Talk:Salman Rushdie/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Conciliatory Gestures

I read (unable to locate reference) that Rushdie publicly made conciliatory remarks towards Islam before the Fatwa was set down. If this is so I think it merits mention. And is there any scholarship on why the Fatwa was not set down until several months after the controversy arose? Was it a political move on Khomeini's part?

Name in Hindi

I have added a transcription of Rushdie's name in Hindi/Devanagari. Although it is offered in good faith, I cannot say that it is unequivocally correct, as I am not a native speaker; editing would be most welcome. Also, I kept the Arabic transcription (see below), because I still think there may be some, as yet unrevealed, relevance for it.

I think his name is सल्मान in Hindi, although I am not a native speaker either.Adityan 01:54, 1 February 2006 (UT

Islamic Reformation

Hi, could the editor who added the information about Rushdie's comments regarding Islamic Reform please cite a source? This is a rather controversial subject (indeed, as is pretty much everything Rushdie says), and with out a reference, it is even more so.....buck 14:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. :)--'Vert

Removed the following inappropriate link

http://trill-home.com/rushdie.html : A comprehensive collection of information about Rushdie. Summaries of all his novels and more importantly, links to many of his interviews.

The above is a dead link, and the 404 page is not appropriate for work viewing.

Changed "Indira Gandhi's dynasty" to "Nehru-Gandhi dynasty"

how can "after the death of Khomeni" be in 1998, when Khomeni died in 1989? -- pde

Because 1998 came after 1989...Kurt Weber 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Padma is his FOURTH wife

last paragraph

what Iranian foundation? Is this important? Is this just gossip about his ex-wife?

From this article: 'The publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused...'

From the article on the Satanic Verses: 'The novel caused much controversy upon publication in 1989...'

Which is it?

Source?

What is the source (i.e. the speaker/author) of the following statement in the article: "The responsibility for carrying out the fatwa is not the exclusive responsibility of Iran. It is the religious duty of all Muslims – those who have the ability or the means – to carry it out. It does not require any reward. In fact, those who carry out this edict in hopes of a monetary reward are acting against Islamic injunctions." Auricfuzz

I just found that the page once said that it was allegedly by an Islamic fundamentalist media source, but it was removed for some reason. If there are no complaints, I think that I will replace it. Auricfuzz

NPOV?

I don't think so. Phrases like "best novel" don't belong here.

I don't think that was POV, simply poorly worded. The award was given for being selected as the best book to have received the original award. I'm going to change it now.

Fox1 10:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copies of Satanic Verses located in major Middle East libraries

Just FYI - I looked at the Bibliothequa Alexandria's online library catalogue, and they do in fact have a copy of "The Satanic Verses" in English, as well as other writings by Rushdie. Maybe it's a signal that nobody takes the fatwa seriously? Kade 20:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Living in hiding?

Is he living in hiding now? Tempshill 05:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No. He recently appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time with Bill Maher talk show. Extremely hilarious and highly regarded by Ben Affleck and Bill Maher. Adraeus 10:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he's not living in hiding. Tempshill 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I heard that he was in guantanemo. Can anyone confirm this?

Arabic name not correctly spelled

While the Arabic spelling for Ahmed and Rushdie is correct, it is not correct for Salman. It should be seen-laam-meem-alif-nun, which it is not. Dervesh99 16:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

HOW?

The publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused immediate controversy in the Islamic world due to its allegedly irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad

Could you please explain exactly how this book caused controversy. What was it that was written in the book that some Muslims and others found controversial. By not explaining this and then going into detail about the deaths of his translator,etc. it gives the impression that the Muslim's go crazy over nothing.

What does it matter what was written in the book? The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights affirms freedom of speech. International law affirms freedom of speech and nowhere allows people to be murdered for religious reasons (ie that they stated views not in line with a particular religion). It is obvious from the article that _some_ took offence, including the Ayatollah Khomeni and Cat Stevens (though why he is featured so much I don't know) and carried out actions such as the attacks on bookshops etc. No one could dispute that. That is all that is implied. It is not suggested that all 1.5 billion Muslims objected to the book or supported the fatwa, so it doesn't give any impression about Muslims as a whole. But nor does it shirk from pointing out that attacks and threats were carried out in the name of Islam. Nor should it.

It matters deeply what was written in the book, from the POV of, apparently, several million people, thus making the issue quite notable. Tempshill 15:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the original comments from the book should be included. I read the book back in 1989 when all of this was going on, and I added a sentence about the prophet Mahound which was the origin of the controversey. There were also theories that another character, a religious leader (similar to Khomeini), was portrayed as in pact with Satan, and that this was the real reason for Khomeini's fatwa. I'll dig up the book later and see if I can add anything else.Rt66lt 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was grossly insulting; depicting Muhammed as getting confused by messages from the devil. I was one of many Britons who supported Salman Rushdie in the late 1980s; in those days, Rushdie could be seen as part of a new wave of Muslim self-liberation. This didn’t happen, nor did the West want it. There was little support for Tony Benn’s modest proposal to remove existing British legislation against anti-Christian blasphemy. The law still officially protects Christianity and allows other relgions to be insulted.

Actually when was the last time anyone was prosecuted in Britain for blasphemy? The offence might still be technically on the statute books, but freedom of speech (a common law right further supported by the European Convention on Human Rights) prevails to the extent that the Jerry Springer opera - very insulting to many Christians - was not only permitted by the state, it was broadcast by the BBC. Although there were some protests by Christians which went too far, at least they didn't call for the assassination of the author. So I doubt there's any difference in freedom of speech as applied to all different religions. Can the same be said for Iran?

As far as I know, Rushdie is a Muslim from the Indian subcontinent and is English by adoption, not ethnicity.

--GwydionM 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mary Whitehouse brought a private prosecution for blasphemy against Gay News in 1977. Eilif 16:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The last successful blasphemy prosecution was in 1921.

His race

Most biographical pages give the person's race/ethnicity or that of certain ancestors. This page says that Rushdie is an Indian-born Englishman, but his ethnicity certainly is not totally English.

No, I think 'Indian-born Englishman' means that he has the British nationality and feels or behaves like an 'Englishman'. Also that he was born in India. But this says nothing about his ethnic. Ghuji Ghujo

Under supervision

The last sentence says that he is "still" under supervision. Shouldn't it say why, just for continuity of the intro? Or should it even be there, since it's not really general biographical, which is, I thought, the only thing the intro paragraph should have? Aristotle2600 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

his language of writing

It would be interesting which language he uses for writing his books. Does he use English or is he writing in Hindi or Urdu and his works are translated into English? This could be interesting for people that are keen to read originals instead of translations. And maybe also for real Rushdie fans. Ghuji Ghujo

satanic verses

hello, i just added a little bit that might explain why the book was controversial. i would like to shorten the whole rest a little bit, rather saying that the book got outlawed in several countries and demonstrations and bookburning took place but maybe less detailed and rather elaborate a bit more on how the content might have been controversial. any suggestions? trueblood 15:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, stop making unexplained deletions unless you can develop a consensus to do so on the talk page. StuRat 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

trivia

can we delete all those bits about tv appearances of SR, seems a wee bit to trivial trueblood 20:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, TV appearances are quite common in Wikipedia biographies. BTW, do you know you can sign using four tildes ? ~~~~ StuRat 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, but a lot of articles are way too long and contain unnecessary information. what do we learn about rushdie from those tv appearances? trueblood 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

and so i did it again. why should we know that rushdie was on some tv show but not when his parents got married, or what his cousin is called, or where he usually spends his vacation or whether he likes marmite or not trueblood 11:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This stuff is notable for someone "in hiding" to do. -- Synapse 11:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

then why not mention it in the article that he appeared on tv several times, besides i took out the film heading because rushdie is an author not a film star, so his film appearances go with the resttrueblood 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC) as for the cheltenham thing, if you want it in here reword it, it sounds like it is there to proof something rather then inform. i can believe that rushdie is quite a arrogant man. i am not sure if this is the place to write about that. or what do you imply, he was not hiding? the fatwa was made up? please enlighten me. trueblood 12:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

See my comments in the next section. StuRat 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

pruning controversy paragraph

i would like to shorten the article quite a bit. i think there is more that could be said about rushdie, about his books, the satanic verses were not the first book to cause controversy. i propose to -just mention whether islam supported to fatwa or not, no quote and all that. -no quote by khomeini, just explain what he called for, - i propose to just mention the violence in general terms and not mention every demonstration.

any objections? trueblood 11:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a very strong objection. You should only remove info which is incorrect or unrelated to the topic. The items you keep removing are neither. Don't delete other people's contributions due to your personal preferences, but only if you have a good reason ! StuRat 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i thought i gave a good reason, this article is about rushdie, not about cat stevens. this quote could be in the article about cat stevens or about the satanic verses. but here it makes the article too long. instead of getting all worked up, you could discuss a little bit why you want all this stuff in the article... trueblood 20:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) please come up with arguments and answer to what i actually said, two of the things you reverted were a messy headline and my deletion of a sentence about bono/ u2 that existed twice. trueblood 21:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you find something you can show is unrelated or untrue, just leave it alone. Isn't that clear enough ? Your desire to shorten the article by removing things you don't personally care about puts your personal preferences above everyone else's. And if you would use better edit summaries I might be able to discriminate between good edits and most of your unexplained deletions. StuRat 19:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

reaching consensus

reaching consensus would be easier if there were more people involved. for now do you think consensus is when i do do would you think is right? now, i don't want to fight it out in a you against me fashion. i think wikipedia is interesting because people with different opinions are forced to work together. maybe my first changes here were bold, but changing does not always mean 'this is how it is supposed to be', but testing the water. yes i have personal preferences, you seem to have some strong opinions too, judging from glancing at your talk page. that's okay, everybody has. my personal preference or the reason i want to shorten here is readability and relevance. you can't write down every fact that is true. for instance. even though this is an article about rushdie there are three quotes by other people but none by rushdie. as a compromise i propose to move the whole satanic verses controversy paragraph to the satanic verses article and leave only a short summary in the rushdie article. i still it is too long and not very well structured. the cheltenham thing, if you really want it in, you have to rephrase it. 'rushdie likes to' does not do the trick and you have to do it without the word infamous too. that just leaves the facts and they could go into the controversy paragraph. i can live with the tv appearances because they are at the end of the article, although you have not really explained to me why they are more relevant than the dates of his dentist appointments between 78 and 89.

i think even if my summary were not clear enough it is also in your responsibility to check what you change. trueblood 05:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not just me objecting to your changes. I believe Dleigh also reverted some of your edits and Synapse responded above as to why these things are notable and should therefore not be deleted.

If you don't like the way something is worded, that's a reason to reword it, not to delete it.

If you want to move parts into the Satanic Verses article, that's fine, just be sure to provide a link with an explanation as to what was moved there.

That comparison with dentist visits is just stupid, TV appearances are notable because millions of people may have seen them, while dentist appointments are not.

Your idea that an article is "too long" implies you intend to read it from beginning to end and object to any material you don't personally care about. These articles are written with sections and subsections specifically so you can skip parts which don't interest you personally. That doesn't mean you can deprive others, who are interested in such things, of the ability to read about them.

If I revert your edits when you just say "deleted random bits", then maybe you will start to do a better job on your edit summaries. In viewing the changes it did indeed appear that you just randomly deleted things, and I still had no idea why. StuRat 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

oh man, okay take another example for tv appearances, someone who appeared on tv thousands of times. do you want to record each on of them?

Yes, as a reader may want to come here looking for a specific appearance, say to settle an argument they were having with a buddy over whether he was ever on that particular show. An online encyclopedia is an ideal place for such info. Again, nobody is forcing you to read that part and this isn't like a paper encyclopedia, where there is a high cost to adding material. StuRat 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

by the way dleigh and synapse are the same person, and i believe i responded to his argument.

Whether or not you responded, and whether or not it's the same person, that still shows there are more people who disagree with you (at least me and one other) than agree with you (is there anyone ?). So, in other words, you most definitely do not have a consensus to delete things which don't interest you personally. StuRat 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

but you are right, nobody is forced to read that section. which different with the controversity section.

I don't understand, why is anyone ever forced to read any section ? StuRat 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

btw can you try to be more polite?trueblood 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you refrain from unexplained deletions without consensus and silly comparisons with dental visits, I will try to be more polite. Also, please proofread what you write, it frequently is full of errors, which makes it difficult or impossible for me to understand (like the (sentence ?) "which different with the controversity section", I think I know what this means, but other gems, like "exixisted", leave me stumped). StuRat 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

actually the satanic verses article contains most of the information presented in a more lucid way (i find) ; except the Cat Stevens stuff, which can be found on his article. i propose to add that cat stevens allegedly supported the fatwa (with link to his article) and then drastically shorten the controversy section. how is that? trueblood 10:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK, but remember that those looking at this article may not be aware of the Cat Stevens relationship, so you must at least leave enough here to explain the basics of the controversy and it's relationship to Cat. StuRat 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

i did what i said, maybe want to still replace the last thing about the fatwa with something clearer about the current situation and also mention when Rushdie stopped to live in hiding. the timeline needs some tidying up with the bounty. some of the information is not very consistent. trueblood 10:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslim to atheist

Please consider modifying the opening paragraph (or elsewhere) to include the fact that Rushdie was born Muslim and now claims to be Atheist (per Bill Moyers interview). This fact will make Rushdie's profile more complete, avoid erroneous assumptions by readers, and lend credibility to Rushdie's work and commentary. For example, it would be easy for the casual reader to assume that Rushdie was born a Hindu, which would create a different context for this whole article. --Ming

sounds good, do you have a link with information about his family background--trueblood 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

not too intelligent

many people of the not too intelligent variety tried to downplay the affair by arguing totally beside the point that the ban didn't matter much, since hardly any Indian can read Rushdie's English.

you can't write that. i don't now where to begin to tell you why. it is an insulting argument (to indians), so why bring it in, who says that, but you also cannot judge it here they way you did...--trueblood 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

see i am an indian too. but this is the truth. if you look at our history our leaders have often acted in an foolish manner which has to be condemned. this is just one case. one famous case was shah bano case where u can see the narrowmindedness and stubborn nature of our politicians. though it is a case out of our parliament which reverted the supreme court judgement i m not proud of it. and no wise or intellectual indian praises that.

this is just an statement that exposes the thinking of majority of indians. its an insult to those who support these things and not to anyone who has the guts to call a spade a spade.

Indian born Pakistani-British

whoa can we straighten this out a little --trueblood 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

well he doesnt identifies himself as such. though he has excellent knowledge of not just the subcontinent, but also of the western world, as seen in "moor's last sigh".

nids 11:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

it just sounded funny to me, so i took the wording that is used in encyclopedia britannica. --trueblood 11:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rushdie moved to Pakistan yes, and immigrated to Britain from there. But, from my knowledge, he hadnt yet given up his Indian citizenship and therefore, was still technically Indian when he became a UK citizen. What's more, he does not see himself as Pakistani or from Pakistan, but Indian from Bombay. He identifies more with India than with Pakistan and makes this vocally known. Most of his books deal with it, except Shame. So he's Indian British or British Asian. Afghan Historian 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Pearl Jam's song "In Hiding" was written in his honor.

The Hit List

Should no mention of his character in the Chris Ryan book 'The Hit List' be made? He is bodyguarded by the main character of that particular book but there is no mention of it here.

why all these pictures

so many pictures, and they are not even very good, flickr might be the better place to put them... trueblood 19:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

satanic verses

i removed some stuff from this article because it is all in the article about the satanic verses where it belongs. in the section in this article is a link that leads directly to the timeline of events in the article about the satanic verses. trueblood 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree it 'belongs' in the Satanic Verses article. That article is about the book, this is about the person. Books are banned repeatedly, their authors threatened occasionally. Unless you have any firther response, I will revert some of your changes. Please note that in simply reverting, you have re-included some things you had deleted. Hornplease 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

whoa, why so confrontational. did you already have a look at the article about the satanic verses. why should the satanic verses controversy section be not in the article about the satanic verses. it is about the book not the guy. whether the some translators got killed or not? i started moving all this stuff away from this article because i took so much space of the article, but there is more to rushdie than just this controversy about one of his bookstrueblood 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is much more to Rushdie. However, much of the controversy is notable because of the physical threats to Rushdie's person, so the details that flesh out that threat should be in this article. I am sorry if I came across as confrontational.Hornplease 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

okay when i came to this article, the satanic verses section was longer then the rest, with long quotes by khomeini or even cat stevens, a list which country banned the book etc. so i shortened it considerably and moved all the information to the article about the book. since it is a only a click away, i thought that is enough. i would rather a general overview than go into all the details. but i am also a fan of shorter articles. but then i am not completely fixed on this. trueblood 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

Hi, sorry I did not leave a detailed message here about the citation style; I thought the edit summary would be clear. Currently this article is using plain external links for references. This is undesirable, as it means there is no way to get a list of author, date, title, etc. in the article, and it lowers the bar for quality of sources. Using the <ref> tag (for example, with {{cite web}}) would be a lot clearer. I'll try to stop by and convert the references if I have time, but I am pretty busy these days. —ptk✰fgs 00:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Apostasy or heresy?

The takfir page claims that Salman Rushdie's fatwa was proclaimed because he was a lapsed Muslim who, by publishing the book, had become a clear apostate (which is punishable by death). This is not mentioned on this page, which simply talks of the fatwa being a death sentence that could apply to anyone, Muslim or otherwise. What's the real scoop? Jpatokal 10:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Salman Rushdie/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

What is missing from the list of Salman Rushdie's works is his least known article, of 1982 entitled"The New Empire within Britain."

It was published on 09.12.1982 in a magazine called 'New Society' which has gone out of publication.

Presumably Salman Rushdie would need to verify he wrote it and agree to its publication on this site. Santinavitalis 09:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)S

Santinavitalis

Last edited at 09:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Career section

I have deleted the entire Career section. It was copied word-for-word from this site: http://www.octc.kctcs.edu/crunyon/CE/Koran-Rushdie/Rushdie/Timeline.htm And a cursory search suggests that at least some of this material was copied verbatim from yet other sources. --ShelfSkewed Talk 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I restored the original version, with the older Career section, which is what I was trying to do at the same time the editor who imported the copyvio material was still editing. It's back the way it was.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-Muslim critics

With all the vandalism that this article is getting at the moment, it is hard to see who added this, which is a good-faith edit.

His biggest critics were his peers, such as Roald Dahl (author of children's books) who called him "a dangerous opportunist", Germaine Greer who called him "an Englishman with dark skin" and Hugh Trevor-Roper who said "I would not shed a tear if some British Muslims should waylay him in a dark street". (http://weeklywire.com/ww/02-08-99/tw_book1.html)

I have removed it because:

I don't know if the Weekly Wire is a reputable source.
It is not clear if the quotes were made about the Satanic Verses or about Rushdie's career more generally.
It seems from reading the article that these quotations were gathered from elsewhere, possibly in very different contexts. The named individuals were not interviewed for the article, but collected.
These are far from Rushdie's "biggest critics".

If the original sources coudl be found, they woudl be interesting additions. Thank you for your effort. BrainyBabe 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That addition was made in this edit by 60.50.112.46 at 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC). --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. It figures it is an anon. BrainyBabe 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Scottshen re-added it with a slight rewording, which took care of item 4 above, but not the others, and made the last quote harsher than it was intended (by removing qualifying phrases within the sentence, and then removing the ellipses that indicated their omission). Please discuss here. Getting to the actual quotations in their context would be the first step towards encyclopedic standards. BrainyBabe 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dahl's comment was made in a February 28 1989 letter to The New York Times; the comment is mentioned in the 1994 Times piece 'Roald the Rotten', by Ann Hulbert, but I couldn't find the entire letter itself. --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trevor-Roper's comments appeared in The Independent, June 10 1989. Though in what context, I'm not still not sure--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find the actual source of Greer's comment, but it was widely quoted outside of anti-Rushdie sources, often as "a megalomaniac, an Englishman with dark skin". Others who, at the time of the Satanic Verses controversy, were harshly critical of Rushdie included Paul Johnson, Roy Hattersley, Norman Tebbit, and Auberon Waugh.[1] --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall John Le Carre as also being harshly critical of Rushdie at the time, specifically saying something about how his actions endangered the mail room girl at Rushdie's publisher. Le Carre and Rushdie had something of a public spat over it. Alexwoods 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort towards more credible sources. However, there has been no progress with points 2 & 3 , whether the quotes were about the book or the man, and also importantly with regard to their original context. BrainyBabe 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity?

What ethnic group does Rushdie belong to? Hindi and Urdu aren't restricted to any one group, and of course neither is English. 74.232.226.191 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

He is of the Kashmiri_people.--Steven X 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

<two irrelevant posts removed> Abecedare 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

niqab controversy?

"In 2006, Rushdie stated that he supported comments by the Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, criticising the wearing of the niqab. Rushdie stated that his three sisters would never wear the veil, that it was a limitation on women. He said, "I think the battle against the veil has been a long and continuing battle against the limitation of women, so in that sense I'm completely on [Straw's] side."[18]"

Did Rushdie attract any significant critism for his opinions on the niqab? this section just states his opinion and doesn't have anything saying why this is a "controversy". Without an active dispute or argument it isn't controversial and therefore it's just being used as a tar-brush tactic and is POV. Elmo 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Rushdie that was controversial here; it was Straw. Straw criticised the niqab; British muslims criticised him. Rushdie intervened in the controversy on Straw's side. Richard Gadsden 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rocky bin Horror Picture Jihad

The anti-Rushdie film International Guerrillas is like Osma bin Laden mets the Rocky Horror picture show.

There are some pictures of the film posted at

http://weirdostuff.blogspot.com/2005/12/pakistani-jihad-musicals-vol1.html

--Wowaconia 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation errors.

There are two glaring errors which I am sure Salman himself would not approve of:

"...by opening a chain of Casino's and Disco's in the country..."

The two apostrophes should NOT be there, not to mention the fact that those two words should not be capitalized either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.107.127.32 (talk • contribs).

Fixed.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

He converted to islam

in the section "the controversy of the satanic verses" it's a bit ambiguous. it says that he converted to islam, but wasn't he raised as a muslim. someone might want to clarify that he switched to atheism or something in that general direction.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.222.51.64 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

On Christmas 1990 he converted formally to Islam, and then recanted a few months later. Ahassan05 18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ahassan05

rushdie in popular culture

this is bull. all of those bullet points are redundant, unimportant and.. quiet stupid. get rid of them, please. who needs to know that rushdie co-hosted a show?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.130.91.47 (talk • contribs).

That's a fair point. The section isn't labeled Trivia, but that's what it amounts to. The worthwhile items should be integrated into other sections of the article, and the rest ought to go.--ShelfSkewed Talk 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good call! Abecedare 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read this before I re-added a couple. I agree that most are worthless, but thought BJD and Mehta were worth keeping -- feel free to change the wording. BrainyBabe 13:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with those items going back in with the context you provided, although the Bridget Jones item still doesn't strike me as particularly significant. How does Rushdie's cameo constitute "public discourse"? Was there anything about it that had a direct bearing on his life or work? --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "public discourse" isn't quite the right phrase. I was searching for an overarching first sentence that would slot the examples into a framework. The point about the film cameo is that he appears as himself at a literary launch party, parodying the perception of famous authors as spending their time hobnobbing with even more famous celebrities and drinking champagne. I believe that, at the time the film was made, he had not been out of hiding all that long. It's interesting that that is one way he chose to reposition himself in the public eye. BrainyBabe 22:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Name - his is now a Sir...

I propose to change the title of the article to 'Sir Salman Rushdie', and the caption above his picture to 'Sir Salman Rushdie'. He was, after all, knighted, and even if people disagree with this we cannot deny that it happened.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.92.236 (talk • contribs)

So who's denying it? The first four words of the article are "Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie", and there's an entire section on his knighthood. But your proposal won't be adopted. See WP:NCNT and WP:COMMONNAME.--ShelfSkewed Talk 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) :: Wikipedia has detailed guidelines for such articles. See the relevant guideline for article title (bullet point 5) and for article's lead sentence (bullet point 4). So we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. Abecedare 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rushdie appears to be mis-spelled in Devanagari at top of page

Please Note, at the top of the page, Salman's sur-name is spelled: रश्दी. In Hindi press, I've normally seen it spelled as: रुश्दी.

I went to a few online news sources to double check. Please check the following URLS to see the latter spelling in regular use.

http://www.jagran.com/news/nationalnews.aspx?id=3483720 http://www.bbc.co.uk/hindi/entertainment/story/2007/06/070616_rushdie_knighthood.shtml

5amuel 10:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the following sources spell it as रश्दी (which also sounds phonetically correct to me):

So I vote for retaining the current version. Abecedare 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Book discusses Rushdie and his literary work

This book should be added in further study or response to the controversy created by Rushdie's novels:

RUSHDIE: Haunted by his unholy ghosts

This book must be taken in context as a treatise written by a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community offering a Muslim perspective. That is to say it is naturally written from a hostile standpoint for a Muslim audience and tends towards propaganda. For example the introduction makes reference to the Satanic Verses as a 'so-called novel'. Whilst the autor may disagree with the ideas and themes of the novel it is undoubtably a novel. I only read a few sections of the pdf presented; there are factual errors, for example claiming that East, West was a children's book and implying that Salman Rushdie was trying to pervert young readrs with sexual themes. simonthebold 08:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reviled"

"Rushdie was raised a Muslim but is reviled as an apostate in Muslim countries, especially Pakistan." It is sufficient to say that he is no longer a practising Muslim. "Reviled" is totally unnecessary. Someone with expertise in writing about Islam, please re-phrase it appropriately. Lfh 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, when did he actually renounce Islam and in what way? That is surely important biographical information. Lfh 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you entirely underestimate the strength of feeling Muslims around the world feel about him. There were mass riots, deaths and death threats. Muslims don't tend to be particularly tolerant of apostates; see Apostasy in Islam.

revile (verb)

reviled as a traitor criticize, censure, condemn, attack, inveigh against, rail against, castigate, lambaste, denounce; slander, libel, malign, vilify, abuse; informal knock, slam, pan, crucify, roast, tear into, badmouth, dis, pummel; formal excoriate, calumniate.

I feel it is an appropriate word for a strong sense of feeling. simonthebold 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what the word means; my point is I don't think it is a very good sentence. For one thing, it jumps from one issue to another - his childhood to the present day - without offering any information about what happened in between. Why did he renounce Islam? When? What has he said about it? What have other people said about it?

Second, no supporting evidence is given. "Muslim countries" covers an awful lot of places - are we including, say, Turkey, Albania, Somalia in all this? If I want to know that lots of Muslims have bad things to say about Rushdie I can go to any discussion forum; if I want to see three-second clips of somebody setting fire to something I can watch the news; but surely Wikipedia can provide a bit more detailed, referenced, contextualised insight into the views that various Muslims have about him.

And for the record I do think "reviled" is a needlessly emotive word. I can't recall reading it in other articles about widely unpopular figures, such as Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Lfh 10:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the sentence and added the section because I felt for such a controversial figure his personal beliefs has some relevance. I found a real lack of substantive information on the period between his childhood and current position. Feel free to do the research and flesh out the sentence.

Specifically in relation to word 'reviled' I feel it is appropriate for the reasons stated. You say that the revulsion is not necessarily felt in all Muslim countries - you may be right - however in the absence of contrary evidence I suspect that in this case the generalisation is accurate enough to portray the issue in the context of the article. simonthebold 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Link

Link #15 should link to:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article414681.ece [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timur1 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for spotting that! The link has been updated.Abecedare 03:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag icon

I've changed the flag icon by his birthplace from that of India to that of British India, since India gained independence from Britain in August 1947, while Rushdie was born about two months prior to the event. Rashed 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that was a nice thing to do because he was Born in India and Had INDIAN nationality till he became UK naturalized citizen.You are only showing colonial mindset while doing such a thing.India07 12:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood Rashed's point, India07; when Rushdie was born, India was under control of the British. Therefore, the flag was changed to mirror the flag that was used at that point. I don't necessarily agree with the placement of flags in Biography infoboxes, but Rashed's point is historically valid. Personal opinion regarding British owned India is irrelevant. This is a needless point to make, however, because the flag has been changed back to India's without discussion. María (críticame) 12:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks fr the answer,The point i was trying to make was that we are living in a world where there is no British India and nobody is proud to hoist the British india flag.Maybe Rashid wants that the birth of Rushdie's country include present day Pakistan Also.Ok but the Flag is Indian so I am not complaining.India07 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a flag representing the place of birth of Salman Rushdie, it should be that of British India as that was the country of his birth. Showing the current Indian flag denies a historical aspect of Indian history and is anachronistic. Nobody is under the impression that British India exists in any form today. Edward Said's article has the British mandate flag for Palestine despite the non-existence of that entity today. Wikipedia should reflect the reality and Salman Rushdie was born when India was historically a British colony. Jayran 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a fact and if an icon is to be used then it should be the correct one. Also, Rushdie himself made much of this distinction in his book Midnights Children. simonthebold 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't anybody changed this yet? I guess I will.--Lairor 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Norwegian publisher

I propose that the attempted assassination of Norwegian Publisher William Nygaard is included in the article, or at least in a descriptive fashion in the links-section. After publishing Satanic Verses, he was given protection for a period of time, but was on October 11, 1993 shot outside his home in Oslo with three bullets and left for dead. He recovered after three months in hospital - the assassin has not yet been captured as of fall 2007, this might be one of the first (and hopefully last) islamic aggressions against free speech on Norwegian soil. I am not able to include this myself, as I've just registered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjern (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The smear film: A mistake?

"The film was popular with Pakistani audiences, and it "presents Rushdie as a Rambo-like figure pursued by four Pakistani guerillas"[23] and surrounded by the Israeli armed forces.[24] Rushdie is portrayed as "a smug, bespectacled butcher in a double-breasted suit, who lives in palatial splendor, [and who] personally slaughters his enemies with a huge blood-soaked sword".[25]"

It I don't think Rushdie is a rambo-like figure if he is a smug bespectacled butcher in a double-breasted suit. Maybe the hero of the film is supposed to be the rambo-like character? I haven't seen it, but I doubt anyone would want to portray Rushdie as a Rambo-like character (even if they hate him).

Lewi5will 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie and Ayub Masih

From Wikipedia's Persecution of Christians Article: "Ayub Masih, a Christian, was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in 1998. He was accused by a neighbor of stating that he supported British writer, Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Lower appeals courts upheld the conviction. However, before the Pakistan Supreme Court, his lawyer was able to prove that the accuser had used the conviction to force Masih's family off their land and then acquired control of the property. Masih has been released.[35]"

Does anyone know Rushdie's reaction? I mean, did he care or does he even know? Though it may not be needed in the article, I was wondering about his thoughts on this. IronCrow (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

a distorted, incompetent piece of trash

i shortened the section on the pakistani movie again, this article does no need spend almost more space on it then it does on rushdie's books. all the info that is needed is there, start an article about the movie if you want to...trueblood (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your objection just seems to be your own personal POV. You destroyed my edits on this subject and now you wan't to destroy another editors edits. You do not own this article. Colin4C (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

no offence meant, i shortened it because this article is about rushdie, his work, his life and so on, why don't you start an article about the movie itself, you could recicle all the info from here, i promise i will not touch that article...

trueblood (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't YOU make some positive edits for a change - like on Rushdie's books you mentioned. I am sick to death of editors who glory in deleting the referenced, relevent work of other editors because of some idiosyncratic POV and contribute absolutely nothing themselves. Colin4C (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

just for the record, i did contribute to this article quite while ago, so that may be why i feel attached to it and want it to focus on rushdie and his work.trueblood (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

being more specific re: is he dead or alie

I'm assuming this rushdie character is not alive, so I'm being brave enough to indicate this in his birthdate (.e. 1947-present). I'm not all that familiar with the policies etc. so i hope i'm not breaching any npov issues. cheers all, --ToyotaPanasonic (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no NPOV issues, but wikipedia's manual of style has a different recommendation (see this specifically), so I am reverting your well-intentioned edit. Abecedare (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He is still alive. He went on the Bill Maher show a while back, and only a week ago, he was on...I believe it was the Colbert Report. This brings me to a question. Is the fatwa for his death still active? This article seems to indicate that it is, but on the Colbert Report, he said that the fatwa had been lifted.

Archangel Gibreel

Is it correct to use the transliterated form "Gibreel", as is done in the article? Is that from classical Arabic? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gabriel is Gibreel in Arabic. However, it is pronounced Jibreel, because Arabic lacks the 'G' sound one would find in words like Gabriel or Gandalf (Unless you are talking about Egyptian Arabic. Egyptians lack the J sound in their dialect, but they have the hard 'G' sound). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.48.19.93 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

salman rushdie...the unknown in the muslim world

$Insertformulahere$ most mulsim and arab novelists and philosophers lack essential knowledge about there so called enemy (salman).majority of them didnt even read a single line from his (provocative) novel (satanic verses).

Their loss. He should be their admired Grand Old Boy if their hope is literary greatness. Chicopac (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tendon condition

I do realize that the entire sentence about the tendon condition might have been written in ironic (wink-wink) mode, but, for the benefit of the more literal readers and in the interests of accuracy in reporting, I have nevertheless put "tendon condition" in quotes (see personal life). In other words, do we really know that is what it was, or is this another euphemism (like deviated septum for nose job) for the kind of cosmetic surgery the rich and famous resort to? ~~If it is the latter, he has good company in his much-scalpeled ex of cooking show fame, and friend Martin Amis who reportedly spent 20,000 pounds getting his teeth fixed.~~ Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A question

Im not trying to be a pain here, Im just interested in the honorifics policy on wikipedia looking at islam articles, You cant place PBUH or SAW or refer to Muhammed as a prophet, yet you can use the honorific Sir when refering to a person-an honorific that isnt recognised outside of Britain technically anyway.-Why is the policy so?86.156.52.67 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting if provacative question, would be interesting to know the answer. Anyone? 217.33.127.162 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the policy regarding honorifics, but as far as I know you can refer to Muhammad as an "Islamic prophet". I know because I am the one who promoted the article Muhammad in Mecca with that title a few months back, on DYK section of Main Page. He is recognized as a prophet in Islam, and there is nothing wrong with calling him that. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Muhammad article has a faq linked off the talk page which discusses the use of PBUH in detail. In a nutshell, it is consensus that adding pbuh as an "honorific" breaks NPOV. As a portion of his biography, the Muhammad article describes him as the prophet of Islam as this article points out that Rushdie is a knight bachelor of the British empire. It does not continue to label Rushdie as Sir after the initial introduction, which maintains neutrality to those who don't recognize the british gentry or whatnot. In a related manner, I scanned 20 or so other persons in the knighthood category and determined that the practice is to boldface "Sir" so I undid the unbolding. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

AIDS Sutra: Untold Stories From India?

AIDS Sutra: Untold Stories From India by Salman Rushdie, Kiran Desai, William Dalrymple and others [3], should this be mentioned in the article/bibliography? feydey (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Traditionalists

Just exactly which traditionalists are Mr. Rushdie referring to in the quotation? Shouldn't the "traditionalists" link, lead to a relevant article and not;

[4]Traditionalism may refer to:

The systematic emphasis on the value of Tradition.
The Traditionalist School of thought, an esoteric movement espoused by René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon et al. See also Radical Traditionalism.
Catholic Traditionalism, a current within Roman Catholicism.
Carlism, a Spanish political movement in the 19th and 20th century.
Traditionalist world view (American), a world view associated with American cultural conservativism.
The Traditionalist School in 20th century Dutch architecture.
A current in music, exemplified by Ralph Shapey.

None of which truly explains which traditionalists he means. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pakistani Film

Would be great if someone could mention the title of the film in the article, as this information is sorely missing right now and was the reason i checked out the article in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.36.186 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

British Indian ?

why is he given the indian nationality in his name? he has chosen to be british and should be termed as a british not an indian. or Indian born of british nationality currently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.161.206 (talk • contribs)

He is called "British Indian" because he fits the definition; more importantly that is what reliable sources call him; and most importantly, he self-identifies as a "British Indian novelist" (see The New York Times Guide to the Arts of the 20th Century : 1980-1999, page 2650). Abecedare (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Major Literary work

Can a small description of Booker prize winning Midnight's Children and its plot be added to the above referred section and the controversy it caused by attacking then PM Indira Gandhi

A sufficient description of Midnight's Children's Booker Prize win and subsequent success are listed already in the section; any plot details, etc, is at the novel's article. I have never heard of such a controversy. Do you have a source? María (críticame) 12:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Mrs. Gandhi sued Rushdie because he had implied in Midnight Children that Mrs. Gandhi neglected her husband,, Feroz Gandhi.

Another work of importance, not original, but edited, is the anthology of Indian English writing Mirrorwork: 50 years of Indian writing. 1947 - 1997 (New York: Holt, 1997), but I can't enter the bibliographical data on the page. It caused a stir among 'vernacular' (i.e., non-English) Indian writers for the not very flattering remarks about the value of non-English Indian literature in comparison to that in English. Vidyasagara (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rushdie is Pro-War

Hey, who got rid of the facts on Rushdie's support for the bombing and killing of innocent people in Kosovo? We must use Wikipedia to cover the truth, not censure. I will try to revert. Teetotaler

There, reverted. Rushdie's support of NATO's bombing of Kosovo is discussed by the Toronto attorney Michael Mandel in his book, "How America Gets Away With Murder". Teetotaler

This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Metamagician3000 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Teetotaler

Umm you've got that wrong. He supported the NATO bombing of Belgrade because he wanted NATO to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. So he wanted to stop the killing of innocent people in Kosovo by attacking the government in Belgrade that was killing them. 68.49.242.230 18:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)ahassan05

Umm, if you look at the history of the Kosovo War you will see that the violence which Rushdie supported was targeted mostly upon innocent civilians and that during this time fighting had ceased between the KLA and the Serbian army. The bombings which Rushdie was so proud of only had a negative effect. History is writ thus. Teetotaler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationality in infobox

Salman Rushdie is of Indian origin, but he does not currently hold Indian "nationality" - he's a British national. The infobox in this article should reflect this, as should the list in the Booker Prize article. -- 144.32.53.40 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed, agreed but I have left British-Indian in the lead. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Satanic verses section

About the following sentence: "Many more people died in riots in Third World countries." "Third World countries"? Why would the countries be viewed under the (extremely broad and unnecessary) light of economy for such an event? I'm changing the sentece for "some countries" for its absurd implications. Anyone who knows which are the countries please do add their names. H15 H16N355 |^{K1N6 M3 (T47K)} 03:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Name in Arabic

Why is Rushdie's name transcribed in Arabic? This is not a native tongue of the Indian subcontinent. Sure, his names derive from Arabic, but my name, David, derives from Hebrew, would it be transliterated in an article about me? Perhaps Urdu (which uses a similar but NOT identical alphabet to Arabic) or another native language of the Indian subcontinent would be more appropriate? Or leave it without a transcription?

Please sign your comments. The alphabet IS urdu because it's basically the same as arabic (except for a few letters) and more closer to persian. But since Urdu names are usually from Arabic/Persian, his name can be perceived to be in any of these three.

-- Basawala 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps Urdu (which uses a similar but NOT identical alphabet to Arabic". Completely false, Urdu uses the same identical alphabet to Arabic in addition to several other letters. 130.113.128.11 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore proving the OP correctedness: "similar but NOT identical alphabet". Alphabet is a grouping. Adding letters means the grouping is not identical. Thank you for supplying the source of difference between the two: the addition of letters. H15 H16N355 |^{K1N6 M3 (T47K)} 03:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

satanic verses

this article does'nt evaluate salman rushdie objectively. the satanic verses conterversy has given him fame while several other english writers may have been ignored due to their unconterversial writing.

     please comment.
  i have read a article by british author, which states that salman rushdie deliberately profited from the notoriety and conterversy of

his book. his worting has been criticised as being sub-standard. i am sorry that i can't give details of the source

V.Srinivas -- 28-02-2012  117.213.211.113 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Since one of his books won the Booker of Bookers, there would have to be pretty substantial criticism to warrant inclusion. The vast majority of criticism relates to the Satanic Verses controversy, which has a large in the article. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No criticism section?

Shouldnt there be a section for the critique of his literary work? I recollect reading something on Times of India recently... Shaad lko (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the critique was for The Satanic Verses. If you meant that, edit here. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

quick note concerning a missing link

"literary works"

......Rushdie has published many short stories, including those collected in East, West (1994).... reference to East, West should link to internal wiki page found here: [[5]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.40.179 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Done--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Why is the poor guy's signature there? Are there no limits to invasion of privacy? 202.93.215.120 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing category

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He is missing from Category:James Tait Black Memorial Prize recipients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.173 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2012‎

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing categories

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He belongs both in Category:20th-century novelists and Category:21st-century novelists. There are less obvious novelists than him in those categories.

Done--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Error

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Last line of the lead section. His most recent book is Joseph Anton: A Memoir, an account of his life in the wake of the Satanic Verses controversy.

The book is called The Satanic Verses. The controversy refers to the book. This should read His most recent book is Joseph Anton: A Memoir, an account of his life in the wake of The Satanic Verses controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done In this case, where the lowercase the is required to refer to the controversy (i.e. "in the wake of the...controversy"), the The in the title is correctly elided.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The book is called The Satanic Verses, not Satanic Verses. Satanic Verses is something else entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.29 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2012‎ (UTC)

How about changing the present "an account of his life in the wake of the Satanic Verses controversy" to "an account of his life in the wake of the controversy over The Satanic Verses"? Favonian (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea! :D That would certainly solve any complications. --86.40.98.29 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What 86.40.98.29 said. I'll go ahead and change it.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia article on Salman Rushdie needs attention

It's good to see that this article has many contributors. I've noticed however that Wikipedia's Simple English article on Salman Rushdie at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie is much in need of attention - imbalanced, focused on the fatwa & his alleged wrongdoings. Could more knowledgable editors please contribute? There's much more room for improvement there for the same amount of effort as may be spent here (although of course, I hope the excellent work here continues also). Thanks. Deluno (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

British Raj

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the infobox, his birthplace reads "Bombay, Bombay Presidency, British Raj". Please change it to "Bombay, Bombay Presidency, British India". The British Raj was the name given to the rule, but Bombay and the provinces were under the crown and belonged to Britain. 117.192.208.199 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#Early_life_and_family_background First sentence is incorrect. Salman Rushdie is not the only child. He has 3 sisters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmb1oQcRmkM at 0:10:36 E22881 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed now. The article has been subject to a lot of vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up! Rivertorch (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't Salman Rushie look Indian?

I know India is a very ethnically diverse country, but I've rarely seen Indians who look like him. Is his family originally native to India or are they immigrants? I heard once that his ancestors came from Iran, and so that could explain him coming from a Shi'a Muslim family (when the vast majority of Indians are Sunni), his white skin and fairly European looks. Can someone explain where Rushie is originally from, and what Indian ethnic group he does belong to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The same reason why Greta Scacchi pictured here: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/26/article-1022053-0163B7F800000578-981_468x636.jpg doesn't look Italian. All Italians are meant to look like this : http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/italy/corrada_fortuna.jpg OKAY? every single one of them! Hec, what planet are you on?

Salman Rushdie has written about his family origins several times, in his book of essays titled Step Across This Line, as well as in interviews related to his novel Shalimar the Crown. His fathers surname was Rushdie, his mother's maiden name was Butt (name). He notes that he has some family in Kashmir region in several of these sources. Whether these origins mean he looks "typically Indian" is a somewhat loaded question. From an Indian standpoint, Iranis, Parsis, or Bene Israel are not at all uncommon in a place like Mumbai, although they may appear different from the average corner shop owner or gas station attendant, that many in the west associate with "typical India." Rushdies origins have occasionally been a point of projection from the viewpoints of various critics, positing questionable theories that he is, for instance, of Jewish descent, for example, to somehow justify what they view as his islamophobia. He appears to be simply from a upper-class, muslim background, including potential ancestors who may have been: Kashmiri people Muhajir Pakistan Punjabi people or Pashtun people. 75.22.195.80 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people in Kashmir look very European, even have blue eyes. I have read a theory according to which they are descendants of Alexanders Macedonian army, but i do not know whether this is plausible.--Georgius (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

He may be a descendent of the Aryans. There are several tribes in that portion of Asia that look extremely "European"; ie: Blonde hair, blue eyes, white skin, European features. DNA wise they are NOT Greeks though so the Macedonian army theory is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.222.205.242 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Atheist?

I understand that he's a former Muslim, calls for reform in Islam, and has held beliefs that do not condone the muslim view of God, but did he ever say that he is an atheist? I haven't read anything to say he is, unless I am missing something... Anyone? IronCrow (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens quotes Rushdie early in Hitch-22 as saying something like "The title God is Not Great is one word too long." Hitch and Rushdie were good pals, so we're left to assume that the word "Great" is the one SR had in mind. Mashapiro (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a written source for it but I heard Rushdie, on February 26 tell a large audience that he is an atheist. The event was teh Baltimore speaker's series and he indicated that he has told other audiences the same information.

In Joseph Anton: A Memoir (Rushdie's autobiography), he repeatedly and emphatically states that he's a lifelong atheist. Deluno (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I was present on April 21st, 2007, at Harvard, during a secular humanist event organized by Greg Epstein. Salman Rushdie, our surprise guest, said in front of the whole audience he had just discovered who he was but so far had no name for it: a humanist! One may assume he meant a secular humanist, that is an atheist and/or an agnostic. During a brief conversation I had that evening with him, he confirmed the fact he defined himself as a secular humanist.(Mvirard (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC))

Interesting. If you can provide a reliable source, we could probably say something about that in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Rushdie and Israel

In light of the picture of Rushdie with Pres. Peres, does anybody know anything about Rushdie's political opinions regarding Israel? I think it would be interesting in the article. --Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fatwa

I've just watched an interview with Salman Rushdie in which he raises an interesting claim. He said, despite the widespread belief that Ayatollah Khomeini had issued a fatwa condemning him to death, there is in fact no evidence for that claim, and that furthermore the claim appeared to have been spread by the Ayatollah's son, Ahmad Khomeini, when the Ayatollah was on his deathbed. In order to verify this, I searched online for a copy or scan of the fatwa, and for information on where this claim originated. It seems that although the Iranian government acknowledges there was a fatwa calling for his death, it's not easy to tell whether this originates from second, third, fourth or fifth party reports about an actual written fatwa. So when I saw this Wikipedia entry I noted that once again there is no source given for the fatwa allegedly having been made at the relevant time. There is no doubt it was widely believed there was such a fatwa (which has the same effect). But no actual source for it. Surprising as it may seem, I propose we need a source for the claim that there was a fatwa issued calling for his death following the publication of The Satanic Verses.--Birdtread (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in Rushdie's comment posted on source

In a comment by Rushdie posted in the source where he condemns the Charlie Hebedo shooting, there is a spelling mistake. "medieval" is written as "mediaeval" and this is definitely a spelling mistake. I have simply copied and pasted the comment. Should I correct or leave it as it is? What are the rules about it? KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edit Discussion

Hi, I recently made an edit to the page that was reverted.

On line 169: Thanks so much for pointing out that we area allowed to use sources behind a paywall. I thought it conflicted with the spirit of why we have sources(so readers can get more information), but after some reasearch WP:PAYWALL says we can use them. That said, can someone who has access to the source copy/paste the text this statement refers to? I originally looked at it because the statement is made in wikipedia's voice and I feel that it breaks NPOV but I would like to see the source first.

On line 148: I was actually trying to make the statement work better with what the source was saying.

In the article it says"

"The Jaipur police, meanwhile, said they had not given any advice suggesting that any of the above authors should leave the festival. "There was a possibility of our arrest... so the organizers advised us to leave the festival," Jeet Thayil told TOI while preparing to leave."

The article says that the organizers felt there was a possibility they could be arrested. This is different than saying their was a "real possibility of their arrest" in wikipedia's voice. As such, I was trying to have the statement reflect that. I do not see how what I wrote wasn't proper grammar, but if there's a better way to write it I'm open for suggestions? YshuDS (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey,so, the revereter hasn't made a reply though I've given them a week. Is there anyone else that would like to comment?YshuDS (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

The Iranian press has called Rushdie "a self-confessed apostate," however he said that he does not believe in any God or deity: "I do not believe in supernatural entities," he has said, "whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu." Though Rushdie is hardly alone in his views, what he stands for perturbs many Muslims. They take particular offense because he has renounced his ancestral country, language, and the Muslim way of life, adopting instead England, English, and secularism.

which referenced Daniel Pipes article From Gibreel to Joseph Anton. The story of Rushdie, because

Daniel Pipes views are, to be polite, controversial in general and should not be repeated in wikipedia's voice (if they are included at all in an BLP, they require proper attribution)
In his book The Rushdie affair, Pipes again quotes Rushdie as saying "I do not believe in supernatural entities whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu." citing Ameena Meer's 1989 interview with Rushdie. However a transcript of the interview doesn't contain the quote.

If someone can independently verify the quote through another source, or can find a better source to make the point expressed in the above paragraph, please feel free to do so.

Daniel Pipes also is cited in another location in the article as the source for the Rushdie calling "Muhammad 'one of the great geniuses of world history," but noted that Islamic doctrine holds Muhammad to be human, and in no way perfect. He held that the novel is not "an antireligious novel. It is, however, an attempt to write about migration, its stresses and transformations.". The ultimate source for that quote appears to be The Observer's Jan 22, 1989 article Rushdie book protest grows. Can someone with access verify that that is an accurate quote? Abecedare (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have been able to verify the Observer quote thanks to User:NQ sending me a copy of the article. I have also been able to verify the "supernatural entities" quote, which was published in an interview with Far Eastern Economic Review. So I will restore part of the content I removed from the article, citing the original sources themselves. Abecedare (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sunni or Shia?

An anonymous-IP editor just changed Sunni to Shia in the "Politics..." section, and I can't find any sources that conclusively say that his family was Sunni or Shiite. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If we can't seem to find a good source for this, I suggest we remove it for the time being. /Julle (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Copywriter, John Hegarty

A Wikipedia biography is by necessity an attempt to tackle the very most important parts of someone's life and work. For example, in this fairly long article, one (1) sentence is spent commenting on Rushdie's education. Given that, is it really relevant that John Hegarty thinks Rushdie doesn't talk enough about his past as a copywriter? Is it a very central piece of what can be said about Salman Rushdie? /Julle (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence for now. /Julle (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie's current location

The article states that 'Since 2000, Rushdie has "lived mostly near Union Square" in New York City.'. Given the threats that have been made to his life, and the fact that other persons accused of blasphemy against islam have been killed (notably Theo van Gogh), don't you think it would be better to remove his location from the article?

I can't find anything in the Wikipedia guidelines relating to information whose dissemination could create a real danger to living persons.

I had removed this sentence myself a few weeks ago, thinking that it had been added with malicious intent, and that removing it would be uncontroversial. But my edit was reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argaï (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Salman Rushdie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Rushdie/Lakshmi divorce

Salman Rushdie and wife Padma Lakshmi have divorced. Silverweed 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Chicopac (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rushdie later described her in his memoir as his 'Millennials illusion'. Influxview (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Salman Rushdie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706135755/http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100721_fanning_flames_jihad to http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100721_fanning_flames_jihad

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions

As I was reverted without explanation in my reversion of Keivan.f's addition to the lead, I figure I should bring the matter to the talk page for discussion. Despite Keivan.f's edit summary reading, There's no need for explanation, I'm afraid that there is. As I noted in my original edit summary, MOS:OPENPARA, in its discussion of birth and death dates, indicates that "the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context". In this particular instance, there is no reason why the subject's year of birth is insufficient in providing the context necessary to serve as "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" (as the object of leads is described in MOS:LEAD). Accordingly, I have reverted the edit so that the matter can be discussed here. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that you have your own perception of the guidelines, and you continue to ignore the basic rules. A person's dates of birth and death (if known) have to be included in brackets after his/her full name. I'm not saying that his year of birth is insufficient, what I'm trying to say is that when the full date of birth is available, it's much more preferable to include the whole date rather than the year, and that's the case with dozens of other articles, which I'm sure you're aware of as you have been contributing to Wikipedia for a while. Keivan.f^Talk 21:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect, Keivan.f, this is not merely my interpretation. But I must ask, how do you interpret the phrase "the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context"? And, more importantly, what about this particular case leads you to believe that just the vital year range would be insufficient while it would be sufficient in certain other cases? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask to which certain other cases you are referring to? In my opinion, the only cases which require us to include only the birth year are the ones with subjects whose exact dates of births are unavailable. Otherwise, we include the whole dates in the lead, as there's no rule against adding the "date of birth" to the first paragraph as long as I remember. Keivan.f^Talk 21:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Keivan is quite correct, the convention is full dob when this is in common knowledge. You ‘may’ use a single year, for example if it isnt widely reported, but we usually use the full version when circumstances allow. Hope that helps. Mramoeba (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You ‘may’ use a single year, for example if it isnt widely reported. That is true, but of course that is not the only criterion. So with respect to the guidelines applicable here, in WP:OPENPARA, I'll ask the same question I asked Keivan: How do you interpret the phrase "the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context"? And, more importantly, what about this particular case leads you to believe that just the vital year range would be insufficient while it would be sufficient in certain other cases? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask to which certain other cases you are referring to? Those alluded to by MOS:OPENPARA where it provides that "the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context". 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

My answer above is intended to answer both of your questions. That is precisely how I interpret it. The vital year range may be sufficient (...if that is all that is known or reported, or the subject has borderline notability etc.), and more importantly in this particular case the vital year is insufficient as the full birth date is known and widely reported, while it would be sufficient in other cases where the dob is not known, is not widely reported, or any circumstance that may be covered by WP:DOB. I trust that is clear. My question to you would be on what grounds would you want to deviate from that in this instance? Mramoeba (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The vital year range may be sufficient (...if that is all that is known or reported, or the subject has borderline notability etc.), and more importantly in this particular case the vital year is insufficient as the full birth date is known and widely reported, while it would be sufficient in other cases where the dob is not known, is not widely reported, or any circumstance that may be covered by WP:DOB. Were that the case, why does it make a point of saying "to provide context"?

And – even more significantly – why does it use the example of William A. Spinks, which only uses vital years? (To clarify, I don't ask rhetorically.) While Spinks' date of death has been in the relevant article (currently a GA) since 2007 (shortly after the article was created), the precise vital dates have never been in the lead. This is the case both in the live article and in the example provided in the MOS. (I'll also ping SMcCandlish to see if they can provide clarity with respect to the intention of the language in the MOS, given that they wrote the Spinks article, so they were likely involved with drafting that portion of the MOS.)

My question to you would be on what grounds would you want to deviate from that in this instance? There is no 'deviation'. But I do not think that the full dates should be included in this instance as the vital years are sufficient for providing context and thus the inclusion of the full dates would not accord with the object of leads set out in MOS:LEAD (see, e.g., "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the nature of the, uh, lack of understanding with regard to what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Birth date and place says. It's permissible to do something like "(1865–1933)" or something like "(1 January 1865 – 31 December 1933)"; it's up to editorial discretion at the article (sometimes informed by BLP concerns when it comes to peripherally notable people like crime victims and whatnot). Every time we have a big discussion about this, there is no consensus for one format or the other, and opinions on it run hot. The suggestion to consider using just the years when possible, to keep leads concise, is about the best we can get in the way of agreement at this point. What we don't want to see are the labels "born" and "died" unless it's necessary to include them to make it make sense, e.g. for "I. P. Freleigh (born Yojimbo Mary Doodah, 5 March 1985) ...". Anyway, it is not true that we always include full dates in the lead. It is also not true that we always just use years. The MoS page illustrates both styles because both are in use and there's no consensus for one of them to not be in use. Not sure what else to tell you.

For what it's worth, I agree that just the year is sufficient here; the month and day don't do anything contextually useful, are already in the article body elsewhere, and also appear in the infobox (where we do use full dates when available). Adding it to the lead is just redundant. PS: We don't really care what old FAs are doing. Most of them see little editing, and many are frankly resistant to editing because of WP:OWN / WP:VESTED problems, often by people hostile to MoS compliance. It becomes a WP:OTHERCONTENT bogus argument very quickly. This article should be written in the best way for this article, not in the way some other local consensus decided in 2007 was the best way under old rules for some other article.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 03:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition, in the case of a substantial article like this with a four paragraph lede, most readers probably won’t read beyond the lede. Wikipedia is about informing the readers, not an online game for the editors. How some editors have the time and inclination to repeatedly argue about dull things like this is beyond me when there is so much more informative editing to be done. Mramoeba (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the lede has to be conclusive, and that is the main point of having those four paragraphs. Some readers are obviously more inclined to gain summarized information and read the sections that interest them the most. Thus, there's nothing wrong with having his date of birth in both the lede and "Early life". Keivan.f^Talk 22:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Haroun and the Sea of Stories

'Haroun and the Sea of Stories' was in the bibliography twice; under Novels and under Children's books. I checked the talk page, but there isn't anyone making a case that it should be listed twice, so I deleted it under 'Novels'. Laurier (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Support for using pornography to weaken societies

In the article, we link to his article The East is Blue, where Rushdie promotes the use of pornography as a means to advance what he cynically calls "freedom" (ie - weakening societies, the commercialisation of sexuality, de-humanisation, etc) in the Middle East and beyond. I think this should be mentioned in the prose of the article and it is quite an astonishing, explicit connection between pornography and imperialism, as well as laying out British "values" (the British Queen calls this man a knight). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Claíomh Solais: why are you wikipedia exactly? Brough87 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nationality

His name is Jewish. His ancestors were converted Jews to Islam. 13.3.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.79.209.153 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

ROFL --212.71.37.107 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Being born in India, would he not have dual nationality, not just UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.11.62.36 (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be dual nationalityKniwor (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Indian constitution prohibits dual nationality. Despite that, there is a status called Overseas Citizen of India open to those of Indian origin which aids travel to India but does not allow voting, holding certain public offices or ownership of farmland. It does not count as Indian Citizenship under Indian law. Rushdie would not have this unless he applied and paid for it: it is not acquired automatically. NRPanikker (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Satanic Verses

The sentence "The book was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities (13 in total: Iran, India, Bangladesh, Sudan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Thailand, Tanzania, Indonesia, Singapore, Venezuela, and Pakistan)" does not make sense, because at least Thailand , Venezuela, and South Africa have a Moslem population of not more than 5% (Venezuela 0,3%, South Africa 1,6%, Thailand 5%). There must be other reasons banning it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:174E:C37:C406:9C73:69BA:42E5 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

This edit request to Salman Rushdie has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Salman Rushdie is attacked onstage in Western New York. The author Salman Rushdie, who spent years in hiding and under police protection after Iranian officials called for his execution, was attacked and stabbed in the neck on Friday while onstage in Chautauqua, near Erie in western New York, the state police said. 2.177.137.55 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

semi-protect till the end of surgery, at least (21:35 —“We're getting a little more from Salman Rushdie's literary agent, who just confirmed he was in surgery.”)?☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 18:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I already semi-protected it for three days. Should be good enough for a starter. Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! (37 minutes ago: “Dr. Martin Haskell, a physician who was among those who rushed to help, described Rushdie’s wounds as “serious but recoverable.””)☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Knighthood

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6757369.stm - someone should add this? 81.86.44.208 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add 'Sir' to the front of his name. This has precedent, Sir Ian Botham recieved his knighthood at the same time and his page has added 'Sir'. Doktor Waterhouse 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie is now Sir Salman Rushdie - and honour well deserved, in the light of Western thought and development.

In Britain and in the free world, we must take a stand for our way of life. Freedom of speech is the right of the individual, which includes the right to criticise and the right to satire. The Islamic world has to understand that we hold these things dear.

Even the Encyclopedia Britannica would be seen as offensive to Islam, because it states that Allah, the God of Arabia had three daughters. [Book 22/Islam/pg.105] And according to the Encyclopedia’s sales staff, its volumes would be shredded on any attempt to bring them into Saudi Arabia; as the Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in the Kingdom.

The problem for Islam is that it strictly holds that there should only be one God. Then the Three Daughters (Cranes) show up, who Muhammad himself called out to in the Koran Sura 53 or the Satanic Verse. With all due respect to history, these were the Gods of Muhammad’s father and his tribe the Quraish, in a religion centered on the Kaaba in Mecca, in fact it was called Kaaba, were hajj or pilgrimage to place, but with many more Gods [En.Brit. Book 22/Islam/pg.105].

There seems evidence that Islam, developed over the years to become what is today and as the earliest four versions of the Koran showed Muhammad calling out to worship the Three Goddesses of his clan. However as Islam developed, and became more strict, it then had to root out practices or verses in the Koran which did not fit well with its image. Sura 53 in the Koran was abrogated or changed to remove or muddle its significance, but there were other Koranic verses which were abrogated or changed, such as those calling for even more violence and bloodshed of the non-believer.

--What evidence is there that Islam "developed" into being what it is today? As a Muslim, I believe that my religion never changed and that there is only one version of the Quran. (If there is another version of the Quran, where can I find it? Answer me if you are a person of truth). Please stop desecrating my religion and defecating on my beliefs like Salman Rushdie did. I thought Wikipedia is a fact-based encyclopedia. Please delete from your encyclopedia the claim that Muhammad at some stage accepted the three pagan Gods because that is false. Please stop spreading malicious lies through Wikipedia. How would you like it if we Muslims were to write an encyclopedia and say that the holocaust did not happen and that the US invasion of Iraq was solely to gain control of Iraqi oilfields? In which museum can I find the Satanic Verses if they truly exist? Can the descendants of Muhammad sue Salman Rushdie for libel? -- Arbibi Ashoy.

Strangely a little know fact is that the Three Old Ladies still guard the Kaaba, until this day; showing that these were not just any Gods. The Daughter Goddess, Al-Manat was worshipped in Pre-Islamic times as a black stone at Mecca.

--The black stone is not worshipped. It is a marker that traditionally you had to touch to confirm that you had performed the journey (Something like putting the ball past the net when playing soccer). Nowadays nobody gets to touch it anyway because there are too many people but suffice that you have it within sight. What is the matter with you people, why do you like to rub us Muslims the wrong way? -- Arbibi Ashoy

To read more

www.pantheon.org/articles/m/manat.html

www.pantheon.org/articles/a/allat.html

www.pantheon.org/articles/u/uzza.html

www.pantheon.org/articles/a/allah.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egyptoo (talk • contribs).

As other people have noted above, WP is not a soapbox. I'm pleased Rushdie's got a K, too, but this isn't the place to write celebratory essays. I'm sure we'd all be grateful if you could confine yourself to making comments that are directly relevant to producing a NPOV, encyclopedic article.Bedesboy 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He is a Knight Bachelor. No post-nominals. Not an OBE as far as I know. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is he a knight yet? Does this "transformation" take place on the announcement in the honours list, or when he receives the accolade?--Eva ^bd 16:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question! BBC is already using, "Sir" for him, so I guess the transformation occurs at the announcement. By the way, Kittybrewster is correct that Salman (or Salmon as the official announcement spells it !) is a Knight Bachelor, which means that he has not been accorded membership into a order of chivalry and in particular is not an OBE. Abecedare 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia should not be using "Sir" just yet?

The following are quotations from The Guardian online article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2106965,00.html

Wednesday June 20, 2007

Rushdie furore stuns honours committee

No date has been set for the investiture. Two ceremonies are due to take place next month but they are likely to be for those who were named in the New Year's honours list. Rushdie could become Sir Salman in the next batch of investitures between October and December or early next year.

Do you only gain the title after the ceremony? (Compare Edward VIII, who was most definitely a king despite never having a coronation.) Marnanel 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The title is gained upon appointment. That wasn't always the case, but it was so confusing as to who used what when that they decided to just allow use immediately.--Ibagli (Talk) 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Still correct to prefix him Sir?

As Rushdie in 2016 became a U.S. citizen, I wonder if it is still correct to call address him as 'Sir Salman'? After all, a number of Americans like Eisenhower were awarded British orders of knighthood that would ordinarily in a British citizen entitle them to the Sir prefix (eg the GCB) but did not adopt it for reason of their nationality.Cloptonson (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You are confused. Sir Salman remains a UK citizen as well as being a citizen of the USA. He, therefore, is still “Sir Salman” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:691A:4601:24E0:DA7C:E46C:3A9 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Significance and lack

This edit introduces a line of no encyclopedic significance. it is blindingly obvious that any minimally famed author - much less Rushdie - getting stabbed in public while delivering a lecture will "send ripples" through the literary world. Such expressions are nice to hear (and feature in PRs etc.) but convey little of significance. Contrast this with the PEN statement which is encyclopedic since it claims the attack to be unprecedented. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree that it seems premature to make such a sweeping statement. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

This edit request to Salman Rushdie has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First line of article suggests date of death is 12th August 2022 which is incorrect. Suggest removal of this to only show DOB. 82.27.18.81 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Already done Cannolis (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Premature death reporting?

It already describes him as dead at the beginning of the article when he’s still alive? 🤷🏼‍♂️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:7180:bed0:c90b:dcd7:78b3:aff0 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone saw that he was taken off his ventilator and automatically assumed he died because they were stupid. LordApofisu (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead

That he is Indian-born is universally (Dicts, Encyc) cited in most third-party sources, it being highly relevant to and definitive of his writings (Midnight's Children, Satanic Verses et al). Moreover the "country-born" descriptive used in articles implies/is for prior citizenship which he clearly held before emigrating. MOS:ETHNICITY would support including this as highlighted by the nature of his writings and the relevance of his birthplace therein, even Britannica simply states "Indian-born writer" (abjuring further acquired nationalities). Gotitbro (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Title?

In some news reports about the "Chautauqua Attack" (or whatever the term will become), Rushdie is referred to as something that sounds like "Cecilman". Where does this come from? Nothing is mentioned in the article about anything like this. CFLeon (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean “Sir Salman”. 2A00:23C8:691A:4601:ED38:BC6E:894C:2824 (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I MEANT what I said. Someone else on the same (BBC) program called him "Sir Salman" as you suggested, and it sounded quite different- there definitely was no "r" sound in the middle and the first vowel was radically different. It may have just been that the two guests had South Asian accents. CFLeon (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 attack placed in fatwa section

It is not yet clear the motive and it is premature to conclude this stabbing is motivated by the fatwa -- however likely that is. Perhaps it ought to be placed in the personal life section with a sub-heading, but will wait for consensus. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The venue at which he was about to speak is significant in this context: a summertime meeting place for renowned writers or speakers to speak on affairs of arts or the world: the Chautauqua Institution.Dogru144 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A clue, but we still do not know and hence it is inappropriate to place it in the fatwa section until a motive is determined. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

By Aug 15, it is known that the attacker had extremist sympathies, specifically for IRGC. World leaders have condemned it as religious extremism. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022 (2)

This edit request to Salman Rushdie has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A tweak is needed on the last sentence of the lead, as it is open to misinterpretation. It currently reads “A man rushed the stage and stabbed Rushdie several times just before he delivered a lecture in Chautauqua, New York.” So, after the was stabbed Rushdie delivered a lecture? Or the man who stabbed him delivered the lecture? It also disagrees with the previous sentence that “Rushdie was attacked during a speech in New York”. Was it during or before? It would be better framed as “Just as Rushdie was due to deliver a lecture, a man rushed the stage and stabbed him several times in the neck.” 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:8C07:C590:CA17:C049 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, plain and simple: a man attacked, stabbed (once in neck, several times in body), and then the perpetrator delivered a “lecture”, 'internally' ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 20:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

What are talking about, Pietade?? Rushdie was stabbed before he gave his lecture. The alleged attacker, Hadi Matar, 24, of Fairview, New Jersey, was pulled off of Rushdie and taken into custody. Anyway, the OP's suggestion of a language tweak was appropriate. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Already done At time of review the relevant sentence reads as A man rushed onto the stage and stabbed Rushdie several times just before the author was scheduled to deliver a lecture. I think that is sufficiently clear as to what happened. —Sirdog (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this worth putting only this in the lead? Rushdie has been the subject of several failed assassination attempts. 12 people died in a riot against the book. Perhaps all of the violence connected to the book can be reworked into a summary sentence. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sustained Injuries

Now - wikipedia may not be a site where people would gloat about injuries sustained. However had, the article here is rather unspecific in regards to injuries (in regards to the attack from 2022). Let me explain why. In the initial paragraph it was said that he sustained one injury to his neck. Ok. Then someone said he may lose one eye. At that point you can see that something isn't quite right: how can an injury to the neck, cause damage to the eye? So it was clear that information was missing. I believe wikipedia should not omit information that can then be found on other websites. It's ok to state it objectively, on FACTS first. For instance on CNN here at https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/15/us/salman-rushdie-attack-monday/index.html the following can be read: "including three stab wounds to his neck, four stab wounds to his stomach, puncture wounds to his right eye and chest, and a laceration on his right thigh" among others. Yet wikipedia does not yet have that information, or, even worse, a day ago or so had that "eye injury after ... injury to the neck", which never made any sense. The CNN report makes a LOT more sense and mentions which eye too (the right eye). So I believe the current article should be modified and include all injuries; omitting injuries but then hearing that an eye may be lost just leads to confusion. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:CCD4:74A1:3FC0:A532 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment

Rushdie liberally uses Bombay film Gossip magazines to write, sometimes word to word. I have seen this in Satanic Verses. Here one paragaph talks about how an actress, jilted by her superstar boyfriend, behaves when he is seriously injured. Rushdie copied a Stardust or Star & style article word to word about Rekha after Amitabh Bacchan's accident in 1982 . My problem here is not that the charecters in the novel are similar to real life people but plagiarizing text). The other example concern's Moor's last Sigh. Here also an acress takes part in a festival procession (Ganesh festival, I believe). The decription was word to word about Bombay film actressPadmini Kolhapure dancing in the festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.96.126 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NOR. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Year of Booker Prize award

In section 4 (Awards, honours, and recognition), the Booker Prize is listed with the wrong year. It was awarded to him in 1981 and not 1988. Jfpascoal (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, thank you--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Rushdie became the subject of controversy"

I've reverted an edit that describes the most interesting aspect of the Satanic Verses as "Rushdie became the subject of controversy". In the events after Rushdie's novel, most of the "controversy" (see article) was not about the novel itself (and whether it's appropriate to print a book that references three Quaranic verses), but controversy about reactions to the book—especially the violent reactions—debates about how to preserve freedom of expression, etc.

It is notable that Rushdie was persecuted by actual violence, certainly more notable than the fact that "death threats were made against him".

It seems inappropriate to frame: (1) author publishes book (2) violence and fatwa ensue (3) there is a a debate about free speech / political violence, as "controversy about the book". It's controversy about the violence from the book. I wouldn't frame violence as part of "debate".

Please discuss why violence against him is not notable in the lede before re-adding. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The violence against Rushdie is already mentioned in the lead, so I am unsure what type of change you are requesting. Can you please be more specific? Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouldnt it be said in which language Rushdie wrote his books?

For a person birn and raised in India this is not self evident L.Willms (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

religion in info box

please add, it is important. Salman Rushdie#Religious and political beliefs ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 19:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The article uses the Template:Infobox writer, where there is no such parameter. Regards --A.Savin (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

then, we should change it. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@Gotitbro: Hi. I'm afraid your reason why "Indian-born" should be added is weak. Rushdie had already left India when he first gained notability. According to MOS:ETHNICITY, "neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability". Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The article has been stable with that wording since it was created, his ethnicity and place-of-birth are central to his work and identity and diaspora writing. Numerous third-party sources (which Wikipedia follows) refer to him as such as seen in the archive link including Britannica, and almost no encyclopedic source only mentions British (or American) without a qualifier of his origins. The mention of ethnicity in this case is definitely in line with MOS:ETHNICITY and has stood as such. Gotitbro (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think removing that affects the article's stability. You're talking about irrelevant things. Also, Britannica isn't a reliable source (see WP:BRITANNICA). Thedarkknightli (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thedarkknightli: I don't mean to be snarky, but are you at all familiar with Rushdie's oeuvre? If not, I would recommend reading, say, his Imaginary homelands essay to get an idea of why the Indian heritage is not only relevant but central to Rushdie's writings and hence notability. And I am linking to that particular piece only because it is the most easily accessible, and relatively short, piece of work that presents the subject's own image of himself. Almost any comprehensive source already cited in the article (eg, the very first reference) will of course reaffirm this. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Britannica was cited as it is a third-party source which are needed for a general view of a subject such as here, other third-party sources can easily be seen at the archive link in your comment itself.

There is "no consensus" for the reliability of Britannica on perennial sources. Wikipedia agrees with Britannica as a general resource, though for detailed views secondary sources are needed as is the case with all encyclopedias on enwiki. Britannica's historic reliability is also attested by the fact that half of the core content at enwiki was based originally on Britannica. Saying that it is not a reliable source is wholly incorrect. Gotitbro (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Padma Laskshmi divorce

So, from Rushdie's words via the NYT, their relationship lasted from 1999 to 2007, which I'm assuming means everything was finalized by the end of the year?[6] And it's certain they're no longer married.[7][8]

There's been past discussion on their divorce, but sources state she asked for a divorce from Rushdie in January 2007,[9] and they filed in July 2007.[10][11]

Usually someone high profile would have some official details written about a finalization of divorce, like Kardashian's highly publicized marriages,[12][13] among many other people. But all I see is just other articles citing that 2007 is when their relationship ended. Though I guess it's also plausible that if Rushdie and Lakshmi might had details of their divorce finalization private from the public eye. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)