Talk:Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Removed NPOV Sentence from "Criticism"

The sentence "Stevens himself said he was delighted by all the destruction, declaring his old music un-Islamic" is hyperbolic and not at all supported by the referenced article. The article contains the following statement "I am amazed that there are apparently plans to ban my music from the airwaves in America and maybe stop releasing my records[...] Only a few weeks ago, I wrote to the record companies asking that they do precisely that, but they refused because it would not be commercially viable for THEM! God works in mysterious ways." There is no mention of being "delighted at all the destruction" and absolutely no reference to "declaring his old music un-Islamic." Article is here:[1] RumiNationZ (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is quite easy to resolve

None of the sources cited in the section about Cat Stevens appearing in the 'The Satanic Verses' are reliable or verifiable. They are purely speculative. Therefore, I have removed that section from the article and also removed the NPOV tag. --BadMojoDE 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And a minor edit: Stevens was not considered a "soft pop" singer. He was a folk singer. --BadMojoDE 22:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Stevens was (and to some extent, still is) considered a FOLK singer. What in the world is "soft pop," anyway? How is that different from "soft rock" (or even just "regular pop" for that matter?) Obviously, the Wikipedians warring over this page aren't going to give up on The Satanic Verses issue, but for the love of mud... do not revert back to the "soft pop" thing. Stevens never described himself as anything other than a folk singer. Are Peter Paul & Mary or Bob Dylan classified as "soft pop" singers? Please, leave this alone. BadMojoDE 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notability tag

WP:RS cited are Juan Cole, History News Network, The Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Rolling Stone magazine, Granada Television and BBC. --tickle me 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible motivation

I do not think we should be speculating on possible motivation, even though there was a source indicated (a source that is not readily available for verification, by the way) - it is someone's opinion and not particularly reliable. Meaning, no one can get into the man's head and figure out what motivated him - perhaps if he was quoted it might work, but not this. It said "some have speculated" - those are weasel words by wikipedia's definition - who are these "some"? I don't think this section adds anything, and since it is POV speculation, I think we're better off without it. As it is, this entire article is quite heavily slanted in one direction, and I think we need to try to keep it as neutral as possible, which is why I moved the Cole material from the intro where it was receiving undue weight and consolidated it with his statements in "criticism". Tvoz |talk 08:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Words have meanings. He said what he said and lied about it later, the facts are unequivocal. Arrow740 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - the "possible motivation" section was speculating that he said what he said because he didn't like one of Rushdie's characters in the book, thought by the speculator to be based on Yusuf - this is convoluted and highly speculative. WHo knows why he said what he said - speculating on it doesn't belong here. Take a closer look at the edits - I didn't remove any of the claims about what Yusuf said. Tvoz |talk 08:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Your "interpreted" in the intro is problematic. Arrow740 09:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Any interpretation or OR should be deleted. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
About the Bilal character - has Rushdie said that it was based on Yusuf Islam? If not, saying that Yusuf may have been motivated by that is pure speculation of the author of the cited book and is surely interpretation - it does not belong in the article. As for the "interpreted" in the previous intro - I think we need that, because it is less POV than our deciding what the words meant. He disputed it from the beginning, and whether or not that was true is the subject of at least some disagreement - so we need to indicate that in the intro. Let's try "was reported as" instead of "interpreted" then - otherwise you are making a determination (as you did here on talk above) that he was lying. Maybe he was, maybe he was not - we don't take a position on that - we present the facts that we have, we source them and we let the reader decide. By the way, some of the sourcing is rather poorly done - saying New York Times with a date is really not a citation, for example - we need the article name, author, page, and url if possible. URL for NYTimes may be restricted to membership, but you include it anyway for anyone who can access it, and you give complete citation as described for those who cannot. Tvoz |talk 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Has "Rushdie said that it was based on Yusuf Islam"? I don't know. I don't know how much he talks about the details of his book. We do know that detailed notes devoted to describing the book (Notes for Salman Rushdie: Satanic Verse p.45) state that the Bilal X is based on Cat Stevens. The notes don't say "it could be" or that "some think it is", just that it is.
We do know that an author of a book on the Satanic Verse incident believes that Cat Stevens may have been influenced by his portrayal in the book. Surely these facts are relevent to the story.
URL s for stories from 1989 may be hard to come by. --BoogaLouie 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
New York Times archives go back way farther than 1989. URLs aren't required, but are helpful - NYT is by subscription, but the URL can be added with a note that it's available by subscription at the url. We do need title of article, author, date, and page number if available - saying the newpaper name and the date is not enough. As for the Bilal material - I think the way it has been amended is ok, as it is clear that it's opinion. Tvoz |talk 08:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Arrow740 has reverted several attempts I've made to have this article be balanced and neutral, with edit summaries referring to the subject's "lying". This demonstrates his POV, and I'd like to hear what other editors think. I think BoogaLouie's edits to the Bilal section were good, and I tweaked the paragraph but did not remove it again, as the edits satisfied my concern that categorical statements were being made that were actually speculation. Unfortunately, rather than coming to Talk to discuss it, Arrow740 removed my latest edits - I attempted to work with the text that was presented. Therefore I'm adding an NPOV tag, and I'd like to discuss this here. Tvoz |talk 08:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You added a lot of unsourced content in addition to the extraneous "reportedly." Words have meanings. Arrow740 08:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Specifically what are you referring to? And thanks for the tip about words having meaning - I have said that regularly all over the encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 08:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
My point was, he said what he said. To report what he said only preceeded by "some have interpreted his statements to mean" is intellectually dishonest. Arrow740 06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the NPOV tag because I have concerns about the neutrality of this article. My concerns persist, and I am reinstating the tag. If the article is made more neutral I'll remove the tag - at this point my concerns have not been assuaged. Tvoz |talk 06:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please describe here your objections, specifically. Arrow740 06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I already have, above.Tvoz |talk 07:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the material sourced to Daniel Pipes should be retained. Do you have something in mind that could incorporate that? Arrow740 07:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please let us know Tvoz, what specifically you find objectionable in the article. --BoogaLouie 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This was my reply in total, I hope comprehensible, form. Booga's comments (which I have not yet read, and will reply to after I do) are interspersed in the subsection below, but I would prefer my original reply not be broken up and rendered unreadable. And let's try for a more neutral subhead following, ok? I'm not "complaining", I'm answering the question of why I put an NPOV tag on the article.Tvoz |talk 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The insistence on categorically stating that he supported the fatwa, when he claims he did not - seems to me we should say "reportedly" or some such word, as I have added and has been removed, rather than stating that he did support it. Supporting the fatwa is a state of mind, and I think we have to be careful about our own OR creeping into the article. I believe he is in a better position to know what his state of mind was and is than we are. I have no problem including the Bilal section, as I said earlier, but I also have asked if Rushdie makes the claim that Bilal is based on Stevens/Yusuf - Pipes is speculating, and I think it would be more balanced if we had an indication of whether this theory has any support from the author. I am glad to see that the word "theorized" survived after an editor removed it - that helps (I think I added the NPOV tag when Pipes' comment was being treated as a definitive statement). In general, I think this article is slanted, and I'd like to see it presented in a more balanced way - even Yusuf Islam's denials are presented in a way that is not balanced: "Yusuf has never retracted his statements about Rushdie" - this is in the one short "denials" section. Finally, I think that including Cole's use of the term "weasel words" is misleading here because he means something quite different from what Wikipedia means by that phrase. I don't see that it is necessary - his opinion (which is all it is) is presented in a rather long passage, and is only weakly sourced. It could be shorter. My last comment on all of this for now, lest anyone misinterpret my comments: I abhor the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and did so at the time. I have close personal connections to the writing community and I do not in any way support such an obscenity. I protested it at the time and supported those who bravely stood up against it, like the New York neighborhood newspaper whose office was firebombed because of their editorial position against the fatwa. But I think articles on Wikipedia need to be fair and not marred by innuendo and unbalanced presentations of people's opinions, speculations, and original research, especially about a topic as incendiary as this one. Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam has been subject to a lot of such treatment, and I think we have to be extra careful here on this. Tvoz |talk 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply to Tvoz

The insistence on categorically stating that he supported the fatwa, when he claims he did not - seems to me we should say "reportedly" or some such word, as I have added and has been removed, rather than stating that he did support it.

changed that to "widely interpreted"

Supporting the fatwa is a state of mind, and I think we have to be careful about our own OR creeping into the article. I believe he is in a better position to know what his state of mind was and is than we are.

I have added "seemed to say" and similar qualifications before many of his statements

I have no problem including the Bilal section, as I said earlier, but I also have asked if Rushdie makes the claim that Bilal is based on Stevens/Yusuf - Pipes is speculating, and I think it would be more balanced if we had an indication of whether this theory has any support from the author. I am glad to see that the word "theorized" survived after an editor removed it - that helps (I think I added the NPOV tag when Pipes' comment was being treated as a definitive statement).

In general, I think this article is slanted, and I'd like to see it presented in a more balanced way - even Yusuf Islam's denials are presented in a way that is not balanced: "Yusuf has never retracted his statements about Rushdie" - this is in the one short "denials" section. Finally, I think that including Cole's use of the term "weasel words" is misleading here because he means something quite different from what Wikipedia means by that phrase.

Do you have a problem with this? what Cole believed were "weasel words"
Islamic scholar Juan Cole criticized Yusuf for what Cole believed were "weasel words" or contradictory statements about the fatwa. He argued that Stevens had "explained this position away by saying that he did not endorse vigilante action against Rushdie, but would rather want the verdict to be carried out by a proper court." He felt the disavowal not to be "even consistent," as "[a]t the time, Rushdie's life was in imminent danger, and Cat Stevens was skating pretty close to inciting to murder."[2]


I don't see that it is necessary - his opinion (which is all it is) is presented in a rather long passage, and is only weakly sourced. It could be shorter.

Necessary???? In other eliminate a short summary of the case against Stevens by an Islamic scholar from an already short article???? There is no way you are going to get that elminated.


My last comment on all of this for now, lest anyone misinterpret my comments: I abhor the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and did so at the time. I have close personal connections to the writing community and I do not in any way support such an obscenity. I protested it at the time and supported those who bravely stood up against it, like the New York neighborhood newspaper whose office was firebombed because of their editorial position against the fatwa.


But I think articles on Wikipedia need to be fair and not marred by innuendo and unbalanced presentations of people's opinions, speculations, and original research, especially about a topic as incendiary as this one. Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam has been subject to a lot of such treatment, and I think we have to be extra careful here on this. Tvoz |talk 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I must express some frustration here. The incediari-ness of the issue is the killings and attempted killings of people associated with the book, the firebombed books stores and cultural centers. We all have someone -- musicians or other people -- we admire greatly and whom it pains us to see held up to criticism, but straitforward fact should not be censored no matter how painful.
Please see if my edits have removed "opinions, speculations, and original research" you find objectionable to you. I must point out Wikipedia already has a long highly complementary article on Stevens sanatized of any criticism, because that would make it "too long." --BoogaLouie 16:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response

Although I still have some reservations about the neutrality of this article, namely in the weight given to the denials vs the accusations, I think it has been improved by Booga's recent edits and I've removed the NPOV tag. I made some additional changes to the article as outlined in my last edit summary over there, not necessarily in any order:

  1. corrected typos and grammatical errors
  2. moved some references around and started to convert refs to the "cite news" standard - note that I added a {{cn}} to one of the references that has just a newspaper name and date - we need more than that, even if a url is not available - article title, author name, etc. More work is needed on the reference style - I'll try to get to that
  3. added a relevant detail regarding Bilal X, that he is a Black Muslim - that is not a minor difference between the character and the real person. I would still like to see something from Salman Rushdie confirming that he based Bilal X on Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, but I can find nothing saying that. So the references in this section are still speculation: one person who wrote a study guide and a commentator, Pipes, who sees it as a possible reason - but it's all speculation. I left the section in because the word "theorized" and other such words in the paragraph at least suggest that this is not a confirmed "fact", but am saying here that it would go a long way to neutrality if there were comments by Rushdie on this.
  4. removed a non RS source from intro - it was basically drawing its information from Wikipedia, so can't be used to confirm wikipedia, and doesn't add anything anyway
  5. removed the phrase "weasel words", leaving "what Coles believed were contradictory statements" - as explained above, those two words ("weasel words") are not necessary, as there is a whole paragraph explaining Coles' opinion, and those two words can be misunderstood, given that they have different meaning on Wikipedia - they don't add anything necessary to the section. (Note, BoogaLouie, that I didn't say above that we should "eliminate a short summary of the case against Stevens by an Islamic scholar from an already short article" - or that Coles' entire statement was "not necessary". I was talking about those two words. I think it is speculative and just his interpretation, but I didn't say we should remove it. Would hope we might find some statements on the other side of the issue for balance, though.)
  6. removed the word "later" from the intro when talking about Yusuf's denial that he was supporting the fatwa, as it was the next day - yes, technically it was "later", but it suggests that it was a long time later and since it was not, there's no reason to add that word

I think that is all of my changes - if there were any others, I'm not leaving them out of this list intentionally and will be glad to explain them if anyone finds any.

My final comment (I hope) is: the fatwa of course was the incendiary and vile act here, as I said in my last post above. But the entire topic is incendiary, including what his meaning was at that time and what he says now. What I am trying to avoid is that this person's response to it be fairly treated - in the face of his denials for years since, I think we need to neutrally present what we know of what he said, how others responded at the time, how he replied to that, what the aftermath has been, including his current comments now that he's somewhat come back out into the world. That's all. I don't want to whitewash it, but I don't think it is right for this article to be the place for assumptions and speculations about what he meant. As I said, it is a state of mind, and we can't know what that was.

By the way, I do not appreciate or agree at all with your assessment that the main article is either "highly complimentary" or "sanitized" or your mention of the word "censored". It is supposed to be a biographical sketch, not a critical assessment, except in as much as criticism has been notable. ("I don't like his music because I prefer heavy metal" would not be an example of something to be included, I assume you agree.) I've been one of the editors of the other article for a long time and it is about the totality of the man's life and career, the notability of which originally came from his years as Cat Stevens. The article is balanced and reasonable, covering the negatives arising from his life as Yusuf, but also including mitigating factors (his comments on 9/11, for example) and an attempt at accurate portrayals of things like the denial of entry to the US and its aftermath. It's not perfect, for sure, but it attempts to be balanced, and this article was forked off to here because indeed if the level of detail the people here want was included in the main article about the man's whole life and work, it would have been given undue weight. So we end up, I hope, with two balanced articles - not an attack piece here and a paean there. No one is censoring anything, and I don't appreciate the implication of lack of good faith editing. That I might like his music really has nothing to do with my private opinion about his politics (and you actually do not know what that private opinion about his conversion or his political stances afterward is or was at the time) and it has no bearing on my editing.

Again, I've removed the NPOV tag, because I think this article is now closer to neutral than it was. If the edits stand, I'll have no problem keeping the tag off. If the article returns to POV, I'll put it back. Meanwhile, if people can find ways to expand it with better references, that would be great. Tvoz |talk 21:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response: NPOV in main article, assumption of good faith, hurt feelings, American Thinker blog or publication, etc.

You sound upset. I'm not sure that you should be.
The Cat Stevens article is 109k long. It has 20 sections, and includes things like detail on a libel suit he won, such NPOV lines as
"Alun Davies, who was always by Yusuf's side playing guitar in the Cat Stevens days, was with him and they performed their magic once again"
But when it comes to the biggest controversy of stevens' career - the fatwa controversy - there is (or was, I've changed it now, we'll see how long that lasts) a brief and vague mention of "Newspapers quickly interpreted his response as support for the fatwa," without saying what that response was. I put it to you that this is censorship or something very close to it. --BoogaLouie 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Look at page history - I didn't write (or see, actually) the Alun Davies line, and I will change it - I don't think it's an encyclopedic line either. But I will say again that the other article is a biographical sketch of his entire career, not just his years as Yusuf Islam, and it has to be fair and neutral. We have BLP concerns to be aware of, and cannot give this incident undue weight. It was longer in the main article before we forked it off to here- which we did because some people wanted it to be way too long there. I haven't read what you did there - I will look after dinner. Please don't put your comments inside of mine - put them at the end so you don't interrupt the flow of mine. There's policy for that too, and I'll find it later if you like. thanks. Tvoz |talk 00:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, again, calling a decision to fork off material so that it can be delved into in greater depth than it should in the the main article "censorship" is way out of line, does not assume good faith, and insults the hard work people have put into that article. And don't try to marginalize it by saying I sound "upset" - I am merely objecting to the way you have characterized the other article, and have already acknowledged that it is not perfect, as none are. Accusations of censorship are not in the best interests of having a civil environment and working together to improve the encyclopedia. And adding material to a quote that simply does not appear in the source - at least not in the version I just pulled down from NYTimes Select - and putting it in an article is of course not acceptable, so I reverted it. But even the accurate quote is a problem because if you have that quote you need to have a quote from his denial, etc etc - and that is why we forked it off to a separate article. If not, the incident is given more weight in the main article than it should in this biographical sketch. I do not necessarily agree that this is the most important thing to be written about in his life and career either - it is one of the things, and it is there. Tvoz |talk 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And once again I'm going to put the NPOV tag back on if Arrow insists on reverting to his wording, ignoring this discussion - which is where we started. I'm going to revert to BoogaLouie's words which are not "weasel words", they are merely qualifying the statement. As for the blog post reinstated in the intro - as a blog it is not a neutral, reliable source, and it draws too heavily on this very Wikipedia article to be used a source for it. That's circular - it's against policy. (I'll find the acronym later.). So I'm removing that too. If that is out and the other wording discussed above stays in , I'll keep off the NPOV tag. Tvoz |talk 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with your characterization of my comments. Kindly do not accuse me of "insulting," "marginalizing" or otherwise assume bad faith on my part.
American Thinker is an internet publication, not one person's blog, and their article is an example of what stevens critics claim. Another thing, do you think you could spare us proclamations that the article "has to be fair and neutral"? Of course it has to be fair and neutral. Are you insinuating that others are indifferent to fairness and neutrality? Are you insinuating that including a one or two-line sentence quoting the most controversial thing ever said by someone to that person's biography - a 105k long biography - is a breech of fairness and neutrality? --BoogaLouie 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

American Thinker is "a daily right-wing internet publication" Not my characterization - follow the wikilink. The piece itself is prefaced with "[Editor's note: This is a revised and extended version of a blog which appeared yesterday]" and it draws heavily on this very Wikipedia article as its source. This is circular, and not a reliable source. Perhaps you can find a more contemporaneous and more reliable source for what critics said at the time that he made the statements - one that wasn't written last month and isn't influenced by what is in this wikipedia article.

As for your comments - you are the one who claimed "censorship" - if that's considered assuming good faith, I guess we have different definitions. And it is marginalizing to refer to my objections as "complaints" and to say I "seem upset". As for "insulting" I said that calling the editing over there "censorship" insults the work done by a group of editors who tried to come up with a fair solution to a strong difference of opinion. I am just responding to what you've said here.

Finally, as I explained, of course I think this should be included - but if you actually quote him, then you have an obligation to quote his denial - we had that in the main article, but some editors felt that more was needed about what he said about the fatwa, and more of his explanations were then also added for, yes, balance (WP:UNDUE is relevant here as is WP:BLP whether you like to be reminded about it or not) and it reached a point where this incident or event or whatever you want to call it was becoming too dominant in that article. It seems to be your opinion that this subject deserves more space in an overall article about Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam - others disagree. So we set up this sub-article - something that is done every day on Wikipedia to accommodate such problems - and there's plenty of room here to add whatever you want to add. As long as it is balanced by his response. We discussed all of this: I added an NPOV tag - you questioned it, I responded, the article was re-worked. I was satisfied with the way it was done and removed the NPOV tag. You can do whatever you want, but if an editor is questioning neutrality, that editor can put the tag back on. Right now I think it's ok - but if I don't later on, or anyone else doesn't, it'll go back on. Sorry if you don't like that, but it's just the way it works. Tvoz |talk 17:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy in main article

If the Thinker article draws from the wiki article than I guess that disqualifies it, though I still maintain that article is not the same as person's blog, even if it started out as a blog.
As for use of the word censorship, out of consideration for sensative feelings of some editors, I will refrain from using that word. Nonetheless I ask anyone reading this to look at the text of
Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy
The singer attracted controversy in 1989, during an address to students at London's Kingston University, where he was asked about the fatwa calling for the death of author Salman Rushdie. Newspapers quickly interpreted his response as support for the fatwa, but he released a statement the following day clarifying that he had not been supporting vigilantism, and was merely explaining the legal Islamic punishment for blasphemy.[23]
What did Stevens say? We don't know. We only know what "the newspapers ... interpreted". What did Stevens reply? "He had not been supporting vigilantism, and was merely explaining the legal Islamic punishment for blasphemy," is almost exactly what Stevens said.
I ask you, is anyone outside the Cat Stevens Fan Club going to find the lack of "one or two-line sentence quoting the most controversial thing (Stevens) ever said" in a "105k long biography" of Stevens, a demonstration of "fairness and neutrality"?
Or is it possible they will think the fan club is doing the editing at wikipedia, making sure nothing unpleasant gets out about their hero? .... Of course I am not saying the article's been censored, simply pondering what the public might think.
Have a nice day :-) --BoogaLouie 00:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Except that you conveniently left off the all-important line above the text in that section which says: Main article: Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie, which is a pointer to this long article and if the public that you are concerned about clicks on that link they'll get the whole story in three-part harmony. . This is common practice on Wikipedia, as I am sure you know. And leaving it off here in your argument gives a distorted view of that section. If you think that template wording isn't clear enough, suggest some other wording for the pointer - we are using the standard template that many articles with forks use. Please don't pretend that all we say about this incident is what you quoted above.
Again, read what I said above about the genesis of this separate article. When editors were willing to keep that section's size in proper proportion to the rest of the article, more was said. When editors thought more had to be added, more was added on both sides of the controversy, as is appropriate in a BLP (and everywhere else in the encyclopedia, for that matter). When it grew too large it was forked off. Same as many, many articles. Here's a good example: take a look at how much text Paula Jones gets in Bill Clinton's article. Almost none. Why? Because there is a pointer to the separate article about Paula Jones that goes on and on about her in quite a bit of detail. Arguably the Paula Jones matter was incredibly important vis-a-vis Bill Clinton as it was the source of his impeachment. But it apparently needed much more room than the main Bill Clinton article should have - so it is forked off. The same thing applies here, and you'll find it all over the encyclopedia.
As for the fan club accusation, and the censorship one - why don't you give it a rest already. The article has GA status - listed as a Good Article in Arts as well as having GA-class in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, presumably because it meets their criteria. You have a whole article here in which to put as much as you like about what the accusations are, and as long as they remain balanced by his denials, and are adequately sourced, and do not include POV material, etc, etc, no one is trying to make this article shorter. But the main article covers his whole life and career, more than the incident that you consider to be the most important.. Tvoz |talk 01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean Monica Lewinsky, not Paula Jones.
Anyway, yes I'm fully aware of how articles grow too large and are forked off. Not everyone has time to read those forks though, so its important that subsections like Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy be fair and balanced. I'm not insisting that Cat Stevens#Salman Rushdie controversy be long, just include both Stevens first quote as well as his explanation of it, rather than the current unnecessarily vague langauge that leaves open the suggestion to busy readers that the whole affair was some Islamophobic witchhunt.
.... and until we get that balance you will be hearing more from me.
Have a nice day :-) --BoogaLouie 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant Paula Jones, as a matter of fact. Tvoz |talk 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
As a neutral editor, I have to side with Tvoz on both the analogy and the CS article. The main article does a good job of keeping out any tangents and limiting itself to "Something happened, both parties claim the other is distorting history, see this other article for full details. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit summary

What do you mean by "Weasel Words" untouched here? Tvoz |talk 17:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It means I didn't remove what Arrow740 called weasel words. I would have thought that was obvious. --BoogaLouie 00:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, obvious - but I thought you were referring to the phrase "what Cole believed to be" which you did change. My mistake. Tvoz |talk 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)