I think is far more appropriate. We need to be especially careful about "controversy" without documentation. Remember John Seigenthaler? Yeah, we don't want that. Cheers. -- Hinotori 09:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Charges

1986

a sales clerk in an Albany, N.Y., shopping mall complained become violent when she rebuffed his sexually proposition later the same night, ejected from a nearby movie theater with same complaint

June 1987

tried to kiss a woman in a parking lot struck the lot attendant who came to the woman's defense charged with misdemeanor assault and battery and assault with a deadly weapon (paid $105,000 to settle the case out of court)

February 1833 married Robin Givens

September 1988

divorced had beaten her

December 1988

two women filed separate claims had grabbed and groped them in a nightclub was fined $100

April 1989

accused of beating a parking lot attendant outside a Los Angeles nightclub (later dropped when witnesses refused to cooperate with prosecutors)

1991

convicted of raping a beauty pageant contestant named Desiree Washington sentenced to ten years in prison, with four years suspended by the judge

1995

paroled after serving 3 years

August 1998

two women sued him for sexual harassment in a Washington bistro involved in a minor auto accident punched the other driver and kicked a passenger in the groin

1999

sentenced to a year in prison. fined $5,000 ordered to serve 2 years probation 200 hours of community service for the 1998

I didn't know that marrying Robin Givens was a felony charge Miss Maya Levy 04:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge of boxing

Tyson has a respect and knowledge of his sport's history

This has been hiiiiighly disputed for years. Some take the POV that Tyson was NOT a skilled fighter; merely a due that could hit VERRRRY hard and knock the fear of God into you! Buster Douglas was the first one who looked at Tyson and said "he ain't nothin'" and actually believed that. And once Douglas did it, there were kinks in the armor and he never quite recovered, IMO. It was pretty much downhill from there. He lacked the fundamentals; he's like that kid on the basketball team who can make beautiful dunks but can't run a play to save his life. So much potential there, and he'll go down as one of the great champs. But a legend, like Ali, Foreman, Norton? I seriously doubt it.

Also:

breeding insecurity and explosive violence into his and his peers' mindframes

In a word: Huh? Jennifer 00:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, Jennifer is right. The issue isn't his skill, it's his respect and knowledge OF THE SUBJECT. For example, A great scholar may know a lot about the history of flight but s/he may not be able to fly a plane at all.

Anyway: anyone who takes the POV that Tyson wasn't a skilled fighter either didn't watch his bouts or didn't know much about boxing. He was not the strongest nor most muscular heavyweight to date and didn't rely solely on his physical power, rather, he was an extremely adroit competitor and used his skill to become the youngest heavyweight champion ever. Tyson has a ratio of knockouts wins higher than that of Muhammad Ali (36/45 vs 37/56). He has a different persona and image than Muhammad Ali but is he any less legendary? Hell no. User:Da Man 11:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. If anyone out there has this idea that Tyson was 'hype' and Buster Douglas was merely the one to 'see through it' that is complete nonsense. Tyson was amazingly skilled in both technique and raw ability. To anyone familiar with his fighting, it was obvious in his match with Douglas that he wasn't performing as usual and something was wrong. Douglas was undeserving of a victory against the 'usual Mike', but was fortunate to be the one in the ring when he Tyson chose not to train properly, had lost Rooney, and had several personal problems going on. It was this culmination of events that robbed all future opponents of Tyson the ability to ever face the fighter and athlete he had been prior. Douglas' good random fortune was made more apparent in his quick loss of the title thereafter.--Daniel 11:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember someone asking Tyson whether he would consider becoming a boxing commentator at the press conference he announced his retirement and said something to the effect that Tyson was very knowledgable of the sport. Certainly someone thinks Tyson has some decent knowledge of the sport's history, although I lack objective proof if he actually does. hateless 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

I added a tag requesting copy editing cleanup (grammer, etc.). At least the 'Retires from Boxing' section needs editing from someone who knows more about Tyson and/or boxing than myself. Antonrojo 20:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame...

Whole subsection is POV and in my opinion should be deleted. I don't see any way it can be restructured or rescued, the section is itself based from an rhetorical piece. hateless 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say the statements are accurate, just that they were made. That is a fact. zellin t / c 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. (emphasis NOT mine)

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

Whether it's factual or not is not in question. This subsection expresses only 1.) one view point with a pithy disclaimer that it might be biased, 2.) one viewpoint that gets its own subsection whereas nothing else in the article gets one. Also, 3.) why does a cable TV show on an event that lasted a few hours should overshadow and be given more space than a rape conviction that took 3 years from the man's life?

The NPOV tag goes back up. hateless 17:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is totally absurd and should be removed. It's a minor event and should at most be noted as a sentence or two. The list of reasons does not have to be given. It is also clearly a POV violation and speculation. It is also disrespectful to Douglas by disminishing his fair victory. Make this a speedy delete. Jason Quinn 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Entries have appeared in many of the entries for sports figures with content from this niche televison program. They don't serve any purpose except to promote the show. I'm removing it. --Anson2995 23:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Tyson and rape case

One of the basis for the Tyson supporters I heard was that the girl's father falsy accused two other men of rape because they slept with her, might want to add that in the article.

Pigeons

I saw this documentary that said he used to be made fun of and picked on by other kids, and hang out on the roof to be with the pigeons. That once one of the kids he knew once killed one of the pigeons. So he got very mad and beat the crap out of the kid. He liked it and was good at it, so he bacame a boxer and a thug.83.118.38.37 04:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Man With the Iron Lung?

I can't recall Tyson ever being refered to with that nickname. A quick google search didn't connect Tyson with "The Man With the Iron Lung". In fact, that is a nickname that was once used by rapper/actor Method Man.

I removed it because I dont think thats right, I think Iorn Lung is a insult to the degree of hes "slowing down" but not an official name.

thuggery

are we sure thats even a word, if possible can we find something that doesn't make you laugh and question whether it was just made up out of convienance--Manwithbrisk 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Under "Other Forms" here - http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/T0193200.html . The dictionary is very convenient for answering questions like this. -- 201.50.123.251 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 'thuggery' is a word. Your word 'convienance' is not, however. Now that did make me laugh!

emotional peak?

Is this for real? An emotional peak after one's mother has died? This needs a citation or removal: On paper it looked like an easy victory for Tyson, but Douglas was at an emotional peak after losing his mother to cancer three weeks prior to the fight -213.219.151.76 18:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

TYSON-movie

An addition of the HBO movie Tyson, would help to reflect Mike's cultural sigificance.

Trapped Under a Tiger?

An interesting story but is this true? Why would the tiger just wander away instead of waking up and devouring Tyson?--Hypermagic 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

ignorant choice of images

Mr. Tyson is no longer in prison. Why is his mugshot being used instead of a more fitting ring shot? Does the Robert Downey jr page have mugshots?? Panda

Trivia mess

The trivia section is a mess. Tigers falling asleep on him and trapping Tyson? (to be fair, he did once own a tiger) Tyson calling an unknown boxer better than all the other boxing legends? Tyson being knocked out by an unknown felon at an early age? All unverified and with no citations/references (looks like vandalism in some cases). I will clean out some of the more suspicious ones. They can be put back in easily if proven true. -- Eqdoktor 11:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jan 22, 2002 brawl with Lennox Lewis

The big brawl that occured at the Jan 22, 2002 press conference. It wasn't a minor thing as the word "scuffle" implied in the article. Several people were injured in the brawl [1]. It was also alleged that Mike Tyson bit Lennox Lewis in the thigh during the brawl. [2] I remember the brawl as it was quite big news back then for boxing fans. I'm putting the citation links in here if people want to look it up. I don't think its necessary to put the citations in main article is it? -- Eqdoktor 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) who here belives that he got his backside beaten by stone cold steve austin? he surely lost that fight.

islamic name???

abdul aziz? (prison time)

Intro is reverted

Its very watered down because someone considered it non-NPOV. Nope, the original original did not break NPOV and there are citations to back up the assertions. Mike Tyson really was a highly rated boxer and much feared in his time. Thats undisputable and stating so in his Wiki is not breaking WP:NPOV policies. Ref Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time and Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years - If you were to restrict the time period in the years in which he was active - 90s he'd be placed in the top 5 easily in both categories. The revert reads better also.--Eqdoktor 06:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Tyson puffery I removed from the intro is certainly non-POV. For instance, take the statement "is considered by many to be one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time." There is a lot of debate about this. Some consider him to be among the greatest and some consider him to be highly over-rated. Since there is a differnece of opinion on this issue, I certainly don't think the claim of some for Tyson's greatness belongs in the introduction. Also, the "in his prime, he routinely defeated prominent opponents by knock out in the early rounds" is completely out of place in the introduction. Yes, he defeated some prominent opponents in the early rounds. However, he also let some prominent opponents go into the later rounds. This sort of Tyson cheerleading is not proper in an article introduction, so I removed it. MKil 20:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

I beg to differ, from the WP:POV:

That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority).

A simple search by me thru the Wikipedia found two articles placing him within the top 100 boxers of all time by The Ring (magazine) (and will probably place a lot higher if the field was narrowed to his mid-80s to early-90's heyday. If I were to further research the matter, I'm sure to find further authoritative references to the fact. Hence, I believe that the statement "is considered by many to be one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time." does not have NPOV issues. Yes, there are people who claim him to be over-rated but thats not unique to Mike Tyson (which is neither here nor there in this case). You could compare the introduction to Muhammad Ali's and Joe Louis's own Wiki.

I believe the statement, In his prime, he routinely defeated prominent opponents by knock out in the early rounds, and was one of the most feared boxers in the sport for his knockout power and aggression does not have NPOV issues as it is all supported by the facts in the main article itself. Is this Tyson cheerleading? I think not, it encapsulates the impact that this man had on heavyweight boxing from his debut in 1985 to his zenith in 1988-89. The intro is fine as it is now.--Eqdoktor 19:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

From your wiki quote: "The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority)." The formulation of "is considered by many to be. . ." fails this test. And, in fact, many boxing experts don't believe Tyson was among the greatest heavyweights. A 1999 ranking of heavyweight boxers, in fact, only ranked Tyson at 14 among all-time heavyweights. That's a fairly low ranking, and boxers such as Jim Jeffries and Jersey Joe Walcott are rated above him. I don't see their entries claiming they were among the greatest heavyweight champions of all time. And considering his pathetic activity since 1999 I'd suspect an updated list would rank him lower.

Furthermore, in his prime Tyson did not routinely defeat "prominent" opponents in the early rounds. Sure, he beat a bunch of stiffs on his way up by way of first or second round KO, but when he started fighting decent opposition such as Jesse Ferguson or James Tillis, Tyson did not KO them early. I'll grant that he defeated Trevor Berbick and Michael Spinks early, and Larry Holmes relatively early, but his fights with Bonecrusher Smith (W12), Pinklon Thomas (KO6), Tony Tucker (W12), and Tyrell Biggs (KO7) all went fairly long. His KO power was good, but it's false to claim that he routinely knocked out good opponents in the early rounds.

The current Tyson introduction simply does not match up with facts. It should be changed to a more neutral introduction, stating his reigns as a heavyweight titlist, the fact that he was the youngest titlist in history, etc. There is no need for the type of inaccurate Tyson cheerleading that is present today. MKil 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

Thanks, I am very impressed with your editing of the article and removal of all the NPOV cheerleading stuff. Your changes to the intro is very good compared to the wikis of the "REAL" boxing legends like Joe Louis, Foreman or Ali. I can live with it :) I'm not really that great a fan of Tyson but it would be obtuse to say that he did not have a significant impact or influence on the heavyweight boxing scene. Anyways - good edit Mkil. --Eqdoktor 06:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in the Intro

My main concern was the phrase, "He could have been the greatest boxer of all time." I'm not really sure that there is any way to validate that. I'll grant you the fact that he was above average in his early fights. But after the Douglas fight, I didn't see anything from him that would lead anyone to make that claim.

Also, this statement is someone's opinion. There is no way to substantiate that and I don't think it should be in the article. It does not sound like something that you would read in an encyclopedia. Now, if a reputable source said this quote, then I have no problem with leaving it in and citing it. However, in its present state, I feel it should be removed. I didn't change it yet, because obviously there has been some discussion on this already, and I didn't want to step on any toes by changing it without consulting anyone. Cyrus Andiron 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tyson as a ref in a MMA match

An anonymous editor removed the reference about him being a referee in a WCFC mixed martial arts match, saying it didn't happen. Well, it did, and it's sourced. And if that's not enough, then this should. hateless 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Prison stripes

Where'd Mikey do his time? Trekphiler 13:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike Tyson Wiki entry turning into a gossip fanpage

Its actually in danger into turning just that. If we are to report every one of his business dealings, appearances and altercations no matter how insignificant - his Wiki entry may as well be a gossipy fanpage. I think a moratorium on what he is doing recently is a good idea unless it has a real significant impact on career - its ridiculous if Wikipedia tracks what Tyson does to earn a living on a daily basis. I'm removing a badly written trivia item by User:203.76.96.12 as the incident it describes stinks all over as an inconsequential publicity stunt. --Eqdoktor 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fully in agreement. It's ridiculous to have the variety of nonsense that's up there about Tyson. This is not a biography of the man, it's an encyclopedia entry that should cover the important stuff. What Bob Sapp said to him in a K-1 match or whether he appeared in a rap video is not relevant at all. MKil 15:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)MKil

Bob Sapp strikes again

Theres plenty of reasons not to add this into the trivia section. For one thing, it happened more than two years ago (the last Battle of Bellagio was in 2004). Nothing has resulted from this - neither parties have followed up on it. As a publicity event, its a bust and worst of all, ITS BORING AND UNINTERESTING. It is of ZERO IMPORTANCE - its not even mentioned in Bob Sapp's Wiki entry (as of 2006-11-18). A key factor in selecting items for the trivia section (from Wikipedia:Trivia) :

This comes down to: if something is not interesting on any level, it is not included in wikipedia. In other words: "zero interest" equals "zero amount of space". Similarly, "zero importance" results in "zero amount of space": even if a topic would be interesting, if it has no importance whatsoever, it is not included in Wikipedia.

As a final nail in the coffin, the various iterations of the trivia is usually accompanied by a Youtube link. Youtube links are frowned upon in Wikipedia, ref this page. If anyone thinking of adding it to the trivia section, do not be surprised to see it reverted. --Eqdoktor 11:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Prison Rape

Please site numerous prison rape section as it sounds utterly rediculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.232.128 (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Career Stats

How come in the box in the top right giving his stats on his career it states he has 0 losses and 0 no contests. Yet in the article itself it mentions at least 5 losses and 1 no contest. I don't know his career that well but i think someone should address this.

photo

This page could really use a fair use photo up top. -Pete 18:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing

There is no mention of Tyson's fight with the much larger Russian who easily, with his longer reach, beat Tyson badly... That fight, etc should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.1.172 (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Vandals removing references/cites

This article used to be better sourced. I remember putting some of the external sources in myself. I notice (in march 2007) that a lot of references have been stripped out of this article. Mike Tyson seems to be an especially popular target for vandals and more care is needed when reverting these vandalisms. --Eqdoktor 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

check data

An anonymous user just made substantial factual changes to the article, which I reverted as a precaution. Could someone familiar with the subject verify the information in this diff Jens Nielsen 11:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd offer a citation...

There's a claim for a needed citation due to potential 'weasel words' listed in the section about Tyson's comeback. It's regarding 'Don King and others thinking Holyfield was washed up'. Even Holyfield conceded this in his postfight comments and in later Q & A's with various boxing publications (Lisa Scott w/ Fightnews in 2003) Since I haven't the foggiest notion of how to properly post such a citation, I'll post a link to one of them here so someone who knows what they're doing might could work it in when they have time:

http://www.wie.org/j15/holyfield.asp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.139.247 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing out the link. I have put in a source citation from the reference given. Its much appreciated :) . If you are interested, here are the Wikipedia pages that details how to put in footnotes, embedded citations and Harvard referencing.

• Wikipedia:Footnotes
• Wikipedia:Embedded citations
• Wikipedia:Harvard referencing

The overview page is Wikipedia:Citing sources. I realize it may all be a overwhelming, so my suggestion is to start small, put in one ref at a time and see how it looks. There are also convenient citation templates to help streamline the process but I find it easier to just type out the entire footnote. Again, thanks and hope this helps.--Eqdoktor 13:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)