This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Freedom of speech This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The sentence "Stevens himself said he was delighted by all the destruction, declaring his old music un-Islamic" is hyperbolic and not at all supported by the referenced article. The article contains the following statement "I am amazed that there are apparently plans to ban my music from the airwaves in America and maybe stop releasing my records[...] Only a few weeks ago, I wrote to the record companies asking that they do precisely that, but they refused because it would not be commercially viable for THEM! God works in mysterious ways." There is no mention of being "delighted at all the destruction" and absolutely no reference to "declaring his old music un-Islamic." Article is here:^[1] RumiNationZ (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources cited in the section about Cat Stevens appearing in the 'The Satanic Verses' are reliable or verifiable. They are purely speculative. Therefore, I have removed that section from the article and also removed the NPOV tag. --BadMojoDE 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a minor edit: Stevens was not considered a "soft pop" singer. He was a folk singer. --BadMojoDE 22:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Stevens was (and to some extent, still is) considered a FOLK singer. What in the world is "soft pop," anyway? How is that different from "soft rock" (or even just "regular pop" for that matter?) Obviously, the Wikipedians warring over this page aren't going to give up on The Satanic Verses issue, but for the love of mud... do not revert back to the "soft pop" thing. Stevens never described himself as anything other than a folk singer. Are Peter Paul & Mary or Bob Dylan classified as "soft pop" singers? Please, leave this alone. BadMojoDE 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't looking at the breadth of Cat Stevens' work if you only classify him as a folk singer. His own website shows his first two albums as being, in his words, "Pop Music". When he was hospitalized for TB, he began to change directions. Similarly, he did the same after Catch Bull at Four, with the addition of synthesizers, polymoog, and the like. See the Majicat fan site-- http://www.majicat.com -- with all the notable articles in it.

Foreigner was his attempt at following the soul trends of Stevie Wonder, as you can check in interviews from Rolling Stone Magazine. Last, after giving up Western music and that scene, he became Yusuf Islam and fell into the category of Islamic Nasheeds and finally, Spoken Word (as in his In Praise of the Last Prophet), and transformed songs in Arabic as well. Finally, in 2006 he began playing his former sounding "Folk Rock", (the sound he had in 1970-74) with the advent of An Other Cup. True, he's best known for soft rock and folk music, but he's got 40+ years of influences by those he listened to and played with over the years, but if I had to pick one genre, he'd follow under "Folk Rock". Listen to his version of The First Cut is the Deepest-- it's on You Tube, and tell me that's "FOLK MUSIC". --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS cited are Juan Cole, History News Network, The Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Rolling Stone magazine, Granada Television and BBC. --tickle me 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we should be speculating on possible motivation, even though there was a source indicated (a source that is not readily available for verification, by the way) - it is someone's opinion and not particularly reliable. Meaning, no one can get into the man's head and figure out what motivated him - perhaps if he was quoted it might work, but not this. It said "some have speculated" - those are weasel words by wikipedia's definition - who are these "some"? I don't think this section adds anything, and since it is POV speculation, I think we're better off without it. As it is, this entire article is quite heavily slanted in one direction, and I think we need to try to keep it as neutral as possible, which is why I moved the Cole material from the intro where it was receiving undue weight and consolidated it with his statements in "criticism". Tvoz |talk 08:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words have meanings. He said what he said and lied about it later, the facts are unequivocal. Arrow740 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - the "possible motivation" section was speculating that he said what he said because he didn't like one of Rushdie's characters in the book, thought by the speculator to be based on Yusuf - this is convoluted and highly speculative. WHo knows why he said what he said - speculating on it doesn't belong here. Take a closer look at the edits - I didn't remove any of the claims about what Yusuf said. Tvoz |talk 08:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "interpreted" in the intro is problematic. Arrow740 09:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any interpretation or OR should be deleted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Bilal character - has Rushdie said that it was based on Yusuf Islam? If not, saying that Yusuf may have been motivated by that is pure speculation of the author of the cited book and is surely interpretation - it does not belong in the article. As for the "interpreted" in the previous intro - I think we need that, because it is less POV than our deciding what the words meant. He disputed it from the beginning, and whether or not that was true is the subject of at least some disagreement - so we need to indicate that in the intro. Let's try "was reported as" instead of "interpreted" then - otherwise you are making a determination (as you did here on talk above) that he was lying. Maybe he was, maybe he was not - we don't take a position on that - we present the facts that we have, we source them and we let the reader decide. By the way, some of the sourcing is rather poorly done - saying New York Times with a date is really not a citation, for example - we need the article name, author, page, and url if possible. URL for NYTimes may be restricted to membership, but you include it anyway for anyone who can access it, and you give complete citation as described for those who cannot. Tvoz |talk 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has "Rushdie said that it was based on Yusuf Islam"? I don't know. I don't know how much he talks about the details of his book. We do know that detailed notes devoted to describing the book (Notes for Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verse p.45) state that the Bilal X is based on Cat Stevens. The notes don't say "it could be" or that "some think it is", just that it is.

We do know that an author of a book on the Satanic Verse incident believes that Cat Stevens may have been influenced by his portrayal in the book. Surely these facts are relevent to the story.

URL s for stories from 1989 may be hard to come by. --BoogaLouie 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times archives go back way farther than 1989. URLs aren't required, but are helpful - NYT is by subscription, but the URL can be added with a note that it's available by subscription at the url. We do need title of article, author, date, and page number if available - saying the newpaper name and the date is not enough. As for the Bilal material - I think the way it has been amended is ok, as it is clear that it's opinion. Tvoz |talk 08:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740 has reverted several attempts I've made to have this article be balanced and neutral, with edit summaries referring to the subject's "lying". This demonstrates his POV, and I'd like to hear what other editors think. I think BoogaLouie's edits to the Bilal section were good, and I tweaked the paragraph but did not remove it again, as the edits satisfied my concern that categorical statements were being made that were actually speculation. Unfortunately, rather than coming to Talk to discuss it, Arrow740 removed my latest edits - I attempted to work with the text that was presented. Therefore I'm adding an NPOV tag, and I'd like to discuss this here. Tvoz |talk 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added a lot of unsourced content in addition to the extraneous "reportedly." Words have meanings. Arrow740 08:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what are you referring to? And thanks for the tip about words having meaning - I have said that regularly all over the encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 08:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, he said what he said. To report what he said only preceeded by "some have interpreted his statements to mean" is intellectually dishonest. Arrow740 06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NPOV tag because I have concerns about the neutrality of this article. My concerns persist, and I am reinstating the tag. If the article is made more neutral I'll remove the tag - at this point my concerns have not been assuaged. Tvoz |talk 06:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe here your objections, specifically. Arrow740 06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, above.Tvoz |talk 07:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the material sourced to Daniel Pipes should be retained. Do you have something in mind that could incorporate that? Arrow740 07:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know Tvoz, what specifically you find objectionable in the article. --BoogaLouie 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was my reply in total, I hope comprehensible, form. Booga's comments (which I have not yet read, and will reply to after I do) are interspersed in the subsection below, but I would prefer my original reply not be broken up and rendered unreadable. And let's try for a more neutral subhead following, ok? I'm not "complaining", I'm answering the question of why I put an NPOV tag on the article.Tvoz |talk 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The insistence on categorically stating that he supported the fatwa, when he claims he did not - seems to me we should say "reportedly" or some such word, as I have added and has been removed, rather than stating that he did support it. Supporting the fatwa is a state of mind, and I think we have to be careful about our own OR creeping into the article. I believe he is in a better position to know what his state of mind was and is than we are. I have no problem including the Bilal section, as I said earlier, but I also have asked if Rushdie makes the claim that Bilal is based on Stevens/Yusuf - Pipes is speculating, and I think it would be more balanced if we had an indication of whether this theory has any support from the author. I am glad to see that the word "theorized" survived after an editor removed it - that helps (I think I added the NPOV tag when Pipes' comment was being treated as a definitive statement). In general, I think this article is slanted, and I'd like to see it presented in a more balanced way - even Yusuf Islam's denials are presented in a way that is not balanced: "Yusuf has never retracted his statements about Rushdie" - this is in the one short "denials" section. Finally, I think that including Cole's use of the term "weasel words" is misleading here because he means something quite different from what Wikipedia means by that phrase. I don't see that it is necessary - his opinion (which is all it is) is presented in a rather long passage, and is only weakly sourced. It could be shorter. My last comment on all of this for now, lest anyone misinterpret my comments: I abhor the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and did so at the time. I have close personal connections to the writing community and I do not in any way support such an obscenity. I protested it at the time and supported those who bravely stood up against it, like the New York neighborhood newspaper whose office was firebombed because of their editorial position against the fatwa. But I think articles on Wikipedia need to be fair and not marred by innuendo and unbalanced presentations of people's opinions, speculations, and original research, especially about a topic as incendiary as this one. Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam has been subject to a lot of such treatment, and I think we have to be extra careful here on this. Tvoz |talk 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The insistence on categorically stating that he supported the fatwa, when he claims he did not - seems to me we should say "reportedly" or some such word, as I have added and has been removed, rather than stating that he did support it.

changed that to "widely interpreted"

Supporting the fatwa is a state of mind, and I think we have to be careful about our own OR creeping into the article. I believe he is in a better position to know what his state of mind was and is than we are.

I have added "seemed to say" and similar qualifications before many of his statements

I have no problem including the Bilal section, as I said earlier, but I also have asked if Rushdie makes the claim that Bilal is based on Stevens/Yusuf - Pipes is speculating, and I think it would be more balanced if we had an indication of whether this theory has any support from the author. I am glad to see that the word "theorized" survived after an editor removed it - that helps (I think I added the NPOV tag when Pipes' comment was being treated as a definitive statement).

In general, I think this article is slanted, and I'd like to see it presented in a more balanced way - even Yusuf Islam's denials are presented in a way that is not balanced: "Yusuf has never retracted his statements about Rushdie" - this is in the one short "denials" section. Finally, I think that including Cole's use of the term "weasel words" is misleading here because he means something quite different from what Wikipedia means by that phrase.

Do you have a problem with this? what Cole believed were "weasel words"

Islamic scholar Juan Cole criticized Yusuf for what Cole believed were "weasel words" or contradictory statements about the fatwa. He argued that Stevens had "explained this position away by saying that he did not endorse vigilante action against Rushdie, but would rather want the verdict to be carried out by a proper court." He felt the disavowal not to be "even consistent," as "[a]t the time, Rushdie's life was in imminent danger, and Cat Stevens was skating pretty close to inciting to murder."^[1]

I don't see that it is necessary - his opinion (which is all it is) is presented in a rather long passage, and is only weakly sourced. It could be shorter.

Necessary???? In other eliminate a short summary of the case against Stevens by an Islamic scholar from an already short article???? There is no way you are going to get that elminated.

My last comment on all of this for now, lest anyone misinterpret my comments: I abhor the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and did so at the time. I have close personal connections to the writing community and I do not in any way support such an obscenity. I protested it at the time and supported those who bravely stood up against it, like the New York neighborhood newspaper whose office was firebombed because of their editorial position against the fatwa.

But I think articles on Wikipedia need to be fair and not marred by innuendo and unbalanced presentations of people's opinions, speculations, and original research, especially about a topic as incendiary as this one. Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam has been subject to a lot of such treatment, and I think we have to be extra careful here on this. Tvoz |talk 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must express some frustration here. The incediari-ness of the issue is the killings and attempted killings of people associated with the book, the firebombed books stores and cultural centers. We all have someone -- musicians or other people -- we admire greatly and whom it pains us to see held up to criticism, but straitforward fact should not be censored no matter how painful.

Please see if my edits have removed "opinions, speculations, and original research" you find objectionable to you. I must point out Wikipedia already has a long highly complementary article on Stevens sanatized of any criticism, because that would make it "too long." --BoogaLouie 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still have some reservations about the neutrality of this article, namely in the weight given to the denials vs the accusations, I think it has been improved by Booga's recent edits and I've removed the NPOV tag. I made some additional changes to the article as outlined in my last edit summary over there, not necessarily in any order:

1. corrected typos and grammatical errors
2. moved some references around and started to convert refs to the "cite news" standard - note that I added a {{cn}} to one of the references that has just a newspaper name and date - we need more than that, even if a url is not available - article title, author name, etc. More work is needed on the reference style - I'll try to get to that
3. added a relevant detail regarding Bilal X, that he is a Black Muslim - that is not a minor difference between the character and the real person. I would still like to see something from Salman Rushdie confirming that he based Bilal X on Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, but I can find nothing saying that. So the references in this section are still speculation: one person who wrote a study guide and a commentator, Pipes, who sees it as a possible reason - but it's all speculation. I left the section in because the word "theorized" and other such words in the paragraph at least suggest that this is not a confirmed "fact", but am saying here that it would go a long way to neutrality if there were comments by Rushdie on this.
4. removed a non RS source from intro - it was basically drawing its information from Wikipedia, so can't be used to confirm wikipedia, and doesn't add anything anyway
5. removed the phrase "weasel words", leaving "what Coles believed were contradictory statements" - as explained above, those two words ("weasel words") are not necessary, as there is a whole paragraph explaining Coles' opinion, and those two words can be misunderstood, given that they have different meaning on Wikipedia - they don't add anything necessary to the section. (Note, BoogaLouie, that I didn't say above that we should "eliminate a short summary of the case against Stevens by an Islamic scholar from an already short article" - or that Coles' entire statement was "not necessary". I was talking about those two words. I think it is speculative and just his interpretation, but I didn't say we should remove it. Would hope we might find some statements on the other side of the issue for balance, though.)
6. removed the word "later" from the intro when talking about Yusuf's denial that he was supporting the fatwa, as it was the next day - yes, technically it was "later", but it suggests that it was a long time later and since it was not, there's no reason to add that word

I think that is all of my changes - if there were any others, I'm not leaving them out of this list intentionally and will be glad to explain them if anyone finds any.

My final comment (I hope) is: the fatwa of course was the incendiary and vile act here, as I said in my last post above. But the entire topic is incendiary, including what his meaning was at that time and what he says now. What I am trying to avoid is that this person's response to it be fairly treated - in the face of his denials for years since, I think we need to neutrally present what we know of what he said, how others responded at the time, how he replied to that, what the aftermath has been, including his current comments now that he's somewhat come back out into the world. That's all. I don't want to whitewash it, but I don't think it is right for this article to be the place for assumptions and speculations about what he meant. As I said, it is a state of mind, and we can't know what that was.

By the way, I do not appreciate or agree at all with your assessment that the main article is either "highly complimentary" or "sanitized" or your mention of the word "censored". It is supposed to be a biographical sketch, not a critical assessment, except in as much as criticism has been notable. ("I don't like his music because I prefer heavy metal" would not be an example of something to be included, I assume you agree.) I've been one of the editors of the other article for a long time and it is about the totality of the man's life and career, the notability of which originally came from his years as Cat Stevens. The article is balanced and reasonable, covering the negatives arising from his life as Yusuf, but also including mitigating factors (his comments on 9/11, for example) and an attempt at accurate portrayals of things like the denial of entry to the US and its aftermath. It's not perfect, for sure, but it attempts to be balanced, and this article was forked off to here because indeed if the level of detail the people here want was included in the main article about the man's whole life and work, it would have been given undue weight. So we end up, I hope, with two balanced articles - not an attack piece here and a paean there. No one is censoring anything, and I don't appreciate the implication of lack of good faith editing. That I might like his music really has nothing to do with my private opinion about his politics (and you actually do not know what that private opinion about his conversion or his political stances afterward is or was at the time) and it has no bearing on my editing.

Again, I've removed the NPOV tag, because I think this article is now closer to neutral than it was. If the edits stand, I'll have no problem keeping the tag off. If the article returns to POV, I'll put it back. Meanwhile, if people can find ways to expand it with better references, that would be great. Tvoz |talk 21:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sound upset. I'm not sure that you should be.

The Cat Stevens article is 109k long. It has 20 sections, and includes things like detail on a libel suit he won, such NPOV lines as

"Alun Davies, who was always by Yusuf's side playing guitar in the Cat Stevens days, was with him and they performed their magic once again"

But when it comes to the biggest controversy of stevens' career - the fatwa controversy - there is (or was, I've changed it now, we'll see how long that lasts) a brief and vague mention of "Newspapers quickly interpreted his response as support for the fatwa," without saying what that response was. I put it to you that this is censorship or something very close to it. --BoogaLouie 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at page history - I didn't write (or see, actually) the Alun Davies line, and I will change it - I don't think it's an encyclopedic line either. But I will say again that the other article is a biographical sketch of his entire career, not just his years as Yusuf Islam, and it has to be fair and neutral. We have BLP concerns to be aware of, and cannot give this incident undue weight. It was longer in the main article before we forked it off to here- which we did because some people wanted it to be way too long there. I haven't read what you did there - I will look after dinner. Please don't put your comments inside of mine - put them at the end so you don't interrupt the flow of mine. There's policy for that too, and I'll find it later if you like. thanks. Tvoz |talk 00:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, again, calling a decision to fork off material so that it can be delved into in greater depth than it should in the the main article "censorship" is way out of line, does not assume good faith, and insults the hard work people have put into that article. And don't try to marginalize it by saying I sound "upset" - I am merely objecting to the way you have characterized the other article, and have already acknowledged that it is not perfect, as none are. Accusations of censorship are not in the best interests of having a civil environment and working together to improve the encyclopedia. And adding material to a quote that simply does not appear in the source - at least not in the version I just pulled down from NYTimes Select - and putting it in an article is of course not acceptable, so I reverted it. But even the accurate quote is a problem because if you have that quote you need to have a quote from his denial, etc etc - and that is why we forked it off to a separate article. If not, the incident is given more weight in the main article than it should in this biographical sketch. I do not necessarily agree that this is the most important thing to be written about in his life and career either - it is one of the things, and it is there. Tvoz |talk 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And once again I'm going to put the NPOV tag back on if Arrow insists on reverting to his wording, ignoring this discussion - which is where we started. I'm going to revert to BoogaLouie's words which are not "weasel words", they are merely qualifying the statement. As for the blog post reinstated in the intro - as a blog it is not a neutral, reliable source, and it draws too heavily on this very Wikipedia article to be used a source for it. That's circular - it's against policy. (I'll find the acronym later.). So I'm removing that too. If that is out and the other wording discussed above stays in , I'll keep off the NPOV tag. Tvoz |talk 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with your characterization of my comments. Kindly do not accuse me of "insulting," "marginalizing" or otherwise assume bad faith on my part.

American Thinker is an internet publication, not one person's blog, and their article is an example of what stevens critics claim. Another thing, do you think you could spare us proclamations that the article "has to be fair and neutral"? Of course it has to be fair and neutral. Are you insinuating that others are indifferent to fairness and neutrality? Are you insinuating that including a one or two-line sentence quoting the most controversial thing ever said by someone to that person's biography - a 105k long biography - is a breech of fairness and neutrality? --BoogaLouie 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Thinker is "a daily right-wing internet publication" Not my characterization - follow the wikilink. The piece itself is prefaced with "[Editor's note: This is a revised and extended version of a blog which appeared yesterday]" and it draws heavily on this very Wikipedia article as its source. This is circular, and not a reliable source. Perhaps you can find a more contemporaneous and more reliable source for what critics said at the time that he made the statements - one that wasn't written last month and isn't influenced by what is in this wikipedia article.

As for your comments - you are the one who claimed "censorship" - if that's considered assuming good faith, I guess we have different definitions. And it is marginalizing to refer to my objections as "complaints" and to say I "seem upset". As for "insulting" I said that calling the editing over there "censorship" insults the work done by a group of editors who tried to come up with a fair solution to a strong difference of opinion. I am just responding to what you've said here.

Finally, as I explained, of course I think this should be included - but if you actually quote him, then you have an obligation to quote his denial - we had that in the main article, but some editors felt that more was needed about what he said about the fatwa, and more of his explanations were then also added for, yes, balance (WP:UNDUE is relevant here as is WP:BLP whether you like to be reminded about it or not) and it reached a point where this incident or event or whatever you want to call it was becoming too dominant in that article. It seems to be your opinion that this subject deserves more space in an overall article about Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam - others disagree. So we set up this sub-article - something that is done every day on Wikipedia to accommodate such problems - and there's plenty of room here to add whatever you want to add. As long as it is balanced by his response. We discussed all of this: I added an NPOV tag - you questioned it, I responded, the article was re-worked. I was satisfied with the way it was done and removed the NPOV tag. You can do whatever you want, but if an editor is questioning neutrality, that editor can put the tag back on. Right now I think it's ok - but if I don't later on, or anyone else doesn't, it'll go back on. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's just the way it works. Tvoz |talk 17:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Thinker article draws from the wiki article than I guess that disqualifies it, though I still maintain that article is not the same as person's blog, even if it started out as a blog.

As for use of the word censorship, out of consideration for sensative feelings of some editors, I will refrain from using that word. Nonetheless I ask anyone reading this to look at the text of

Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy

The singer attracted controversy in 1989, during an address to students at London's Kingston University, where he was asked about the fatwa calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie. Newspapers quickly interpreted his response as support for the fatwa, but he released a statement the following day clarifying that he had not been supporting vigilantism, and was merely explaining the legal Islamic punishment for blasphemy.[23]

What did Stevens say? We don't know. We only know what "the newspapers ... interpreted". What did Stevens reply? "He had not been supporting vigilantism, and was merely explaining the legal Islamic punishment for blasphemy," is almost exactly what Stevens said.

I ask you, is anyone outside the Cat Stevens Fan Club going to find the lack of "one or two-line sentence quoting the most controversial thing (Stevens) ever said" in a "105k long biography" of Stevens, a demonstration of "fairness and neutrality"?

Or is it possible they will think the fan club is doing the editing at wikipedia, making sure nothing unpleasant gets out about their hero? .... Of course I am not saying the article's been censored, simply pondering what the public might think.

Have a nice day :-) --BoogaLouie 00:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you conveniently left off the all-important line above the text in that section which says: Main article: Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie, which is a pointer to this long article and if the public that you are concerned about clicks on that link they'll get the whole story in three-part harmony. . This is common practice on Wikipedia, as I am sure you know. And leaving it off here in your argument gives a distorted view of that section. If you think that template wording isn't clear enough, suggest some other wording for the pointer - we are using the standard template that many articles with forks use. Please don't pretend that all we say about this incident is what you quoted above.

Again, read what I said above about the genesis of this separate article. When editors were willing to keep that section's size in proper proportion to the rest of the article, more was said. When editors thought more had to be added, more was added on both sides of the controversy, as is appropriate in a BLP (and everywhere else in the encyclopedia, for that matter). When it grew too large it was forked off. Same as many, many articles. Here's a good example: take a look at how much text Paula Jones gets in Bill Clinton's article. Almost none. Why? Because there is a pointer to the separate article about Paula Jones that goes on and on about her in quite a bit of detail. Arguably the Paula Jones matter was incredibly important vis-a-vis Bill Clinton as it was the source of his impeachment. But it apparently needed much more room than the main Bill Clinton article should have - so it is forked off. The same thing applies here, and you'll find it all over the encyclopedia.

As for the fan club accusation, and the censorship one - why don't you give it a rest already. The article has GA status - listed as a Good Article in Arts as well as having GA-class in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, presumably because it meets their criteria. You have a whole article here in which to put as much as you like about what the accusations are, and as long as they remain balanced by his denials, and are adequately sourced, and do not include POV material, etc, etc, no one is trying to make this article shorter. But the main article covers his whole life and career, more than the incident that you consider to be the most important.. Tvoz |talk 01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Monica Lewinsky, not Paula Jones.

Anyway, yes I'm fully aware of how articles grow too large and are forked off. Not everyone has time to read those forks though, so its important that subsections like Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy be fair and balanced. I'm not insisting that Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy be long, just include both Stevens first quote as well as his explanation of it, rather than the current unnecessarily vague langauge that leaves open the suggestion to busy readers that the whole affair was some Islamophobic witchhunt.

.... and until we get that balance you will be hearing more from me.

Have a nice day :-) --BoogaLouie 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant Paula Jones, as a matter of fact. Tvoz |talk 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral editor, I have to side with Tvoz on both the analogy and the CS article. The main article does a good job of keeping out any tangents and limiting itself to "Something happened, both parties claim the other is distorting history, see this other article for full details. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Weasel Words" untouched here? Tvoz |talk 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means I didn't remove what Arrow740 called weasel words. I would have thought that was obvious. --BoogaLouie 00:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obvious - but I thought you were referring to the phrase "what Cole believed to be" which you did change. My mistake. Tvoz |talk 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many actual references are there to support the idea that a character in Rushdie's novel is possibly based on Cat Steven's? I only see one.. aharon42 (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None that have ever been brought forth as far as I recall, and I have argued that this one is pure speculation on the part of its author. No confirmation that I know of from Rushdie himself. I think it's very weak and doesn't belong here. Tvoz/talk 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but can we leave it for a little while to give me time to research it?? At this point it does look weak and misleading.aharon42 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is mentioned in the Rushdie Affair, a book on the whole fatwa incident and in Notes for Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses by Paul Brians, Professor of English, Washington State University.

Brians says: "Bilal X is a caricature of singer Cat Stevens, who became a convert to Islam ... "

I think these mentions make it notable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first reference. Is this study guide reliable? Has it been vetted and published or is it self-published? I see the other reference is from a Daniel Pipes book. How do we check that if we do not have a copy of it handy?? With respect, Tvoz, I don't think it is necessary for Rushdie himself to confirm it. The question is just whether or not the sources we do have are reliable. Without having the book, the Pipes reference would seem to be reliable. Sorry I missed that before. aharon42 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems at least a couple of editors here already have a negative opinion of Stevens/Islam, particularly by the use of the references chosen. I just began browsing through the references, and the blogs, You Tube "references", and "Granada TV" articles --at least of the first 10 references, I had to remove 6 of them because they don't exist anymore, were pulled, used a Wikipedia page as a reference(!!)or plain gave an error code. I suspect that You Tube and Granada TV are concerned about possible libel cases, and that is why they are gone, I don't know. I haven't even checked all the references! I would like to say that the BLOG which isn't considered a valid reference for Wikipedia called "Crazy Cat", (yeah, that's MY idea of a notable reference!! NOT.)-- the video is of Cat Stevens/Yusuf talking, but it seems abruptly cut off without allowing him to finish speaking. Which makes me wonder, of course, if it's selective editing, to make his comments sound worse. I don't know, though someone should go through the references- most wouldn't hold up. --leahtwosaints (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the youtube videos gives this reply when you click on the link "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Yusuf Islam."

I'm not sure if editors "POV" can be blamed when Yusuf Islam threatens youtube to delete videos that expose what he said. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the verify tag you placed on the cite Philadelphia Inquirer, February 24, 1989, p.5A, "Iran: West to blame Islam for forthcoming terrorism", I went to the trouble of looking at old newspaper microfilm to copy the article to verify it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I found two Granada TV references that did not exist, and removed them, I think the "American Thinker" is a non-noteworthy blog as well, though this is for all to decide. Another link went noplace. I'd like to suggest that if You Tube decides to pull your reference by request of Yusuf Islam, perhaps it is because it isn't based in fact, and they fear the same penalties for libel that other noteworthy newspapers have been forced to pay. I am keeping a neutral attitude on this whole thing. I'm the one who entered his alleged ties to Hamas and deportations from Israel and the U.S. in the main article. So, I'm not being nasty, just practical. You want a good encyclopedic article that will one day make it to GA status? I really think we should maintain some professionalism, not POV.--leahtwosaints (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that if You Tube states "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Yusuf Islam," then we should assume the video is no longer available due to a copyright claim and not due to libel or slander.

The idea that they were removed for being libelous seems pretty farfetched.

If the video(s) were libelous why didn't Yusuf Islam immediately say so when the video was issued and getting lots of attention? Why didn't he, or isn't he, calling a press conference or otherwise publicizing this dasterdly attack on his character? If the video(s) did not demonstrate its claims against Yusuf Islam, why didn't his numerous and wikisavvy defenders here call for its removal from the article?

I believe "American Thinker" calls itself an internet publication and should not be catorized as non-notable on the basis of disagreeing with its criticism of a beloved pop singer.

Looking further at "American Thinker" .... ya it's really bad ... but still maybe notable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the lead to make note of the unavailable videos. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has been dealt with. The video is available and, believe you me, will be, as long as a certain interested party hasn't taken over the internet. --tickle me 01:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV is showing, Tickle - please try to remain neutral on this matter. Tvoz/talk 08:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSCANDAL#SCANDAL

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing scandal. It is an encyclopedia. Libel about living figures is one of the things that Jim Wales has been particularly trying to avoid in recent months. If the creators of this article think that some of this material is relevant to Wikipedia's coverage of Cat Stevens, please merge any data into that article, and be prepared to explain yourselves to the folks who write about Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, there.

I will not get myself into an edit war with you... I did blank the page earlier, and left an appropriate comment as to why it had been blanked. It was not an act of vandalism in the way that the poster from 93.138.88.221 would have wanted to imply. It was rather a conscientious effort to keep Wikipedia on track.

129.19.132.41 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main article cannot accommodate the level of detail that some editors wanted on this incident, so consensus was reached among editors of the main article to have a short summary section in the main article and this forked-off subarticle where more detail could be included. We did not make that decision to allow anything libelous - it was made to keep the main biography in balance and not skewed with an over-emphasis on one incident in his life. Unfortunately, the ideal that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing scandal is not borne out in practice - there are many examples of subarticles created to explore details of scandals or controversial events - see John Edwards extramarital affair and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories off the top of my head. So no, we do not want to include anything more over on the main article which is already bursting at its seams, and I believe this subarticle is more or less balanced and not libelous. If editors find problems here, then they should be dealt with here. That's my view, anyway, as a lead editor on the main article. Tvoz/talk 22:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is redundant, and any specific details should be merged with the article on Cat Stevens. Two editors of the latter page decided to create this separate article back in 2007. As this article is not extensive, I think it could be easily merged and edited down.Jemiljan (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not redundant - it is a fork that goes into more detail than the main article can support without this matter having undue weight in the main biography of his whole life and career. The section of the main article is a summary of this one, as is common practice throughout the encyclopedia, and covers the main points. I would probably not object to this article being deleted completely, but I do oppose any more of it being added to the main article as "merge" implies and as some editors wanted to do when this was created. Tvoz/talk 04:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable topic, and a well-sourced article. I see the fuller discussion on this page as needed and useful. Tvoz has effectively responded to the original criticism of this article (that it is redundant) and has effectively explained why the main article needs no further expansion. Should that not close this issue? Deleting this article would be totally unwarranted, and I see no need to discuss that. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I ardently disagree. Sure it's notable, but notability alone isn't a jusification. Furthermore, claiming that it provides "undue weight" needs to be backed up by more than just an empty claim, and just because it is "well sourced" here doesn't mean that the same cannot apply in the main article. As I pointed out before: there are similar WP:BLP articles that contain a similar extensive discussion of specific controversies, which is also "...common practice throughout the encyclopedia". After all, this controversy concerns just two people, and it is not really all that complex. Hence, there is no justification for this separate fork. Also, I note that after reading over the archive that just two editors, including you, Tvoz, were in favor of this separate fork. Sorry, Blue Moon, but I don't think that Tvoz has provided any justification for the fork at all, and so therefore, yes, it should be discussed.Jemiljan (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dealing with a hurricane at the moment, so my responses may be sporadic, and shouldn't be interpreted as either agreement or disinterest. You're wrong in your characterization of who favored this fork. The fork was not my idea, but I thought it was a reasonable solution to the problem that was created when another editor insisted on putting a lot of one-sided detail in the main article about what Yusuf said - my point was and still is that the main article is a BLP, and if we say what he said in detail we have to also include his denials in detail, and the whole thing was entirely too long for the main article. A third editor created the fork as a compromise. The editor who wanted to include one side of the controversy in the article also thought that this fork worked for his concerns - he is not the one who started this fork, but he agreed it made sense to go this way. That's what they call consensus - both sides of the disagreement agreed that this solution was satisfactory. You have not given any good reason for changing this, and it has been in place since 2007, so what has changed? You'll have to do better than to imply that I have some other reasons for objecting to including this whole detailed description in the main article - my reasons are the same as they were years ago. Undue weight: this was one small incident in the multi-faceted life and career of Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, mentioned there as is appropriate, and described in more detail here, as the editors at that time insisted on. I think the main article explanation is sufficient on its own, so go ahead and propose deletion of this one if you want to. I might or might not support that, but certainly would only if the main article section is kept pretty much as it is. On the other hand, this longer explanation serves a purpose, and I agree with BlueMoonlet that it is notable and well-sourced, so I don't see the need for deletion. You've given no indication of what you think is missing from the main, so I have no way of evaluating your objections. (By the way, I also have no idea what relevance "this controversy concerns just two people" has.) And let's keep this discussion in one place, here, rather than bifurcated on Talk: Cat Stevens. Tvoz/talk 04:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your characterization of what constitutes undue weight is entirely subjective and personal, and is not necessarily a reflection of established WP:BLP policies for justifying a content fork. So what is it's "been around for a while"? The justification was weak to the point of redundancy to begin with. You'll have to do better than to state there is "undue weight" were it merged back into the original entry. Undue weight how so? Try and be more specific about what makes the inclusion of it "undue."

Yes, the current version contains extensive quotations, which are totally unnecessary in the original article, but at the same time, it doesn't demonstrate or provide any greater degree of "notability" here either. It's simply extensive quoting, nothing more. Your previous comparison of this content fork to Barack Obama conspiracy theories is a bit over the top, to say the least, for this entry is nowhere nearly as comprehensive. By comparison, the article on the Satanic Verses does contain a justifiable content fork on the Satanic Verses Controversy (which I note makes no mention of Steven's remarks), which is very extensive and very justifiable in compared to those provided here.

I think a better parallel might be found in the Dixie Chicks remarks about George W. Bush, and the ensuing fallout- no need for a content fork was found there (and that's just one example). Simply put, there is nothing explicit section of the the WP:BLP policies to justify this sort of content forking over a single incident. The perceived "problem" was simply your own criticism of what you perceive is "too much" mention of the criticism and ensuing controversy in the main BLP entry, and it's very clear that the "consensus" you allude to was arrived at due to your insistence that the controversy somehow "overwhelmed" the main article, providing undue weight. Given that the main article is quite extensive, including music samples and so on (perhaps better moved to a content fork for the album in question?) I contest that a little more detail found here would necessarily result in undue weight as you claim.

The problem with your claim is that there are plenty of articles that contain similar controversial sections, and editors haven't justified a content fork. An agreement between just two or three editors isn't a very strong consensus, and as you know, consensus can always be reevaluated at any time. I have given a good reason for merging it back into the main article- the extraneous material in this article consists largely of unnecessary and overly- lengthy quotations, and little else that adds to or expands upon our knowledge about this incident. Merging the material, minus the excessive quotes- which could be summarized and made far more brief- would not cause any sort of "undue weight" as you imply. YOu're insisting that the main article be kept "as is", but you're not offering a reasonable rationale for this. As it is, the main article is not terribly long. The file size is a little large, but that is likely due to the fact that so many music sample files are included (which could justifiably be moved to the entries regarding the relevant albums, saving space on the main entry). Otherwise, this is not some world-shattering moment in history affecting numerous individuals, spanning a large geographic area, with considerable endurance (beyond the fact that people ask him about it every so often), so beyond that, how does it meet notability standards to justify a content fork? It seems to me that it's a moment of controversy concerning a single individual's remarks and the ensuing reaction, which quite biographical in nature, doesn't really justify a content fork.Jemiljan (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Tvoz, except that I'm disturbed that you would support deleting this page. But, I suppose honest disagreements do happen around here.

I want to respond here (per Tvoz' request) to Jemiljan's comment at Talk:Cat Stevens#Rushdie redux (and thanks, Tvoz, for drawing my attention to this thread). Jemiljan said: "The fact is that there are plenty of WP:BLP articles that include extensive discussion of controversies concerning just two people, and are supported by the necessary references, without resorting to content forking. For example, the feud between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. contains relevant sections pertaining to the matter, and while the event that precipitated the feud was "notable" it doesn't justify content forking... I also note that no mention is made of Cat Stevens a.k.a. Yusuf Islam in the Salman Rushdie entry."

Jemiljan, this controversy is far more significant than just two people disagreeing disagreeably, as Vidal and Buckley did. However you evaluate the Stevens-Rushdie incident (which is complicated, and requires various sources being laid out without judgment, as can only be done in a fork page like this), it involves core ideas of religion and free speech. It is also quite appropriate that Stevens' article contains more info about this incident than does Rushdie's article, as it is not particularly significant for Rushdie (Stevens was one of many many voices discussing violence against Rushdie in retaliation for his speech) and much more significant for Stevens (whose image of peacefulness is difficult to reconcile with some interpretations of this incident).

In conclusion, I would be quite dismayed to see this excellent discussion dismantled, and I have yet to see any clear argument for doing so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is this incident "more significant" and "complicated" as you say? Do explain. I agree that it is not particularly significant for Rushdie, but that still is no solid rationale for the content fork off of the main article as Tvoz insists. So what if you think it concerns "core values" (whatever that means)? Under what specific WP:BLP policy is that a justification for content forking? Does it concern a large number of people? Does is span a large geographic area? Does it have lasting power? The only "lasting power" I see it having is that people ask him about it every so often. Also, just because this current article contains "more info" (mainly extensive verbatim quotations, which are totally unnecessary and provide little if anything in terms of added notability) doesn't mean that the other one can't include the same information in the main article, minus the excessive quotes (a link and a summary or select quote will do). Finally, I find your "dismay" at my proposed merge amounts to a false dilemma, for I am not arguing that it be "dismantled", but simply merged back where it belongs, because it didn't pose any sort of "undue weight" in the first place. Jemiljan (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jemiljan, you seem to have high standards for the justification of a content fork, and I do not know where they come from. WP:CFORK simply says that, "as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I? How so? The same article you refer also clearly has guidelines regarding POV forks, and namely the POV is this case is that the article would provide "undue weight", without any real explanation of how that would do so.Jemiljan (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most ridiculous definition of a POV fork that I've seen - I can only hope you are being facetious, but that's not particularly helpful. Tvoz/talk 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV is your quite obviously your stated aversion to more than one exceedingly brief paragraph regarding anything controversial in the main article as lending "undue weight".05:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a policy, "Wikipedia is not a court of law"? I think there should be. The other article has the tone of a legal case, that is presenting evidence against Stevens and then a defense of him. This is way beyond what an encyclopedia is supposed to be about. Better just give the information here since it is an important part of his notability. Borock (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that necessary? The article here contains essentially the same information, only with redundant, excessive quotations. Were one to reduce and summarize, or provide a couple of select, short quotes, then there really is no need for the fork.Jemiljan (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to express support for a merge. 12 years later, this media controversy between two then-past-their-prime public figures appears more like late Bush era historical trivia at the same level of importance as Brangelina (currently a redirect to a section of the generic article on supercouples). The original argument for forking was merely that there was no way editors would be able to achieve a consensus on how exactly such a controversial controversy should be covered. Now that those opinionated editors from 2007 are hopefully dead, married, or otherwise moved on with their lives, are those remaining able to be adults about it? What's really so difficult about a summary along the lines of "here's what Stevens said, here's the backlash, here's how he handled the backlash" in a paragraph or less? Jyamine (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "undue weight" was, as has already been explained, the over-emphasis of this one incident in a biography of his whole life. As explained above, this article was set up to satisfy the desire on some editors' parts to include in the main article a great deal of detail regarding what Yusuf said - as is in this article - and how some interpreted it. But since that article is a BLP, we certainly then would have an obligation to present his denials of the accusations made in the same level of detail - that is, if we have actual quotes from him allegedly calling for the death of Rushdie, then we have to include the actual quotes from him that deny this - and all in all that would place too much emphasis on this incident in that main article, making it appear to be the most important thing one has to know about Cat Stevens. The summary over on the main article clearly states that he said something, and it was interpreted, and his denials, but it does so in one paragraph with an indicator to this longer article which goes into the quotes and the denials and the interpretations etc., to the satisfaction of those who think this is very important for readers to know. My sole concern was and is to keep the facts in balance and also not give it more weight than it deserves in his biography. I understand your argument, but you haven't shown why this detailed fork is a problem. (And note that it is not a POV fork - it presents both sides of the issue.) Is this a clearer explanation of what I meant by "undue weight"? Perhaps the word "over-emphasis" says it better - the point is to keep this in perspective and keep it balanced. I don't know how much of this article you think would need to be added back into the main to justify deleting this one, and that would be the crux of the decision to do so, as far as I am concerned. I don't want to see much more go in there, because it is already quite loaded regarding various "controversies" surrounding his conversion and subsequent activities, so I was willing to have this fork deal with that to everyone's satisfaction. Now you come along and say you want to slash this one, add some undefined stuff to the other one, and that would somehow satisfy your view of the encyclopedia. But at the present time no one else seems to be agreeing that the consensus that was reached needs to be overturned - and it is not clear to me how the slashing would be received by editors who were lobbying for great detail here. So unless you can suggest here on Talk what you would propose, more specifically, for people to evaluate, now you don't seem to have any support, and I don't see consensus for making any change. Tvoz/talk 20:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz, your argument is rooted in your own personal judgement of what constitutes an "over-emphasis": that anything more than a paragraph in the main article is automatically "undue". That is in and of itself a form of POV, as it sounds to me that you are intentionally trying to limit discussion on the main page. Yes, you have compromised by putting an exceedingly brief summary in place, but your insistence that it can only be one paragraph in the first place is based on.... what policy now? You keep saying that a modestly longer section would "overwhelm" the page, when in actual fact, it would still be a realtively small small section. You insist that there are "too many controversies", well, the man is controversial! Is there something wrong with that? So, I think you're altogether grossly exaggerating.

First off, allow me to reiterate that you don't have to include each and every quote as you repeatedly imply. A brief synopsis of what is presented here is sufficient. If anything, what you have in this article is excessive, redundant quoting, when all you need is a concise summary, typical of an encyclopedia entry style. One doesn't need to quote entire segments of interviews; a citation would suffice. There is nothing in the WP: BLP guidleines that states such a section has to be limited to one paragraph. A clearer, slightly longer explanation in the main article doesn't provide "undue weight", nor would it be "undefined". You can provide a perfectly clear explanation with an added paragraph or two, and reducing the redundant, excessive quoting provided here. It would be clear, concise, short, well-referenced, and would effectively eliminate the need for this overly-verbose content fork that's chock-full of unnecessary verbatim quotes. I also read over the complaints of the previous editors who weren't too happy with your insistence that the main article be limited to one paragraph, so I don't think you are being totally forthcoming on the nuances of the previous discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs) 05:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jemiljan, I think you grossly underestimate the effort that would be needed to reach consensus on your suggested "brief summary". This is a very contentious issue, and when people can't agree on how to interpret it (an essential component of any summary), the best way to proceed is to even-handedly lay out the sources so that readers can draw their own conclusions. This is something everyone can agree upon, and this is what is done on this page. Revisiting and revising this conclusion would likely require a great deal of contentious discussion, and I see nothing in your arguments (which mainly seem to be "I'd like it to be different") to justify such an effort. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonlet has hit the nail on the head. There were several contentious discussions about this, including one editor bringing it to the "mediation cabal" (the case never actualized) and it was said that the consensus arrangement of a short summary in the main article with a pointer to the long fork article was the appropriate way to handle this. Read the mediator's comments in the Discussion section. Read the archives and look at the main article's edit history - it was not just a matter of "two editors including Tvoz". At one point we had no fork, because the amount included in the main article was in proportion to the importance of the incident in the bio of his entire life and career. When editors insisted on adding much more, and therefore more was needed about his continual denials, the only way to handle it was with a fork that went into the whole story. That consensus solution more or less stopped the arguments and reverting and has allowed this part of the article to be fairly stable since 2007 - the mediation request and replies put an end to the dispute, and, again, nothing has been brought here to suggest we should overturn that agreement. I don't see any reason to continue to say the same thing over and over - Jemiljan, if you have something new, please tell us. Otherwise, this is going nowhere. Tvoz/talk 17:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merger proposal. No matter which side of the issue you're on or what POV you want Wikipedia to publish for you, and embellish, this article, as it looks now, is politics, not encyclopedia. Damages Wikipedia's reputation, in my opinion, more that Rushdie's or Islam's. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719185651/http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1971/01/16/FS160171067/ to http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004154204/http://www.mountainoflight.co.uk/talks_cw.html#18 to http://www.mountainoflight.co.uk/talks_cw.html#18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004154204/http://www.mountainoflight.co.uk/talks_cw.html to http://www.mountainoflight.co.uk/talks_cw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment that violates strict BLP rules. Further, we don't allow original research or interpretations.Tvoz/talk 07:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link for the story 'The Long War Between Salman Rushdie and Cat Stevens' isn't working for me (gives a timeout error). The article is now on the Atlantics website at https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/11/the-long-war-between-salman-rushdie-and-cat-stevens/339621/ if an editor is interested! (I would change it myself, but I'm not sure what Wikipedia's position is on linking to places that might be paywalled compared to an archived version of the original if that's available.)

Thanks! 142.79.201.94 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]