Talk:Cat Stevens/Archive 4

Photos
Hey, I got busy and there is now a photo with an indisputable license, of Cat Stevens-- still needs resizing from someone to fit the infobox better. There's also one of Yusuf Islam coming in the next couple of days (inshallah!) but I have faith it'll be OK, plus another really nice Yusuf shot I haven't asked for. Takes hours just to tell people to change a couple of copyright icons.. sheesh. I thought I didn't get it. Fortunately, this man who owns this photo is OK. --leahtwosaints (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie section
I have removed portions of the section on Salman Rushdie. In particular, I removed the statement "his comments have left an indelible impression on his reputation as a man of peace." I did so for the following reasons: 1) The statement is an opinion and does not represent a NPOV; 2) The citation was from a Chicago Tribune article that does not mention the Rushdie incident at all; 3) Immediately following the 1989 incident, and in the 20 years since, he has vehemently denied ever calling for the death of Rushdie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfall999 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have edited out too much. Where is the exact statement that Stevens made re Rushdie? When I saw him comment, maybe he wasn't calling for Rushdie's death but there was no doubt he wanted Rushdie's writing to be prohibited, one way or another. Also if I recall, he himself stated later on that he was under certain influences at that time, which have changed.Ykral (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have proposed that the separate entry on Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie be merged back into this article. There really is no need for a separate entry, and it is concise enough that it could easily be incorporated here.  An editor back in 2007 unilaterally created the other article with the support of just one other editor, but I question whether the rationale for doing so was cogent.Jemiljan (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See the section "Rushdie redux" below - we don't need to discuss this in two places on one talk page. Tvoz / talk 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have seen it. We don't need two separate articles, for no "undue weight" can be proven by yourself.Jemiljan (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename Page to Yusaf Islam
This wikipedia page is titled "Cat Stevens" which is not either his real name or, in many years, his chosen name. It seems to reflect a preference that is less objective than nostalgic. While Cat Stevens should lead people to this page and the body should note he is perhaps best known as Cat Stevens, the title should be his name, which is Yusaf Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.90.25 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree! If no one want that, lets have his real name with Yusuf Islam and cat stevens redirecting to it. --86.167.87.176 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NAME for the guiding official policy on these types of decisions. This has been discussed on this talk page at great length in the past (see the archives), and the consensus has been that his greatest fame came from his time as Cat Stevens, and that this name is the one he is most commonly known as.  Our conclusion has been that most people looking for this article will search for "Cat Stevens", so it should be the name of the article.  Of course those who search for "Yusuf Islam" will be instantly directed here. Thanks. Tvoz / talk 19:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd personally prefer a change to Yusuf Islam (even if his greatest fame is as Stevens, his greatest notability is as Yusuf), but I don't think it's likely at the moment. Andjam (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all clear that his greatest notability is as Yusuf. Most commonly used name is the standard for naming here. Tvoz / talk 05:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the music world he clearly became famous through being Cat Stevens, but outside the music world, and among the 1 billion Muslim's of the world, he became famous for his conversion FROM Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam and his activities as Yusuf Islam (For example, ending up on the no-fly list). Furthermore, I think its a stretch to say that most people searching for this article do so on the basis of his music. We have no way of knowing this and although I would say most people searching for this article do so in relation to his religion, neither mine nor your assumptions can be judged as any more valid.99.236.250.221 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any kind of simple statistics tool on Wikipedia, such as search frequency, and link frequency? I myself searched for Yusuf Islam to get here, and think the page should reflect the actual world, but if Cat Stevens is searched much more than Yusuf Islam the opposite would be more practical. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a Grokster hit counter. Without doubt, in the English Wikipedia, Cat Stevens does get more hits than Yusuf Islam, or his newest moniker, "Yusuf". However, though he goes now by his newest preferred name of Yusuf, but --as he says, he is comfortable with Cat Stevens since he himself recognizes that within the music world, people still associate him more with that name.. I myself am Muslim, and those who view him only as an Islamic philanthropist (which is our deen, after all-- our calling and way of life), I feel OK with it remaining as it is right now: Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens. Those who have little interest in his Western music (or any of his music at all) would probably be less inclined to look him up for his educational work, anyway. The Islamic music and spoken word is only partly in English. Much is in Arabic.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I must say that I strongly favor the name change to Yusuf Islam. Both names are famous, and important.  However, Yusuf Islam, or Yusuf, is his legal and public name at present, is it not?  This makes the name more correct for use here, especially since he is recording under that name.  I do understand the concern about a majority of hits being on his former name; however, I think there has to be some balance between popular perception and fact.  Cat Stevens will still redirect, so there would be no confusion. Objections? -- Laualoha 00:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still to object to this change - the most commonly known name is still Cat Stevens; his major success, fortune and fame came from his Cat Stevens career; he himself continues to reference (in interviews and on his records and website) Cat Stevens as recognition that this is the popular identification; he now records as "Yusuf", which further dilutes the position of "Yusuf Islam";  and of course Yusuf Islam redirects to Cat Stevens so nothing is lost. Do some Google search comparisons and you see why we have repeatedly concluded that the article name should be Cat Stevens. Fact is well handled in the lead and in the Yusuf section of the article, as well as the unusual name configuration over the infobox done in consideration of the minority view about the article name, but I don't see any convincing evidence that we should change the article title. Tvoz / talk 08:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous statement
"Producer Paul Samwell-Smith paired guitarist Alun Davies with Stevens, whom he initially met as a session musician" - I can't work out from this statement which of them was the session musician: can someone who knows have a stab at rewording the sentence to simplify it? Dom Kaos (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do others feel this way? The article is about Cat Stevens and he had just chosen a new producer, who paired up Alun Davies, to do session work for Stevens. But, as the next few lines show, though it was to be only for one album, the two got along well enough, that Davies remained throughout not just that career, but also his current one. I can change it if it's too confusing the way it is in the text, but Davies isn't frequently discussed here, so I think it's obvious who the session musician was. Well, here, I'll edit it a bit. --leahtwosaints (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clearer now. Tvoz / talk 05:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Name (again!)
I've done a bit of a wikignome tidy-up, and come across a bit of an issue: before I set to work, the names "Yusuf", "Islam" and "Yusuf Islam" were featured in a pretty haphazard manner, and it really needed some kind of standardisation. If he were called "Joe Bloggs", I would have simply changed all incidents to "Bloggs" - but as he prefers to go by just his first name, and as he shares his last name with a religion which is mentioned several times, this could lead to some confusion for readers (e.g. in the sentence "no right-thinking follower of Islam could possibly condone such an action"): so I've standardised it to "Yusuf" instead. I concede that it's a less-than-perfect way of doing it (and I'm well aware of the archived discussions regarding his name) but at least the way I've done it, it's easy for readers to differentiate between the mentions of his name and mentions of the religion to which he belongs Dom Kaos (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this edit - I think the need to differentiate between the name and the religion has always been an issue, and there is no perfect solution. I agree that using "Yusuf" for him after 1978, especially since he now uses that as his name, is reasonable. Tvoz / talk 05:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for editing first and commenting later, but I just saw this discussion. Last names are used across the board in Wiki, using someone’s first name because his surname happens to also be a religion seems somewhat arbitrary. For example, Terry Christian is referred to as Christian in the respective article... Rastapopoulos (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I get your point, but Terry Christian presumably does not go by the single name "Terry", and the usage of "Christian" doesn't lead to confusion in that article as it has in this one - this is a different situation, where his religion and the conversion to it, and his name changes, are integral parts of the story. As discussed before, referring to him as Yusuf is reasonable given the fact that he is known by the single name (like Prince), and since there is potential confusion between conversion to Islam and name change to Islam. I'm putting it back to long standing wording. Tvoz / talk 07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the page is very well done. But with regard to the name issue, it appears he has changed his name yet again, at least for professional reasons, using the single moniker "Yusuf" on his new album, website, etc.  Perhaps there should be a paragraph explaining this switch to the single name, and after that, you can correctly refer to him as "Yusuf", otherwise it sounds too informal (would a page about President Obama say things like "Then Barack went to Havard..."?).  I am personally curious as to why he dropped "Islam" from his professional name, but I cannot find any souces as to why he made the switch. Joe Patent (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC).


 * There is a reference to his switch to single name in the article already - no more is needed unless there are reliable sources that discuss his reasoning behind the change, etc. Tvoz / talk 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't we
have to write his names in Arabic and Greek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.24.224 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. - this has been discussed before. He is English, and so his name is rendered in English. Tvoz / talk 05:21, 18 June 2009

English, really?? His mother is from sweden and his father from cyprus, so how the hell can he be English? British, ok, but English??

(UTC)


 * Oh for heaven's sake. The point was about his native language, which is English,  and the appropriate rendering of his name here, in English.  Tvoz / talk 07:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where to fit this?
I found this list of the 100 Greatest Songwriters Living, here: but don't know where in the text it would fit. I'm not feeling well so thought I'd drop it here. --leahtwosaints (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed music awards to music awards & recognition and added this. Tvoz / talk 05:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Roadsinger section
This section of Roadsinger:  Both Colbert and Fallon stated that they were Cat Stevens fans, complimenting the singer on his new album and inviting him to appear again on their shows. On May 24 he appeared on the BBC's The Andrew Marr Show, where he was interviewed and performed the title track of Roadsinger. Doesn't it sound too close to POV? We don't normally mention how the hosts of late night shows respond to their guests. I imagine they'd be almost required to tell the guests to please come back, et cetera. Am I the only one who feels this way? --leahtwosaints (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the comment about Fallon and Colbert because it was not sourced - if there's an article that discusses this, it could be ok to reinstate. Tvoz / talk 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

sic
"This issue of music in Islam is not as cut-and-dried as I was led to believe ... I relied on heresy [sic]"

Explain to me why this sentence contains [sic]. There doesn't appears to be any original mistakes in Yusuf's quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.176.22 (talk • contribs)


 * This is explained in footnote 70: "Note that some online sources render this word as "hearsay" but the official copy from The Globe and Mail online archives says 'heresy'."  Tvoz / talk 06:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is wondering, heresy and hearsay are unrelated concepts. The first is unapproved changes to religious belief, and the second is a legal term (referring to someone hearing another person say something, as opposed to witnessing it themselves). Andjam (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - which is why the discrepancy in the two is relevant to note. Saying his position was based on heresy is quite different from saying it was based on hearsay, and I don't think we're in a position to know which he meant. Tvoz / talk 16:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

New link?
Found this:  My computer's down or I'd try to do something with it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Title Change
Shouldn't the title be 'Yusuf Islam' since that is his legal name.............


 * He's best known by his stage name not his real name, keep existing title to article.  Momo san  Gespräch 03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Couldn't it be redirected to Yusuf Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.117.174 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally articles are titled by what their most common name in English would be (see WP:ENGLISH, which states: "Use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language as the title of the article"). While he is becoming increasingly more known as Yusuf, I think it's pretty clear that most people would know him as Cat Stevens, which is why the article is titled as it is.  Best,  Cocytus   [»talk«]  02:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed many times - see archives. Momo san and Cocytus have it exactly right. Tvoz / talk 07:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On what authority are you claiming that his most common name in English as Cat Stevens? Within the article itself, I have not seen a single source to support the claim that he is best known as Cat Stevens rather than Yusuf Islam. Unless there are any sources to support this claim, I don't see any reason why the article should be titled "Cat Stevens" instead of his current name "Yusuf Islam". Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although Google searches are not necessarily the most reliable method of determining this, here are some stats: there are over a million more Google hits on a simple search for "Cat Stevens" than on "Yusuf Islam", but many of them overlap - include both names - so, more importantly, if you do a boolean-type search on all cites that include Cat Stevens but do not include Yusuf Islam, you'll get over 2 million hits, while a similar search on all cites that include Yusuf Islam but do not include Cat Stevens you get only 400,000. Clearly Cat Stevens is the most commonly used name, our standard for article titles. Even in his own literature, interviews, website, and record covers put out during the years he has been known by the name Yusuf Islam, he includes reference to the name Cat Stevens, as the recognizable name.  His commercial success and fortune almost entirely derive from the Cat Stevens days.  The millions of records sold were sold under that name.  The archives of this page go over this a number of times - there may or may not be a source that specifies that it is the more common name, but it clearly is.  I can live with "commonly" rather than "best known" although I think it's nitpicking - he is best known as Cat Stevens. But I do not agree with any suggestion of changing the title of the article.  It is, of course, accessible as a redirect if one looks for "Yusuf Islam" here. Tvoz / talk 08:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tvoz and past discussions, no article name change is warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Too long?
This article seems much longer than the overall importance of the subject would warrant. 173.16.252.154 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of the importance of the subject is not really relevant. The article is a bit long, but not egregiously so, according to guidelines regarding readable prose. Tvoz / talk 07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is too long, lots of the sections could be combined first of all. This page looks like a fan news site, following him on the most recent events, etc. Lots of unnecessary information could be cut. Cat Stevens is not Winston Churchill or Mozart, someone needs to reorganize this article neurally... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, one does not have to be Mozart or Churchill to have a long article - this is just your opinion, and it really doesn't work that way. Once again, as said right above and many other times, "The article is a bit long, but not egregiously so, according to guidelines regarding readable prose."  Perhaps some material could be consolidated or cut, but the organization is certainly logical as it is set up.  I assume you meant "neutrally" not "neurally" - nothing un-neutral in its organization either.   Tvoz / talk 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is not too long. Stevens/Islam has had a long career with musical ups and downs, political controversy, a name change, etc. Thus a comprehensive article on him will be on the lengthy side. And comparison of article lengths across subjects never works in WP; you'd quickly conclude that The Simpsons is the most important thing in the universe and go insane.... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed a photo that was not acceptable, added a new one
I placed the newer photo- I think it's better than the one I just removed. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

New sources of references for text
New sources of references for text-- please use:
 * Bill DeYoung's Liner Notes from the Cat Stevens Box Set with comments from the artist about each song --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this explanation really necessary?
Romanization of Arabic names can easily result in different spellings: the transliteration of the Islamic name for Joseph (Yusuf's chosen name) lists a dozen spellings.

Are we assuming that our readers are of too simplistic intellegence to understand that mispellings of names or words can cause unwarranted results within govermental agencies, as Steven's (possibly) presumes U.S. officials have done? Wolfpeaceful 165.138.95.59 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the sentence actually did just say "spelling mistakes can cause unwarranted results", then yes, this would be redundant given the rest of the paragraph. I don't think we're stating the obvious to mention that the mistake was a result of inconsistent Romanization (rather than a simple typo or printing error), though. --McGeddon (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difference. Thanks. Wolfpeaceful 165.138.95.59 (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"deportation"
This man was never "deported" from the U.S. he was found Inadmissible under section §212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). I've rewritten this section and references to him being "deported" accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.147.251 (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rushdie redux
There has been a lot of discussion about this section in the past and the long-standing conclusion that was reached and reaffirmed was that adding too much detail here in the main article would give this matter more weight than was appropriate in the context of this biography, so the separate stand-alone article was created to address the totality of that matter. If we put in details here on the side of the allegations, we have to balance it with details on the side of his denials, as is proper for a BLP, and there was too much material to do that and keep this article of a reasonable size. The forked article Cat Stevens comments about Salman Rushdie has the space to go into the details on all sides of the matter, and it does. This is a summary section here, and there is a prominent link to the stand-alone article for people to read more about it. You can see this in the talk page archives linked above - see archive 2, for example. I've returned the text to the way it was, but I will also check the question that was raised about an incorrect reference and will fix that if so. Of course, discussion is always appropriate, but please do it here, rather than edit warring. Tvoz / talk 17:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie and its subsections for a lengthy discussion on why the section in this main article should remain a short summary. Tvoz / talk 19:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The need for a separate, stand alone article is greatly overstated. Other WP:BLP entries offer similar coverage for controversial incidents.  There is nothing "unreasonable" about reincorporating the material, especially if the wording and references are edited further for brevity.  I have proposed a merge for this reason.Jemiljan (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This article already has sufficient coverage of this one incident in the context of his whole life and career - the desire to include every last detail on the part of some editors was satisfied by having a fork, which does no harm and gives more details. But to add more here gives this incident undue weight and distorts the article.  If you propose an AfD for the fork, I would probably support it, but I oppose merging any more back into here. Tvoz / talk 04:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read over all of the archives pertaining to this matter, and yet I still find no justifiable reason for a separate content fork. There is no "undue weight" as Tvoz claims, but simply an explanation of a specific facet of the subject. It seems to me that Tvoz is just bothered by the discussion included here in the article.  Granted, one does not need to provide every last quote, but the current section is exceedingly brief.  The archives show that just two editors- one of which was Tvoz- argued in favor of this, and no discussion aside from that.  The fact is that there are plenty of WP:BLP articles that include extensive discussion of controversies concerning just two people, and are supported by the necessary references, without resorting to content forking.  For example, the feud between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. contains relevant sections pertaining to the matter, and while the event that precipitated the feud was "notable" it doesn't justify content forking...  I also note that no mention is made of Cat Stevens a.k.a. Yusuf Islam in the Salman Rushdie entry.  Jemiljan (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think something needs to be added to Salman Rushdie, discuss it there. I don't edit that article, so I don't know if it has been discussed, but perhaps it's not there because it is not seen as being all that significant in Rushdie's life. My point is that while the incident needs to be mentioned here, it should not be in a way that over-emphasizes it, in the context of Stevens/Yusuf's entire life and career.  There are BLP concerns here, and if we go into great detail about what he said, we need to also go into great detail about his denials, and all in all it was seen as too much emphasis on one incident. Can we please continue this on Talk: Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie, so we aren't repeating ourselves. Tvoz / talk 04:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Per Tvoz' request, I am replying to this thread not here but at Talk:Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tvoz and Blumoon, the problem here is that you both pretty much unilaterally decided that the section is "overemphasized" and provides "undue weight" in this article. There is no problem with discussing the merge here. The "great detail" you speak of is no different than what is found in plenty of other WP:BLP entries.  What are the specific BLP concerns? Do explain, and take the time to specifically analyze the points rather than rely on vague characterizations.Jemiljan (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Saw this on BLP/N. I think there's something very wrong when people argue that content would overwhelm an article, then go on to try to deny it expression in its own article.  This is information that should be detailed somewhere.  I mean, personally, I've heard of two and only two things about Stevens, those being "moon shadow" and people protesting these comments.  To try to shrink these into a bland little nothing paragraph in the biography just doesn't represent his public image in the U.S. Wnt (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to have one discussion going about this proposal, in one place - where the merge tag is linked: the talk page of the fork. (And I was not notified that this was raised at BLP/N which seems to me to be discourteous at best.)   But Wnt, I am unclear to whom are you referring here:  the main article includes a summary of the longer fork article, with a link to it.  The link was created precisely so that the detailed content could be somewhere, and not overwhelm the main biography.  My position is that the existing summary paragraph with link to the longer fork is appropriate for this  main article and the longer fork article should remain as it is.  This is the approach reached by consensus back in 2007 and has been a stable part of the BLP.  Jemiljan is objecting to the fork, and we are discussing his  desire for a merge here: Talk:Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie. Tvoz / talk 04:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that some whitewashing has taken place in this article, specifically in this section about Rushdie. It has been so watered down it sounds as if he never intended a slight against Rushdie. But this BBC TV program, appearing in multiple instances around the internet shows quite clearly that he did in fact wish Rushdie to be killed - and not only the occasion this paragraph mentions, but also on a national television show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Oienjf0GK8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EyePhoenix (talk • contribs) 04:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a neutral presentation, not a whitewash. The additional wording added was not supported by the sources, and was not neutral. There are more details in the daughter article - this has been discussed a great deal, and the conclusion has been to handle it as we have, because of BLP considerations and concerns about the relative importance of this matter in the context of his entire life and career, and therefore how much emphasis should be put on it here. Tvoz / talk 05:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tvoz, in light of the video program I just presented you I think it's safe to conclude that this incident is very important. The fact that he has repeatedly denied what is evidenced by the Television Program on which he said it only adds to it's atrocious nature. The current paragraph doesn't even reference the TV program in which he very clearly wishes death on Rushdie. Further, that he has never apologized to Salmon Rushdie for the damage he caused his life. "How much emphasis" is a relative question, but what is important is that you not whitewash the article to present a lie and contradict the sources which tell it. Given the heinous nature of the comment and fatwah he supported, the article is hardly neutral. EyePhoenix (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop accusing me and the other editors who have worked hard on this article of whitewashing. Once more, there are BLP considerations here, and in fact there is a daughter article which goes into a great deal of detail about this matter, including the Hypotheticals tv show, with this section as a short summary (which also mentions the same tv show) and a pointer to that article. If you think more is needed there, by all means discuss it there - but this article is a biography of his entire life and two careers and it can't absorb as much detail as this subject requires. The daughter can and does.  We've been around this block many times and this solution to a difficult problem has been stable and works. We are not whitewashing anything. Tvoz / talk 04:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No Tvoz, it doesn't "work," it is absolutely misleading. You have worked very hard to dismiss the concerns that apparently several editors have brought to your attention. I don't believe that creating a daughter article is a solution. There is no reason why this article should not contain the story of what he said in response to the support of death to Salman Rushdie. This is significant in light of Yusef's repeated denials of it, as well as the enormous social and political ramifications. Since you just acknowledged being aware of what Yusef actually said and have seen the video, I think it is significant that you continue to keep the information out of this article about Yusef Islam. EyePhoenix (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)76.14.88.106 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)EyePhoenix (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

One last time: As I've said over and over, it is not "out of this article". It is clearly referred to, and there is a prominent link to the long article that goes into great detail about what he said including on the tv show, the interpretations, how he responded, etc. Twenty paragraphs and eighteen references, far more than would be appropriate for this article. That is how we handle matters that would require more detail than the main biography can handle. Take a look around the encyclopedia - try Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, for example. I don't know what you are implying by "significant", but frankly I find it insulting and I'm not going to continue to engage with you about this unless you have something new to say. We knew all about the video of Hypotheticals that you think you discovered - it is referred to in the article and has been for a very long time - and is in the longer article devoted to this matter. Nothing new about it for those of us who have worked on this article for years. I note that you don't even know the correct spelling of his name, so I seriously wonder what your interests or agenda are here. My interests are to have a comprehensive article about the life and career of a man who has had cultural significance - his music, his background, his conversion, his return to music - with an appropriate amount of space given over to a variety of controversial matters with which he has been associated. This is one event, and it has been given adequate space in the main bio, and much more space than it probably merits in the separate article devoted to it - but that's ok. Distorting this article is not ok. Neither is insulting its editors. Tvoz / talk 04:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The more I've listened to what you have to say about the article the more I am convinced of my initial observation. It appears to me that you have demonstrated inappropriate bias here. For the record, a misspelling isn't usually an indication of "an agenda" as you intimated, but if you have any questions about my intent let me state it again for you; I am concerned that you have exerted an inappropriate bias by removing and externalizing important information about the subject of this article. This exclusion does not compare to "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" by any stretch, and nothing you've said has addressed the concern I raised. It is my opinion that Yusef Islam's very public call for the murder of a writer Salmon Rushdie should not be relegated to an external article. I spoke here because I think it's important to the integrity of this article, and potential editors may find it useful. Proceed as you wish, but I would suggest you examine your own "agenda" before you make baseless accusations of others. I'm not the one who performed these edits Tvoz.EyePhoenix (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

section of law
why does the section of law used to deny his entry continue to get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.147.251 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Because even though it may be true, it amounts to original research which is not allowed - the section of immigration law is not mentioned in the source articles that are cited. Please see WP:Verifiablity - this is a core principle of Wikipedia. Tvoz / talk 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

he was refused base on possible ties to terrorism. That is the section of law that governs that type of refusal. It's a public law. How is that original research? It stands. look here...

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.81 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said, that may be accurate - but you are not understanding Wikipedia policy. Please, again, read WP:OR, WP:Verifiability and WP:SYNTH.  Indeed it may be that the section of the immigration law that was being invoked was that one,  but unless you find a source that links the Stevens denial of entry to that law you can't use it.  That is why it is considered original research/synthesis.   We need sources that make the connection - your making the connection is your own research, and your own synthesis of that research. It may be true, but that doesn't make it ok to add.    I'd also say that I don't get why you're insisting on it - adding that section number does nothing to illuminate the matter - the reading public doesn't know what that section number means - so what is the point anyway?  See if you can find other source articles that explain why he was denied entry, or deemed inadmissable, or deported, or whatever word the source uses. But the source has to make the point, not you.  Do you understand what I'm saying?   Tvoz / talk 07:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the original wording was that he had been "deported" shows that the readers of this article should be informed as to exactly how it was that he was denied entry. As I understand it, you're asserting that I'm drawing my own conclusions by claiming that that was the section of law that was used to deny his entry. In fact, this isn't so. If an applicant for admission is denied entry to the U.S. based on possible ties to terrorism, that is the section of law that is used to deny their application. There's no other way that it can be done.

What you're suggesting is akin to stating that a person walked down the street followed by an explanation that they had to place on foot in front of the other to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.147.251 (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "There's no other way it can be done." That is a drawn conclusion.  The information readers should be given is that which is reported by reliable secondary sources, not that which is interpreted from circumstances reported by those sources.   Tide  rolls  10:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

what do you want me to do, link a page to the law that was used? That's how someone is denied entry to the U.S. for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.70 (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source that links the section of law title to Cat Stevens' denial of entry? With that information we can move forward to a discussion as to the notability of the content.   Tide  rolls  05:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

the link to the section of law is abo....you know what? you people aren't worth it any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.147.251 (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

illegal entry into the us?
Can someone please perhaps provide some recent info about Cat regarding his place of residence? It has been said that he is on the US no fly list which raises concern about how he attended this recent political event hosted by Jon Stewart and Colbert.

Can't really verify he is on the list since the list isn't made public however given his resume` it sounds about rightWoods01 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As the article mentions, he has entered the US several times since that incident - it would seem there was an error made regarding whether he should have been on that no-fly list in the first place, or he would not have been admitted subsequently. But please understand, this is an encyclopedia article about an artist, and we are not a primary source as we rely on other sources for our information which you can check yourself. Tvoz / talk 04:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That tedious name thing again... sort of.
Just wondering if I missed something. Did Steven Demetre Georgiou legally change his name to Yusuf Islam? Obviously Yusuf is currently his stage name, just as Cat Stevens was a stage name in his early career. If so, when and where and with what reference? I believe that it might sound trivial, but I think it's of real importance. Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't know, Leah - the conclusion we reached at some point was that he likely did legally change his name, as apparently he travels on a passport under the name Yusuf Islam, but at the time we were discussing this, if I recall correctly (I have not looked back - you can check the talk archives), we were unable to find reliable sourcing to verify this assumption. That's why we don't address this one way or the other. Tvoz / talk 03:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Song clips
Why were some of the song clips pulled from the article? Maybe I'm losing touch or something, but somehow I thought there was an example of a song with only his voice and drums before his return to pop music. If I remember wrong, one should be added-- probably "A is for Allah", which would tie in nicely also with his role as an educator. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing Album
Very Young and Early Songs has been left off of his discography. The amazon listing for this album can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Very-Young-Early-Songs-Stevens/dp/B001HEGUOS/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1315424566&sr=8-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.58.121 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Name (!)
In the article it says that "Stevens ... adopted his Muslim name, Yusuf Islam". "Yusuf" is not a "Muslim name" since there is no such a thing as a "Muslim name". "Yusuf" is an Arabic name.

The article implies that "Arabic name is Muslim name" or people need to adopt an "Arabic name" to be a Muslim! or adopting an "Arabic name" is a part of Islam. These "opinions" are wrong.

In Islam, there is no "rule" dictating adoption of an Arabic name. Mr. Stevens adopted an Arabic name not because it was one of the rules of Islam but because he wanted to do so.

The "Muslim name" argument is not only wrong but also politically charged. The expression should be corrected as "Arabic name" or should be removed.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this -please see revision. No political point was intended. Tvoz / talk 05:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding and contribution.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Question
Does anyone know the answer to this question? --Dweller (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)