The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing articles
Mike Tyson is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Mike 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.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
"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]
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]
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]
@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 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]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
