Jump to content

Talk:Cat Stevens/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Salman Rushdie

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".

That song, which I've never heard, has to have been recorded before his conversion to Islam (when he stopped recording for decades), and can have no possible relevance to the Salman Rushdie debate. Given his 'hippie' background, I somehow doubt the lyrics are an incitement to violence. As for the TV program, do you know what it was called? or when recorded? That way it be confirmed what he actually said or didn't say. Finally, that quote in isolation, if accurate, could be interpreted in dozens of different ways. We'd need to know more about what he said. Indisciplined 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

May be this reference would be interested for you [1]. --- ALM 00:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - this citation already appears in the article - it's footnote #17 (at the moment). Tvoz | talk 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you answer me at the bottom of this page about the article name. (Short is better) -- ALM 00:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The video that was provided by the link above is heavily edited. Is there somewhere a copy of the complete program?

indian ocean song

This is mentioned two separate times in the article; perhaps one of them should be removed.

I noticed that. If no one beats me to it I'll merge them. ;) Mrtea (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
This has been corrected (a while ago.) Forgot to leave a note. Mrtea (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Unsourced early music career

I thought I would note the following change:

Eager to move his music career forward, Georgiou sought the help of manager-producer Mike Hurst by knocking on his door and asking to play some of his songs for him. Not wanting to be rude, Hurst let him and when Georgiou was finished, Hurst told him, "You're bloody great! What's your name?" Georgiou answered, "My name is Stephen but they call me Cat Stevens." (He claimed that the name had been given to him because a girl told him he has eyes like a cat). Stevens published several songs, and in 1966, at age 18, he had his first hit with "I Love My Dog". He then toured with moderate success, and placed several single releases in the British pop music charts over the next two years.

to

At age 18, eager to establish a music career, Georgiou sought the help of manager/producer Mike Hurst by knocking on his door and asking to play some of his songs for him. < actually, this part should probably go too unless it can be verified. Hurst enjoyed the songs and managed to convince a friend to back his first single "I Love My Dog". He then toured with moderate success, and placed several single releases in the British pop music charts over the next two years.

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)

Headings

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)

The good and the bad.

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?

Populus statistics

When I read this part, my first thought was "Whuh?"

In 2006, a survey by Populus showed that of those names put to Muslims in the United Kingdom, Yusuf Islam was by some distance the man with whom most people agreed, with 49% expressing agreement with him, only 5% disagreeing, and the rest offering no response.

I have reworded as follows; if someone disagrees feel free to edit further or revert.

In 2006, a survey by Populus asked Muslims in the United Kingdom how well they agreed with the statements of various Muslim organizations and public figures. Yusuf Islam was by some distance the man with whom most people agreed, with 49% expressing agreement with him, only 5% disagreeing, and the rest undecided or offering no response. For comparison, the next most agreed-with entities were Hamza Yusuf with 27% agreement and the Muslim Council of Britain with 25% agreement.

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)

I moved this section to the bottom of the talk page for you. Thanks for clarifying that... I had the same reaction, but must have missed it when whoever first added to the article. I fixed your reference for you, giving it the best title I could find. Next time you have troubles though, just copy and paste one of the bullets so you don't change any of the other references. Mrtea (talk) 15:57, 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
The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.
  • Comprehensiveness: Needs more on musical style, influences and legacy, bio seems skimpy
  • Sales: Barely mentioned
  • Audio: Needs sound samples
  • References: Needs print and scholarly sources
  • More pics would be nice, but free ones will probably be very difficult to find


Very cool. First thing: there's only one image in the article, and its fair use is rationalized through its licensing, isn't it? Mrtea (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
All fair use pics need a rationale specific to each article they're in, evaluating their use along the guidelines of fair use. In this particular case, I think the license is inaccurate -- it's for book covers, and I believe there's a different tag for magazine covers, and most importantly, any media cover tag only covers it use when it is used to discuss the particular book/album/magazine cover in question. Note that the current tag says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". Tuf-Kat 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I corrected the tag and added a fairuse rationale similar to those used in featured articles. Mrtea (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Great, looks pretty good. Tuf-Kat 20:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cat Stevens or Yusuf Islam?

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)

Pretty sure Wikipolicy is just by their best-known name, in these circumstances. I'm thinking of Cedric the Entertainer when I say that. Not sure. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 00:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not Wikipedia practice. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Tuf-Kat 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Check out the talk page archives too. Mrtea (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
What about Sean Combs as a counter-example? Arguably, the rapper's best-known name is whatever moniker he's currently favoring, but the article is under his legal name. It seems to me that this convention is inadequate, as it's based on subjective popular perceptions and thus breeds inconsistency. It would be more appropriate to use an individual's legal name and redirect from popular handles. Ibadibam 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Would agree it's somewhat subjective, especially as there are those who, despite listening to his music and being a fan of his career, recognise his now as Yusef Islam, if only out of respect for his decision. With the release of his new album, I wonder if a new generation will buy into his music and wonder why this Cat Stevens moniker is gien such prominence. 86.139.86.103 06:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Also see Wendy Carlos as an example of an artist who managed to succesfully change her name across the board, even after albums had previously been released under her old name. In this case Walter Carlos redirects to her current name. I think if a person changes their name, for whatever reasons, that decision should be respected. He was known as Cat Stevens for 10 years but has been Yusuf Islam for almost twenty. He has released albums under his current name. However, even his official website mentions both names, so it seems like he's not being very clear on what he actually wants. Macduff 07:30, 14 December 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

No, I respectfully disagree. In the context of an encyclopedia article it does not matter what the man wants to be called. If I were to meet him on the street I would absolutely respect his choice of name and call him Yusuf Islam. But he gained notability as Cat Stevens. With all respect, if Yusuf Islam had never been the Cat Stevens we know - if he had been an unsuccessful singer without any hit records, let's say, and then converted to Islam and changed his name - it is, I believe, extremely unlikely that there would be a Wikipedia article about his life since his conversion in 1978, even as the founder of Muslim schools and his dedication to philanthropic causes: as noble as all of that is, it is not "notable" on its own. (Of course I am positing a situation also where he had not become wealthy prior to his conversion, but even if he had become wealthy, say, as a businessman, the same thing applies.) Yusuf Islam's fame - and his notability by Wikipedia standards -directly and completely derives from his career as Cat Stevens. When articles are written about him in the mainstream press, whether about his public stances on various issues, or about his return to music, he is always, always referred to as "the former Cat Stevens" or words to that effect. In contrast, Muhammed Ali, the boxer, was only referred to as "the former Cassius Clay" in the early years - he did achieve fame as Cassius Clay, yes, but he continued boxing and went on to achieve more fame as Muhammed Ali. I do not have to look it up to know that his Wikipedia entry must be as Muhammed Ali - he fought hard to have his new name accepted in the same world in which he had achieved fame as Clay, and to his credit, he succeeded. There would, by my scenario above, be an article about Muhammed Ali the boxer - he didn't leave the life and work he conducted as Cassius Clay when he converted and changed his name; Yusuf Islam did, and his notability comes from his having been Cat Stevens who sold 60 million records, gave all of that up, and moved into a very different life, later to return to some of it. It is entirely appropriate, of course, for us to have a large section of this article about his life as Yusuf Islam, and we do. It is also entirely appropriate to talk a lot about his return to music as Yusuf Islam, or as simply Yusuf, and we do. But the main name on the article - the reason for his notability - should remain Cat Stevens. Tvoz 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to imply that his post-conversion career is inconsequential - in actual fact if he had not had a notable pop career but still did all that he has done as a Muslim there would still be a wikipedia article on him. There is an article on his charity Small Kindness and his school Islamia Primary School, both of which have earned him a new fame in the UK at least. In any case the release of a new album with the name "Yusuf" on it has stamped his new name on his old career. 86.139.210.198 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems that he's called Yusuf Islam everywhere except in this one Wikipedia article. Macduff 01:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Not inconsequential, but I question whether it would have been considered notable by wiki standards. I don't know with absolute certainty, nor do you. It is impossible for us to know what would have happened, obviously, if he had not been Cat Stevens first. My opinion is that his post-conversion life would not have been particularly known to the world at large had he not been the pop star of worldwide fame previously, as described in my long comment above.. You disagree, and there's no way we can change history and find out. His charities having articles doesn;'t prove anything - the reality is that Yusuf Islam gained tremendous worldwide fame and wealth when he was Cat Stevens, because he was a phenomenally successful 60-million record sales artist, and for no other reason. And that is where the money came from that he was able to use charitably, at least initially, and that is why he has been able to get press attention for things that are now important to him. He acknowledges this himself - and even says this is one reason he has returned to recording. To bring his message to the wide world that wants to hear from Cat Stevens again. And again, it is not true that this article is the only place that uses the Cat Stevens name. The mainstream press -certainly in the US, and I'll have to look further into the UK press - always refers to him as the former Cat Stevens, not parenthetically or in small type, but prominently. The interviews do too. As for his new album, yes, the artist's name is Yusuf, but there is sticker on the outside saying something about it being by "Cat Stevens". And - this quote from him on CBS Sunday MOrning: "You know, the cup is there to be filled... with whatever you want to fill it with. For those people looking for Cat Stevens, they'll probably find him in this record. If you want to find Yusuf, go a bit deeper, you'll find him." He has embraced his past as Cat Stevens, and I think there really is no doubt that it is why he is notable. I say all of this with respect for the turn he took in his life - all of my edits here have been supportive of his old life as well as his new life - trying to be even-handed about the controversies - I think I have shown that one can admire both sides of his life and that he should be treated fairly now. But his notability is as Cat Stevens. Tvoz 01:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In trouble with a category edit...

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.

Trivia

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)

An Other Cup

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)

The album is out now, and that is the actual cover (with "Yusuf" credit as opposed to "Yusuf Islam"). There is a removable sticker on the case explaining that the album is by Cat Stevens, presumably in case anyone was wondering who this Yusuf guy was. 217.34.39.123 13:21, 16 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)

why I removed the new "Personal views" section

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)

Yoriyos

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)

Yoriyos himself, however, likes to call all assertions that he is the son of Yusuf Islam "cheap rumours". It's a bit farfetched - there's even a photo on the internet of the two of them together as "father and son", but perhaps this should be reflected in the article. 86.139.210.198 21:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There is little doubt, really. The NME article is real. He says in his blog (myspace.com/yoriyosmusic) that he (Yoriyos) delayed release of his album because the press found out about "the linkage". I saw an interview with Yusuf in the last few weeks (will try to track it down) where he point-blank says that not only did his son bring him back to secular music, but that his son is now a songwriter-singer as well, that his son would be off writing songs just the way he did without his parents' knowledge, that his son is about to release an album but that his son does not want him to say what name he is recording under which is not Muhammed Islam, because he wants to make it on his own strength. Again, Yoriyos also did the artwork for An Other Cup. Yoriyos is identified on myspace (myspace.com/yoriyos - personal locked page, but with photo and basic ID)as a male, age 21, from London. Listen to Yoriyos, look at his photographs, read his myspace page - with little hints throughout, like saying that his sisters (Muhammed Islam has 4 sisters) brought a cat into the house and "named it Cat for obvious reasons". Right, he is trying to not ride his father's coattails, but that doesn't change the reality. By the way, he has talent. As for the page - I think the NME article is strong, and I'll keep looking for other reliable sources. Tvoz 05:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah he's got talent - which is why I find it irritating he's deleting all reference to himself - but what I meant was rather than say he has a son called Yoriyos, make reference to the fact that it is widely thought that Yoriyos is his son. 87.194.191.177 01:38, 27 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)

That is a good point. You may be right about the legalities, but we don't really know what legal steps he did or didn't take to change his name at any point - all we know for certain is that he adopted new names along the way. (We were told on Talk:John Lennon, for example, that British law doesn't allow you to legally change your middle name, so that legally John couldn't have changed his name from John Winston Lennon to John Ono Lennon despite what is commonly thought - I do not know if that is true, but for all I know it could be. So we don't know what Yusuf's name ever was or now is, legally. Nor does it really matter for the purposes of this article. Please see my response above - posted before I saw the latest edit - about what name should be attached to the article, and why.) You are completely right, however, about "Yusuf" alone being just the name he is releasing this record under - that's why I removed the part from the first sentence that read something like "or simply Yusuf" or maybe it had been changed to "more recently Yusuf". There's no indication anywhere that he has dropped "Islam" from his name, only that he decided to not use it as his recording name. Interestingly, his son is following a similar pattern in his own career. Tvoz 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox and pix

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)

Is???

"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)


Read the whole page - try "Return to music" and "An Other Cup" for example. Yes, he is singing secular music again. Tvoz 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope, he still sings - what's largely changed is that he dropped all instrumentals from his lyrics, though recently I believe he's started readding them. "The Little Ones" would be an example of one of his newer songs, from about 2003 or so - I have it on mp3 if you really care to hear it. (edit conflict) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
AN Other Cup is a brand new album that could have been released by him when he was recording as Cat Stevens, as he himself says. It has full songs with words and music, and instrumentation, and is produced - it is in no way a compromise, it is a Cat Stevens album, recorded by Yusuf. Tvoz 21:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue wrt singing has been cleared up. I justed wanted to address this: I don't think he has ever claimed to be a "cleric" although he is enormously respected by the Muslim community in London and further afield. 86.139.210.198 21:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I have read, you are correct, he doesn't claim to be a cleric. (We didn't say that in the article, did we? I don't think so.) Tvoz 05:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Respecting consensus regarding the subject's name

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)

User:Tvoz distorts the Talk Archive discussion. The debate was over page name location only (response to page-move warring), and came up no consensus for page location, not that the lead should "essentially be rednered as it now is rendered with Cat Stevens" in the lead. I encourage editors to read the Talk Archive for themselves, and see how completely out of line User:Tvoz's characterization of the discussion is. Italiavivi 16:36, 7 January 2007 (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)

Which my be why you apparently don't understand the debate that took place (or its outcome) whatsoever. Italiavivi 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to where this final consensus is reached? The fact that various people continue to debate the matter, and the fact that multiple people keep changing the name, seems to make this consensus dubious. Further, if consensus was reached at some point in the past, the matter has changed with the release of a new album under the current name. "Cat Stevens" was used for only 11 years out of the almost 60 years of this man's life. Macduff
You're still not answering any of the points I've raised on this page about Muhammed Ali, for example, and other points. I acknowledge of course that he has used the name Yusuf Islam for more years than he used Cat Stevens (although 60 years is not relevant because of the first 18). I am talking about the reason he is NOTABLE. The previous discussions have always been available to all and are clearly identified up above on top of this page (directly above the Table of Contents) where it says "ARCHIVE" - it indicates that there were discussions about the naming which led to a vote. Click there and you'll see several rounds. But I think it would be helpful for the points being raised to be responded to. All I've really seen is that you believe we should respect the man's choice - which I agree with - and name this article accordingly - which I do not. As for the new album, yes, that is a good point to be discussed further, and of course things change over time which is why I said discussion is welcome - I mean that - but again I have to say that the album came out as by "Yusuf", but it still has a sticker on it that says "Cat Stevens". And he himself has embraced his past - I think that at this point in time he himself has changed again, and now our using the name Cat Stevens may be less controversial than it seems, and I firmly believe that it is the reason for his having an article altogether. But let's talk.Tvoz 20:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected about the previous discussions and votes but I still think that there have been developments since then that change the situation. I don't think the Muhammad Ali point really applies in this case except that Ali was the man's second name - and is also the name of the article. If we were to follow the same pattern as the Muhammad Ali article, the name of this article would be Yusuf Islam, especially since, extending the analogy, Yusuf is now continuing his career under his new name. As far as NOTABLE, I think at this point he is more notable for being "Yusuf Islam the man formerly known as Cat Stevens" than he is for actually having been Cat Stevens. And as far as CD stickers go, my first edition "Sade" album is labelled as being by "Sade ('Shar-day')" which in retrospect looks pretty silly and I do not see that as an important argument. My edit was was not about renaming or moving the article itself, and I concede your point about the photograph. My edit changed the first name listed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the entry. See Sade for an example of how the article entry is under her professional name (Sade Adu) but the entry begins with her legal name: Helen Folasade Adu. Similarly, Yusuf Islam is Yusuf's legal name, Cat Steven his (former) professional name. Macduff 21:59, 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 have a question: do we know this was an actual legal name change to Yusuf Islam? I'd like to think about all of this a bit more, but your last suggestion - Cat Stevens is the former stage name of Yusuf Islam (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) - is a good one and it might work for me. Tvoz | talk 05:29, 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)

I ask again: do you have some definitive evidence that his legal name is Yusuf Islam? As for standards - yes, that may be the common standard, but the guidelines clearly say that sometimes you have to bend the standard to fit a situation, and I believe this is one of those times. As for your edit summary on the article page saying you see only one editor against the change - you also see only one editor supporting the change, so this is hardly a consensus for what you are requesting. Tvoz | talk 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would point out that since this subject is under discussion, the courteous thing to do is to continue discussing it here, not just going in and making a change. The last comments by Macduff and myself were just before the New Year's holiday, and it is reasonable to give the discussion a little time - especially since others have not weighed in yet. So I think changing with a misleading edit summary is out of line and perhaps there is some POV pushing going on here. Tvoz | talk 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You admit that the article's current format is the standard, but "believe that this is an exception." I see no reason for your belief, and will edit the article to be in line with Wikipedia's other biographical articles. I advocate the standard, as does only other active participant on Talk. Wikipedia is not a democracy which you can stonewall by claiming a 50-50 split on the matter, and the only POV-pushing appears to be your own. My edit summary was not misleading, and if you're incapable of assuming good faith and remaining civil, your place within consensus is already dubious. Italiavivi 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, if you will take the time to go back into the edit history on this article I think you'll see that I have consistently and vigorously added balance to it in an NPOV manner including, for example, my adding the September 11 section to counter-balance the Rushdie section, and my adding the clarification on the resolution of the no-fly and strengthening the section on his successful libel suit which earlier editors had not included, and by continually adding material that assures that this article continues to be NPOV. This is a complex situation, and complex situations sometimes demand non-standard responses. If you would like to trade WIki policy code, try WP:IGNORE. I have been diligently editing this page for months in a collegial and consensus-building mode, and am engaged in a discussion with the only other regular editor who has been participating in the conversation - and we were moving toward a compromise, in fact, when you blasted in and pronounced that this is not a democracy and therefore your view wins. That is not how it is done - not being a democracy does not mean that the loudest person wins. Now, could you answer my question,please, regarding the legal status of the name, since you invoked that as your reason? Tvoz | talk 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I took plenty of time to read both current Talk and Talk archives before editing here. You falsely invoked a debate on page name to justify your one-man revert patrol on the article's lead. There is no reason whatsoever to invoke WP:IGNORE when the situation is very clearly a standard-issue matter of a performer's stage name. Cease your POV-pushing, one-man revert enforcement, and unfounded departure from Wikipedia biography standards. If you intend to circumvent this matter again by editing in trivial additions to a list, I will simply respond by adding your details into the Wikipedia-wide accepted lead format. Italiavivi 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Check you r facts. It's "woman". And you have not answered the question. Tvoz | talk 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
CNN [4] (and any other major news outlet) indicates that Yusuf Islam was detained due to his name matching names on a terrorist watch list. The linked article introduces him as "Cat Stevens" to unfamiliar readers, then refers to him as "Islam" or "Yusuf Islam" in the remainder of the article. Yusuf Islam's current name was clearly matched against Department of Homeland Security records when he was detained, and major media outlets refer to him as "Yusuf Islam" for official purposes. Unless you have a reliable source to dispute his name, I suggest you drop it. Italiavivi 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh - and I did not add trivial additions to a list. I reconsidered the first sentence and realized he is not only a singer-songwriter, but also an edu catior and philanthropist which is more germane in the first sentence than that he is a convert - which appears shortly afterward. See Muhammed Ali, for example. And threatening that you will continually revert rather than discuss is once again not the way things are done here, but then you've been told that before. You are the one who is being uncivil. Tvoz | talk 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No thanks, it's "one-man." You're a member of mankind regardless of your equipment and plumbing, nor will your desire for attention change a long-standing colloquialism. Deal with it.
Your inclusion of two new list items while reverting performance name "Cat Stevens" to the lead's beginning was very disingenuous, nor will claiming "this does not count as a revert!" in your edit summary make you look any better. I will not continually revert, but I will incorporate any further minor changes you have into Wikipedia's overwhelmingly-accepted biographical format. You have no grounds to accuse me of incivility or POV-pushing (you're the one with a prominent link to "Cat Stevens" on your userpage); are you able to respond with anything other than "No I'm not, YOU are!," Tvoz? Italiavivi 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed this - yes indeed I have Cat Stevens on my user page, because this is one of the over 400 distinct articles that I have contributed to, and is in fact at the moment the third highest in terms of numbers of mainspace edits I have made, out of over 1500. That represents no POV whatsoever - it represents an editor who works on pages about which she has some knowledge rather than an outside agenda, and the sustained interest required to diligently research nuances in a topic as well as the interest in helping others to maintain the integrity of an article against the attack of otherwise uninvolved POV-pushing editors who are uninterested in consensus and compromise. You show me where in the 50+ edits I've made to this article any have been POV and/or unfair to the subject. Tvoz | talk 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The part where most of your 50+ edits are reverts, keeping "Cat Stevens" as the lead's introductory name? Italiavivi 16:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You still have not responded to my question or provided any evidence of whether or not this was a legal name change, which is what you are using as your rationale, so I still wonder about POV-pushing here. Absent any information about the legality, we are left with the question of notability. To refer to it as a "performance name" ignores the fact that his career as Cat Stevens is what earned the notability to have an article at all (with an acknowledgment to Macduff that the situation might be changing - although it will be a pleasant surprise if he exceeds his 60 million sales as Yusuf). "Cat Stevens" is the name that the man achieved his notability from and that is why there is an article, and why the article name is such. And that is indeed what the archived discussion was about - the far more important subject of what this article should be called - and consensus was that it be based on his notability. And the lead sentence followed that when that article-name consensus was reached. In fact at that time, October 2005, the name "Yusuf Islam" did not appear until a later paragraph of the intro. I do not propose going back to that - in fact my latest change moved "Yusuf Islam" into the very beginning, but consistent with the notability issue. To call the article "Cat Stevens" and then move the explanation for that name deeper into the opening sentence does not make sense, which is why I think my latest suggestion might work, if you would leave it alone for more than a minute and let other editors consider it. That is what the talk page is for.
User:Tvoz lies through their teeth in this paragraph. Reliable sources have been provided, and twice a rationale has been noted concerning his name (Yusuf Islam) appearing on United States Department of Homeland Security watch lists. User has offered no reliable sources, nor any consistent rationale for why Yusuf Islam's article is an exception to the rules. Italiavivi 16:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not being disingenuous at all, and I was not trying to "look better" - I was making an honest statement in my edit summary that I was not merely reverting the change - if you'll look, you'll see that I did not go back to the way it has been, unless the only thing you care about is that "Yusuf Islam" be first. I am trying to reach consensus - which you still seem uninterested in. The discussion is not only about which name is first, it is about where and how both names appear, and in consideration to the question raised by Macduff, I reconsidered the way it had been and entered a new possible compromise solution - with both names bolded and upfront which you reverted before the ink was dry, so to speak. So why don't you step back and let the process take its course, rather than ignoring the discussion and the attempts at compromise - Macduff disagreed with me above, but Macduff was willing to disucss it and consider alternatives as I am. You seem hell-bent on pushing your own POV. As for your assumption that I am male, and your attempt to cover that up by claiming that you were merely using a colloquialism, well, that's just amusing. Tvoz | talk 23:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
My assumption is that I don't care which gender you are. My "POV" is to follow Wikipedia's biographical standards consistently, including abiding by reliable sources. You are operating from a professed belief that Yusuf Islam's article is an exception to the rules, while providing no rationale that isn't easily refuted. You're the only POV-warrior on this page, using disingenuous reverts and begging editors to place "Cat Stevens" fandom over Wikipedia guidelines. Italiavivi 16:12, 7 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)

I will not debate the article's actual name location for now, but the last debate over article name (see Talk Archive) came up no consensus. The lead is a less controversial matter, with clear biographical guidelines, so I'll deal with that first before starting a new discussion/vote on article location itself. 66.211.32.50 22:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you have a POV agenda. Tvoz | talk 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If my "POV agenda" is editing Wikipedia biographical articles by a consistent format, certainly. Italiavivi 16:12, 7 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)

Thanks for coming in, Sherurcij. I can agree to that wording as the first paragraph:
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.
The intro then goes on to explain how that came to be, and is an accurate statement, avoids our claiming what his legal name is or isn't since we don't know, and is consistent with the article name and why there is a Wikipedia page at all. Tvoz | talk 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I really do not care about this issue. However, I wish to know the logic that if someone say his name is X then why to call him Y. His offical website say him Yusuf Islam always then why you are saying him Cat Steven. If you change your name and people call you from your previous name? Do you think it make sence? Anyway I do not care much about such minor things so whatever you wish. --- ALM 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The logic is outlined above on this talk page and in the extended archived discussions about this: he has a Wikipedia article because he is notable; that notability was achieved as Cat Stevens. The article gives a great deal of respectful attention to his life since he took the name Yusuf Islam, and appropriately so, but his world-wide fame comes from his time as Cat Stevens, regardless of how many years he spent using either name. As I said above, if I met him on the street I would respect his choice of name and call him Yusuf. But that has no relevance to how his article should be named. We have carefully, and with great thought, laid out this man's complex career and the many twists and turns his life took, and I believe we have done it fairly, in a neutral manner, not giving undue weight to either portion of his life. Typing in Yusuf Islam will instantly bring a reader to this page, of course, as it should. Tvoz | talk 01:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And that "logic" has no bearing on Wikipedia leads. See Mark Twain, and countless other examples. You have provided no rationale whatsoever for Yusuf Islam's article being an exception. Italiavivi 16:12, 7 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.

Regarding the suggestion

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.

I believe that the original secondary proposal of

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.

is much more in line with Wikipedia standards and with common sense. I think it is an extremely reasonable compromise.
-- Macduff 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
But "Cat Stevens" was never the stage name of Yusuf Islam, it was the stage name of Steven Georgiou...see the problem? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Right - that's exactly why I chose Sherucij's wording instead of the original compromise. Tvoz | talk 02:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Except that when he was Steven Demetre Georgiou, "Cat Stevens" was his contemporary stage name. As Yusuf Islam, it's his former stage name. So it is Yusuf's former stage name, but not Steven's former stage name. Plus now the lead in reads like "Yusuf" is an unpleasant after thought, instead of the man's name. -- Macduff 03:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, and it wasn't my intention to marginalize the current name. So I would be ok with your suggestion:
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.
Are we getting anywhere? Tvoz | talk 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that you and I have agreed on one of the compromise proposals. I'd say we've gotten somewhere. -- Macduff 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too, but unfortunately there is an editor who in not interested in compromise or consensus and thinks his way is the only way, and does so in an insulting manner, apparently unaware of WP:CIVIL. I am waiting to hear from other editors about the intro and will proceed accordingly. Tvoz | talk 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The "compromise proposal" is completely out of line with Wikipeda's biographical standards, and flies in the face of countless reliable sources. User:Tvoz's desire to keep a performance name introductory in the lead should, unless Tvoz offers a reliable source or convincing reason for this article being an exception to the rules (keep Mark Twain and Muhammad Ali in mind), remain their "belief" and out of Wikipedia content. Italiavivi 16:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yusuf Islam himself stated that he doesn't want to be called "Mr. Islam" or something like that. Probably, it would be even worse to write "Islam said that...". I changed the concerned phrases and added persondata. --Pallando14 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I support the lead-in change made by Italiavivi. -- Macduff 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to get here so late, but I support the current lead-in. (Yusuf Islam [1] (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) performed under the name Cat Stevens from 1966 to 1977.) Mrtea (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Another outside opinion

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)

here we make a break in your regularly scheduled coverage

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)

Yeah, I read that piece yesterday - I'd add, though, that the interviewer has a history of baiting subjects and presenting somewhat skewed results in her column. There was a very angry letter some months ago to that effect from Tim Russert about how she conducted and then presented her interview with him, and I've noticed it other times as well. So I wouldn't be surpriswed if this interview was also problematic.Tvoz | talk 07:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
On that note, you'll notice the interviewer makes a point of giving his son's name as Mohammed, and the question about the Islamic schools was well handled by YI/CS and the follow-up by the interviewer was poor...by the time she started leading him into making a statement on Hamas, it was clear that she had this interview pre-written in her head and she was struggling because he wouldn't co-operate and give her the answers she wanted. I don't think there's ever really been any doubt that YI/CS is a "Man of Peace" to use the term, but that's like insisting that Amish people have to "denounce" and "hold in contempt" the US Army. Very poor interview, and I don't think it adds anything new that can be covered in our article. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
i don't think your analogy holds at all (Amish == moderate activist, US Army == fundamentalist???). a much better analogy would be if liberals refused to denounce the activity of the religious right at a time when fundamentalist-inspired violence was common. and what's wrong with giving his son's name as Muhammad -- that's his name, isn't it? btw Muhammad is by far the most common name for muslim men (and the most common first name in the world, in fact). Benwing 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

Unfounded reasoning. A photograph of Muhammad Ali boxing back when he still identified himself as "Cassius Clay" would still be labeled "Muhammad Ali" in an article today. Italiavivi 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey: Ordering of names within lead sentence

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.

Please add *Support following the format you most support, with an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~.

"Yusuf Islam" should be the first name listed in the article's lead sentence.

  • Support. Standard guideline in Wikipedia biographical articles, including for persons whose fame is derived from actions under their pen/performance names (see Mark Twain, Muhammad Ali, and rapper 50 Cent). Multiple reliable sources now identify him first and foremost as Yusuf Islam. Italiavivi 00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I've outlined my many reasons above. It's the standard, it makes sense, it's the man's name. Also see Sade and Sting. -- Macduff 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes and not only that but article should be renamed/moved also to Yusuf Islam. I think a person should be called by the name he uses currently. I know that he got famous from the name Cat Steven that will remain in the article and we will have a redirect too. But it will be nicer to use the name he adopted. His official website always (as much as I have read) uses Yusuf Islam as his name then why not here too. --- ALM 07:44,orde 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I support the current lead in order: "Yusuf Islam (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948) performed under the name Cat Stevens from 1966 to 1977". I do not support moving or renaming the article. -- Rydra Wong 05:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See my note in "Discussion" below for suggested alternative wording, with 'Yusuf Islam' first in the lead. Tvoz | talk 09:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the wording quoted by Rydra Wong. Current name should come first. Sam Blacketer 08:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It's his current legal name. The first sentence should start with something like "Yusuf Islam formerly known as Cat Stevens (born Steven Demetre Georgiou on July 21, 1948)...etc" Azn Clayjar 19:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It is the name he has stated that he wishes to be called. Any other arguements otherwise seem to be made from their own viewpoints of his claim to fame rather than the name he has used for the last twenty something years. --Art8641 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cat Stevens" should be the first name listed in the article's lead sentence.

Discussion

  • After some reflection, if Yusuf Islam appears on his passport - which is what some here are assuming - then I agree it would be his legal name, and therefore I would agree to Yusuf Islam being the first bolded name, provided the page name remains Cat Stevens, the name under which he achieved notability, and the name he is still most known as and would be most searched on. I do not think we know this passport issue definitively, but I'll go along with it and hope some better reference is discovered that either nails that down or refutes it. (I believe the Larry King interview citation says he "took" the name, and says so in a religious context without speaking to the legalities.)

But I would like to suggest this alternative which I think is more in keeping with his notability:

Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens (born Steven Demetre Georgiou July 21, 1948), is an English etc.

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)

I agree with your wording and would prefer it. Benwing 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Cat Stevens" is a stage name; while Yusuf Islam and Steven Demetre Georgiou are legal names. The Wikipedia biographical standard is that legal names precede and are distinct from the stage name. -- Macduff 13:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
More about the article name than the lead-in sentence, a good example of precedent might be Pelé. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of place picture

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)

DOn't worry about it- the picture was going to be removed anyway because it was uploaded without any tag. If anyone can find a legitimate promo picture, and upload it with proper licensing info, we can place it somewhere where it won't step on text. Tvoz | talk 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction - I see that a promo licensing tag was added (it wasn't there the last time I looked) but now there's a free-image complaint,. So if it survives that review, we can see about posting it. ALthough I don't know what to make of it not working on Explorer. That is wird - Firefox is fine. Tvoz | talk 02:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Is that a legitimate picture to use or not? I thought that if a photo was from a press kit, that it's OK. But apparently someone is complaining about it (free image complaint). Before, the picture was misplaced in firefox and didn't show up in IE. Now that it's been added again it looks really good in firefox, but is misplaced in IE. I think having the photo alongside the TOC messes things up differently in different browsers.
An anonymous user keeps insisting on putting that picture back in, but it's not going to do any good if it doesn't survive the review - time would be better spent on either getting a legitimate picture, or arguing why this one is legitimate. I helped out by adding the promo licensing tag, but that may not be enough. -- Macduff 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Trimming lead

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)

I agree with this comment. Tvoz | talk 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

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)

Protection again because of infobox

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

Alright, I'll get the ball rolling. I support putting "Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam" as the infobox title, in that order, since those are chronological - he was first known as Cat Stevens, then as Yusuf Islam. He never had any notability with his birthname, so it can be discarded, and there's no reason we should only list one name. So do the "Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam" thing, and leave it be. Any objections? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No objection at all here. Your logic makes perfect sense to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree - infobox heading Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam . Tvoz | talk 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, so c'mon, remove the damn thing Q8-falcon 08:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Be nice, Q8 - CambridgeBayWeather was helping us out. Tvoz | talk 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Protection removed. If ROHA keeps reverting then semi-protect is the thing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree Tvoz | talk
04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I won't change the infobox title again. After all, the discussion is about the artist's names, not about my name. I'm convinced that, sooner or later, we will read the name in the first place that the artist chose after he converted to islam. This is only a question of time and democracy within the Wikipedia. (You can see a tendency if you compare all the non-English articles with the current English one: Count how many articles are named "Yusuf Islam" and how many are named "Cat Stevens". This may give you an idea of the tendency...) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (20032007)

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)

I can't believe people are still arguing about this. I thought it had already been hashed out. Obviously, he has a new group of fans who know him primarily as Yusuf Islam and as time passes the trend is continuing. But there are still the Cat Stevens fans, so we should keep that name around. Macduff 01:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove the name, I used the correct punctuation. A slash is not the correct punctuation in this instance. "Cat Stevens" is still included in the infobox. Italiavivi 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Rather than debating this, and since the consensus reached a few weeks ago for the infobox is not being upheld, I posted an rfc. Tvoz |talk 05:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, consensus still does not entitle editors to incorrect syntax. He derives some of his notability from his life as "Cat Stevens," and some of his notability from his current life as Yusuf Islam. Both names can be included in the infobox, nor am I in any way opposed to both names appearing there. His current name should receive priority, however, and the infobox's punctuation should not imply (as a slash does) that he is currently going by both names. Italiavivi 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments

  • I think the infobox is fine now, listing him as Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens). It lists both names, and shows which one he is currently using. It also agrees with the lead sentence which lists Yusuf Islam first. Unless there are to be seperate articles for Yusuf Islam and Cat Stevens (which would not be a good idea), it shouldn't matter which title the article was given. It shouldn't matter whether Yusuf Islam redirects to Cat Stevens, or whether Cat Stevens redirects to Yusuf Islam. He clearly uses the name Yusuf Islam currently, and that should be name listed primarily. Since he was also famous as Cat Stevens, listing that name also is appropriate. Andyparkerson 10:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • One comparison is to Muhammad Ali. He was famous as "Cassius Clay" but in his case he gained greater fame as "Ali". No one can question that this subject is best known as "Cat Stevens" and that he's most notable for the work done under that name, even though his current name is undoubteldy "Yusuf Islam" under which he's done creditable work. Our goal is to best inform encyclopedia readers, and that may require using both names on occasion. If the article is named "Cat Stevens" and the photo is named "Yusuf Islam" that would confuse readers. The photo caption and title should reflect the reality in this situation - both names are necessary. -Will Beback · † · 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The article say that <He made his last musical appearance at The Year of The Child concert in Wembley Stadium, on November 22, 1979.>, but later point to the nobel peace prize consert in 2006. ..?. [7]Tone86 19:15, 10 may 2007 (UTC)

Detailed discography

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).

Echo award

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).

I think you are confusing "religious" Muslim with "radical" Muslim. I know a young man quite well who is an Orthodox Jew who does not touch a woman who is not a family member. He is not radical, he's no terrorist: he has deep religious beliefs. Tvoz | talk 18:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Or let me put it another way. All Nazis, presumably, were Christian. Not all Christians, presumably, were Nazis. This is Logic 101. Tvoz | talk 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
not a great analogy there. he is a fundamentalist clearly. all fundamentalist believe scripture rather literally. whether they do violence themselves depends on the person, but they all do incite violence with their intolerant beliefs. they create the atmosphere of acceptability that allows for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.115.123 (talk • contribs)
Maybe it's not the best analogy, but your comment above called him a "radical Muslim", and my reply - which maybe I didn;'t completely spell out so I will now - was that just because that source said he wouldn't talk to an unveiled woman (I'd like more confirmation of that in better sources, by the way, not just third hand reports) does not prove that he is a "radical Muslim" . It only suggests that he is a religious one. Not necessarily a fundamentalist one - the source doesn't prove that either. And I don't see how this anecdote adds anything to what we already are reporting in our article. He converted to Islam, and with the zealotry not uncommon in converts to all religions, he became very religious, at least at first, and perhaps still today. He may indeed be what you call a "radical Muslim", but not talking to an unveiled woman doesn't prove that. Tvoz |talk 21:57, 24 May 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)

I agree, it was an attempt at sensationalism. Once you change "not wearing a veil" to "dressed immodestly", you realise the argument is incredibly flimsy and not notable at all. He didn't scream and call them harlots, he simply refused to speak with them - much as I'm sure most Bob Jones University students would do towards any women they considered to be dressed immodestly. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
frankly its rude considering the context and shows his underlying fundamentalist beliefs. being compared to bob jones uni students isn't much of a compliment. its the kind of thing thats like a iceberg, its only a small indicator of his intolerant backwards beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.177.210 (talk • contribs)
You have no idea what the context was, you weren't there - you're going off a single journalist muckraker who seems to be trying to sensationalise a celebrity's sense of morality. Since we don't have any context, such as a helpful YouTube video, we're left with only our own conjectures (such as your belief it's a "small indicator of his intolerant backwards beliefs"), however, conjectures - no matter how politically (in)correct, are not encyclopaedic, and thus not to be included in Wikipedia. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 00:55, 27 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)

Picture

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).

Images

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 am going to go through the album covers, but isn't it policy to tag problematic images rather than delete them, to give editors a chance to fix the FU stuff? Removing them en masse seems a little draconian to me. But maybe I'm missing something. Tvoz |talk 22:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything. I just removed them from this article but not from the articles about the albums. The image in the infobox was tagged as unsourced by someone else. Is it possible to give a fair use claim for album covers in this article though? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah - I see that now. I'm going to look at the album covers only, not the other images that were on the page, as I don't know if they are copyright or otherwise encumbered. ThanksTvoz |talk 19:45, 28 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)

Rushdie controversy - alleged undue weight

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.

words: 150
Rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing
If Rushdie turned up at my doorstep looking for help I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is
In Islam there is a line between let's say freedom and the line which is then transgressed into immorality and irresponsibility and I think as far as this writer is concerned, unfortunately, he has been irresponsible with his freedom of speech. Salman Rushdie or indeed any writer who abuses the prophet, or indeed any prophet, under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death. It's got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again
words: 280
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
I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini--and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.
When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that--like both the Torah and the Gospel--the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them.[30] However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole

Can we please stop this? --tickle me 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't set up strawmen, please. Counting the words in the quotes is your idea, not some kind of Wikipedia standard. If you count the words in the quotes plus the surrounding descriptive text you'll see that with your addition in fact the "backed the fatwa" word count is larger than the "no I didn't" by 40 or so words, so using your logic we need to remove 20 from the fatwa side. But that completely misses the point. The entire incident is being given more weight than it is worth in comparison to the rest of the article, and adding to it doesn't help. I'd like to hear from other editors. Tvoz |talk 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
> Don't set up strawmen
I'd be glad if you wouldn't either: I didn't suggest words to be distributed numerically. As long as it is deemed necessary to have Islam expound lengthily on his ideas on "Qur’anic injunctions," their application "outside of due process of law", "in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied," i.e. the Islamic State, it was just a provision of needed context, when I added his quotes regarding that very subject and his willingness to be Rushdie's executioner, the right, i.e. the Islamic State's conditions given.
> The entire incident is being given more weight than it is worth in comparison to the rest of the article
No, the section just has been blown up out of proportion by lengthy and verbatim additions to his defense. I'd be glad to sum up, as is good encyclopaedic form. This addition of mine:
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)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference itnsourceGranadaTV was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Hypotheticals (A Satanic Scenario)". Granada Television/Youtube. 1989. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
  3. ^ "Cat Stevens Breaks His Silence", interview by Andrew Dansby, June 14, 2000
  4. ^ "Cat Stevens Breaks His Silence", interview by Andrew Dansby, June 14, 2000
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat_Stevens/Archive_2&oldid=1154652820"