This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I find it remarkable that wikipedia can't provide a quote from the actual Kingston Polytechnic comment on the Rushdie Fatwa. Is there no accurate source for what he said at Kingston? Funkyj 17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a source for his actual comments....a video of HIM saying what he was accused of. Here is part of the video archived on one site. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25970_Video-_Cat_Stevens_Wishes_for_Salman_Rushdies_Death_by_Fire&only JB 03:43.07 July 2007
I specifically remember a TV interview with Stevens about the fatwa on Rushdie (who was in no rush to die from any fatwa!) and his attitude to it. Stevens said "it's not a question of murder, it's a question of doing your duty as a creature of god". There was also a show on Brit TV in the early days of the fatwa, with for and against debating, including Stevens along with many a group of British Muslims in favour of the fatwa, and various others, including Fay Weldon, against. Stevens was less visibly agitated than many of the other Muslims but he did point out that, although many of his songs spoke of peace, he had also written a song, early in his career, called "I'm gonna get me a gun".
Any social scientist with a specialization in religion will tell that the Stevens maniac assertions about Rushie’s fatwa are a result of religious brainwashing. Monotheist religions, under a cover of peace, in reality tend to be extremely violent. The same mechanisms that made possible to exterminate millions of human beings in Europe during the inquisition times are still very active in other parts of the world. Get a sweet nice young man in a religious sect and the result can be quite astonishing. Happily, Yusuf Islam got wiser with the age. And the world is missing the poems, the music, the compassion, the love and the freedom of Cat Stevens. Millions of people are still waiting that one-day he may wake up again from the nightmare he got in. (DC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.48.146.87 ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 May 2007
The video that was provided by the link above is heavily edited. Is there somewhere a copy of the complete program?
This is mentioned two separate times in the article; perhaps one of them should be removed.
I thought I would note the following change:
to
The main point that concerns me are those quotes because they're unsourced and just look like someone inserted some clichés into the article: "You're bloody great! What's your name?" Both phrases get under 100 hits each on Google and the hits are mostly Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. The point is, there's a lot of unsourced material in this article that needs to be cleaned up. I've done a bit and plan to do some more. By the way I did my best using a DVD booklet as reference (see the References). It's actually a remake of the Earth Tour Program so I considered it to be similar to a press release (credibility wise). Mrtea (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope I improved the headings in the mainspace. I made them conform more to similar artists who have featured articles. I think my revisions make the article more clear to read, however it might be tricky to distuingush between Cat Stevens the artist and Cat Stevens the person (similar to Johnny Cash.)
Negative or positive feedback is appreciated. I'm pretty sure it's an improvement. Mrtea (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There was some discussion above about the external links. Here is the diff of my recent edits: [2]. I removed the links to related news articles that shouldn't be linked (for one because the news events are included within our article.) There were a few dead links I removed (the cached version of those two sites said the "account has been suspended".) I removed the recently added fan site: The Alexa rating of the fan site that's there now was significantly higher than Magicat.com. There were also some links that were in both the References section and External link section. I removed those obviously and added an html comment about it. Contributors should be familiar with WP:EL to keep the list clean and useful for the reader. Cheers. Mrtea (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Didn't he try to get the Thatcher government to ban the Satanic Verses book? And maybe more specifics about his charitable career- I understand it was rather extensive.
I'd do it myself, but unfortunately I know very little about his life, and am only just beginning to get into his music...
Why are you listening to his music?
Are you spying on hm for SIS and that's your in?
When I read this part, my first thought was "Whuh?"
I have reworded as follows; if someone disagrees feel free to edit further or revert.
I've moved it to its chronological place after the libel case, and given it a heading (Perceptions Among Muslims) since it's really not part of the deportation or libel case. I don't like giving a heading to one paragraph, and would encourage someone to broaden this to a more general (Public Perceptions) heading if they feel so moved.
I have also tried to fix the footnote so it matches the others, but I have no experience with the citation format. Can someone help me clean it up to the "news reference" form? [3] Mana Gement 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Cat Stevens has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.
The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Comprehensiveness - Sales - Audio - References |
Shouldn't we follow the Wikipedia practice of titling a biographical article after the individual's current name, such as Muhammad Ali? I think this is especially pertinent for Yusuf Islam, since "Cat Stevens" was a taken name anyway. The main article should be "Yusuf Islam," with a redirect from "Cat Stevens." Ibadibam 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Macduff hit on the point here: the man wants to be called Yusuf Islam. It’s a question of respect and rights more than of conventions and pragmatics. Theaceoface -12/16/2006 5:58:58 AM
Hi, I'm in trouble with editing a category I called "List of British people of Swedish descent". I have written a few lines on it and added the edit summary too, but I can't save it!!! If any of you want to help me through this I'd really be glad. Thanks a lot. Gianmaria Framarin.
I just added the part about his rumored relationship with the Unification Church, of which I am a member. I took it off another article where it didn't belong and didn't know what to do with it. I hate to throw out someone else's work so I posted it here. It is really trivial relative to Stevens' whole life and career which is the subject of this article. If you want to take it out I have no objection. BTW I think he is a great song writer but I haven't caught up with his recent work. Steve Dufour 20:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that this new album is credited to simply "Yusuf", rather than "Yusuf Islam". Has any reason been given for this?
Granted, some artists are sufficiently well known that they can be credited by first name only (Kylie, Cliff, Elton, etc), but I don't think Yusuf Islam falls into this category. Most people still know him as Cat Stevens.
Perhaps (a) Yusuf did not feel comfortable using the name Islam on a non-religious album, or (b) it was felt that non-Muslim audiences would be reluctant to buy an album with the word "Islam" on it? 217.155.20.163 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
COuld be right, but has anyone seen the actual album yet? That was a promo pic of the cover, not sure if it is the final cover. Tvoz 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
My speculation is that Yusuf Islam is his legal name, "Yusuf" the new stage name. Macduff 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
In an Interview with "Billboard" reported by Nigel Williamson on November 17th, shortly after the release of "An Other Cup" Yusuf was asked about the use of the single name. He said, " "Islam" doesn't have to be sloganized. The second name is like the official tag, but you call a friend by their first name. It's more intimate, and to me that's the message of this record."
On the question of the Cat Stevens reference, he said,"That name is part of my history, and a lot of the things I dreamt about as Cat Stevens have come true as Yusuf Islam."
The limited, deluxe version of the album also has the removable sticker on its outer sleeve. It is a 44-page, hard-backed book with the disc in the back cover. It contains more overt references, through images and quotations, to the Islamic spiritual influences in the songs than the words of the songs themselves.
Rubylove
06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this section should be included in this article - it is by definition a selected sample, and can't possibly fairly represent all of the man's personal views, whatever that means, nor is it encyclopedic. SOme of his personal views have been included elsewhere on the page, as they speak to specific subjects that are deemed noteworthy for inclusion in this biographical piece. But a section that purports to present his personal views is a prescription for trouble. There are links and directions to his websites, where one can read it all and determine what they think he believes, and that is sufficient - if we include one "personal view" then don't we have to include all of them? Impossible, obviously. So I am deleting the section, but with this explanation. Happy to discuss, of course. Tvoz 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yusuf says in interviews that his son Muhammed, now age 21, is a musician who does not want his father to mention the name he is recording under because he wants to "make it" on his own. Yoriyos' MySpace official page leaves hints to the fact that he is Cat Stevens' son, Yoriyos did the artwork on An Other Cup, and mostly NME, a respected music publication, names him as such (reference provided in article). His album includes a song "The End" which is published by Ya Music, Yusuf's company. And, look at his picture and listen to his voice. Circumstantial, I suppose, but quite certain. The NME citation is what makes this verifiable, not OR or speculation, so it should remain in the article. Tvoz 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to distinguish between his legal names and his stage names. As near as I've been able to determine, his legal name was never Cat Stevens - it was Steven Demetre Georgiou, then he changed it to Yusuf Islam. "Cat Stevens" was his stage name. Now that he has released a new popular music CD, he has had two stage names: Cat Stevens, and the lone "Yusuf," used for the new CD. His website seems to bear this out, where he goes by both Yusuf Islam and Cat Stevens. However, he no longer uses the "Cat Stevens" label and only applies it to his old recordings. "Yusuf" is his stage name of his new recordings. Macduff 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
About the Infobox: the main name of the article should be the name attached to the infobox. I think it is ok for it to say "(now Yusuf Islam)" even though that is not typical wiki usage, because we have a specific situation i this article that needs creative handling. This photograph is clearly of Cat Stevens, so the heading also makes sense as "Cat Stevnes (now Yusuf Islam)" because that is who we are loking at. At one point we had a recent photograph of Yusuf Islam also on the page, and I would be happy to see that - I would add it at the "Life as Yusuf Islam" section. But we need one that is legal here - we need either a free photograph of Yusuf Islam, or a legitimate promo/publicity photo of him, properly uploaded and license-labeled. If anyone can find one, I think it would be an excellent addition to the article and in fact would be illustrative of the journey this person has taken. Maybe there is a "press book" on his music website. But the Infobox name should remain "Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam)", as it now reads. Tvoz 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Cat Stevens (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948, changed name to Yusuf Islam in 1979) is an English musician, singer-songwriter" Does he still sing? I think that he has turned into a pure Islamic clerc & Islam forbids singing. Isn't it better to say "was an English musician, singer-songwriter, he is a prominent convert to islam and is now a muslim clerc" or something smiliar?
Please fix this if appropriate-- Fellow of wiki 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Editors: This has been debated and debated in the past and consensus was reached that the article name should be Cat Stevens, with the first sentence essentially rendered as it now is rendered - Cat Stevens (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948, changed name to Yusuf Islam in 1979)... etc. I believe we should respect the work that went into that debate and the fact that consensus was reached, and once again move on from the debate, as has been done previously. The article gives ample and fair attention to his life as Yusuf Islam. There is a redirect in place for people who search for the name "Yusuf Islam". The article is balanced, respectful, NPOV and comprehensive (although actually the Cat Stevens section was in need of expansion which is underway). It has been determined to be a Wikipedia "Good Article", which we should be proud of. The name situation is complicated, but the fact remains that most people agree that his notability derives from the worldwide fame he achieved from his career as Cat Stevens, and so the article is worded this way. Please understand that this is not haphazard or casually written - it is carefully crafted to be accurate, fair and representative of the complexities. Going in and changing the wording because of an individual editor's preference is to ignore the consensus that has been reached, and is counter-productive. I hope we can continue to work with this in a productive way. No subject is ever really closed on Wikipedia, so discussion is always welcome, but one of the principles we try to uphold is respecting consensus when it is achieved. Tvoz 11:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way - I should point out that this consensus was reached before my time editing this article. Tvoz 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proposing moving or renaming the article, I'm only proposing that the first paragraph be changed to reflect the man's name. Instead of
Cat Stevens (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948, changed name to Yusuf Islam in 1979) is an English musician, singer-songwriter and a prominent convert to Islam.
Something like
Yusuf Islam (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) performed under the name Cat Stevens from 1966 to 1977. He is an English musician, singer-songwriter and a prominent convert to Islam.
Just as in the Sade entry, this would lead off with the person's actual name instead of their stage name. If people still feel strongly that the lead in should be Cat Stevens, then how about something like
Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Yusuf Islam (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) ...
Does anyone other than Tvoz and myself have any thoughts about this?
Macduff 03:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've read this discussion (including Talk archives) since checking this page, and must fully agree with User:Macduff. This article's introduction should be changed to always list his current legal name first. I support your version:
Yusuf Islam (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) performed under the name Cat Stevens from 1966 to 1977. He is an English musician, singer-songwriter and a prominent convert to Islam.
for this article. It is the common standard for Wikipedia biographical articles. For the record, even if his real name were still Steven Georgiou, I would support listing that name first in the lead, too. The Talk Page Archive debate User:Tvoz invokes was concerning the article name, not its lead, and is not authoritative to this particular issue. Italiavivi 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
His present name is Yusuf Islam and that is the name he used these days. Hence the article should be created on that name (Yusuf Islam). Cat Stevens should be redirected here. --- ALM 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Of the compromises, I like "Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Steven Demetre Georgiou, who is today known as Yusuf Islam. " Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding his legal name: When anyone travels internationally, they must travel under the name that is on their passport. Last I heard, passports were only issued under one's legal name. Since the name "Yusuf Islam" was what drew the attention of Homeland Security, we must presume that Yusuf was travelling under that name, that "Yusuf Islam" is the name on his passport, and that therefore, it is his current legal name.
Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Steven Demetre Georgiou, who is today known as Yusuf Islam. Born on July 21, 1948, he is an English musician, singer-songwriter, educator and philanthropist.
Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Yusuf Islam (Born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948). He is an English musician, singer-songwriter, educator and philanthropist.
OK guys, this is yet another stupid argument about naming. general wikipedia consensus is to use the name that someone is most known by; any case where more than one name applies seems to lead to acromonious debate but then almost always settles down to that same most-recognized name. if you want to see a truly awful discussion, go look at "republic of macedonia", where the length of the debate is truly insane and someone even tries to seriously convince the world that "FYROM" is more well-known than "macedonia". in this case, the guy is still mostly known as "Cat Stevens" which is why all the recent articles about him include this info. yes, this might change in a few years, in which case the article can move, too. see the wikipedia page Wikipedia:Consensus_can_change. the lead should read
"Yusuf Islam (formerly known at Cat Stevens, born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) ..."
i'm pretty sure if you take a look at other articles with name changes you'll see a similar format. Benwing 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the biographical standard is that birth names precede psuedonyms or later legal name changes. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym." So, as loathe as I am to make yet another suggestion, it would seem that this would be the best solution: "Steven Demetre Georgiou, better known as Cat Stevens and currently as Yusuf Islam ..." Or some reasonable fascimile thereof.
However, I've looked up a dozen articles of people with stage names differing from their birth names and can find no real consistency between articles. For example...
Stage name/pseudonym listed first:
Birth name listed first:
People with the legal name change listed first:
Articles with only the legal name (not the known name) listed:
Anyway. Prince's article is the only one that has some relevance, given that he has gone through more than one name, like the subject of this article. In Wikipedia:Naming conflict, the suggestion is to do a Google test to see which is the more prevalent name in English. Cat Stevens turns up many more hits, although this could be because many articles referring to Yusuf Islam also refer to him by his old stage name at least once for clarity. And, at any rate, the policy refers more to the home of the article, and not what name comes first in the text.
At any rate, perhaps we can compromise by listing the names strictly chronologically: birth name, stage name, current name. If an editor can find a source that documents that his name was legally changed (and the Larry King transcript does not do that), then that can be added to the discussion of his names. Thoughts? -- Merope 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
just-published interview in the ny times: [5]
it's interesting to see what he says (or rather, refuses to say) about hamas and islamic extremism. Benwing 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The name of the article is "Cat Stevens" because that is where his notability comes from, at present. If the situation changes, we'll be disucussing it I am sure, and hopefully will reach a consensus agreement among the editors on how to proceed with that. Meanwhile, with the article name properly "Cat Stevens", the infobox should also be labeled "Cat Stevens", but editors have for a long time agreed that the unusual circumstances here require an unorthodox solution, and in this case that is "Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam)" on the infobox above the photograph. The photograph is from the 1960s when his notability arose, when he was called Cat Stevens. As I said earlier, at one point there was also a recent photograph of Yusuf Islam which was removed from the system - I don't know why, perhaps for copyright reasons - I for one would welcome a picture of him today to be added to the large section that talks about his life as Yusuf islam. But I would no more label that picture "Cat Stevens" as I would label this picture "Yusuf Islam" . The difference is obvious. We have discussed this before, veryt recently, and editors agreed again with this solution. So unilaterally ignoring that and changing it is not the way one should proceed. I'm changing it back. Tvoz | talk 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been active discussion concerning the ordering of Yusuf Islam's names (birth name, performance name, and current name) within this article's lead sentence. This survey is intended to offer a concise snapshot of current consensus concerning the article's lead. Note: This is not a survey concerning the article's page name/location, only the article's lead/introduction.
But I would like to suggest this alternative which I think is more in keeping with his notability:
My reasoning is, and has been all along, that his notability comes from his career as Cat Stevens, and I think the new wording as it stands now makes "Cat Stevens" very much an after-thought, and that is not reflective of the reality. Tvoz | talk 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
was displacing text, so deleted (unsigned)
I noticed that too. The weird thing was that the picture didn't even show up in Internet Explorer, but did show up in all other browsers. I think it's a good idea to have a contemporary picture of Yusuf, but I don't know the proper placement for it in the article. This is the image that was removed: [6] -- Macduff 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The lead section could use some trimming; it goes into too much detail instead of providing a concise overview of the detailed information that will be found later in the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
THe only reason I put the protection on was stop the insertion of material that violated the BLP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that the edit war has broken out again over the names in the infobox. I looked through the various discussions and see only one section with two comments on the box. You need to discuss and sort out which version you want. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
C'mon, you either discuss this thing or remove the protection
I also agree, so c'mon, remove the damn thing Q8-falcon 08:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the use of a slash in the infobox. A slash implies that he is currently going by both names, which he is not. Italiavivi 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We need a detailed discography for Cat Stevens in a separate page including covers, chart positions, etc....
We need to work guys!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Q8-falcon ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps some mention should be made that during his reception of the Echo award he refused to speak to any woman who was not veiled according to Islamic standards. If you "go deeper" into Cat Stevens you will find the man who isn't all that different from any radical Muslim. Unfortunately he has fooled far to many people. And btw, the gospels do not advocate murdering someone for blasphemy. His explanation of his support for killing Rushdie is appalling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.228.132 ( talk) 18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
The information about his not speaking to women with unscarved heads - not veils, by the way, which is different - is in the graf with the Echo award, where it allegedly took place. We need an English-language reference for the Echo award first of all, as the one we have is in German and we can't source something in another language in English wikipedia that people can't verify says what it is purported to say. Secondly, the source for this so-called criticism about his not speaking with women who he thinks are immodestly dressed is not a particularly good source. If this was such a controversy, then there should be many news reports about it. If there are no others, then maybe it is not notable enough to be included here. At this point, as I said, I do not think it rises to any notability. It certainly should not be in its own section, nor does it belong in "Muslim faith and return to music" . It is merely a matter of his custom and I do not see why it is any more noteworthy than the fact that he doesn't eat pork and prays to Mecca five times a day. It's his religion - so what? I am inclined to remove it completely, but if the poster has some other sources to present, let's take a look at them. Any other opinions on this? Tvoz | talk 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on this source I just found: [8] - a press release from his manager - I removed the whole item about the alleged incident. There is no substance to this accusation, as I suspected. Tvoz | talk 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I just found this video of Yusuf accepting the Mediterranean Prize for Peace in January 2007. The award was presented to him by a woman in a low-cut dress, who is not wearing a veil or a headscarf - he comes out and shakes her hand and graciously accepts the award. This entire Echo award thing is trumped-up nonsense, and represents offensive prejudice that does not belong here. I highly doubt that he had a change in his level of "fundamentalism" from January to March of this year, and I strongly condemn the inclusion of anything related to it. Tvoz | talk 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why his picture is not shown at the top of the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soundlogic ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
I have removed all the images. Not one of them had a fair use claim that would allow the article to retain the good article status. If the images are replaced then either give a fair use claim for each one or remove the article from Wikipedia:Good articles. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"I have removed all the images." -- You did a good job by doing so. Since Yusuf Islam is a muslim, he would not even have hard feelings whenever you would replace his old name "Cat Stevens" by his current and true name "Yusuf Islam". -- The Wikipedia article should be named "YUSUF ISLAM". So what is your problem, dear contributors ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (07062007)
re: this
revert
In the
revision reverted to by Tvoz, Y. Islam is quoted with 150 words to his detriment and 280 to his favour. There *is* grotesquely undue weight given indeed, and this must be addressed. If he claims not to have backed the fatwa and not to have called for Rushdie's death, this must be reported, and that's it. It is, however, not newsworthy to feature full length his equivocal explanations.
Can we please stop this? -- tickle me 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In the episode, Islam has this exchange with moderator Geoffrey Robertson:
Robertson: You don't think that this man deserves to die?
Islam: Who, Salman Rushdie?
Robertson: Yes.
Islam: Yes, yes.
Robertson: And do you have a duty to be his executioner?
Islam: Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act - perhaps, yes.
[1]
[2]
- could well and truthfully be summed up as: "
In the episode, Islam felt that Rushdie deserved to die, and expressed contingent willingness to be his executioner under the legal provisons of an Islamic State
". This blather:
He has never retracted his statements about Rushdie, but, in a 2000 Rolling Stone
[3] interview, he was asked to explain his position on the fatwa controversy and said:
I'm very sad that this seems to be the No. 1 question people want to discuss. I had nothing to do with the issue other than what the media created. I was innocently drawn into the whole controversy. So, after many years, I'm glad at least now that I have been given the opportunity to explain to the public and fans my side of the story in my own words. At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur'an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, "Cat Says, Kill Rushdie." I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn't mention
Leviticus
24:16.
- could become:
He has never retracted his statements about Rushdie, but, in a 2000 Rolling Stone
[4] interview, he told to have answered, at a lecture in 1989, a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, to later have been abhorred by ensuing headlines like "Cat Says, Kill Rushdie." He felt
Leviticus
24:16 should be mentioned, which mandated death for blasphemy as well.
- There's no need to tell about his "limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts" or his being a "new Muslim," as his interpretation was as accurate as commonplace. All quotes could be paraphrased and the whole section be cut in less than half. I'll gladly set up a mock-up in my user space. --
tickle
me
04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would not want to see the section paraphrased in this way - I think the meaning of the statements on both sides of the issue are much clearer as they were in the article than in these paraphrases. I'd prefer to see it just shortened, which I'll take a shot at.
Tvoz |
talk
05:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Without wanting to hear from other editors, anymore? You might want to do that in your user space. Obviously, this section is contentious. --
tickle
me
06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uh - seems to me that you are the one who reverted to a contentious change. I had reinstated the text the way it has been for some time, and you really should have left it alone pending this discussion's outcome. Just saying.
Tvoz |
talk
13:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is silly to count letter for letter here; the number of letters does not determine the weight of a statement. If one statement is a counter to another statement, both must be included, regardless of their length. There is nothing wrong with the current version.
Antisemitism
Despite Islam's backpedaling, he has, on numerous occasions, endorsed the Khomeni fatwa, only recently trying to downplay it in promoting his return to the public arena.
What's more troubling to me is that there has been no mention at all of his various vicious antisemetic utterances. It's like doing a portrait of David Duke without mentioning his Klan membership, or Lee Harvey Oswald without mentioning that he happened to shoot a president.
To cite just two well-documented instances:
In a brochure he wrote and circulated in 1988:
The Jews seem neither to respect God nor his creation. Their own holy books contain the curse
of God brought upon them by their prophets on account of their disobedience to Him and mischief in
the earth. We have seen the disrespect for religion displayed by those who consider themselves to
be ‘God’s chosen people.’ … Yusuf Islam, Eyewitness, Tucson:
Islamic Association of Palestine, 1988
[9]
At a 1995 ISNA conference, he delivered this comment in a speech:
The Jews would have us believe that God has this bias to this little small tribe in the
Middle of the Sinai desert and all the rest of humanity is just rubbish. I mean that this is
the basic doctrine of the Jewish religion and that's why it is a most racist religion.
To portray this man as anything but a doctrinaire Islamic extremist is to simply whitewash history.
Mje
01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you read
WP:NPOV before making any attempt at using "doctrinaire Islamic extremist" in the article, Mje.
Italiavivi
23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
diff 142508525
199.125.109.138
reverted arguing that "this is still using a blog as a source" ...to which it is perfectly entitled to, as a
WP:RS may use scribbled-on toilet paper as source.
History News Network is a peer reviewed academic entity, its advisory board being lead by
Pauline Maier et al, while
Juan Cole is a
WP:RS on his own merit - undeservingly so, but--alas-- he is. Being a historian, Islamic scholar *and* political commenter, his assessment on Yusuf Islam's credibility when expounding on Islamic issues couldn't possibly be more pertinent - case closed. --
tickle
me
19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- > Tvoz: No. Still sourced by a blog
- Correct - and irrelevant. Tzor, you do understand the principle of
WP:RS, do you?
- > and totally unnecessary
- Wrong, and we know why you don't try to disprove the argument made above, don't we?
- > This entire incident is getting too much weight in article.
- > Write a separate, balanced article if you think it's so important.
- It's not an incident, it's Islam's stance on the issue. Besides, I'd have no problem with shortening the section, pumped up by his adherent's efforts to wedge in Steven's weaselese. Exporting it to an article of its own--and linking it here--is a valid option. You can do that with copy & paste. How about
this? After all, Yusuf made himself
quite clear on the issue. Just joking, better like
that? Anyway, we'll fight for, um, balance there. Till then, try adding balance by weeding out Stevens blather on being "sad," being "innocently drawn" into things, being "glad" for having been given opportunities etc. pp yada yada. --
tickle
me
18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Denial of entry into the United States
re
this matter. The Transportation Security Administration expressed "concerns" and acted upon it, to which it is entitled to - no more nor less. AFAIK they didn't claim to have proof - they don't have to. Adding "although it did not offer any proof of its allegation, nor has any turned up." is
WP:OR, as it is not up to wikipedians to qualify events, to mention that which *didn't* happen, nor to assess evidence. --
tickle
me
07:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Rusdie controversy
Can we cut this down to a single paragraph in the interests of "unfair weight", and move the full article/discussion to
Cat Stevens comments about Salman Rushdie?
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree this is what is needed. There is entirely too much space afforded this incident in this article.
Tvoz |
talk
23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I went ahead and created it. I haven't touched the wording of the section, I'll let everybody else fight that out. I just summarised the main situation in a paragraph and a half, and included a link to the new "Main" article about the incident.
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Quite ok. --
tickle
me
03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok with me too - I tweaked it slightly here, and it now has appropriate weight in this article, I think, and fair to both sides of the issue. No fight needed about the forked off other article - I think we can leave it with all of the gory details on both sides of the issue as it is. I'm satisfied with this solution. Thanks, Sherurcij.
Tvoz |
talk
04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, I agree with the move, but not with the summary. i.e. it postulates an "on-going debate" over "the degree to which the singer supported the theoretical assassination of Rushdie." Actually, the only one debating on the subject is Stevens himself; afaik western media were either condemning his stance or dodging the issue. Where's the evidence for a debate? --
tickle
me
20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Other than this talk page, as the easiest example? ;)
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a
WP:RS, much less its talk pages. Sherurcij, can we be serious? For private fun and edification, I won't dodge debate on your or my talk page, however. Section header could be, say: "Yusuf: Islam's willing executioner." He made quite a case for himself in that regard,
didn't he? --
tickle
me
01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
POV fork - redirected to this article
A POV fork (
Cat Stevens comments about Salman Rushdie) was merged to this article. Please summarize the quotes to comply with
WP:NPOV#undue weight.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Note that
WP:POVFORKs are strongly discouraged. If there is a content dispute, a POV fork is not the way to resolve it. If editors cannot find common ground, please pursue
WP:DR.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wow...way to ignore consensus entirely. I'm going to undo the autonomous merge, because this is not based off a content dispute, it was based solely off an undue weight argument - and nobody here, on either side, is demanding that we simply lop off half the context for the event, just that it shouldn't be the "central issue" of Cat Steven's article, so a forked article was the perfect solution - the situation is still address in full context, but doesn't over-burden the article. This article is 52k long, it needs a fork article, and the Rushdie controversy is the perfect candidate.
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I tried explaining that on Jossi's talk page - I agree with your revert.
Tvoz |
talk
03:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- See
WP:POVFORK#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles for a perfect example of why your pointing to WP:POVFORK isn't accurate. This spin-off was not an attempt to "legitimise" certain POVs, or introduce facts into the spin-off that weren't allowed in the main article, it's merely an attempt to avoid Undue Weight, and allow the "most controversial part" of the article to be argued/debated/consensusReached without disrupting the entire article.
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
05:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Live Earth Hamburg finale
I don't see what relevance it has to the Cat Stevens article that Madonna was the finale act to the London show. He closed the Hamburg show with the songs mentioned - that;s fine. But why would we include here that Madonna closed London, no matter how true and disambiguated it is? If something is being suggested, spell it out please. The Police closed NY - should we get that in too?
Tvoz |
talk
21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hamburg and London closed at roughly the same time. (NY closed much later.) Madonna was considerably more promoted than Stevens, and stations who had to choose tended to go for Madonna. People who didn't realize that his new name was Yusuf Islam would have missed him entirely. It's almost as bad as the earlier time when he was bumped in favour of Elton John.
Eclecticology
23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, well, these days Madonna is the bigger act, I'm afraid, as far as tv stations might be concerned. But first of all the addition was not self-explanatory, so saying his close was simultaneous to Madonna's just doesn't get across your meaning, but more importantly, it's really not notable. Sucks for fans, I agree, but unless you can find some reliable sourcing about the coinciding scheduling being deliberate or some sources that discuss Yusuf's being slighted by stations, or anything - this seems like unnotable OR for a Cat Stevens article.
Tvoz |
talk
23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- There was nothing in what I said to suggest that there was anything deliberate in these actions, nor would I impute motives to anybody. It happened and that is what is notable.
Eclecticology
08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- But you're not showing any connection to Yusuf in the fact that Madonna closed the London show at the same time - so why is it notable to be in his article? I think it would be better placed in the
Live Earth article, perhaps, in controversies if there's any back-up for this as a controversy. I think what you're saying is interesting, but you're not showing notability to Yusuf unless I'm missing something.
Tvoz |
talk
16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is about Yusuf Islam, not Madonna. Wherever she closed during Live Earth belongs at either her article or the concert's article.
Italiavivi
23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, user Tvoz, you seem to have been stuck on the level of the
maggie baby from the
Simpsons. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19072007)
- Hmmm - are you referring to Maggie's
"intelligence and leadership"??
Tvoz |
talk
05:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree with Tvoz on the issue - unless Stevens/Islam complained about the timing, then it's not notable, and only bogs down the reader with a few extra words to read.
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
05:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- And if no one wrote about it in the press, it's likely OR to boot. Not to say it is untrue, just not encyclopedic.
Tvoz |
talk
05:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Info Box Picture
The current picture in the Info Box is scheduled for deletion unless someone can provide a rationale for it on the
image description page.
Macduff
01:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- A source for a suitably licensed drawing of Cat Stevens' face is available at
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=399233662&size=o . See the "Some rights reserved" captioned link on
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deadplace/399233662/ for the notice that the image is licensed as CC Attribution 2.0. -
Bevo
19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy section, Why the quote of Stevens was added
[debate over edit and deletion of quote copied from
Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie talk page]
- 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)
- 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)
- ....
- ... 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)
- ...
- 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)
- Well to repeat myself, how can you call a "one or two-line sentence quoting the most controversial thing (Stevens) ever said" in a "105k long biography" of Stevens, a "tangent"? --
BoogaLouie
23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't have consensus to re-add that text. There is a separate, long article on this which is clearly referenced in this main article. This is common practice on Wikipedia, about things that are every bit as important to those articles as you think this is to this one. It is your characterization that this is the "most controversial thing" that Stevens ever said, not a conclusion that others have necessarily drawn. Nor is this main article about things that he said - it is a biographical sketch of his whole life and career. You're once again giving one side of the argument undue weight - we've already hashed all of this out and come up with a perfectly good solution that we reached consensus on. Please don't just go in and change it unless a new consensus is reached.
Tvoz |
talk
05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The existance of a seperate article does not undo the need for a short (one or two-line) sentence quoting what was said that created the controversy, a couple of lines a 105k-long biography can well afford. The readers' time is limited and they may not have enough to go to the spinoff article to see what Stevens said and what really happened.
- The controversy may not be important to you but it caused his records to be bulldozed and his music to be banned from radio stations. As for my characterization that this is the "most controversial thing" Stevens ever said, what other utterances of his compete for that standing?
- My edit gives both sides due weight: Steven's quote and his paraphrased reply to the critics.
- Since we have discussed this issue at length and don't have a consensus perhaps we should do arbitaration. --
BoogaLouie
00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected
2 weeks because of the name dispute again.
CambridgeBayWeather
(Talk)
17:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no reason for semi-protection, since there is no dispute over the name Yusuf Islam. This is the name that the artist adopted, while he dropped his old name "Cat Stevens". And he did so well-knowing that his new name is from the Arabic. This is why I added the Arabic version of his name Yusuf Islam to this article. "Yusuf Islam" is a transliteration from the Arabic language.
Then a certain user said, that this argumentation should not be valid since his birth name is not included in this article in Greek... Well, then, no one ever hindered this user to add the artist's name in Greek letters.
There is only one difference: The artist CHOSE his Arabic name Yusuf Islam, while he could not choose his birth name. This is the reason why the Arabic version of his name deserves to appear in this article, and why I have added it. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14102007) PS: Dear user CambridgeBayWeather, please think about this comment and do it closely. Thank you. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.148.118.11 (
talk)
04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, he chose that name when he converted, as did Muhammed Ali, and other converts to Islam. But Ali's name is rendered only in English here because he is American, and the same thing applies to other converts who are English-speaking but chose the English spelling of Arabic names. That's Wikipedia policy, as I understand the manual of style. And as I said, his birth name is Greek - and he has closer ties to being Greek than to being an Arab - yet we properly do not render his name in Greek letters as we do, say, Aristotle Onassis. Yusuf Islam is English - he writes his name in English - and so do we. And as for your other edit- the context is that he said he always liked the name Joseph and the story of Joseph in the Bible, so he chose the transliteration of Joseph to be his name. Your change to say that Joseph is the transliteration of Yusuf is reversed and although it's true, it is not in proper logical sequence following his statement that Joseph was a name he liked.
Tvoz |
talk
05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
blatant anti-Semitism just above
This is the first time I've looked at this talk page since the
above comment was posted by "ROHA" , and I am appalled at its blatant anti-Semitism, and I am appalled at the silence from the rest of the contributors to this page about it. Shame on all of you.
Tvoz |
talk 20:57, 13 November2007(UTC)
- Correction:
Andjam did object to the comment by Hans Rosenthal ("ROHA") on the
talk page of the latest IP address that ROHA edited under, and I thank you, Andjam, for that. Unfortunately, this editor comes in on a different IP address each time, so is not likely to see the comment. I'm still appalled that no one else seems to be bothered by this kind of attack.
Tvoz |
talk
00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it is on a dynamic IP so little can be done other than to ignore it. Such individuals thrive on controversy, and are best met with deafening silence.
WP:DENY,
WP:DFTT, and all that.
Raymond Arritt
02:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Several comments, not one, about Rushdie?
The summary gives the impression that Islam only made one comment, plus a clarification the next day, on Rushdie, whereas the main article mentions an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, a statement in Hypotheticals, and in another interview. I know we can't list them all in the main article, but shouldn't we mention that he made several statements, not just one?
Andjam
19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea --
BoogaLouie
19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done.
Tvoz |
talk
06:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- A sentence has been added saying "Subsequent comments of his were also seen as support of the fatwa, which he denied." That makes it sound like he specifically denied that subsequent comments were in support of the fatwa. However, I'm not aware of him specifically addressing his subsequent comments about the fatwa (apart from getting youtube to yank a recording of Hypotheticals). Are you aware of any such specific statements?
Andjam (
talk)
02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, he mentions the burning thing
here.
Andjam (
talk)
02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- That implication was unintentional on my part - the "which" in "which he denied" was referring to "support of the fatwa" that immediately precedes it, but I can see that it might be unclear. His recent statements seem to be blanket denials of support of the fatwa - so I reworded it to say "incidents" and took out the "which he denied" as it's covered in the next paragraph anyway. And I see that you included his Hypotheticals explanation in the other article, which is the appropriate place for it. Thanks for pointing out the unintended implication.
Tvoz |
talk
03:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've made a request for mediation over the
Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy section
See the small box at the top of the page for further explanantion (if you haven't read about it already. --
BoogaLouie
17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- A case has been opened at
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29 Cat Stevens. If everyone involved in the discussion is alright with me mediating, I've asked for each of you to add some discussion on the mediation page to start working towards a solution. Thanks.
Shell
babelfish
03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability
of this person is based on his stage name Cat Stevens, and not on his current name. That should be reflected on the lead and the infobox.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
21:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed ad-infinitum. See sections 7, 13, 19, 24 and probably many others above. --
Macduff (
talk)
00:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Redundant template boxes
This article includes both a
Cat Stevens template and a
Cat Stevens Alt template. These two templates seem to contain duplicate information. Is there any reason they both exist? I think using only one template would serve the purpose. --
Macduff (
talk)
00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
^ Cite error: The named reference
itnsourceGranadaTV
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
-
^
"Hypotheticals (A Satanic Scenario)".
Granada Television/
Youtube. 1989. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
-
^
"Cat Stevens Breaks His Silence", interview by Andrew Dansby, June 14, 2000
-
^
"Cat Stevens Breaks His Silence", interview by Andrew Dansby, June 14, 2000
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I find it remarkable that wikipedia can't provide a quote from the actual Kingston Polytechnic comment on the Rushdie Fatwa. Is there no accurate source for what he said at Kingston? Funkyj 17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a source for his actual comments....a video of HIM saying what he was accused of. Here is part of the video archived on one site. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25970_Video-_Cat_Stevens_Wishes_for_Salman_Rushdies_Death_by_Fire&only JB 03:43.07 July 2007
I specifically remember a TV interview with Stevens about the fatwa on Rushdie (who was in no rush to die from any fatwa!) and his attitude to it. Stevens said "it's not a question of murder, it's a question of doing your duty as a creature of god". There was also a show on Brit TV in the early days of the fatwa, with for and against debating, including Stevens along with many a group of British Muslims in favour of the fatwa, and various others, including Fay Weldon, against. Stevens was less visibly agitated than many of the other Muslims but he did point out that, although many of his songs spoke of peace, he had also written a song, early in his career, called "I'm gonna get me a gun".
Any social scientist with a specialization in religion will tell that the Stevens maniac assertions about Rushie’s fatwa are a result of religious brainwashing. Monotheist religions, under a cover of peace, in reality tend to be extremely violent. The same mechanisms that made possible to exterminate millions of human beings in Europe during the inquisition times are still very active in other parts of the world. Get a sweet nice young man in a religious sect and the result can be quite astonishing. Happily, Yusuf Islam got wiser with the age. And the world is missing the poems, the music, the compassion, the love and the freedom of Cat Stevens. Millions of people are still waiting that one-day he may wake up again from the nightmare he got in. (DC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.48.146.87 ( talk • contribs) 07:24, 29 May 2007
The video that was provided by the link above is heavily edited. Is there somewhere a copy of the complete program?
This is mentioned two separate times in the article; perhaps one of them should be removed.
I thought I would note the following change:
to
The main point that concerns me are those quotes because they're unsourced and just look like someone inserted some clichés into the article: "You're bloody great! What's your name?" Both phrases get under 100 hits each on Google and the hits are mostly Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. The point is, there's a lot of unsourced material in this article that needs to be cleaned up. I've done a bit and plan to do some more. By the way I did my best using a DVD booklet as reference (see the References). It's actually a remake of the Earth Tour Program so I considered it to be similar to a press release (credibility wise). Mrtea (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope I improved the headings in the mainspace. I made them conform more to similar artists who have featured articles. I think my revisions make the article more clear to read, however it might be tricky to distuingush between Cat Stevens the artist and Cat Stevens the person (similar to Johnny Cash.)
Negative or positive feedback is appreciated. I'm pretty sure it's an improvement. Mrtea (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There was some discussion above about the external links. Here is the diff of my recent edits: [2]. I removed the links to related news articles that shouldn't be linked (for one because the news events are included within our article.) There were a few dead links I removed (the cached version of those two sites said the "account has been suspended".) I removed the recently added fan site: The Alexa rating of the fan site that's there now was significantly higher than Magicat.com. There were also some links that were in both the References section and External link section. I removed those obviously and added an html comment about it. Contributors should be familiar with WP:EL to keep the list clean and useful for the reader. Cheers. Mrtea (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Didn't he try to get the Thatcher government to ban the Satanic Verses book? And maybe more specifics about his charitable career- I understand it was rather extensive.
I'd do it myself, but unfortunately I know very little about his life, and am only just beginning to get into his music...
Why are you listening to his music?
Are you spying on hm for SIS and that's your in?
When I read this part, my first thought was "Whuh?"
I have reworded as follows; if someone disagrees feel free to edit further or revert.
I've moved it to its chronological place after the libel case, and given it a heading (Perceptions Among Muslims) since it's really not part of the deportation or libel case. I don't like giving a heading to one paragraph, and would encourage someone to broaden this to a more general (Public Perceptions) heading if they feel so moved.
I have also tried to fix the footnote so it matches the others, but I have no experience with the citation format. Can someone help me clean it up to the "news reference" form? [3] Mana Gement 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Cat Stevens has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.
The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Comprehensiveness - Sales - Audio - References |
Shouldn't we follow the Wikipedia practice of titling a biographical article after the individual's current name, such as Muhammad Ali? I think this is especially pertinent for Yusuf Islam, since "Cat Stevens" was a taken name anyway. The main article should be "Yusuf Islam," with a redirect from "Cat Stevens." Ibadibam 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Macduff hit on the point here: the man wants to be called Yusuf Islam. It’s a question of respect and rights more than of conventions and pragmatics. Theaceoface -12/16/2006 5:58:58 AM
Hi, I'm in trouble with editing a category I called "List of British people of Swedish descent". I have written a few lines on it and added the edit summary too, but I can't save it!!! If any of you want to help me through this I'd really be glad. Thanks a lot. Gianmaria Framarin.
I just added the part about his rumored relationship with the Unification Church, of which I am a member. I took it off another article where it didn't belong and didn't know what to do with it. I hate to throw out someone else's work so I posted it here. It is really trivial relative to Stevens' whole life and career which is the subject of this article. If you want to take it out I have no objection. BTW I think he is a great song writer but I haven't caught up with his recent work. Steve Dufour 20:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it interesting that this new album is credited to simply "Yusuf", rather than "Yusuf Islam". Has any reason been given for this?
Granted, some artists are sufficiently well known that they can be credited by first name only (Kylie, Cliff, Elton, etc), but I don't think Yusuf Islam falls into this category. Most people still know him as Cat Stevens.
Perhaps (a) Yusuf did not feel comfortable using the name Islam on a non-religious album, or (b) it was felt that non-Muslim audiences would be reluctant to buy an album with the word "Islam" on it? 217.155.20.163 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
COuld be right, but has anyone seen the actual album yet? That was a promo pic of the cover, not sure if it is the final cover. Tvoz 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
My speculation is that Yusuf Islam is his legal name, "Yusuf" the new stage name. Macduff 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
In an Interview with "Billboard" reported by Nigel Williamson on November 17th, shortly after the release of "An Other Cup" Yusuf was asked about the use of the single name. He said, " "Islam" doesn't have to be sloganized. The second name is like the official tag, but you call a friend by their first name. It's more intimate, and to me that's the message of this record."
On the question of the Cat Stevens reference, he said,"That name is part of my history, and a lot of the things I dreamt about as Cat Stevens have come true as Yusuf Islam."
The limited, deluxe version of the album also has the removable sticker on its outer sleeve. It is a 44-page, hard-backed book with the disc in the back cover. It contains more overt references, through images and quotations, to the Islamic spiritual influences in the songs than the words of the songs themselves.
Rubylove
06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this section should be included in this article - it is by definition a selected sample, and can't possibly fairly represent all of the man's personal views, whatever that means, nor is it encyclopedic. SOme of his personal views have been included elsewhere on the page, as they speak to specific subjects that are deemed noteworthy for inclusion in this biographical piece. But a section that purports to present his personal views is a prescription for trouble. There are links and directions to his websites, where one can read it all and determine what they think he believes, and that is sufficient - if we include one "personal view" then don't we have to include all of them? Impossible, obviously. So I am deleting the section, but with this explanation. Happy to discuss, of course. Tvoz 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yusuf says in interviews that his son Muhammed, now age 21, is a musician who does not want his father to mention the name he is recording under because he wants to "make it" on his own. Yoriyos' MySpace official page leaves hints to the fact that he is Cat Stevens' son, Yoriyos did the artwork on An Other Cup, and mostly NME, a respected music publication, names him as such (reference provided in article). His album includes a song "The End" which is published by Ya Music, Yusuf's company. And, look at his picture and listen to his voice. Circumstantial, I suppose, but quite certain. The NME citation is what makes this verifiable, not OR or speculation, so it should remain in the article. Tvoz 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to distinguish between his legal names and his stage names. As near as I've been able to determine, his legal name was never Cat Stevens - it was Steven Demetre Georgiou, then he changed it to Yusuf Islam. "Cat Stevens" was his stage name. Now that he has released a new popular music CD, he has had two stage names: Cat Stevens, and the lone "Yusuf," used for the new CD. His website seems to bear this out, where he goes by both Yusuf Islam and Cat Stevens. However, he no longer uses the "Cat Stevens" label and only applies it to his old recordings. "Yusuf" is his stage name of his new recordings. Macduff 21:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
About the Infobox: the main name of the article should be the name attached to the infobox. I think it is ok for it to say "(now Yusuf Islam)" even though that is not typical wiki usage, because we have a specific situation i this article that needs creative handling. This photograph is clearly of Cat Stevens, so the heading also makes sense as "Cat Stevnes (now Yusuf Islam)" because that is who we are loking at. At one point we had a recent photograph of Yusuf Islam also on the page, and I would be happy to see that - I would add it at the "Life as Yusuf Islam" section. But we need one that is legal here - we need either a free photograph of Yusuf Islam, or a legitimate promo/publicity photo of him, properly uploaded and license-labeled. If anyone can find one, I think it would be an excellent addition to the article and in fact would be illustrative of the journey this person has taken. Maybe there is a "press book" on his music website. But the Infobox name should remain "Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam)", as it now reads. Tvoz 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Cat Stevens (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948, changed name to Yusuf Islam in 1979) is an English musician, singer-songwriter" Does he still sing? I think that he has turned into a pure Islamic clerc & Islam forbids singing. Isn't it better to say "was an English musician, singer-songwriter, he is a prominent convert to islam and is now a muslim clerc" or something smiliar?
Please fix this if appropriate-- Fellow of wiki 20:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Editors: This has been debated and debated in the past and consensus was reached that the article name should be Cat Stevens, with the first sentence essentially rendered as it now is rendered - Cat Stevens (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948, changed name to Yusuf Islam in 1979)... etc. I believe we should respect the work that went into that debate and the fact that consensus was reached, and once again move on from the debate, as has been done previously. The article gives ample and fair attention to his life as Yusuf Islam. There is a redirect in place for people who search for the name "Yusuf Islam". The article is balanced, respectful, NPOV and comprehensive (although actually the Cat Stevens section was in need of expansion which is underway). It has been determined to be a Wikipedia "Good Article", which we should be proud of. The name situation is complicated, but the fact remains that most people agree that his notability derives from the worldwide fame he achieved from his career as Cat Stevens, and so the article is worded this way. Please understand that this is not haphazard or casually written - it is carefully crafted to be accurate, fair and representative of the complexities. Going in and changing the wording because of an individual editor's preference is to ignore the consensus that has been reached, and is counter-productive. I hope we can continue to work with this in a productive way. No subject is ever really closed on Wikipedia, so discussion is always welcome, but one of the principles we try to uphold is respecting consensus when it is achieved. Tvoz 11:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way - I should point out that this consensus was reached before my time editing this article. Tvoz 11:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proposing moving or renaming the article, I'm only proposing that the first paragraph be changed to reflect the man's name. Instead of
Cat Stevens (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948, changed name to Yusuf Islam in 1979) is an English musician, singer-songwriter and a prominent convert to Islam.
Something like
Yusuf Islam (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) performed under the name Cat Stevens from 1966 to 1977. He is an English musician, singer-songwriter and a prominent convert to Islam.
Just as in the Sade entry, this would lead off with the person's actual name instead of their stage name. If people still feel strongly that the lead in should be Cat Stevens, then how about something like
Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Yusuf Islam (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) ...
Does anyone other than Tvoz and myself have any thoughts about this?
Macduff 03:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've read this discussion (including Talk archives) since checking this page, and must fully agree with User:Macduff. This article's introduction should be changed to always list his current legal name first. I support your version:
Yusuf Islam (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) performed under the name Cat Stevens from 1966 to 1977. He is an English musician, singer-songwriter and a prominent convert to Islam.
for this article. It is the common standard for Wikipedia biographical articles. For the record, even if his real name were still Steven Georgiou, I would support listing that name first in the lead, too. The Talk Page Archive debate User:Tvoz invokes was concerning the article name, not its lead, and is not authoritative to this particular issue. Italiavivi 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
His present name is Yusuf Islam and that is the name he used these days. Hence the article should be created on that name (Yusuf Islam). Cat Stevens should be redirected here. --- ALM 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Of the compromises, I like "Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Steven Demetre Georgiou, who is today known as Yusuf Islam. " Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding his legal name: When anyone travels internationally, they must travel under the name that is on their passport. Last I heard, passports were only issued under one's legal name. Since the name "Yusuf Islam" was what drew the attention of Homeland Security, we must presume that Yusuf was travelling under that name, that "Yusuf Islam" is the name on his passport, and that therefore, it is his current legal name.
Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Steven Demetre Georgiou, who is today known as Yusuf Islam. Born on July 21, 1948, he is an English musician, singer-songwriter, educator and philanthropist.
Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Yusuf Islam (Born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948). He is an English musician, singer-songwriter, educator and philanthropist.
OK guys, this is yet another stupid argument about naming. general wikipedia consensus is to use the name that someone is most known by; any case where more than one name applies seems to lead to acromonious debate but then almost always settles down to that same most-recognized name. if you want to see a truly awful discussion, go look at "republic of macedonia", where the length of the debate is truly insane and someone even tries to seriously convince the world that "FYROM" is more well-known than "macedonia". in this case, the guy is still mostly known as "Cat Stevens" which is why all the recent articles about him include this info. yes, this might change in a few years, in which case the article can move, too. see the wikipedia page Wikipedia:Consensus_can_change. the lead should read
"Yusuf Islam (formerly known at Cat Stevens, born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) ..."
i'm pretty sure if you take a look at other articles with name changes you'll see a similar format. Benwing 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the biographical standard is that birth names precede psuedonyms or later legal name changes. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym." So, as loathe as I am to make yet another suggestion, it would seem that this would be the best solution: "Steven Demetre Georgiou, better known as Cat Stevens and currently as Yusuf Islam ..." Or some reasonable fascimile thereof.
However, I've looked up a dozen articles of people with stage names differing from their birth names and can find no real consistency between articles. For example...
Stage name/pseudonym listed first:
Birth name listed first:
People with the legal name change listed first:
Articles with only the legal name (not the known name) listed:
Anyway. Prince's article is the only one that has some relevance, given that he has gone through more than one name, like the subject of this article. In Wikipedia:Naming conflict, the suggestion is to do a Google test to see which is the more prevalent name in English. Cat Stevens turns up many more hits, although this could be because many articles referring to Yusuf Islam also refer to him by his old stage name at least once for clarity. And, at any rate, the policy refers more to the home of the article, and not what name comes first in the text.
At any rate, perhaps we can compromise by listing the names strictly chronologically: birth name, stage name, current name. If an editor can find a source that documents that his name was legally changed (and the Larry King transcript does not do that), then that can be added to the discussion of his names. Thoughts? -- Merope 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
just-published interview in the ny times: [5]
it's interesting to see what he says (or rather, refuses to say) about hamas and islamic extremism. Benwing 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The name of the article is "Cat Stevens" because that is where his notability comes from, at present. If the situation changes, we'll be disucussing it I am sure, and hopefully will reach a consensus agreement among the editors on how to proceed with that. Meanwhile, with the article name properly "Cat Stevens", the infobox should also be labeled "Cat Stevens", but editors have for a long time agreed that the unusual circumstances here require an unorthodox solution, and in this case that is "Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam)" on the infobox above the photograph. The photograph is from the 1960s when his notability arose, when he was called Cat Stevens. As I said earlier, at one point there was also a recent photograph of Yusuf Islam which was removed from the system - I don't know why, perhaps for copyright reasons - I for one would welcome a picture of him today to be added to the large section that talks about his life as Yusuf islam. But I would no more label that picture "Cat Stevens" as I would label this picture "Yusuf Islam" . The difference is obvious. We have discussed this before, veryt recently, and editors agreed again with this solution. So unilaterally ignoring that and changing it is not the way one should proceed. I'm changing it back. Tvoz | talk 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been active discussion concerning the ordering of Yusuf Islam's names (birth name, performance name, and current name) within this article's lead sentence. This survey is intended to offer a concise snapshot of current consensus concerning the article's lead. Note: This is not a survey concerning the article's page name/location, only the article's lead/introduction.
But I would like to suggest this alternative which I think is more in keeping with his notability:
My reasoning is, and has been all along, that his notability comes from his career as Cat Stevens, and I think the new wording as it stands now makes "Cat Stevens" very much an after-thought, and that is not reflective of the reality. Tvoz | talk 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
was displacing text, so deleted (unsigned)
I noticed that too. The weird thing was that the picture didn't even show up in Internet Explorer, but did show up in all other browsers. I think it's a good idea to have a contemporary picture of Yusuf, but I don't know the proper placement for it in the article. This is the image that was removed: [6] -- Macduff 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The lead section could use some trimming; it goes into too much detail instead of providing a concise overview of the detailed information that will be found later in the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
THe only reason I put the protection on was stop the insertion of material that violated the BLP. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that the edit war has broken out again over the names in the infobox. I looked through the various discussions and see only one section with two comments on the box. You need to discuss and sort out which version you want. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
C'mon, you either discuss this thing or remove the protection
I also agree, so c'mon, remove the damn thing Q8-falcon 08:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the use of a slash in the infobox. A slash implies that he is currently going by both names, which he is not. Italiavivi 23:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
We need a detailed discography for Cat Stevens in a separate page including covers, chart positions, etc....
We need to work guys!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Q8-falcon ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps some mention should be made that during his reception of the Echo award he refused to speak to any woman who was not veiled according to Islamic standards. If you "go deeper" into Cat Stevens you will find the man who isn't all that different from any radical Muslim. Unfortunately he has fooled far to many people. And btw, the gospels do not advocate murdering someone for blasphemy. His explanation of his support for killing Rushdie is appalling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.228.132 ( talk) 18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
The information about his not speaking to women with unscarved heads - not veils, by the way, which is different - is in the graf with the Echo award, where it allegedly took place. We need an English-language reference for the Echo award first of all, as the one we have is in German and we can't source something in another language in English wikipedia that people can't verify says what it is purported to say. Secondly, the source for this so-called criticism about his not speaking with women who he thinks are immodestly dressed is not a particularly good source. If this was such a controversy, then there should be many news reports about it. If there are no others, then maybe it is not notable enough to be included here. At this point, as I said, I do not think it rises to any notability. It certainly should not be in its own section, nor does it belong in "Muslim faith and return to music" . It is merely a matter of his custom and I do not see why it is any more noteworthy than the fact that he doesn't eat pork and prays to Mecca five times a day. It's his religion - so what? I am inclined to remove it completely, but if the poster has some other sources to present, let's take a look at them. Any other opinions on this? Tvoz | talk 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on this source I just found: [8] - a press release from his manager - I removed the whole item about the alleged incident. There is no substance to this accusation, as I suspected. Tvoz | talk 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I just found this video of Yusuf accepting the Mediterranean Prize for Peace in January 2007. The award was presented to him by a woman in a low-cut dress, who is not wearing a veil or a headscarf - he comes out and shakes her hand and graciously accepts the award. This entire Echo award thing is trumped-up nonsense, and represents offensive prejudice that does not belong here. I highly doubt that he had a change in his level of "fundamentalism" from January to March of this year, and I strongly condemn the inclusion of anything related to it. Tvoz | talk 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why his picture is not shown at the top of the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soundlogic ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
I have removed all the images. Not one of them had a fair use claim that would allow the article to retain the good article status. If the images are replaced then either give a fair use claim for each one or remove the article from Wikipedia:Good articles. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"I have removed all the images." -- You did a good job by doing so. Since Yusuf Islam is a muslim, he would not even have hard feelings whenever you would replace his old name "Cat Stevens" by his current and true name "Yusuf Islam". -- The Wikipedia article should be named "YUSUF ISLAM". So what is your problem, dear contributors ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (07062007)
re: this
revert
In the
revision reverted to by Tvoz, Y. Islam is quoted with 150 words to his detriment and 280 to his favour. There *is* grotesquely undue weight given indeed, and this must be addressed. If he claims not to have backed the fatwa and not to have called for Rushdie's death, this must be reported, and that's it. It is, however, not newsworthy to feature full length his equivocal explanations.
Can we please stop this? -- tickle me 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In the episode, Islam has this exchange with moderator Geoffrey Robertson:
Robertson: You don't think that this man deserves to die?
Islam: Who, Salman Rushdie?
Robertson: Yes.
Islam: Yes, yes.
Robertson: And do you have a duty to be his executioner?
Islam: Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act - perhaps, yes.
[1]
[2]
- could well and truthfully be summed up as: "
In the episode, Islam felt that Rushdie deserved to die, and expressed contingent willingness to be his executioner under the legal provisons of an Islamic State
". This blather:
He has never retracted his statements about Rushdie, but, in a 2000 Rolling Stone
[3] interview, he was asked to explain his position on the fatwa controversy and said:
I'm very sad that this seems to be the No. 1 question people want to discuss. I had nothing to do with the issue other than what the media created. I was innocently drawn into the whole controversy. So, after many years, I'm glad at least now that I have been given the opportunity to explain to the public and fans my side of the story in my own words. At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur'an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, "Cat Says, Kill Rushdie." I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn't mention
Leviticus
24:16.
- could become:
He has never retracted his statements about Rushdie, but, in a 2000 Rolling Stone
[4] interview, he told to have answered, at a lecture in 1989, a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, to later have been abhorred by ensuing headlines like "Cat Says, Kill Rushdie." He felt
Leviticus
24:16 should be mentioned, which mandated death for blasphemy as well.
- There's no need to tell about his "limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts" or his being a "new Muslim," as his interpretation was as accurate as commonplace. All quotes could be paraphrased and the whole section be cut in less than half. I'll gladly set up a mock-up in my user space. --
tickle
me
04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would not want to see the section paraphrased in this way - I think the meaning of the statements on both sides of the issue are much clearer as they were in the article than in these paraphrases. I'd prefer to see it just shortened, which I'll take a shot at.
Tvoz |
talk
05:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Without wanting to hear from other editors, anymore? You might want to do that in your user space. Obviously, this section is contentious. --
tickle
me
06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Uh - seems to me that you are the one who reverted to a contentious change. I had reinstated the text the way it has been for some time, and you really should have left it alone pending this discussion's outcome. Just saying.
Tvoz |
talk
13:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is silly to count letter for letter here; the number of letters does not determine the weight of a statement. If one statement is a counter to another statement, both must be included, regardless of their length. There is nothing wrong with the current version.
Antisemitism
Despite Islam's backpedaling, he has, on numerous occasions, endorsed the Khomeni fatwa, only recently trying to downplay it in promoting his return to the public arena.
What's more troubling to me is that there has been no mention at all of his various vicious antisemetic utterances. It's like doing a portrait of David Duke without mentioning his Klan membership, or Lee Harvey Oswald without mentioning that he happened to shoot a president.
To cite just two well-documented instances:
In a brochure he wrote and circulated in 1988:
The Jews seem neither to respect God nor his creation. Their own holy books contain the curse
of God brought upon them by their prophets on account of their disobedience to Him and mischief in
the earth. We have seen the disrespect for religion displayed by those who consider themselves to
be ‘God’s chosen people.’ … Yusuf Islam, Eyewitness, Tucson:
Islamic Association of Palestine, 1988
[9]
At a 1995 ISNA conference, he delivered this comment in a speech:
The Jews would have us believe that God has this bias to this little small tribe in the
Middle of the Sinai desert and all the rest of humanity is just rubbish. I mean that this is
the basic doctrine of the Jewish religion and that's why it is a most racist religion.
To portray this man as anything but a doctrinaire Islamic extremist is to simply whitewash history.
Mje
01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you read
WP:NPOV before making any attempt at using "doctrinaire Islamic extremist" in the article, Mje.
Italiavivi
23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
diff 142508525
199.125.109.138
reverted arguing that "this is still using a blog as a source" ...to which it is perfectly entitled to, as a
WP:RS may use scribbled-on toilet paper as source.
History News Network is a peer reviewed academic entity, its advisory board being lead by
Pauline Maier et al, while
Juan Cole is a
WP:RS on his own merit - undeservingly so, but--alas-- he is. Being a historian, Islamic scholar *and* political commenter, his assessment on Yusuf Islam's credibility when expounding on Islamic issues couldn't possibly be more pertinent - case closed. --
tickle
me
19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- > Tvoz: No. Still sourced by a blog
- Correct - and irrelevant. Tzor, you do understand the principle of
WP:RS, do you?
- > and totally unnecessary
- Wrong, and we know why you don't try to disprove the argument made above, don't we?
- > This entire incident is getting too much weight in article.
- > Write a separate, balanced article if you think it's so important.
- It's not an incident, it's Islam's stance on the issue. Besides, I'd have no problem with shortening the section, pumped up by his adherent's efforts to wedge in Steven's weaselese. Exporting it to an article of its own--and linking it here--is a valid option. You can do that with copy & paste. How about
this? After all, Yusuf made himself
quite clear on the issue. Just joking, better like
that? Anyway, we'll fight for, um, balance there. Till then, try adding balance by weeding out Stevens blather on being "sad," being "innocently drawn" into things, being "glad" for having been given opportunities etc. pp yada yada. --
tickle
me
18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Denial of entry into the United States
re
this matter. The Transportation Security Administration expressed "concerns" and acted upon it, to which it is entitled to - no more nor less. AFAIK they didn't claim to have proof - they don't have to. Adding "although it did not offer any proof of its allegation, nor has any turned up." is
WP:OR, as it is not up to wikipedians to qualify events, to mention that which *didn't* happen, nor to assess evidence. --
tickle
me
07:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Rusdie controversy
Can we cut this down to a single paragraph in the interests of "unfair weight", and move the full article/discussion to
Cat Stevens comments about Salman Rushdie?
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree this is what is needed. There is entirely too much space afforded this incident in this article.
Tvoz |
talk
23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I went ahead and created it. I haven't touched the wording of the section, I'll let everybody else fight that out. I just summarised the main situation in a paragraph and a half, and included a link to the new "Main" article about the incident.
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Quite ok. --
tickle
me
03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok with me too - I tweaked it slightly here, and it now has appropriate weight in this article, I think, and fair to both sides of the issue. No fight needed about the forked off other article - I think we can leave it with all of the gory details on both sides of the issue as it is. I'm satisfied with this solution. Thanks, Sherurcij.
Tvoz |
talk
04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, I agree with the move, but not with the summary. i.e. it postulates an "on-going debate" over "the degree to which the singer supported the theoretical assassination of Rushdie." Actually, the only one debating on the subject is Stevens himself; afaik western media were either condemning his stance or dodging the issue. Where's the evidence for a debate? --
tickle
me
20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Other than this talk page, as the easiest example? ;)
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a
WP:RS, much less its talk pages. Sherurcij, can we be serious? For private fun and edification, I won't dodge debate on your or my talk page, however. Section header could be, say: "Yusuf: Islam's willing executioner." He made quite a case for himself in that regard,
didn't he? --
tickle
me
01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
POV fork - redirected to this article
A POV fork (
Cat Stevens comments about Salman Rushdie) was merged to this article. Please summarize the quotes to comply with
WP:NPOV#undue weight.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Note that
WP:POVFORKs are strongly discouraged. If there is a content dispute, a POV fork is not the way to resolve it. If editors cannot find common ground, please pursue
WP:DR.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wow...way to ignore consensus entirely. I'm going to undo the autonomous merge, because this is not based off a content dispute, it was based solely off an undue weight argument - and nobody here, on either side, is demanding that we simply lop off half the context for the event, just that it shouldn't be the "central issue" of Cat Steven's article, so a forked article was the perfect solution - the situation is still address in full context, but doesn't over-burden the article. This article is 52k long, it needs a fork article, and the Rushdie controversy is the perfect candidate.
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I tried explaining that on Jossi's talk page - I agree with your revert.
Tvoz |
talk
03:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- See
WP:POVFORK#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles for a perfect example of why your pointing to WP:POVFORK isn't accurate. This spin-off was not an attempt to "legitimise" certain POVs, or introduce facts into the spin-off that weren't allowed in the main article, it's merely an attempt to avoid Undue Weight, and allow the "most controversial part" of the article to be argued/debated/consensusReached without disrupting the entire article.
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
05:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Live Earth Hamburg finale
I don't see what relevance it has to the Cat Stevens article that Madonna was the finale act to the London show. He closed the Hamburg show with the songs mentioned - that;s fine. But why would we include here that Madonna closed London, no matter how true and disambiguated it is? If something is being suggested, spell it out please. The Police closed NY - should we get that in too?
Tvoz |
talk
21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hamburg and London closed at roughly the same time. (NY closed much later.) Madonna was considerably more promoted than Stevens, and stations who had to choose tended to go for Madonna. People who didn't realize that his new name was Yusuf Islam would have missed him entirely. It's almost as bad as the earlier time when he was bumped in favour of Elton John.
Eclecticology
23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, well, these days Madonna is the bigger act, I'm afraid, as far as tv stations might be concerned. But first of all the addition was not self-explanatory, so saying his close was simultaneous to Madonna's just doesn't get across your meaning, but more importantly, it's really not notable. Sucks for fans, I agree, but unless you can find some reliable sourcing about the coinciding scheduling being deliberate or some sources that discuss Yusuf's being slighted by stations, or anything - this seems like unnotable OR for a Cat Stevens article.
Tvoz |
talk
23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- There was nothing in what I said to suggest that there was anything deliberate in these actions, nor would I impute motives to anybody. It happened and that is what is notable.
Eclecticology
08:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- But you're not showing any connection to Yusuf in the fact that Madonna closed the London show at the same time - so why is it notable to be in his article? I think it would be better placed in the
Live Earth article, perhaps, in controversies if there's any back-up for this as a controversy. I think what you're saying is interesting, but you're not showing notability to Yusuf unless I'm missing something.
Tvoz |
talk
16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article is about Yusuf Islam, not Madonna. Wherever she closed during Live Earth belongs at either her article or the concert's article.
Italiavivi
23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, user Tvoz, you seem to have been stuck on the level of the
maggie baby from the
Simpsons. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19072007)
- Hmmm - are you referring to Maggie's
"intelligence and leadership"??
Tvoz |
talk
05:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree with Tvoz on the issue - unless Stevens/Islam complained about the timing, then it's not notable, and only bogs down the reader with a few extra words to read.
Sherurcij (
Speaker for the Dead)
05:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- And if no one wrote about it in the press, it's likely OR to boot. Not to say it is untrue, just not encyclopedic.
Tvoz |
talk
05:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Info Box Picture
The current picture in the Info Box is scheduled for deletion unless someone can provide a rationale for it on the
image description page.
Macduff
01:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- A source for a suitably licensed drawing of Cat Stevens' face is available at
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=399233662&size=o . See the "Some rights reserved" captioned link on
http://www.flickr.com/photos/deadplace/399233662/ for the notice that the image is licensed as CC Attribution 2.0. -
Bevo
19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy section, Why the quote of Stevens was added
[debate over edit and deletion of quote copied from
Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie talk page]
- 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)
- 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)
- ....
- ... 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)
- ...
- 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)
- Well to repeat myself, how can you call a "one or two-line sentence quoting the most controversial thing (Stevens) ever said" in a "105k long biography" of Stevens, a "tangent"? --
BoogaLouie
23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't have consensus to re-add that text. There is a separate, long article on this which is clearly referenced in this main article. This is common practice on Wikipedia, about things that are every bit as important to those articles as you think this is to this one. It is your characterization that this is the "most controversial thing" that Stevens ever said, not a conclusion that others have necessarily drawn. Nor is this main article about things that he said - it is a biographical sketch of his whole life and career. You're once again giving one side of the argument undue weight - we've already hashed all of this out and come up with a perfectly good solution that we reached consensus on. Please don't just go in and change it unless a new consensus is reached.
Tvoz |
talk
05:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The existance of a seperate article does not undo the need for a short (one or two-line) sentence quoting what was said that created the controversy, a couple of lines a 105k-long biography can well afford. The readers' time is limited and they may not have enough to go to the spinoff article to see what Stevens said and what really happened.
- The controversy may not be important to you but it caused his records to be bulldozed and his music to be banned from radio stations. As for my characterization that this is the "most controversial thing" Stevens ever said, what other utterances of his compete for that standing?
- My edit gives both sides due weight: Steven's quote and his paraphrased reply to the critics.
- Since we have discussed this issue at length and don't have a consensus perhaps we should do arbitaration. --
BoogaLouie
00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected
2 weeks because of the name dispute again.
CambridgeBayWeather
(Talk)
17:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no reason for semi-protection, since there is no dispute over the name Yusuf Islam. This is the name that the artist adopted, while he dropped his old name "Cat Stevens". And he did so well-knowing that his new name is from the Arabic. This is why I added the Arabic version of his name Yusuf Islam to this article. "Yusuf Islam" is a transliteration from the Arabic language.
Then a certain user said, that this argumentation should not be valid since his birth name is not included in this article in Greek... Well, then, no one ever hindered this user to add the artist's name in Greek letters.
There is only one difference: The artist CHOSE his Arabic name Yusuf Islam, while he could not choose his birth name. This is the reason why the Arabic version of his name deserves to appear in this article, and why I have added it. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14102007) PS: Dear user CambridgeBayWeather, please think about this comment and do it closely. Thank you. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.148.118.11 (
talk)
04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, he chose that name when he converted, as did Muhammed Ali, and other converts to Islam. But Ali's name is rendered only in English here because he is American, and the same thing applies to other converts who are English-speaking but chose the English spelling of Arabic names. That's Wikipedia policy, as I understand the manual of style. And as I said, his birth name is Greek - and he has closer ties to being Greek than to being an Arab - yet we properly do not render his name in Greek letters as we do, say, Aristotle Onassis. Yusuf Islam is English - he writes his name in English - and so do we. And as for your other edit- the context is that he said he always liked the name Joseph and the story of Joseph in the Bible, so he chose the transliteration of Joseph to be his name. Your change to say that Joseph is the transliteration of Yusuf is reversed and although it's true, it is not in proper logical sequence following his statement that Joseph was a name he liked.
Tvoz |
talk
05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
blatant anti-Semitism just above
This is the first time I've looked at this talk page since the
above comment was posted by "ROHA" , and I am appalled at its blatant anti-Semitism, and I am appalled at the silence from the rest of the contributors to this page about it. Shame on all of you.
Tvoz |
talk 20:57, 13 November2007(UTC)
- Correction:
Andjam did object to the comment by Hans Rosenthal ("ROHA") on the
talk page of the latest IP address that ROHA edited under, and I thank you, Andjam, for that. Unfortunately, this editor comes in on a different IP address each time, so is not likely to see the comment. I'm still appalled that no one else seems to be bothered by this kind of attack.
Tvoz |
talk
00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it is on a dynamic IP so little can be done other than to ignore it. Such individuals thrive on controversy, and are best met with deafening silence.
WP:DENY,
WP:DFTT, and all that.
Raymond Arritt
02:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Several comments, not one, about Rushdie?
The summary gives the impression that Islam only made one comment, plus a clarification the next day, on Rushdie, whereas the main article mentions an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, a statement in Hypotheticals, and in another interview. I know we can't list them all in the main article, but shouldn't we mention that he made several statements, not just one?
Andjam
19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea --
BoogaLouie
19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done.
Tvoz |
talk
06:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- A sentence has been added saying "Subsequent comments of his were also seen as support of the fatwa, which he denied." That makes it sound like he specifically denied that subsequent comments were in support of the fatwa. However, I'm not aware of him specifically addressing his subsequent comments about the fatwa (apart from getting youtube to yank a recording of Hypotheticals). Are you aware of any such specific statements?
Andjam (
talk)
02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, he mentions the burning thing
here.
Andjam (
talk)
02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- That implication was unintentional on my part - the "which" in "which he denied" was referring to "support of the fatwa" that immediately precedes it, but I can see that it might be unclear. His recent statements seem to be blanket denials of support of the fatwa - so I reworded it to say "incidents" and took out the "which he denied" as it's covered in the next paragraph anyway. And I see that you included his Hypotheticals explanation in the other article, which is the appropriate place for it. Thanks for pointing out the unintended implication.
Tvoz |
talk
03:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've made a request for mediation over the
Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy section
See the small box at the top of the page for further explanantion (if you haven't read about it already. --
BoogaLouie
17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- A case has been opened at
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-29 Cat Stevens. If everyone involved in the discussion is alright with me mediating, I've asked for each of you to add some discussion on the mediation page to start working towards a solution. Thanks.
Shell
babelfish
03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability
of this person is based on his stage name Cat Stevens, and not on his current name. That should be reflected on the lead and the infobox.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
21:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed ad-infinitum. See sections 7, 13, 19, 24 and probably many others above. --
Macduff (
talk)
00:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Redundant template boxes
This article includes both a
Cat Stevens template and a
Cat Stevens Alt template. These two templates seem to contain duplicate information. Is there any reason they both exist? I think using only one template would serve the purpose. --
Macduff (
talk)
00:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
^ Cite error: The named reference
itnsourceGranadaTV
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
-
^
"Hypotheticals (A Satanic Scenario)".
Granada Television/
Youtube. 1989. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
-
^
"Cat Stevens Breaks His Silence", interview by Andrew Dansby, June 14, 2000
-
^
"Cat Stevens Breaks His Silence", interview by Andrew Dansby, June 14, 2000