Jump to content

Talk:Cat Stevens/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

"Relied on Heresy"?

Perhaps the quote is incorrect. "Hearsay" would make more sense here. Taco Deposit 16:14, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. --Delirium 02:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Passive accusations

"It has been alleged" -- grr. If we are going to say that someone has done something heinous, we have got to indicate by whom and when. Jgm 21:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The allegation was made by an anonymous user without any factual backup/reference or source quotation whatsoever. I have removed this and clarified that I expect a reference before it be permitted to be reinstated (assuming that a reference exists). Ropers 04:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Stevens/Islam"

How should we refer to him in the article? Continue with the slashed name, one throughout, or refer to him by his legal name at the time of the event (i.e. "Stevens" before his conversion to Islam, "Islam" after)? I personally support the use of one name throughout, merely for readability's sake. Whosyourjudas 03:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- I think that we should change the name into "Yusuf Islam" since he did change his name, and therefore Islam is his legitimate name. - 68.72.121.215 02:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- My suggestion would be to refer to him according to whatever name he was using at a given time: "Stephen Georgiou" in references to events before his pop career, "Cat Stevens" during, and "Yusuf Islam" post-conversion. Technically speaking, "Yusuf Islam" was not doing anything in 1965. --Mr. A. 02:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

- I think it would be kind of innapropriate to use his previous name it would be as if we today started calling Muhammed Ali (the Boxer) by his first name Cassius Clay just because people also know him by that name. However, I think to satisfy everyone we should propose that when an individual is known by two names we should put it up by their previous name with a / then the new name...like this

"Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam"

But, we should also take note that in a legal situation since Cat Stevens did change his name to Yusuf Islam. This situation is pretty tricky but I say we should put up a proposal to put individuals with 2 names to be named with both of them. Users who are looking for either name would be able to find the same page regardless of the name the user had searched for. Ali Siddiqui 7:41, October 23, 2005

As part of a significant expansion of the article (particular Cat Stevens' musical career), I've also changed references to his name post-conversion to Yusuf Islam. The fact that the man has had multiple names is explained in the lead and clarified throughout the article; there is no reason not to refer to him by the "correct" name as it applies to the stages of his life. Glad to discuss here. Jgm 01:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Denial of entry into the U.S. (questions)

What I want to know:

  • Was Yusuf Islam aware that he was on a watchlist when he travelled?
    • If yes, why did he travel anyway?
    • If no, why wasn't he told before being in mid-air?
      Getting diverted in mid-air and deported is a significant waste of time and money. It would kind of be the obvious thing to do to make the respective individuals aware that they are on a watchlist to avoid all that hassle.
  • Generally speaking, are individuals informed that they are on a U.S. watchlist?
  • Are they at least told before boarding a flight?

Does someone know?

Because what the news reported on this I can only describe as insufficient. Ropers 04:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes he was supposed to be stopped before boarding, and yes, the fact that he was boarded anyway indicates a security failure. see USA Today and NYTimes. - Nunh-huh 04:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe the subjects on the watchlist are not supposed to be told, even when delayed or denied travel. He was supposed to have been stopped before boarding. -R. S. Shaw 04:46, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Denial of entry into the U.S. (RfC issue)

I've reduced this section substantially by deleting most of the text. This is because its size was disproportionate to the rest of the article. Please don't insert it back in again - if anyone thinks it's important, set up a new page about it. Jongarrettuk 19:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can live with it the way it is now. However if any wild-eyed POV pushers were to insert unsubstantiated and unqualified "terrorist supporter"-allegations again, then I would definitely cry foul and at the very least insist that my previous explanation about such allegations also be included. Ropers 19:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The aritcle at present has no detectable clue as to why he was placed on the watchlist. I would think that this should certainly be mentioned rather than remain an expurgated mystery. -- Nunh-huh 03:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lots of people looking up the article will be doing so to find precisely the info that's been removed, so it should be restored. --phr
Come to think of it, you're probably right. I am now restoring the info, for these reasons:
  1. The reason given above for removing the text was that the section size "was disproportionate to the rest of the article". However, there is demand for the removed information and the information has been made available. Withholding information for perceived style reasons despite the fact that genuine public demand for the said information exists is not really justifyable.
  2. There are LOTS of places where we cover some part of a subject much more in detail than another part. As long as the coverage itself is NPOV such variations in the level of detail are perfectly normal and part of the wiki process.
  3. If we always deleted a section that has been expanded significantly more than another section, then our articles could never grow.
  4. It is simply good to have more information, not less.
Considering these points I really think it would be frivolous not to restore the removed text. Also, the text has been altered since the version where I previously thought it would be ok to keep things at. I no longer think it's a good thing to withhold the previously added text. I am reverting the relevant section of the article.
NB: phr -- are you aware that you can insert your signature just by typing "~~~~"? Just a hint.
Ropers 02:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I still think the (now reinserted bit) is too long in comparison to the rest of the article: the most important things for an encyclopaedia about Stevens are his musical career and his faith, not that he was once denied entry into the U.S. However, unless lots of others feel strongly about it, I shan't revert for now - but will probably look again in a month or so when this event can better be put into context. Jongarrettuk 07:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Seriously, feel free to expand any and all of the other sections where you have more information. That, I think, would be the way to go if you want to restore some balance in section length. Observation: I also think more recent events to be covered more extensively is quite natural given that Wikipedia just wasn't around during Yusuf Islams "Cat Stevens days". But again, I reckon gradually expanding the other sections is the way to go. Ropers 19:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The section was ridiculously long and had ruined this article. I've cut it back drastically. Jongarrettuk is right: people will come here looking for information on Cat Steven's music and faith. Denial of entry to the US is a minor event that has barely made the news. If you really think it deserves several paragraphs, then write a separate article on the event. --Auximines 22:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"barely made the news"? Hardly. Not only was it on every local and national report that I saw for several days, but it made all of the late night talk shows, comedy and not. RickK 22:50, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
I have now listed this on RfC. May democratic means guide us to a solution (sorry for sounding cheesy). Ropers 23:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I gather that the point of contention leading to the RfC was mainly between having the Denial of Entry section be 1 para as now, or the same plus 6 more paras, as in this version. (Also, external links to 3 news sources seem to be coming and going.)

Well, the elapsed time does not allow good perspective, but the subject does seem to be noteworthy. The 7-para version does seem too wordy and a bit long, although I don't think it ruins the article because it occupies say 40% of the whole. The 1-para version definitely doesn't say enough; for instance, it doesn't even mention the airliner being diverted to Boston, a rather striking action.

I'd favor including the second para ("Guardian") plus some additional covering the remaining 5 paras. How much that should be condensed isn't obvious, but about 3 more medium paras feels fairly good to me. (I don't know enough wikism to opine on whether a separate article page is warranted.) -R. S. Shaw 04:35, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

I agree that not all the information is necessary (some of the quotes are only of passing interest), but some of it should be re-added, and the disparity in lengths fixed by adding more information on his musical career. Just because the article is weak and stubbish in that respect doesn't mean we have to make the entire thing uniformly weak and stubbish. In particular, the information that he was deported from Israel four years ago for a similar reason is an interesting note. --Delirium 04:54, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

As much as possible, Yusef Islam's (the former Cat Stevens) anti-USA views which kept him out of USA, out to be exposed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please give a source for Cat Steven's "anti-USA views". When exactly did he air these "anti-USA views"? When he visited the White House in May this year? [1] When he was donating money to the September 11 victims? [2] I haven't seen anyone saying he got turfed out for his "anti-USA views" anywhere. You wouldn't be talking out of your gluteus maximus again would you? AlistairMcMillan 13:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ABC Nightly News ran another story on this issue last night, and an interview with Yusuf Islam (although the reporter made no mention of his call for the murder of Salman Rushdie). ABC was unable to get a US government representative to discuss the issue at all. But that's not really surprising, since they have fought in court to prevent it coming out that they even HAVE a don't fly list, let alone why somebody might be on it. RickK 18:17, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Newsnight (a nightly UK news magazine programme) did a section yesterday showing them following British foreign secretary Jack Straw at the United Nations (footage from this programme of him shaking Robert Mugabe's hand made the front pages in teh UK). In it Straw mentioned discussing Yusuf Islam with Colin Powell and that he (Straw) had always found Islam to be a good, trustworthy member of the Muslim community (well, words similar to it). 2 interesting points out of this for me: (1) The British Government don't understnad how Islam could get on a watchlist (indeed they're even giving him character references!); (2) It is a point that's been taken up seriously at an international level. That said, I still think the whole issue is a small footnote in Islam's life, and a not overly long section in the article will suffice. Certainly time will tell. Jongarrettuk 18:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually was that the programme last night that showed Straw and Powell discussing things as they walked through the streets of New York from their ?hotel? to the UN building. Powell seemed just as surprised. That's actually how I found out Cat/Yusuf had been to White House, because Powell mentioned it just as they were leaving the hotel. AlistairMcMillan 19:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry also meant to point out, we all know how accurate those no-fly lists are. [3] AlistairMcMillan 19:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also agree that the "Denial of entry into the U.S." section could contain more information, but I think a lengthy paragraph about Zakat is not necessary, especially one beginning with the inherently POV phrase "It should be kept in mind..." Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:17, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly urge that the "denial of entry" section be moved into a separate article. That way, people can write as much as they like on this subject, and the Cat Stevens article doesn't get skewed. Does anybody disagree with this? --Auximines 23:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would not oppose having that info in another article if it's properly linked. I would personally prefer NOT to put things into yet another separate article ("Invasion of the Killer Stubs" ;-) but, well, this proposal is something I would consider a "workable compromise", so if people were to agree on it, then I would not oppose it. If there is going to be a whole article on the "no entry issue" however, then I think it should definitely contain the info this RfC was about (see above) -- maybe not these actual words, as that stuff was sort of "written to be improved by others" and isn't exactly brilliant prose, however, I think if there is a separate article, then the gist of that information should definitely be in it, especially the Zakat reference, because it's a very relevant aspect to the issue that few non-Muslim know about . Ropers 22:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Denial of entry to US (links and references)

Please will those who keep adding information and links about the recent denial of entry to the US explain why they think it is so important? --Auximines 22:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between the two:
  • adding article content and
  • adding links and/or references.
The article content dispute is already well explained above and this article is listed on RfC for it.
The matter of links and references however is another issue: Whatever style reasons may prompt the removal of information from the actual article text, the very reverse applies as regards links. Any self-respecting scientifically produced publication endeavours to list a maximum of references and secondary and further sources, to enable the critical reader to check any claims made. This is the very essence of producing an authoritative encyclopedia. If you think that the selection of links lend disproportionate emphasis to a certain aspect of an issue -- go add more links about other aspects. As long as the links are actually relevant to the subject matter at hand and not advertising, you should welcome extra references. If there was a linklist of several pages -- ok, then I'd start selecting as well, depending on the subject. But in any case, Wikipedia isn't paper. It's not like the inclusion of relevant, non-advertising links came at a premium to us. Ropers 23:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ARGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why can't you answer the question? Why do you think the recent events were so important? --Auximines 23:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Because the question whether or not the recent events are more important than other events mentioned in the article is totally besides the point. The point is that you are contesting the inclusion of external links -- not of article text (unlike with the discussion further above). If you insist: the recent events in question made the mainstream global news for several days, but again, that's not the issue. The relative importance of parts of an article is of no consequence as regards our already explained best practices of always seeking to provide references and secondary literature/reading links. If you have further references that might -- I'm repeating myself. Please read my above post. And please don't shout at me. Ropers 00:45, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm all for having plenty of good references, but I think using current news articles as references is discouraged, and for good reason. These links are by definition transient and have an undefined relationship with the article. References are supposed to document the sources used for the article, not a collection of additional stuff not covered in the article itself (for example, the most recent article from ABC news about Stevens/Islam "wanting off" the no-fly list. I also disagree with the argument Ropers makes above: either a topic is important enough to cover in the article or it's not. Having said that, Wikipedia is not paper and I think the subject should be covered in whatever depth can be documented and done in a NPOV fashion -- I wouldn't mind at all a dedicated article on the facts and fallout of the controversy, which to me is a notable historical event (can anybody think of the last time an internationally-known entertainer was barred from entry to a Western country?). Jgm 01:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for shouting.
The question was about both the article and the references.
"the question whether or not the recent events are more important than other events mentioned in the article is totally besides the point"??? I'm going to have trouble convincing you of anything if that's what you think, but I'll give it one more try...
Any decent article has to be well balanced. To do this, you need to make a judgement as to the relative importance of each sub-topic, and ensure the number of words written is roughly in proportion. Cat Stevens is principally famous for being an immensely successful 70s pop star, so the bulk of the article should cover that. He became a devout and arguably radical muslim, which also deserves comment, especially his support of the Rushdie fatwa. Against all this, the denial of entry to the US really isn't a big deal - especially since it looks as if it might have been a mistake.
Let's compare with some other Wikipedia articles. I can't think of any other pop stars who have been denied entry to a country, but I can think of several that have run into trouble abroad. Paul McCartney, for instance, actually spent a few days in prison in Japan for marijuana. His article has a single sentence on this. Diana Ross was recently arrested for assault in the UK. No mention of this at all in her article. Keith Richards was arrested for drugs in Canada. Again, a single sentence in his article. It's a question of perspective: recent events really aren't very significant when viewed against the canvas of Cat Stevens' whole fascinating life.
You also have some strange ideas about external links. It simply isn't the case that we document the source of every paragraph with external links. A typical pop star's article has a couple of links to an official site and a fan site, and no more.
Anyway, I propose moving the Denial of Entry paragraphs to a separate article, and having a single sentence in the Cat Stevens article linking to it. Would that keep us both happy?
--Auximines 09:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again, IMO the matter of inclusion of links, references and further reading is quite different from the matter of inclusion of article content.
If you want to discuss the inclusion of article content, I would ask you to do that above. (Move some of your existing comments if you wish.) I'd really invite you (and everybody else) to participate in that discussion. In fact, I initiated an RfC about the very issue of inclusion of certain article content.
That leaves the matter of link inclusion to discuss here.
I gather from your user page that you've at least once participated in the Featured Article selection process. What is the top requirement that is always checked? Bingo, external links and references. It's true that a lot of other Wikipedia articles do not have their statements backed up by references and do not provide external links for further reading on the subject. Yet this is precisely what we should do as much as possibly (cf. Manual of Style and I dare say you'd have a hard time finding any featured article which doesn't meet that requirement.
While I do understand the "balance" argument to a limited degree when it comes to actual article text, it does IMO apply only to a considerably lesser degree when it comes to external links and references: References are sources which contain factual backup for the statements contained in our articles' actual text, but these sources frequently are a lot more extensive than the text we actually include in our articles. That applies with books just as it applies with Internet-based sources. That's quite natural and it's part of the scientific work and diligence involved with writing an encyclopedia. We're not making up what we're writing and our best articles come with the links and references to prove it. Moreover, every good scientifically edited work includes a bibliography, ie. a list of works for further reading on the subject. An even looser connection is perfectly permissible here. That said, yes, it would not be a good idea to include, say 20 links for the denial of entry issue and no links for the rest of the article. Some balance should also exist here. However: We're not talking about 20 links here. We're talking about 2 links--which is about the minimum we should ideally strive to include for about any substantial statement anyway. Also, as I've already says, if there is an imbalance, then the way to fix that is not to delete all links about a certain aspect mentioned in the article, but rather to add more links about other aspects mentioned in the article. Think about it: Every added link shifts the balance in a certain direction. If we always deleted links every time the balance is shifted, we could never add any link. Clearly the way forward is to find more sources for the rest of the article, not to include the perfectly good ones we've already got.
To Jgm: The point about links being transient is a bit of a red herring, isn't it? I mean. The entire Web is transient. That said, the BBC appears to keep their links perpetually (if one can say that when speaking of the Web). I have yet to see a broken BBC link. Also, unless we're talking about sources where we know in advance that the links will break, what's wrong with just adding the link and then removing or fixing it if and when it breaks. We're a wiki, after all. Ropers 22:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm baffled by your belief that featured articles need have lots of external links. I've just checked the last four daily featured articles: they have 1, 7, 2 and 0 links respectively, and none of these are links pertaining to one particular section of an article. I've participated in one featured article candidate discussion, and the subject of links never came up.
The manual of style is, as its name suggests, mostly about formatting. m:When should I link externally seems to be more relevant to what we're discussing here. The first sentence of that page reads "Not very often". --Auximines 23:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hm.
Seem to me that there is a rather great difference in perception of the rules here. Would you agree to list this again (separately) on RfC, to get community input regarding the question of whether or not articles should contain (more or less) links and references, (a) for backing up claims made in the article and/or (b) for further reading?
After all, the rules here are arrived at by consensus and neither you nor me make them (at least not alone). Ropers 22:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greek heritage

"Ironically, given his later conversion to Islam, his Greek heritage led to him being very anti-Muslim" Unless if there is some source this seems to me a total misunderstanding. Cat Stevens wasn't Greek but Cypriot. Cyprus was independant coutry were a Greek communauty and a Turk were communauty living in peace until a group of greek extremists backed by the Greek military dictorship caused a civil war. A lot Greek Cypriots disapproved this policy. In fact they finally ousted the goverment responsible for the war. Ericd 03:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • This idea apparently comes from Yusuf Islam himself:
"Ironically, considering I have now converted to Islam ..., my upbringing was very anti-Muslim. Essentially, the Greeks and Turks were enemies, so I adopted the stance of my Greek Cypriot father and hated everything about the Turks, including their religion"
This is from a fan site CatStevens.com; it appears twice, once under his bio without attribution, and once with attribution. -R. S. Shaw 20:56, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

What in the world is this: The logic pretty much went like this: Greeks hate Turks; Turks are Muslim.

  • That sentence, which was removed from the article, was trying explain why Cat Stevens hated Muslims. See quote above. -R. S. Shaw 20:56, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

OK I just wanted a source. I think it's better to attribute theis kind of sentence to Cat Stevens himself in the article. Ericd 09:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just for info, I added the phrase to the article, and it is indeed a précis of the quotation RS Shaw identifies. I was trying to put the point briefly and imply that the reasoning was trite, as Islam himself points out. No doubt there are many better ways of making the same point. jguk 18:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I removed the sentence because I believed it was a speculation by a Wikipedian. It's perfectly valid to keep it but I think its better to attribute it to Yusuff Islan himself. Aside of this I'm very curious to know to what extend the Cypriot civil war did influence it's personal evolution ?

Ericd 18:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Salman Rushdie

The quote provided, I feel, has been taken out of context and given the statements made by Yusuf Islam in 1989 seen here and here, I'm taking the liberty of re-writing the section on Rushdie to be a little more NPOV. Sherurcij 06:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Now, now

Let's drop the subjective language. It's as though he wrote it all, even when he didn't. --VKokielov 01:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Didn't he?--220.238.73.6 07:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Note: This vote is already closed. Please stop voting. --Hottentot

There has been a pagemove war here, moving back and forth between Cat Stevens and Yusuf Islam. As a third party, I have protected against pagemoves and have added a move request so that broader feedback can be obtained. I will also add a note to Wikipedia:Current surveys.

Note also that protecting pages against page moves requires freezing on one title or the other (just like protecting pages against editing requires freezing on one version or the other) and this does not constitute an endorsement of one title or the other. The move request is accordingly phrased as a move request to the other title, which likewise does not constitute an endorsement of the move. -- Curps 21:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

The following votes were cast after the "decision" (cited below) not to move the page based on votes cast between October 10 and approximately 0300 October 15:

Discussion

The naming of biographical articles in Wikipedia is complicated by the fact that one individual may be known under several different names at the same time, and may change their name a number of times in their life. For example, we have an article at Cat Stevens (his stage name) even though he was born as Stephen Demetre Georgiou and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. To be neutral, our only choice is to examine popular usage. —Morven 23:20, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
Also, I didn't delete the image, I'm not an admin. --Hottentot
  • I contend that the policy, which is designed to deal with pen names or name changes that remain in force, is not valid here; the policy is there as a guideline for most cases; the evidence (in the form of argument) that the policy doesn't work well here is why we need to vote, so simply citing "policy" is abdicating responsiblity. The very fact that, given this choice of name, the article lead must include the word "was" (stylistically implying he's dead) illustrates the problem. Jgm 02:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    The policy and the related guideline are referred to by voters for fairly good reasons: much time and thought has gone into them in order to make Wikipedia as usable as possible. We're voting here because some editors think the policy "not valid" in this case, but the fact of the vote is not evidence that it is not valid.
    My view is that the policy does work quite well here, despite assertions that somehow it doesn't. That his name was Yusuf Islam for a longer period than it was Cat Stevens or Stephen Georgiou doesn't seem important in choosing a title (Samuel Clemens went by Samuel Clemens longer than he went by Mark Twain, for instance). Nor is using a title that is the most commonly-recognized name among English speakers an anti-Islamic jibe.
    The feelings against using the common name seem to be mainly related to the fact that the name the subject currently chooses to go by is Yusuf Islam, and that somehow that fact should trump the normal basis for deciding the name of an article. There is no obvious reason why the subject's current choice of name should control the choice of the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article. If yesterday he had changed his name yet again, should the article immediately be renamed to that new name? -R. S. Shaw 02:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


Descision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Meager info on Cat Stevens (as an artist)

I'm not sure how long the Yusef/Cat Stevens debate has been going on, but I do notice that the section on Cat Stevens -- the artist -- is very sparse. There's no insight into his musical stylings, song lyrics, etc. I mean it's common knowledge that his famous song "Lady D'Arbanville" was inspired (in some fashion) by the actress Patti D'Arbanville. I don't have a great deal of knowledge of his professional career (so my writing would be more of a hindrance than a help), but someone must have access to some decent biographical information on him. The section on Yusef Islam and his charitable works, etc. could also use more work, but the lack of Cat Stevens info hit me first because that's what I was searching for.


Many of the links are outdated and no longer work. I believe, for the sake of the amount of attention this article has recieved, they should be revised. Rjfleming84 19:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Also, what in the heck does "Discision" mean? I'll leave it to edit by the author if he meant "decision", rather than just changing it without prior discussion. Delete this comment when taken care of, as it doesn't pertain to the article itself, merely context.Rjfleming84 19:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat_Stevens/Archive_1&oldid=1136595246"