Jump to content

Talk:Cat Stevens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Former good articleCat Stevens was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 18, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 21, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Requested move 6, 13 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. I think it's pretty clear that the proposed name isn't going to fly. No prejudice against a Yusuf Islam RM, but there's no need to muddle the discussion with a proposal that won't be adopted. Association football was once located at Football (soccer), but these sorts of titles with alternative names as disambiguation have been pretty soundly rejected for some time now. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens → Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) – He is referred by both names commonly. 71.59.58.63 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose, but strongly support Yusuf Islam as previous RM per Steven Demetre Georgiou's conversion to Islam being at least as notable as his songs as Cat Stevens in books 2004-2014, plus the man's own personal preferences. This is case where WP:BLP should outweigh WP:COMMONNAME, and some consideration should be given of the way we do weight modern sources for e.g. Kosovo placenames WP:MODERNNAME (redlink but should be a bluelink to the "in a nutshell" box of WP:NCGN). Any source refering to anything this BLP has done for the last two decades always use his "modern" name, not as Danzig. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yusuf Islam (without the parenthetical "Cat Stevens", which doesn't meet any titling style that I can see). This is a tough one, because although he has been Yusuf Islam for more than 30 years, he was most notable under his stage name Cat Stevens - and that was the name under which the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inducted him this year. But I think his 30-year history of calling himself Yusuf Islam should be respected. The current lead sentence makes his naming situation clear. --MelanieN (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I agree that this is a tough one, and one we have discussed several times before, resulting in no move away from Cat Stevens as the title. I think this is a special case where we need to take into consideration the reason for his notability along with the overwhelmingly more common usage of Cat Stevens. Yes, he has used Yusuf or Yusuf Islam for a very long time, but it is as Cat Stevens that he achieved his fame, his fortune, his notability and worldwide recognition. It is the name he is far most recognized as and likely first search choice. He himself uses the Cat Stevens name as an identifier on his Yusuf albums, and has re-embraced his Cat Stevens catalog of music. Without his time as Cat Stevens I believe it is unlikely that we would even have an article about him - his fortune from those years allowed him to become a philanthropist and educator - and the philanthropy and educational activities are not what has made him notable. His Cat Stevens years are. Even the controversies we include in the article are notable because of his earlier years as Cat Stevens - for example a random Muslim educator commenting on Salman Rushdie would not have gotten any significant notice - that Cat Stevens commented is notable. Every article written about it described him as Cat Stevens. His induction in to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame of course is as Cat Stevens. An analogy here is to Stokely Carmichael who took the name Kwame Ture, but whose fame and notability came from his work as Stokely Carmichael which is the article name, correctly so. This is, in my opinion, utterly different from Muhammad Ali who did have significant fame as Cassius Clay, but certainly more as Muhammad Ali - so we correctly call his article Muhammad Ali. And I don't believe you'll find Ali referring to himself as Clay, nor do articles written about him always mention the Clay name to assure that people know who it is. Not the case for Yusuf Islam, who is always described as Cat Stevens and,as I said, who himself does so. So for the sake of recognizability, I believe we have to keep this as Cat Stevens with a redirect from Yusuf Islam, and with the first sentence as we have crafted it over years of discussion. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Hi User:Obiwankenobi, unfortunately the problem is similar to Kosovo place names. Many sources in the last 2 years discuss the historical "Cat Stevens" of 1970-74, just as sources in the last 2 years when discussing the Kosovo of the 1990s use Serbian place names. So the problem isn't so much what modern sources do, but whether more modern sources are discussing the Kosovo of the present (peaceful and thankfully boring) or the atrocities of the 1990s. Same with the 1977-2014 Yusuf Islam - the last 35 years of his life and the living person today are evidently not as GBhitworthy as the 5 years 1970-1974 at the top of the album charts. So book counting isn't really going to help here. There will always be more "Cat Stevens was" books on early 1970s pop music than book mentions of now minor 2014 singers also known for conversion to Islam, i.e. more than "Yusuf Islam is" hits. This is why I believe fundamentalist adherence to our dogma of WP:COMMONNAME is inappropriate in this case. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cat Stevens to tour US for the first time since 1976

See BBC: Cat Stevens to tour US for the first time since 1976 Esowteric+Talk 08:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - I just was coming here to add it. Tvoz/talk 04:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens → Yusuf Islam – Yusuf Islam is more searched than Cat Stevens, see this link: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F0kj34%2C%20Cat%20Stevens&cmpt=q Not to mention the tour that he recently did was under Yusuf Islam. Kami Mikazuki (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this whole RM is flawed due to an incorrect presentation in the search above. It should have been presented as here with both searches categorised as "search term".
[content above placed out of chronological sequence]
I can't see how that supports your argument, would you care to explain? Britmax (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I should have been more clear, I think that a increased number of searches on Yusuf Islam rather than Cat Stevens shows that to WP:COMMONNAME Yusuf Islam would be more preferred, not Cat Stevens as Cat Stevens has a lower amount. (The idea here being more searches of that name is correlated to how recognizable it is.) As well as his recent tour was under Yusuf Islam, not Cat Stevens adding more to the idea that it is also picked up more recognizably, than the past name Cat Stevens. Kami Mikazuki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The graph does not show a significant difference between the terms and they come together recently, if anything. I still do not understand why you think this graphic supports your request. Britmax (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The graph above is bogus. It compares a "search term" to a standard token. Far more readers are searching for "Cat Stevens," as you can see here. Of his top-selling albums, 13 are under "Cat Stevens," two are under "Yusuf Islam", and the latest one was made by somebody named "Yusuf/ Cat Stevens." Update. The people calling him Yusuf live in Muslim countries. If you check the stats for the U.S., it's pretty to close to 100 percent for Cat Stevens. NotUnusual (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an absolute no-brainer, just like it was the last umpteen times it was proposed, so it's unfortunate that the previous history indicates it's not going to pass. "Cat Stevens" is a name this person used for performance purposes, "Yusuf Islam" is his adopted legal name, and the copious media references, not yet posted below, that refer to him as "Yusuf Islam, formerly know as Cat Stevens" indicate exactly that - that he was formerly known as Cat Stevens. He was formerly known as Steven Georgiou, as well, but nobody is arguing that we should have the article at that title. The article should be at his actual name, not his former alias. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your logic is flawed. According to your logic, the article should never have been called "Cat Stevens" - it should have been "Steven Georgiou". Your logic completely ignores Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, "according to my logic", if Cat Stevens is a preferable page title to Steven Georgiou - as it surely is - then the same argument supports Yusuf Islam over Cat Stevens. There's no doubt that the answer would have been different 35 years ago - but that was 35 years ago. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of IP209's comment is`still incorrect - his fame is associated with his career as Cat Stevens. Not as Steven Georgiou, and not as Yusuf Islam or Yusuf. Commonname applies, and there clearly is no BLP issue - he embraces his past and associates himself with the name in interviews, on records, etc. As mentioned in previous rejected move requests, see Stokely Carmichael aka Kwame Toure - his fame came from his years as Stokely, and we appropriately so name the article, with a redirect from Kwame. Same logic, commonname. Tvoz/talk 20:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names), WP:OFFICIALNAME (Wikipedia need not use legal titles), WP:STAGENAME (The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their 'real' name,...If people published under one or more pen names and/or their own name, the best known of these names is chosen." [my emphasis]), and the principle of least astonishment. "Cat Stevens" is still his stagename for the most notable stage of his career and this Ngram shows that the current title is far more common than the proposed title with no sign of any change. Recent releases of material under that name include a remaster of Stevens's best-selling album The Very Best of Cat Stevens (2000) and the DVD of Tea for the Tillerman: Live (2008). —  AjaxSmack  02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions - Why does it matter what the page itself is named? Whatever the result of this discussion, there will continue to be two Wikipedia "pages", (Cat Stevens and Yusuf Islam), and one will be a redirect. Who cares, but of more interest, why do they care, and does this have anything to do with the English Wikipedia page name? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Again, for all the reasons presented in previous, rejected, move requests. His fame and fortune derive from his years as Cat Stevens, as he himself now readily declares. He is much more well known as Cat Stevens, it has always been and continues to be the common name. (I also have long wondered, like Pdfpdf, why this comes up from time to time- the redirect from Yusuf Islam is sufficient to satisfy anyone who comes here to search for him under that name, so one is led to ask if there might be some agenda behind such requests.) Tvoz/talk 07:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per above mainly "Common" ...for those actually reading others comment funny story about this... see.. Jeff Michaels (2010). Please Hug Me--I've Been Delayed. Greenleaf Book Group. p. 46. -- Moxy (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New comment regarding Cat Stevens

It's probably too late to comment here, but I agree with User:Tvoz, for the same reasons. Everyone exposed to the artist's music usually does so from his 1970s catalog, not as Yusuf, but as Cat Stevens, and he still records with that name as well. Most often they discover the "Yusuf music" after being told about the name change, but certainly, the bulk of his notability was earned as Cat Stevens and he uses the name on CDs and his songbooks teaching youngsters to play his songs from those earlier days, as well as other opportunities to continue earning money which he uses for philanthropic and educational organizations. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Princess Cheyenne in Cat Stevens songbook?

Princess Cheyenne was a famous exotic dancer in Boston who was once engaged to Cat Stevens. A Google Books search for "Princess Cheyenne" Boston turns up a Cat Stevens: Songbook but I can't preview it. It would be nice to know exactly what's said about her in the book. (I assume she's mentioned in it, otherwise why is it showing up in the search results?) Maybe she was the inspiration for a song. Can anyone help with this? --Rosekelleher (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names in lede

The title is currently "Cat Stevens", not "Yusef Islam". Why not use birth name, "Steven Demetre Giorgio", at the start instead? --George Ho (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His birth name is prominently mentioned in the first line of the lede,but his notability comes from his career as Cat Stevens - it is how he is best known, the source of his fame and fortune. Please see the many discussions we have had on why we name the article this way. We start with Yusuf Islam as a compromise solution to a complicated issue. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion about the lede was 2013. Due to recent attempts to rename the article to "Yusef Islam", I think starting with birth name balances a lot more. Of course, someone else disagrees. --George Ho (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians fall over themselves to support Caitlyn Jenner's name change, yet after all this time Yusuf Islam is still stuck as Cat Stevens. He's been Yusuf Islam for 37 years, so I think we can safely say he's sincere about his change of identity. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His sincerity has never been questioned here, nor is it the point. This article title had been a contentious matter here in the past and the solution has yielded this stable article with a minimum of strife in the last years. He himself has embraced his Cat Stevens name as it clearly is how he is best known and continues to be best known. Caitlyn Jenner is an entirely different matter, as it is far more than a name change at hand - she has transformed into a new identity, and sources are rapidly respecting it, and we are right to do so as well. I fully support that article being titled Caitlyn Jenner - and I haven't fallen all over myself to do so - but I think we have it right here, for this article, as it has not been a serious issue here in years. So I hope people will not come here to make a point about other articles - each one should be looked at on its own merits. Tvoz/talk 16:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tvoz. I still think this article is a strange case. Saying Jenner is transgender is certainly true (as is Chelsea Manning!), but don't you think the underlying principle in all of these cases is to give deference to the individual's preference? Surely there's plenty written on the connection we make between a name we give ourselves and our identities.
I'm curious how much of an anomaly this article title is. I'm thinking of other name change cases such as Sean Combs and Bow Wow (rapper). Or even cases such as Rodney King or Lee Harvey Oswald, both of whom I vaguely remember being told didn't go by those names. From New York, not to be confused with New York City, to myocardial infarction, often called a heart attack, when and how we choose to enforce the common name rule for article titles is an interesting topic to me. Perhaps to Walnuts go kapow as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in general I do think the subject's preference is important - but in this case his name has been an evolving thing. His own publicity material now refers to him as Yusuf/Cat Stevens - he is far better known as Cat Stevens than Yusuf or Yusuf Islam. He has clearly re-embraced it as an identifier, so it's a different matter than someone who has rejected a name or specifically asked to be referred to in another way. And as I said earlier, this article has been stable for a long time with the compromises we worked out, so I don't see why we would change it now - especially given his increased identification with the name that brought him fame and fortune and continues to do so. Every case is unique - we can't have a blanket set-in-stone rule on this -in my view, that's fundamental to Wikipedia editing. Tvoz/talk 06:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we move Muhammad Ali to Cassius Clay while we're at it? El-Baba (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Cat Stevens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Yusuf" vs "Islam"

I want to explain why I'm reverting the good faith edits by Winkelvi that changed references to "Yusuf" to "Islam", citing MOS. I believe this is a case where particular circumstances require an adaptation to our customary MOS guidelines. As we all of course know, "Islam" is the name of a religion as well as the surname the artist has adopted, and as such there is a high likelihood of confusion if we refer to him just as "Islam". Using "Yusuf Islam" each time proved awkward and unecessarily wordy. He himself now uses the single name "Yusuf" on his records and he is usually referred to as such by journalists (see this recent article, for instance). An example of the confusion problem is this sentence from our article: Islam himself has said the "cut" between his former life and his life as a Muslim might have been too quick, too severe, and that more people might have been better informed about Islam, and given an opportunity to better understand it, and himself, if he had simply removed those items that were considered harām, in his performances, allowing him to express himself musically and educate listeners through his music without violating any religious constraints. Much clearer if we use "Yusuf" as the first word - there are numerous examples of potentially confusing wording. We've discussed this in the past - see this, for example - and have settled on using "Yusuf" - the mononym he uses himself, like Cher - (or using a pronoun) in the text, with appropriate use of "Yusuf Islam", but not "Islam" alone, except when referring to the religion - which we of course do in this article. It's the name he uses and is just clearer, and therefore acceptable under MOS guidelines, not unlike using first names in article where more than one individual with the same surname are discussed. Our first responsibility is clarity for our readers. MOS can accommodate unusual circumstances, and this article has remained relatively stable with that accommodation. I'm changing it back, but of course am open to discussion or other suggestions.Tvoz/talk 06:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the potential for confusion, but I wonder whether the usage would be sometimes clear from the context. The use of "Yusuf" also seems anachronistic in some places, e.g., when discussing the period of 1990s–2006 when he was known as "Yusuf Islam" and not as merely "Yusuf". I personally find it rather irritating to see an encyclopedic article referring to a person by their first name – at least ordinarily. In this case it makes some sense (e.g., as with Madonna (entertainer)), but not so much when discussing the period before 2006. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cat Stevens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Islam & Salman Rushdie

My edit on the Salman Rushdie controversy has twice been reverted by User: Tvoz, who gave this justification for the second revert: RV: take it to talk if you wish but look at the archives' extensive discussion on this. Also, this is unsourced (note, YT is not RS), & your OR comment "showed Yusuf as being clearly in support of the fatwa." is POV. Last, "whitewash" is insulting.

I had said, This main article is a whitewash unless his words of fatwa support are included. I still feel that is fair comment and in no way insulting. The article is a hagiography, and Steven's disgraceful support of the fatwa inciting muslims to kill the eminent novelist Rushdie has been swept under the carpet. It is not OR to say he was "clearly in support"; the video archive shows this to be true. (It is of no lesser consequence that the video archive can been seen on YouTube; the fact is that the recording exists and is generally available). Fay Weldon's contemporaneous comments (and the police Inspector's spineless discomfiture) back this up.

I accept that there is separate full page on the Rushdie controversy, but I consider that my short paragraph is an essential balance to this very biased main article. Perhaps Stevens now regrets his words and may deserve redemption, but if the article is going to sing his praises as a "man of peace", then the full story of his incitement to murder should also be made clear. Just as the Scientology WP page is regularly policed to keep the truth at bay, it seems that the same appears be true here.

My deleted paragraph said, 'When asked on TV if he would shelter Rushdie, Yusuf replied that he would try to phone Ayatollah Khomeini to tell him exactly where Rushdie was. Yusuf said that, if they were in an Islamic state, and if ordered to execute Rushdie, then "Perhaps, yes!" Asked if he would attend a demonstration where an effigy of Rushdie would be burned, Yusuf replied,"I would have hoped it would be the real thing; but no, if it's just an effigy, I don't think (so)". Fay Weldon, who was present, said she wished the Police Superintendent (who was also present) would arrest Yusuf for incitement to burn Rushdie.' Everything in that paragraph is true, relevant unbiased and concise, and should stay in the article. Arrivisto (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered the same problem many times with Tvoz. Not only did Tvoz revert edits inappropriately but he was absolutely unreachable on the Talk page. He simply would not allow the truth to be told about this issue and went out of his way to suppress any effort by editors to include it. He would then archive the Talk page whenever the issue was discussed so that others wouldn't see the discussions. On one of these archived Talk pages I saw he and one of his supporters who identified as a "Muslim editor" boasting about being able to promote "their religion". It raised strong questions about objectivity and why Wikipedia editors would be allowed to whitewash narratives to promote political interests. The concerns I expressed a number of times were apparently not shared by other Wikipedia editors at that time and Tvoz was allowed to do as he wished.. It stands to reason he may have a similar regressive impact in other Wikipedia exploits. To this day the section on Rushdie remains deceptive. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what you're talking about, and you are once again inaccurate and insulting. I am not male, not Muslim (quite far from it, in fact), and have no political agenda here. If anything I very much disagree with what the subject has been alleged to promote regarding Salman Rushdie, which I have expressed repeatedly on this Talk page (read the archives), but my political opinions do not determine how I edit. (And by the way, I have always been vocal in my support for keeping the name of this article as it is now, so your point is ridiculous.) You are the one with bias, and you are apparently unable or unwilling to understand very simple BLP policies. You seem to have a political agenda, which perhaps is why you accuse me of one. I archive material on talk pages according to common practice around the encyclopedia, as you've been told several times, only after time has passed and the material is stale. I don't delete it, I archive it - available for all to see, and always point to it when questions are raised about one or another matter. I do not whitewash - that is insulting - I have been editing here for almost 10 years and do so according to policy and common standards across the project. And your accusation about me (in addition to incorrectly assuming I'm male), "It stands to reason he may have a similar regressive impact in other Wikipedia exploits", is particularly offensive and completely unsupported by any evidence and you need to withdraw it. You yourself admit that the concerns you expressed were not shared by other editors. That's how it works here - consensus. If you have policy reasons to object to anything, then say so. But your offensive innuendo is not the way to do it. The material added here was not reliably sourced - it was OR interpretation of a You Tube video (which is not an acceptable source), as I explained in the reverting edit summaries. Those are policy reasons. And the substance of the overall argument against including all of the detail you'd like to include in this section is simple: this matter needs to be here, but it is not the most important part of his life story, and it should not have undue weight in the article; this is a BLP and it needs to be neutral - if we include all of the claims, we have to include all of his denials - that gives too much weight relative to the rest of the piece; there is a long linked article that goes into all of it in detail which is more than we do for any other controversy or matter here; etc. We've been through it all before - stop making accusations and hurling insults, and follow procedure. Tvoz/talk 08:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just as in all the conversations you quickly archived, the more you speak the more you illustrate my point. Perhaps its time to recuse yourself from this article which you've tenaciously ruled over from some years now. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Selected Discography"

What is a ""Selected" Discography"? Wiktionary and urban dictionary have no entries.72.223.107.29 (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens and Wonderful Radio London - dead source link

Early Musical Career section:

"Over the next two years, Stevens recorded and toured with an eclectic group of artists ranging from Jimi Hendrix to Engelbert Humperdinck. Stevens was considered a fresh-faced teen star, placing several single releases in the British pop music charts.[33] Some of that success was attributed to the pirate radio station Wonderful Radio London, which gained him fans by playing his records. In August 1967, he went on the air with other recording artists who had benefited from the station to mourn its closure.[34]"

The source link (#34 here) is dead and some quick internet searching doesn't lead me to any sources to confirm these details. Does anyone have a reliable source for both the claim that he was listened to on Wonderful Radio, and that he was on the air for their closure broadcast? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klockwerk (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up - will see what we can find. Leahtwosaints, if you have a chance, can you see if you have anything on this? Meanwhile, the "dead link" tag is good there. Tvoz/talk 06:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found something a few minutes later- not the best source, but at least it's alive. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cat Stevens. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cat Stevens. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Yusuf made a series of comments that appeared to show his support for the fatwa."

Removed comment that violates strict BLP rules. Further, we don't allow original research or interpretations. Tvoz/talk 07:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the relevant quotes to the article. and the quotes explicitly support the fatwa. I don't want to get into an edit war, but those quotes will remain in the article as they are critical to that section. If you revert them without good cause (and saying BLP is not a magic wand), I will seek arbitration from the Wiki team, not a volunteer such as yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanila001 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have reverted your changes, see edit summary. I will accept a brief summary and link to main, but if you include his defence you must include the source of the allegations. To not do so is a clear NPOV violation. Tanila001 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Sample text, include both sides - In 1989, Islam made a series of public statements about the fatwa calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie, author of the novel The Satanic Verses. Following an address by Islam to students at London's Kingston University, he was asked about the Rushdie fatwa. In his reply, Islam stated "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear – if someone defames the prophet, then he must die." He released a statement the following day denying that he supported vigilantism, and claiming that he had merely recounted the legal Islamic punishment for blasphemy. Subsequently, in a 1989 interview on Australian television, Islam was asked if Rushdie deserved to die and replied "Yes, yes". In the same interview, he also stated that he would prefer to burn Rushdie rather than an effigy at a rally. In a statement in the FAQ section of one of his websites, Islam asserted that while he regretted the comments, he was joking and that the show was improperly edited.[84] In the years since these comments he has repeatedly denied ever calling for the death of Rushdie or supporting the fatwa[12][72.

Sample text, omit details - In 1989, Islam made a series of public statements about the fatwa calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie, author of the novel The Satanic Verses. This included Islam stating "He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear – if someone defames the prophet, then he must die." Islam subsequently stated that he was discussing legal Islamic punishments for blasphemy and not directly addressing the Rushdie fatwa or supporting vigilantism.


I think both the above are fair and keep a NPOV. If you disagree, please be specific and do not engage in a bad faith edit war. Tanila001 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Cat Stevens. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated information about the release of Tea for the Tillerman2

Hi folks there was already an entry for this; I just changed the tense. I also added another citation. This is worth keeping current. Realitylink (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visit to see Saddam Hussein

In 1990 he went to visit Saddam Hussein, according to him, to tell him to pull out of Kuwait, among other messages. This article makes no mention of this. And a search of this Talk and the archives comes up empty. Adding this info to the article will be a definite improvement. I have no idea why this wasn't done.

Here's the story in his own words:

Interview with Yusuf Islam at The American School in London, 1997 - On His Visit To See Saddam Hussein (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9TG5F_9yY&t=20m42s)

Perhaps others here would like to join in the effort of gathering additional excellent references and then adding this info to the article. Also, if anyone knows the reason why this info is not already included, I'd be interested to hear that story. --Concord19 (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall this being brought up before, and I've been a lead editor on this article since 2006. So to my knowledge there wasn't a decision or a reason for or against this. However, first we'd need better sourcing as you tube videos are generally not accepted as reliable sourcing. Then we'd have to determine if this incident was significant enough in his life to be included in this article which of course can't go into every visit he made, every interview he gave. So, if you have something more, please provide it here on the talk page and we can discuss. If there's disagreement about it, we'd need to reach consensus to include or not. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 04:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens and Jihadists

Maybe worth to add: In 1986 he went to Peshawar to see the situation of the Afghan refugees for himself. There he started a cooperation with Abdallah Azzam, one of the most influential jihadists, and his service bureau (mainly financed by Osama bin Laden). The bureau published jihadi hymns sung by Cat Stevens. He also appeared on the cover of the al-Jihad magazine: https://books.google.com/books?id=7FfPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA277

Reference: Hegghammer, Thomas (2020). The Caravan. Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad. Cambridge University Press. p. 233–234. ISBN 978-0-521-76595-4.

Jo1971 (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, what an idiot. This should absolutely be in the article. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stevens vs Yusuf Islam

shouldn't this article be named to reflect the name of the person its after?

the speedrunner known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissa_Wright was formerly known as Cosmo. The article reflects this change Does a name change for Islam not demand the same respect? Is there a good reason that this article still refers to Yusuf by his old name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:32 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the archives - this has been discussed many times and this solution is what we reached consensus on. The article very clearly spells it all out - and he is still best known as Cat Stevens. Even he embraces that. Tvoz/talk 23:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, and those RMs aren't especially recent. And indeed, that he keeps on releasing albums, or billing tours with slightly different versions of his name makes it even more of a moving target. But if anything he himself is tacking back the other way, by using "Yusuf / Cat Stevens" or "Yusuf, Cat Stevens" on such material recently. (Notice he doesn't use his more recent surname in his stage name at all.) Using those in full would be extremely awkward: I think the intention is more "either/or", in any case. So it's either the present title, or mononymic Yusuf -- for which he's clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so that'd need to be disambiguated -- presumably to Yusuf (singer) or even Yusuf (Cat Stevens). Don't think there's a strong case for those being better. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:COMMONNAME - his fame (and most searched) comes from his "Cat Stevens" name, which he acknowledges. The article is crystal clear about all of the names he has been known by. Tvoz/talk 04:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I made the very point about the name he "acknowledges" in his credits and billing. If he were to insist on consistently and exclusively publicly calling himself "Yusuf" or "Yusuf Islam" (or "Steven Demetre Georgiou", or whatever else), then "most searched term" isn't necessarily decisive. But as he doesn't do that, that observation is hypothetical, by way of supporting the rationale behind the current name, and the infeasibility of the other choices. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of music for God?

Unfortunately note 74 seems to be a dead link. I would have liked to have read the context. It does seem strange that a musician would have no knowledge of a millennium of western musical tradition. 162.251.16.246 (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misinterpreted the issue. Of course he was aware of Western traditions of music being composed and used by humans to worship God; it was the pure concept of 'music for God' – not for the human purpose of worshipping God – that struck him. Remember even most Western religious music was written by composers for the Church or for pious individuals in exchange for money, or patronage in kind (since composers have to live), or maintenance of an establishement's reputation; not much (though some) was written with no thought whatever other than for "God's benefit." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.18.208 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lives in Dubai doesn't have a home in London

He lives in Dubai and doesn't have a home in London. The article needs to be corrected. Ydawg11 (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not without a reliable, verifiable source on this. It may be true, but we require verifiable sourcing. See WP:Verify. Tvoz/talk 16:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat_Stevens&oldid=1252178013"