Talk:Mike Tyson

Out of Shape

It's nonsense using Tyson's weight to determine whether he is in shape or not. Commentors simply looked at the definition in his body as his weight fluctuated from performance to the fight night because of the training prior to the bouts and his fluid levels. Kevin Rooney claims he would have fasted before the bout and dried out. I don't know why heavyweights would do that but it seems like an old school boxing technique Cus may have used and I know Foreman would dehydrate himself before his fights in his early career.

Nonsense wording

The article says Mike was considered, in his prime, among the greatest heavyweights of all time. This applies to any heavyweight boxer like George Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Holmes and anyone else you can name. It's redundant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.165.103 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

Under the nicknames section, as a long time Tyson historian who met Tyson in 1983, I never heard him have the monikor "face breaker" or "IRON MIKE" but he was marketed as "mighty mike" during 1985 and early 86. That is something that needs to be corrected and included in the nicknames section.

19 or 26? 12 or 16?

The first section says he won his first 19 fights by KO, 12 in the first round. Another section says he won 26 or his first 28 fights by KO, 16 in the first round. Amnion (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bipolar

According to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/mike_fish/news/2002/06/11/fish_mailbag/ as well as http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2431583&page=1 and http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_19991028/ai_n13841383 there is talk of Tyson having been diagnosed with, or at least suspected of having qualities similar to, bipolar disorder. I think this warrants at least a mention in the article.Killridemedly (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tyson and his first marriage as a symbol of the ugly bias that runs through the article

This appears to be completely one sided. There was massive press coverage of how sly, manipulative and deceitful his first wife was. Many close to Tyson at the time of his first marriage cited the influence of Given and her mother as major causes for the downfall of Tyson. Instead all this information is omitted and we have a one sided view of things.

Please add some referenced information about his first marriage.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Like most of this piece, it stinks of a hate campaign against Tyson. Choosing to put little weight on his boxing abilities like his unbelievable jaw, his unmatched speed and power, and his gentlemanly conduct inside the ring (he did display this in buckets and spades as well). Also, his deep knowledge of the sport is barely mentioned. This will be corrected by myself once I have finished my dissertation. In fact I intend go through every single source cited to weed out the lies propagated in this piece. I say this with confidence because almost every source I have checked appeared to suggest the authors of the article were being tendentious at best and mendacious at worst. This anti-Tyson tirade must stop and reason and rationality must prevail. - I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.227.141 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Tyson and the honorary degree

Everything positive that happens is immediately followed by massive criticism. It's as if Tyson doesn't have the right to be uncontroversial. The article appears to bend over backwards to find critical things about Tyson. For instance, when he is awarded an honorary degree, that criticism is voiced when any celebrity is given such an award by an academic institution. Yet it is cited as somehow unique to Tyson by the very fact that such a general criticism is mentioned in a piece about Tyson receiving this honorary degree. I have read numerous articles on Wikipedia about celebrities who receive such awards, yet it is never mentioned in those articles. I have now just read the source and surprise surprise there is no academic in particular that criticizes Tyson's award. The article was about awards in general. And the only direct reference to Tyson was from a student! And she also criticized Nicholas Cage being given an award. This is absolutely ridiculous and should be removed immediately. I will do it myself actually and if you have problems with it, just read the article and then the source! Fits in well with the general tenor of this article which is an elaborate smear campaign against Tyson. edwardosaido 23 July 2007

Tyson being stripped of his WBC title after the Seldon fight

This is a manifest falsehood. If you actually look at note 44 it was Tyson who relinquished the title. This was as a result of a prior agreement between representatives of Lenox Lewis and Tyson. I corrected this.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing

There are no statistics here. What was Mike's height and weight when he was fighting? His reach, and chest size? I know these stats change over time, but even providing them for one moment in his career helps describe him has an athlete. -- Mikeblas 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Why wikipedia keep deleting his muslim name?MALIK ABDUL AZIZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfyzal (talk • contribs) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Ring magazine

Whoever keeps putting that magazine editors opinion in here could you please stop? NO. I could find many magazines that will rank him whatever they want based on their perception and disposition and that are just as noteworthy as yours and none of the opinions could be regarded as indisputably true nor disprovable since they are in fact opinions. It is not encyclopedic nor relevant to his biography. Mithotyn 08:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia policy pretty clearly states that as long as you can provide a source, you can include opinion. Ring magazine, which is the oldest and most respected boxing publication, ranks Tyson as the 14th greatest heavyweight. That's a fact. I originally included this fact in the bio months ago in order to bring some clarity to the situation as to where Tyson was ranked in heavyweight history. Some of his fans kept trying to say that he was regarded as the greathest heavyweight of all time. I found the Ring rankings and included it in order to stop that silliness. It seems to have worked, since no one is claiming here that Tyson is the greatest anymore. I think the ranking is certainly relevant and encyclopedic. Perhaps it does not belong in the opening paragraph (maybe the legacy section is better), but it is good to know where boxing historians rank Tyson in history. MKil 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)MKil

That all depands, Ring is a fine magazine but it's not perfect. Keep in mind: 1985-1990, Tyson was certainly the greatest and nobody ever stopped him. I remember when one announcer once said: "Nobody could ever defeat Mike Tyson in his prime, except Mike Tyson" Somehow at that time I knew these words ring the bell. How true it is...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.223 (talk) 21:39, June 5, 2007

It seems strange that verifiability and point of view is being discussed without reference to the policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view go hand in hand to say:

articles... must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)

The Ring magazine is both reliable and significant. It is not the be-all and end-all; there may be other significant views to be represented. All significant views should be presented. Regards, Severo^TC 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV also says this: "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 recognized authority)."

I take that to mean that stating the fact that Ring magazine ranked Tyson as #14 is perfectly acceptable. Ring is a recognized authority in the boxing world. As stated above, it is not the "be-all and end-all," but citing it certainly has a place here. MKil 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)MKil

The ranking by the Ring Magazine does have a place in Wikipedia. As a compromise, it need not be in the intro section (as has been pointed out). Its perfectly reasonable under Wikipedia guidelines to cite The Ring's rankings. As a compromise, I'm okay with taking it out of intro section and mentioning it in the legacy section with other ranking assesments. I have no doubt that the list was published - can anyone provide an online link (that meets Wikipedia guidelines on reliable source) or a reference to the issue # it was published in?

In 2002, Tyson got ranked 72/80 in Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years, but thats in the OVERALL ranking of all weight classes. In May 2007 he ranked 50/50 in ESPN's 50 Greatest Boxers of All-Time.

FYI, here is the complete list: RING Magazine's Top-50 All-Time Heavyweights 1. Muhammad Ali 2. Joe Louis 3. Evander Holyfield 4. George Foreman 5. Larry Holmes 6. Rocky Marciano 7. Sonny Liston 8. Joe Frazier 9. Jack Johnson 10. Jack Dempsey 11. Ezzard Charles 12. James J. Jeffries 13. Jersey Joe Walcott 14. Mike Tyson 15. Gene Tunney 16. Harry Wills 17. Sam Langford 18. John L. Sullivan 19. Max Schmeling 20. Max Baer 21. Floyd Patterson 22. Ken Norton 23. Riddick Bowe 24. Bob Fitzsimmons 25. Joe Jeannette 26. Jimmy Bivins 27. Jerry Quarry 28. Jack Sharkey 29. Archie Moore 30. Sam McVey 31. Cleveland Williams 32. Lennox Lewis 33. Earnie Shavers 34. Jim Corbett 35. Ernie Terrell 36. Michael Spinks 37. Jimmy Young 38. Zora Folley 39. Ingemar Johansson 40. Ron Lyle 41. Tim Witherspoon 42. Jimmy Ellis 43. Mike Weaver 44. Michael Moorer 45. James J. Braddock 46. Tommy Farr 47. Tommy Burns 48. Tommy Gibbons 49. Pinklon Thomas 50. Michael Dokes --Eqdoktor 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The list (at least the top 25) was in the Ring's 1999 Boxing Almanac and Book of Facts. I'm sure it was in one of the magazines in 1998, too, but I can't seem to find the issue. MKil 23:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)MKil

I have that issue. I don't think J Johnson should be in top 10, lost too many bouts, Tyson may be in the top 10, 1985-1990, 37 straight victories is very impressive and competition was tough!

What month in '98 is the issue?

As far as the top 10, Johnson probably belongs. Nat Fleischer said that Johnson was the greatest heavyweight he ever saw. Johnson was by far the best heavyweight up to that time and had a revolutionary style.

Tyson in the top 10? Nope. Competition wasn't all that tough. The toughest fighter he faced was Michael Spinks, and Spinks wasn't all that great at heavyweight. The second toughest was Larry Holmes, who was coming out of a long spell of inactivity. He tore through weak competition in the 80s, lost to Buster Douglas, and then tore through more weak competition in the 90s before being exposed by Holyfield and Lewis. Tyson at #14 is just about right. MKil 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)MKil

Spinks was totally over the hill by then. I have almost every single Ring magazine ever published! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.66 (talk) 21:10, June 8, 2007

Whatever Ring Magazine has stated, you can't ignore the opinions of other notable authorities. So When Mohammed Ali, widely considered the greatest of all time by many authorities, believes Tyson at his peak was the greatest, you can't delete or ignore it. Ring is just one authority among many, and as long as one doesn't cite one's own opinion and one is in fact citing an authority it should not be deleted as anti-Tyson elements keep trying to do. Again, there seems to be a malevolent anti-Tyson campaign running through the entire article and it needs to be addressed.

Sylvester the cat

What the hell? thats funny but unbelieveable as Sylvester the Cat toons stopped being made one year before mike was born, is that wiki vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.11.187 (talk) 07:41, June 6, 2007

WP:DFTT. Regards, Severo^TC 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyson's rape conviction?

Tyson was NOT convicted of Rape, he was convicted of Sexual Assault. mpa 21:12, July 5, 2007

The citation seems both reliable and secure. WP:BLP requires a high level of accuracy on this kind of information, the citation is key... Severo^TC 01:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Indiana Offender Database. It says "rape". How's that for a source? Brainscar 10:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is still inaccurate. The above poster is correct he was convicted of sexual assault, actually two cases of deviate conduct and rape. 68.249.108.81 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tyson disambiguation

I think that the Tyson disambiguation link should be removed from the top of the page. Anybody searching "Mike Tyson" is not confused looking for somebody else named Tyson. 129.22.126.155 23:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Mike Tyson's Height is 5 ft 10 in (178 cm), source http://www.celebheights.com/s/Mike-Tyson-1161.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.163.250 (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike Tyson stats - tale of the tape

It doesn't matter what the sources say if they are just copying the wrong information. The best source is Mike himself, who has said his correct height. Mike Tyson's Height is 178 cm. source http://www.celebheights.com/s/Mike-Tyson-1161.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.163.250 (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Too much vandalism on the stats and the infobox. All of which is the subtle 'change the numbers slightly' variety. Until a better source is found, the following stats will be used in the article. MIKE TYSON - TALE OF THE TAPE (2002)

• Weight: 215lb.
• Height: 5'11½"
• Reach: 71"
• Chest (Normal): 42.5"
• Chest (Expanded): 44"
• Waist: 34"
• Biceps: 17"
• Neck: 20"
• Wrist: 8"
• Calf: 17"
• Ankle: 11"
• Thigh: 26.5"
• Fist: 12"
• Forearm: 14"

Taken from the BBC sports website -[1], Prior to his championship bout with Lennox Lewis. Additional 'tales of the tape' stats from various points of his career:

• http://www.michaeltyson.com/career-record.html
• 2000 Julius Francis fight. [2]
• http://www.ibhof.com/ibhftape.htm

The Box rec boxing encyclopedia CANNOT be used as a reference as it is a user edited wiki [3]. Mike Tyson's height is 5 ft. 11½ in. (1.8 meters.) Any other edits will be reverted. --Eqdoktor 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Eqdoktor : you are aren't a reliable source on height, because you can't convert metric to imperial units. 5'11.5" does not equal 1.8m - use 2 decimal places to convert inches to cm, 1" = 2.54cm, for an acceptable level of accuracy (though even with one decimal place you are wrong). The other problem is that Mike Tyson is shorter than 5'11.5", and tale of the tape heights are variable and therefore inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.76.250 (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Its not intuitive but thats Wikipedia for you... --Eqdoktor 10:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are 100% wrong about everything. None of your arguments hold water. 1. you can't convert units. 2. you say that boxrec CANNOT be used as a reference, even though it IS used as a reference in this article. 3. You haven't demonstrated that the BBC link is better than boxrec. I'm changing it, if you want to change it back you have to delete all boxrec references from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.191.197 (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tyson's height

I don't agree with 5ft 11.5 as being Mike Tyson's height. I look at the source they have used in the article, which is a youtube video. In the video, Tyson is not even standing properly or close to the scale. We all know that Mike Tyson is short and being 5ft 11.5 ( 180cm) is far past the average height. He is shorter than that. He is around 5'9" or at most 5'10". But not more than that. Allen Iverson is only 6ft and he's way taller than Mike Tyson. So how do you explain that? Tyson said himself that he considered himself a midget, so why would he say that if he really is 5'11.5". I urge this part of the article to be revised thoroughly and his height rectified.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.195.119 ([[User talk:{[[User:149.125.195.119}|149.125.195.119}]] ([[User talk:149.125.195.119}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/149.125.195.119}|contribs]] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=149.125.195.119}

WHOIS])|talk]]) 15:35, August 30, 2007

Haven't we settled this already. Numerous sources (including the tale of the tape before most of Tyson's fights) present Mike Tyson's height at 5'11.5". He is not a short person. He appears to be shorter because of his stocky build. Also consider most of Tyson's opponents are well over 6'0. So in Mike's world maybe he is a midget. In the real world he is 5'11.5". --DreamsAreMadeOf 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

allen iverson is 5'11 max. he is listed as 6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.152.13 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He measured himself in 2005 and declared he was a 'pathetic' 5ft 10. So 5'11 estimates don't make any sense. In fact, his own claim of 5'10 probably means around 5'9.5. Plus, he has been presented a few times at 5'9 in the ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. A verifiable source? Your interpretation of Tyson's purported claims with no reference falls short of verifiable (no pun intended). We can debate forever what Tyson's "true" height is. It is about what information you can verify with accurate sources. The vast majority of sources list Mike at 5'11.5".--DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Allen Iverson is about 5'11. Mike Tyson is about 5'9.5. He's definitly not 5'11.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.245.125 (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On boxrec (one of the most respectable and accurate websites on boxing) Tyson is listed as being 5ft10. http://www.boxrec.com/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.133.232 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda funny Tyson is still listed as 5'11.5". Did anyone see him in the Hangover ? He looked 5'9" tops ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shady19 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Court

Tyson went to court in late august. WHAT HAPPEND!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.83.120.99 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No news showing up on Google. My guess is that it has been postponed or the case has had a continuance .--Eqdoktor 09:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tyson's punch force

Could somebody please edit that Tyson punch was tested on year 2002 before match with Lennox Lewis and it was 7000 Newtons and had 85 % chance of causing brain damage. Here is the source: http://ps2.gamezone.com/news/05_20_02_08_21PM.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleSamPatriot (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken back?

Any reliable information that can be presented about Tyson allegedly breaking his back? Doesn't seem likely, but he admits this himself in a post-fight interview. I'm guessing he was exaggerating. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw47gXsDwjw --1000Faces (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this

"Tyson unified the belts in the splintered heavyweight division in the late 1980s" needs to be re-worded. Buc (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When Tyson came along, the main heavyweight belts (WBA, WBC, IBF), were all held by different fighters. He defeated each of the holders in turn, unifying the championship again. SteveO (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

His pet that was killed

what was the story about his pet who was killed when he was a young man? i think this story brought a sensitive side to mike which is lacking in this whole article. although very controversial, mike tyson was not as cold-blooded as he is made out to be.

p.s. redacted per WP:BLP by Jons63 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC), what was the story again? i read it here a year or two ago

his pet was named julius... i forget if it was a pigeon or not. 71.162.152.13 (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)cid obviously mike tyson has some rage, and issues... but this whole article says absolutely nothing about positive things he has done or a true caring side of him. that is my problem. mike tyson has made mistakes, but that does NOT dignify putting nothing positive on a website that is probably read by all people on the internet who are interested in learning about mike tyson (if i am looking for general information about a person then wikipedia is the first place i go... this is probably customary for all internet browsers - it is a good source for a basic understanding). he is still a human being (and probably a product of his environment)... and even if it isn't posted, i want to know the story personally. so can someone who remembers it all post on here? 1. the pets name was julius (dont know the type of pet but i believe it to be a pigeon) 2. it was killed by someone (a truck driver i think) 3. mike got mad and beat up the guy or did something that shows even at a young age he had insane physical prowess but also had true empathy for other creatures - creates probably of which he related to the most since he perceived himself as a loner (or was a loner for that matter)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.152.13 (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When Tyson was a child, one of his pigeons was deliberately killed by an older boy. Best name (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Record consecutive knockouts?

Is this a record for heavyweights or all pro fighters? Is it a record from the start of a pro career? Did Marciano hold the record?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavyweight LaMar Clark had 43 straight wins by stoppage after winning his first fight on points. --LiamE (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From the start of a career its not a heavyweight record, I had a quick look at likely candidate and the second one I looked at, Earnie Shavers had 27 straight KO's from the start of his career. --LiamE (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen lately on t.v. Mike Tyson broke Rocky Marciano's record of 16 consecutive knockouts, now Mike Tyson's record could have been broken byLamar Clark or Earnie Shavers but Mike Tyson did break Marciano's record. The K.O. King (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

TV is not always right. Check out Earnie Shavers and [LaMar Clark] to see the problem with your hypothesis. Their knockout streaks ended before Tyson's started.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know TV is not always right I just don't know much about Earnie Shavers. I do know Tyson beat Marciano's record though. The K.O. King (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Tyson's KO record WAS for the Heavyweight division. The K.O. King (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How could it be when Shavers has a better record, created before Tyson fought? --LiamE (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

His aggressive, intimidating...

The sentence that begins "His aggressive, intimidating..." in the 2nd para of version [[4]] is engaging and captures what made him notable. It's a bit peacockish, but is there any interest in polishing and sourcing this so it can be included?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. I removed it earlier. Feel free to put it back. Tyson's intimidation was a huge part of his success. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tyson's family

The recent additions about Tyson's family need some clean-up and improved referencing. Some of the additions are good but some of these thing don't belong in the article (ex. names of his niece and nephews). Where do we draw the line on what to include?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct; there should be limits on what to put in an article. For many years no one was aware of the relationship and support that Mike sibling provided. It was like his family did not exist. I have followed Mike's career for awhile and wanted to bring a human side to him and I think mentioning his family lets readers know that there is more to Mike Tyson then what the media portrays. He has family nieces, nephews, and siblings, who cares and love him as Mike Tyson the uncle, brother and not Mike Tyson the boxer.--Ladytysonfan (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Record consecutive knockouts 2

Mike Tyson's 19 consecutive knockout record is for knockouts by a heavyweight champion to start a career. I saw it on an ESPN Mike Tyson dvd. Earnie Shavers had 27 consecutive knockouts but was not a heavyweight champion. The K.O. King (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the dispute been settled? The K.O. King (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tyson does not hold the record for most consecutive knockouts at the start of a career by someone who was eventually a heavyweight champion. That mark is held by Vitali Klitschko, who started his career 27-0 with 27 knockouts. He was WBC champ from 2004 until 2005 (and also WBO champ, if you consider that relevant). The streak ended in 2000 when his fight with Chris Byrd was stopped due to a shoulder injury. For source, see Klitschko's boxrec page [5] or this article on another boxer who fell short of tying the mark [6]. Anson2995 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if the WBO wasn't considered a relevant division, then Joe Calzaghe and David Haye wouldn't have been the undisputed champions of the super-middleweight and cruiserweight divisions, respectively. Of, course, I know that Haye is no longer undisputed.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then Klitschko holds the record Tyson is in second. The K.O. King (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is notable enough to be included in the article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SaskatchewanSenator, it is not a notable record. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Never said it was notable just wanted to settle the dispute. The K.O. King (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WWF

Why no mention of his participation with the WWF? 67.68.39.194 (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's in this article: Mike Tyson in popular culture.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs a source, probably from some episodes of WWF Superstars, but it should bear mentioning here or in the pop culture article that Tyson was originally scheduled to be a guest referee on an episode of Saturday Night's Main Event for a match involving Randy Savage, until his loss to Buster Douglas; Douglas replaced him in that match and ended up punching Savage just as Tyson would do to Michaels at Wrestlemania years later. 72.154.222.19 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Youngest man to lose the Heavyweight crown

Should we mention that Mike Tyson was the youngest man to lose the Heavyweight title? The K.O. King (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well should we? The K.O. King (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it could be important. It would be an easy edit. . . "youngest man to win and lose a heavyweight title" I am almost certain he was the youngest to lose the title, but a source would help. Thanks. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Result of Jesse Ferguson fight

Most sources of Tyson's career record list this Feb. 16, 1986 fight as a 6 round TKO. The article Mike Tyson#Rise to stardom explains the circumstances of the stoppage and eventual ruling (although it is unsourced). BoxRec says "the official result given by the New York State Athletic Commission is a TKO." I think the boxing record should list the result as a TKO.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I changed the article to reflect 19 kos. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The table will need to be changed too. I was going to wait a little longer for comments.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it because the article has been bouncing back and forth between 17 and 19. I never knew the reason people were changing it. I believe the table is correct with 44 kos though. Thanks.--DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Is a mug shot appropriate for the main image on this page? I am not really sure what the guidelines are about this. Any thoughts?

Irish connection?

I remember in the late 1980's hearing on TV or reading in the papers about Mike Tyson's Grandfather being a Kirkpatrick or Kilpatrick and from Wexford, Ireland? Then I read this article and see that his father was a Kirkpatrick. I think it is important about background, after all we dont take after strangers, we take after our ancestors (our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, etc) - Culnacréann-(talk) 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this appropriate for Wiki?

"Without Rooney, Tyson's skills quickly deteriorated and he became more prone to looking for the one-punch knockout, rather than using the combinations that brought him to stardom.[23] He also began to head-hunt, neglecting to attack the opponent's body first.[24] In addition, he lost his defensive skills and began to barrel straight in toward the opponent, neglecting to jab and slip his way in.[25]"

It is sourced but it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.124.18 (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

you want it to a encyclopedia? ok Mike tyson Boxer and youngest Box-Champ ever nothing more of course too short,but if you want only nothing to know about something,than that would be enough!! So let the people write whatever they think is important i´m reading wiki because of these —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.94.215 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

What is this edit about Tyson being "co-inventor of the Hepatitis C Virus" in the first papragraph? I think the original source needs to be recited and edited.--Behaelter (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Convert to Islam

There ought to be more about Tyson's conversion to Islam. I am certain that if he was a (good) role model, wikipediers wouldn't shy away from his conversion.

I agree. At the least, his adopted name should be in brackets beside his legal name.

Fighting record

Should be in chronological order. Somebody care to change that? --perelly (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

FA

This is a great article, it could easily become a Featured Article. I recommend that it be put up for peer review and then to WP:FAC. NancyHeise ^talk 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It was just demoted from the list of good articles, I suggest holding off the peer review for now. --Amalthea 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Danford

There is a section on Paul Danford that is uncited. I am skeptical of a Danford beating Tyson in a bar fight. Please cite the source or fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That section was already thrown out a half hour before your comment. You might have seen a cached version of it. Thanks for keeping your eyes open! Cheers, Amalthea 23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Legacy rank error?

In the Legacy section of this article it states "In Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years, released in 2002, Tyson was ranked at #72." However, upon clicking the link associated with this statement, he is listed as 66. Clarification please?

Professional boxing record

Why was his professional record removed from the article?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tyson's entire record is found at the boxrec link. It is redundant to add the record here. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot access the boxrec link. So please re add the professional record. Also having it in wikipedia makese better sense because you can go to the opponents pages just by clicking link. Boxrec link has never been accessible to me. They seem to have some network or bad gateway problem and not accessible across the globe. I request to please re enable the professional record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmittal (talk • contribs) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Unclear naming

Its not clear from the article why his last name is Tyson since the article states that neither of his parents had the last name Tyson. Does anybody know why this is the case? If so they should add it to the article since its confusing.Chhe (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Years before Mike Tyson's birth, his mother married Purcell Tyson; mother and Purcell divorced; mother retained surname Tyson. Mother had Tyson by Jimmy Kirkpatrick. Mother never married Kirkpatrick, who abandoned his son. Tyson's birth certificate states his father was Purcell, even though he wasn't. Best name (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Death of his young child

Hope someone enters this into the main article soon. It's not every day you lose a four-year-old child. Deepest condolences and blessings to "Iron" Mike and his entire family over the tragic and heartbreaking loss of his little daughter, Exodus. DonL (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is in the Personal life section of the article. Best name (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fix

Someone fix his name and record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.231.36 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming is incorrect? Information yes (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Get a better picture of Tyson at the top of the page. It looks like a badly taken photo. I think there should be picture of him as the dominating boxer that he was, it's a better representation of him than the older, tired-looking Tyson in the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.127.120 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hangover?

No mention of his cameo appearance in the film The Hangover? TheHYPO (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is in Mike Tyson in popular culture--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's the list?

The article writes:"He is ranked #16 on Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time".Where's this list?Who are the otheres?How big is this list?Agre22 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)agre22

I did a search and found various reprints of the list. Here's one. [7] I can't find the original online, but all the reprints are consistant. It would probably be good if someone with access to the print article could add the reference info.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

King persuades Tyson to dump Kevin Rooney, not to trust Whites

A pivotal moment in his career was his decision to split with Bill Cayton and sign with Don King. Tyson was closer to Cayton's partner and co-manager, Jimmy Jacobs, who died sometime before this momentous decision and felt King could offer him better terms. King persuades Tyson not to trust Whites and hence, dump Kevin Rooney, who helped Tyson hone his craft after D'Amato's death, firstly with Teddy Atlas, then on his own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.9.194 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tyson supported D'Amato's partner until her death

Tyson showed financial support for Camille Ewald until her death in 2001, aged 96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.9.194 (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Seeing the difference that a week of semi-protection made, makes me wonder if this article should be permanently semi-protected. The vandalism that provoked that temporary semi-protection is typical.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is "maecus barden"?

Did someone vandalize the page or am I missing something...?70.251.230.160 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The writer/s of his biography are apologists for rape

I was absolutely disgusted to read the content of the Tyson page devoted to his conviction for raping Desiree Washington.

Why did they omit the fact that Washington left the hotel room with two types of STDs and internal injuries after her ordeal? No woman asks for this.

What do the writers mean by Washington's "history of leading men on"? What exactly constitutes "leading men on"?

What these people fail to understand is this. Supposing Washington did want to have sexual intercourse with Tyson at his hotel room that night. This does not give the green light for any man (famous or not) to inflict sexual violence upon another human being.

Don't these men have daughters?

Not all rapes happen in dark alleys at 3 am.

I had considered funding Wikipedia - I will not now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leamington spa 2 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Marriage to Givens

Please correct the ending date of his marriage to Robin Givens. This article states "His first marriage was to actress Robin Givens from February 7, 1988 to February 14, 1988.[27]" The article goes on to state "Matters came to a head when Tyson and Givens gave a joint interview with Barbara Walters on the ABC TV newsmagazine show 20/20 in September 1988...". The date of reference 27 is the NYT June 2, 1989 which says the couple was officially divorced yesterday. That would make the marriage ending June 1, 1989. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.234.12.79 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and inappropriate tone in Professional boxing record section

Neutrality dispute and inappropriate tone tags were added to the Professional boxing record section, in April. Please identify the specific concerns.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Should one be listed under Category:American rapists if he's an American who's guilty of rape?

I recently edited the Mike Tyson bio to include the Category:American rapists [8], but this was reverted by User:SarekOfVulcan [9], whose edited sum was

(Undid revision 365554367 by Zloyvolsheb (talk) not what he's primarily known for).

However, it's pretty notable, and quite well known, that Mike Tyson was convicted of rape smack dab in the middle of his professional career -- for Christ's sake, it was even obliquely parodied in one Simpsons episode. As noted in the edit summary left for my edit, the article in its current state already includes this information (even as far as mentioning it in the lede, which is probably a bit over the top). At the risk of repeating myself... his criminal record has appeared in his biographies, in magazine articles, news references, and so forth.

Lastly, Tyson is also listed under Category:American vegans as well as Category:Prisoners and detainees of Indiana, even though it's pretty clear that he's far less known as either a follower of vegan dietary practices or a prisoners and detainee of Indiana than as a dude with a rape conviction. The principles of the project state that Wikipedia is not censored. The labor behind our project is carried out based on verifiable sources, and not to promote the subject.

Until June 2nd, I had been kind of convinced that we write our articles based on everything that is notable, sourced, and WP:NPOV, and not just solely whatever we consider as being only the foremost aspect of the subject, and that such thinking was no less applicable to celebrity boxer than other mortals.

Comments appreciated. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• We definitely don't include everything that's sourced. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorization for the most-on-point discussion of this. I oppose inclusion of the category -- his primary notability is for his boxing, not his criminality. Mary Kay Letourneau, on the other hand, is only notable for her affair with her student, so Category:American sex offenders is not inappropriate there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Rape is one of the things he is notorious for, and notoriety is a close kin to notability. Certainly, if you say "Mike Tyson" to me, the things that come to my mind are "ear biting", "boxer", "wife beater", and "rapist", in that order. "Wife beater" I can see excluding on the grounds that while there were plenty of accusations, there was never a conviction. Being a vegan or having converted to Islam are trivial compared to the other three, and they are well supported. "Ear biter" would be a pretty sparse category, "boxer" is already there, and some version of "rapist" should be added.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think there should be a category inclusion for his rape conviction, because Mike Tyson is one of the best-known convicted rapists in the US. Categories, as I understand them, work both ways--they have to describe a notable fact about the person included, and the person included has to be a notable member of the category. I would suggest both are true in Tyson's case. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• RfC Comment Tyson is known for several things and one of them is being a convicted rapist. It is notable and widely sourced and he deserves to be included in the category of American rapists.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• RfC I did not even know he was a vegan. But I certainly knew he was convicted of rape. Now, I do not believe that everyone who is convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime, however if WP policy is that those convicted are to be considered guilty as far as categories and whatnot are concerned (which I think is a wise policy) then he should definitely be included in the category. Colincbn (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• I want to offer food for thought. I think the application of the category is a possible violation of WP:BLP. Yes he was convicted, yes it was in the tabloids, yes the mention of the events surrounding all of it merit inclusion in the article. However, the category, American Rapists is just too much. This is a man who served a significant amount of time in jail, lost his career and has suffered humiliation for a long time. Does he really need to have the American Rapist category on his article for the rest of his life? To keep it going in that direction, I sarcastically suggest that someone create a category called New York Area Negro Rapists. It is just more than is neccesary. Does the woman he is convicted of raping need to have it for that matter? Does she want to be labeled by that for the rest of her life? There are real human beings affected by Wikipedia articles and categories and we need to have some respect for other people. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe your sarcasm is misplaced -- and highly unnecessary. You need to point out how placing this category on the page is a violation of WP:BLP. That Tyson is a convicted rapist is neither gossip nor a criticism likely to be challenged -- it is a biographical fact present in his biography because of his own actions. All of us are responsible for our actions and carry them throughout our lives. There is no magic way out by becoming a prominent boxer, celebrity, Mother Theresa, or whatever. If Tyson is otherwise a noble homme and doesn't rape anyone anymore, that's all fine and good, but the conviction is a matter of recorded fact and no less a real part of the subject's life as any other element. Your argument seems to be that we cannot categorize Tyson alongside other notable rapists because that would be "stigmatizing" -- but if that is the train of thought, shouldn't we remove the information from the article, since it's the actions that are part of Tyson's life and his biographical facts - much more so than the category that one logically deducts from them - that is the real source of whatever associated stimga is may fall upon on the eye? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Zloyvolsheb- I offered it as food for thought. I don't argue that it is part of his notablity or that he doesn't belong in the category so long as it exists. He did enought to stigmatize himself. Thats done. I just think that some of the editing on Wikipedia is just disconnected from day to day life. You obviously gave it some thought and I appreciate it. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• RfC The argument that it's not a part of his notability is entirely unconvincing. If you do a Google News Archive search on "Mike Tyson" "convicted" "rape", you'll turn up almost 15 thousand articles. That's pretty notable. And of course, that's just newspapers. It doesn't include the massive television news coverage of it that occurred also.

Quote from WP:BLPCAT: For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. There are four criteria listed there. The last three are objective facts and it cannot be disputed at all that they do indeed apply in this case. One could say that the first one, whether it is relevant to his notability, is something of a matter of opinion. But again, I'd point to the sheer volume of secondary source coverage, the fact that it was literally front page news in major papers around the United States (maybe around the world?) when it happened and the fact that this article itself has its own section about it, as pretty strong indicators that it's relevant to his notability.

Quote from WP:COP: Limit the number: Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. This speaks to the argument about the rape not being the individual thing for which Tyson is most notable. The guideline clearly indicates there is no need to restrict categorization to only the person's single most notable thing; if there's an unrelated category that also happens to be notable (a la 15,000 articles, perhaps?) about them in its own right, then that category is appropriate.

Elmmapleoakpine's concerns really go to whether there ought to be such a blanket category at all, which is an entirely different question from the issue to be resolved in this discussion. As long as such a category does exist, I don't see any question at all that it applies to this article. Mwelch (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to think about it. I don't think the issue I raise is an entirely different question. The facts are fully verified he is convicted of raping someone. If the category exists, he should be in it. My "food for thought" was to remind us that we are dealing with real people and victims can be just as stigmatized as perpetrators. Do with that what you will. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral edit?

Over the past week, I've reverted this edit by Jack Collin Anorue (talk · contribs) several times. Some of my issues with this edit are:

• It lists "Iron Mike" as his sole nickname, several paragraphs above where it's repeated (and sourced) along with another sourced nickname.
• It states that he "reach[ed] the pinnacle of his career" at the Spinks fight, without sourcing that opinion.
• "However, fame, fortune, marital troubles, and Don King would cause the champ to lose focus and eventually cause Tyson to engage in his ill-prepared fight with Buster Douglas" -- uncited opinion

I could go on, but you get the idea. Should this edit be reverted in full, or is there enough valid, cited data to leave it in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• This is simply a case of actually identifying the sources. Honestly it is a joke to say that Tyson is not commonly known as "Iron" Mike Tyson, as this is his introduction on boxrec.com as well as all of his fight introductions since 1986. Just watch the fights.
• The source for "Tyson reaching the pinnacle of his career (or the height of his career) is the ESPN Classic Ringside special: Mike Tyson 2-Disc Knockout Edition; with ANALYSIS by Brian Kenny (the host) and boxing analysts Bert Sugar & Teddy Atlas. Not only is this source legitamate in my claim I encourage you to watch it: SarekOfVulcan, its very informative. You have to understand that this claim is no where near ludacris, thus was when Tyson was undisputed champion and he just beat a previously unbeaten fighter Michael Spinks in 1988 who had a great record of opponents; this was Tyson's last big win before his loss of the title to Buster Douglas in 1990. I just don't see how much more convincing you need on that issue
• Also in the film/documentary Tyson (2008) it is noted that these issues: fame, fortune, marital troubles, and Don King, were in fact the reason for Tyson's loss to Douglas in 1990. There's got to be point where the technicality issues have got to cease, those reasons for Tyson's ill-preparedness are quite commonly known by many boxing experts, this is not new or ridiculous.

Note: This is not a case of vandalism at all; please regard my claims not as opnionated non-sourced claims because they're in fact quite sourced and quite understood by not only the general public but by boxing experts and Tyson himself. Thank you Jack Collin Anorue (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the third paragraph already mentions that his nickname is "Iron Mike." It doesn't need to be stated again in the lead.
• Whether or not the opinion about the pinnacle of his career is attributed to someone (you are getting closer), I don't think it belongs in the lead.
• Details about the turmoil in Tyson's life surrounding the Douglas fight should not be presented as the reason for the loss to Douglas.

There are problems with neutrality, grammar, etc. More importantly, I don't think the edit improves the article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Its very appropiate because thats what Tyson has always been called by everyone hes always been introduced as 'Iron' Mike Tyson. The introduction is a much more appropriate place for the nickname to be addressed, rather than the third paragraph. I don't know how you you can even argue with that.
• SaskatchewanSenator, you just said, "I don't think it belongs..." even though you didn't acknowledge the 'opinion' as false you used your own opinion to say it doesn't belong. Once again addressing when Tyson was considered at the height of his career is quite approriate. I don't see whhere there is any bias or non-neutrality and I highly, highly doubt anyone would contest the claim that Tyson's pinnacle was after the Spinks win.
• When dealing with a complicated figure like Mike Tyson, who was very talented (as any boxing historian would agree) it is important to know what caused the great upset of Tyson's loss to Douglas. The reasons for Tyson's loss are valid, and uncontested.

NOTE: SaskatchewanSenator first questioned the sources of the claims in them thereby making them sound like ridiculous and highly opinionated claims; once the sources and validity were properly defended, he decided to reduce them to his own opinion by say they don't belong by his own standards, when in fact they are RELAVENT (appropriately belong there) and VALID (sourced). What more is needed? There is nothing biased about identifying someones height in their career, it makes Tyson look no worse nor any better. Same thing goes for providing legitmate information about Tyson's reason for his loss, Tyson is no better for being negatively influenced, its just a fact, and once again these facts are VALID, why should the public be denied from that information. Thank you. Jack Collin Anorue (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Iron Mike" isn't a nickname like 'Sugar' Ray Leonard where Leonard is more often referred to with the nickname than without, so I don't think "Iron Mike" belongs in the lead sentence. Maybe it should be moved up. Do you have any other ideas about where it should be?
• Tyson's 'pinnacle' is an opinion, and putting that opinion in the lead is not appropriate.
• That explanation for Tyson's loss to Douglas is one point of view. The article must maintain a neutral point of view.

Neither of those opinions is attributed.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly, I am baffled that you think Tyson is not addressed as "Iron Mike," he has so in almost EVERY televised fight hes had and is to this day addressed that on TV shows that he appears on, movies; its very much like "Sugar" Ray Leonard. I feel its appropriate to be in the first line because we are dealing with a professional boxer and that indeed was his alias, all the others were dropped for "Iron Mike" Tyson; and when the reader is first introduced to a boxer it is only normal to be aware of they're alias if they have one.
• I just don't agree with your position on opinion and technicality, it is quite well known for any boxing historian and is directly addressed in the ESPN Tyson special by three famous boxing analysists (whom i addressed in previous comments) and Larry Holmes. This is a general opinion that can almost be adopted as a fact if you understand the aspects of Tyson's achievements. Most viewers of wikipedia pages read the brief introduction and it is essential that they gain the basic vital knowledge (which is then expanded on in the entire page) and understanding Tyson's pinnacle of his career is indeed a vital piece of information in assessing Tyson.
• Once again that one point of view is not biased and is a very valid and educated approach when addressing a complicated figure like Tyson. There is no bias in that sentence because Tyson himself admitted to these things leading to his loss, this does not make tyson any better because it mean Tyson could not handle the outside pressure and let that pressure affect his performance. This is not a single point of view and i assure you it a common view and has been known and understood and explained many times.

NOTE: I do not wish to be complicated, however, I feel that the public should not be withheld from the truth just because of some technicality issues, and yes I understand you're trying to be reasonable as well, but please understand my position in this matter. thank you Jack Collin Anorue (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan has requested outside opinions on this matter. I take no position on the text itself. WP does have a position on verifiability, though. If an opinion is commonly held, then it should be very easy to verify. If it is the opinion of one, or a few, experts, then it should also be easy to verify and to attach to those very experts. As the views expressed have been challenged in good faith, providing proper sources and citations would answer the challenge. Editors' personal opinions about the accuracy of the text do not. A WP article is not an article in a sports magazine. Significant nicknames are noted, but the people are referred to by their commonly used surnames once the nickname has been explained. Bielle (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, with the name, the wiki page is on a BOXER, but ok I understand. And the two other points I simply don't have the time nor the will to properly identify the specific point in which legitamate statements were made regard Tyson. HOWEVER, BIELLE, I HAVE POINTED OUT SPECIFIFALLY THE SOURCES TO MY STATEMENTS, AND IF YOU CHECKED THEM YOU'D SEE THEY'RE IN FACT LEGITAMITE. Also, Bielle, while you may be an unbiased editor, you also do't know much about Tyson who is a complicated figure, and if you did then you would have quite a wealth of knowlegde and understanding of Tyson. Once again, watch "ESPN Classic Ringside: Mike Tyson 2-Disc Knockout Edition (2006), with Brian Kenny, BERT SUGAR (seriously Sugar is a very famous and respected boxing historian and personally agreed about Tyson's pinnacle in his career was after the Spinks fight), Teddy Atlas, and Larry Holmes. The other source would be Sony Picture Classics: Tyson - A James Toback Film, featuring Mike Mike Tyson (2009). See the both of you act like my two statements regarding Tyson;s height in his career and reason for downfall are illegitimate personally biased claimes, when you're completely wrong; you both don't know much about Tyson IN DEPTH, (what I mean is, you only know the blunt facts, but facts can still be misguiding), and I on the other hand do understand him and have legitimate support, however there is no online article, etc. for me to source however I've given you both the sources here, I promise you would agree with me that I'm not making a fantastical claim, and yes I have attached the sources and maybe I will give you EXACT LINES in which these EXPERTS (and yes they are experts, which it seems you MAY not know already) make statements which directly uphold my chosen statements in my edot of the Mike Tyson page. I apologize if I sound irratated but I am; the world is so prim and proper its hard to expose the truth (regardless whether I sound like some narrow-minded idiot, which I am not if you just give me a chance) and therefore yes I am irratated. If there is anything else specific that I need to do to VERIFY the to issue being (1) Tyson's height in his boxing career, which I claimed was after his Spinks fight in 1988, and (2) reasons for Tyson's ill-prepared loss to Douglas in 1990. Thank you Jack Collin Anorue (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are films (movies) and TV shows which, though labelled as documentaries, are designed as entertainment, to make a director's point about the subject and are seldom lauded for their historical or biographical accuracy. Even when individuals are "quoted" in their real-life personas, the quotes can be heavily manipulated as to context and thus as to meaning. (That this is also often true of print materials only underscores the need to find reliable sources.) Perhaps there are films that are also reliable sources as WP defines such things. That can be confirmed. Take the titles to reliable sources noticeboard and make your arguments there. Please note that I am not challenging your opinions; they may be all of right, true and accurate. However, WP needs more than that. Hundreds of articles have been written about Tyson. If, as I have said above, these views are as commonly held as you have stated, then we should be able to find multiple sources of people saying the same things. What I, personally, do or don't know about Tyson is not the issue; neither is what you do or don't know, except that, knowing more (and you could not know less than I do about the subject) you should be able to find these multiple good sources easily. More words here will not help. Bielle (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I echo all of Bielle's intelligent comments on this thread. The only way to settle this matter is to cite sources, in the article, that meet the requirements of WP:RS. In the meantime, any contentious text without a reliable source, can and should be removed, according to WP:BLP which say: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Results for Mike Tyson v.s Jesse Ferguson

Mike Tyson v.s Jesse Ferguson: Mike won when Ferguson was disqualified for clenching, and not following the referee's direction when asked to release Tyson from his grip, not by Technical Knock Out. Ironically this fight ended Tyson's Knock Out streak at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.134.77 (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)