Talk:Mike Tyson's tattoos

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.

Mike Tyson's tattoos has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 17, 2023. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Mike Tyson's tattoos appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in a lawsuit over Mike Tyson's face tattoo, a judge found it "just silly" to say that tattoos cannot be copyrighted, but refused to delay The Hangover Part II?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Tyson's tattoos.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that before Mike Tyson's iconic face tattoo, he got prison tattoos of leftist revolutionaries Che Guevara and Mao Zedong to show his anger at the government and society? Source: Toback 2008, 58:51
- ALT1: ... that in a lawsuit over Mike Tyson's iconic face tattoo, a judge found it "just silly" to say tattoos can't be copyrighted, but refused to delay The Hangover Part II? Source: McNary 2011
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry

Moved to mainspace by Tamzin (talk). Self-nominated at 02:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mike Tyson's tattoos; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Reviewing this below.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: for the main hook proposed and on ALT1 (which is from a full-length documentary that I don't have easy access to). The article was moved to mainspace on March 2 and meets the length requirements. Earwig shows no copyvios and in my check through sources, I didn't see any close paraphrasing. QPQ has been completed.

This is the first time that I've ever done a review where it's so clear to me that an image would make this an even better hook, in my opinion. We have a free image at File:BoxingHallOfFame 6 MikeTysonadmiringaMuhammadAliRobe cropped.jpg that I feel would be illustrative for both hooks and would meet all the DYK criteria for its inclusion. Either way, both hooks are good to go (great work). Nomader (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader: First, thanks for the review. :) I'd love to use the image; however, I didn't propose it out of copyright concerns. As the article discusses, the coypright status of tattoos is unresolved in the United States. Absent clear legal guidance, the working approach seems to be one similar to c:COM:DEMINIMIS logic—assuming that photos containing all-rights-reserved tattoos are permissible when the tattoo's presence is incidental, but potentially infringing when discussing the tattoo itself (which is why I've included a quasi-FUR in a hidden comment in the article). Now, in this case, Whitmill has indicated he has no intent to limit Tyson's "right to use or control his identity", and that statement may well estop him from bringing any legal action against someone who photographs Tyson; nonetheless, I'm not convinced that using this image, in the context of the "warrior" tattoo, can truly be called free, in the same way that this image of me is freely licensed, but a crop focusing only on the quote from Dune on my right arm would be infringing (outside fair use). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I started writing a rather long screed about how Tyson is a public figure, and therefore, there should have been no expectation by the artist that his work would not be photographed by fans and the art on Tyson's face used in such a manner... and then remembered that I am not a lawyer (although I sure felt like one when after reading your article, proposed using the photo anyways). I'll defer to your good evidence and judgement here and agree that the image shouldn't be used. Still, really fascinating article and great work on it! Nomader (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAQ: Hypothetically asked questions

Some things that came up while working on this:

Are Tyson's tattoos, as a group, notable?: Some sources discuss them all as a group; see Inked 2020 and Roche 2020. Admittedly, most don't. Tyson's face tattoo clearly passes WP:GNG, with significant coverage in academic and news media sources. There's definitely enough coverage of the portrait tattoos that they should be covered somewhere per WP:DUE, and alongside the face tattoo seems a more logical place than Tyson's biography. So the rest is just a matter of scoping, not notability.
Speaking of scoping, should this be merged into the main Tyson article and the Hangover Part II article?: This is, as of its writing, the only article on Wikipedia about an individual tattoo or set of tattoos, so this is a fair question. However, I think it should be clear from reading it that it contains well-sourced, DUE encyclopedic content that would not fit well in other articles.
What's the copyright status of the image of Tyson's face?: See discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Tyson's tattoos.
How much weight is due regarding Tyson's rape conviction?: Exactly one clause, linking to the relevant section in his article, in my opinion. Most sources mention what he was in prison for: the rape of Desiree Washington. Most sources (other than broader biographical works) go into no more detail than that. So it seems DUE to say what he was convicted of and leave it at that.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mike Tyson's tattoos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 11:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

b. (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

1: Prose & MoS

The American former boxer Mike Tyson at beginning of lead, can we remove "the"?
I'd like to have Marxist and communist linked, but it would end up a WP:SEAOFBLUE so probably best unlinked
Clifton Brown in The New York Times describes the Ashe tattoo as "a contradiction" with Tyson's "fits of rage" describe or described? Idk. Describe is active. I always come up with this issue myself when writing. ie: Sock v SPI WAS a decision of the Court/IS a decision of the court? Is it still? Was it? School me on this one because I am tired of asking myself which one is correct.
Could we change When Tyson got the face tattoo, he agreed in writing that all drawings, artwork, and photographs of it belonged to Whitmill's Paradox-Studio of Dermagraphics, an uncommon step in the tattoo industry to Tyson took an unusual step in the tattoo industry when he agreed in writing, prior to getting the face tattoo, that all sketches, artwork, and photographs of it belonged to Whitmill's Paradox-Studio of Dermagraphics.. Just think it flows better
Nimmer's declaration was then excluded because it was legal opinion could be Nimmer's declaration was then excluded because it was a legal opinion
Done Sure
On June 6, Warner Bros. told the court that, in the event the dispute was not resolved, it would alter the appearance of the tattoo in the movie's home release; on June 20 it announced a settlement with Whitmill under undisclosed terms I would love to lose the semi-colon, have a full stop and capitalise On. I hate semi-colons.
I like them; but agree in this case; Done.
which reflect a person's genealogy change to reflects.
Partly done. Changed ta mōkō (the style) to mōkō (the tattoo, plural in this context), as more accurate; left "reflect" as a result.
Did not know "precedential" was an adjective but it apparently is! A short explanation as to what precedent is may be required for comprehension criteria if progressing to FA, but not needed got GA
Added quote from King to foonote, elaborating slightly.
They furthermore argued I'd change to Further
Done Sure

2b&c: Reliable sources & original research

[10] Y
[26] Y
[32] Y
[43] Y
[63] Y

2d: Copyvio

Fine, only red flags are copy/pasted quotes which are used appropriately and cited as required

3: Breadth & focus

Seems fairly broad in coverage. Nothing major omitted.

Tamzin, while I have noted some issues during the review, none of these in my opinion actually are a barrier to passing the core editorial standards for GA criteria. So, it's up to you which of the prose changes you make, if any. Once you are finished, please ping me and we are good to go on this one. Great work and I learned a few tricks such as "quoting in" for a reference.— MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Importance and Relevance of Information in Digital Marketing and Life

Important information is useful in digital marketing. It is valuable material applicable to life. 185.244.159.26 (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]