Talk:Mike Tyson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Mike Tyson has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. January 2005–March 2007
  2. April 2007–


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The ring magazine

Whoever keeps putting that magazine editors opinion in here could you please stop? 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, SeveroTC 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.

[edit] 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, SeveroTC 10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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... SeveroTC 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Mike Tyson stats - tale of the tape

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: 225lb. (approx.)
  • 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:

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)

[edit] 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 (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Copyedit

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)