Talk:Salman Rushdie/Archive 1

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

message: I don't think so.  Phrases like "best novel" don't belong here.
:I don't think that was POV, simply poorly worded. The award was given for being selected as the best book to have received the original award. I'm going to change it now.
:Fox1 10:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

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

message: Is he living in hiding now?  Tempshill 05:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. He recently appeared on Bill Maher's Real Time with Bill Maher talk show. Extremely hilarious and highly regarded by Ben Affleck and Bill Maher. Adraeus 10:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean he's not living in hiding. Tempshill 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living in hiding? 

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

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

message: hello, i just added a little bit that might explain why the book was controversial.
i would like to shorten the whole rest a little bit, rather saying that the book got outlawed in several countries and demonstrations and bookburning took place but maybe less detailed and rather elaborate a bit more on how the content might have been controversial.
any suggestions?
trueblood 15:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, stop making unexplained deletions unless you can develop a consensus to do so on the talk page. StuRat 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  satanic verses  

message: can we delete all those bits about tv appearances of SR, seems a wee bit to trivial
trueblood 20:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, TV appearances are quite common in Wikipedia biographies.  BTW, do you know you can sign using four tildes ? ~~~~ StuRat 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This stuff is notable for someone "in hiding" to do. -- Synapse 11:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: i would like to shorten the article quite a bit. i think there is more that could be said about rushdie, about his books, the satanic verses were not the first book to cause controversy.
i propose to -just mention whether islam supported to fatwa or not, no quote and all that.
-no quote by khomeini, just explain what he called for, 
- i propose to just mention the violence in general terms and not mention every demonstration.
any objections?
trueblood 11:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a very strong objection.  You should only remove info which is incorrect or unrelated to the topic.  The items you keep removing are neither.  Don't delete other people's contributions due to your personal preferences, but only if you have a good reason ! StuRat 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: reaching consensus would be easier if there were more people involved. for now do you think consensus is when i do do would you think is right? now, i don't want to fight it out in a you against me fashion. i think wikipedia is interesting because people with different opinions are forced to work together. maybe my first changes here were bold, but changing does not always mean 'this is how it is supposed to be', but testing the water. 
yes i have personal preferences, you seem to have some strong opinions too, judging from glancing at your talk page. that's okay, everybody has.
my personal preference or the reason i want to shorten here is readability and relevance. you can't write down every fact that is true. for instance.  even though this is an article about rushdie there are three quotes by other people but none by rushdie. as a compromise i propose to move the whole satanic verses controversy paragraph to the satanic verses article and leave only a short summary in the rushdie article. i still it is too long and not very well structured.  
the cheltenham thing, if you really want it in, you have to rephrase it. 'rushdie likes to' does not do the trick and you have to do it without the word infamous too. that just leaves the facts and they could go into the controversy paragraph.
i can live with the tv appearances because they are at the end of the article, although you have not really explained to me why they are more relevant than the dates of his dentist appointments between 78 and 89.
i think even if my summary were not clear enough it is also in your responsibility to check what you change. trueblood 05:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reaching consensus 

message: Please consider modifying the opening paragraph (or elsewhere) to include the fact that Rushdie was born Muslim and now claims to be Atheist (per Bill Moyers interview).  This fact will make Rushdie's profile more complete, avoid erroneous assumptions by readers, and lend credibility to Rushdie's work and commentary.  For example, it would be easy for the casual reader to assume that Rushdie was born a Hindu, which would create a different context for this whole article.
--Ming
sounds good, do you have a link with information about his family background--trueblood 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim to atheist 

message: many people of the not too intelligent variety tried to downplay the affair by arguing totally beside the point that the ban didn't matter much, since hardly any Indian can read Rushdie's English.
you can't write that. i don't now where to begin to tell you why. it is an insulting argument (to indians), so why bring it in, who says that, but you also cannot judge it here they way you did...--trueblood 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not too intelligent 

message: whoa can we straighten  this out a little
--trueblood 07:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian born Pakistani-British  

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

message: i removed some stuff from this article because it is all in the article about the satanic verses where it belongs. in the section in this article is a link that leads directly to the timeline of events in the article about the satanic verses.
trueblood 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree it 'belongs' in the Satanic Verses article. That article is about the book, this is about the person. Books are banned repeatedly, their authors threatened occasionally. Unless you have any firther response, I will revert some of your changes. Please note that in simply reverting, you have re-included some things you had deleted. Hornplease 20:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whoa, why so confrontational. did you already have a look at the article about the satanic verses. why should the satanic verses controversy section be not in the article about the satanic verses. it is about the book not the guy. whether the some translators got killed or not? i started moving all this stuff away from this article because i took so much space of the article, but there is more to rushdie than just this controversy about one of his bookstrueblood 21:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that there is much more to Rushdie. However, much of the controversy is notable because of the physical threats to Rushdie's person, so the details that flesh out that threat should be in this article. I am sorry if I came across as confrontational.Hornplease 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  okay when i came to this article, the satanic verses section was longer then the rest, with long quotes by khomeini or even cat stevens, a list which country banned the book etc. so i shortened it considerably and moved all the information to the article about the book. since it is a only a click away, i thought that is enough. i would rather a general overview than go into all the details. but i am also a fan of shorter articles. but then i am not completely fixed on this. trueblood 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  satanic verses 

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

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

message: Substituted at 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I have deleted the entire Career section. It was copied word-for-word from this site: http://www.octc.kctcs.edu/crunyon/CE/Koran-Rushdie/Rushdie/Timeline.htm  And a cursory search suggests that at least some of this material was copied verbatim from yet other sources. --ShelfSkewed Talk 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay: I restored the original version, with the older Career section, which is what I was trying to do at the same time the editor who imported the copyvio material was still editing. It's back the way it was.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career section 

message: With all the vandalism that this article is getting at the moment, it is hard to see who added this, which is a good-faith edit.
:His biggest critics were his peers, such as Roald Dahl (author of children's books) who called him "a dangerous opportunist", Germaine Greer who called him "an Englishman with dark skin" and Hugh Trevor-Roper who said "I would not shed a tear if some British Muslims should waylay him in a dark street". (http://weeklywire.com/ww/02-08-99/tw_book1.html)  
I have removed it because:
#I don't know if the Weekly Wire is a reputable source.
#It is not clear if the quotes were made about the Satanic Verses or about Rushdie's career more generally.
#It seems from reading the article that these quotations were gathered from elsewhere, possibly in very different contexts.  The named individuals were not interviewed for the article, but collected.
#These are far from Rushdie's "biggest critics".
If the original sources coudl be found, they woudl be interesting additions. Thank you for your effort. BrainyBabe 17:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That addition was made in this edit by 60.50.112.46 at 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding that.  It figures it is an anon. BrainyBabe 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Scottshen re-added it with a slight rewording, which took care of item 4 above, but not the others, and made the last quote harsher than it was intended (by removing qualifying phrases within the sentence, and then removing the ellipses that indicated their omission).  Please discuss here.  Getting to the actual quotations in their context would be the first step towards encyclopedic standards. BrainyBabe 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dahl's comment was made in a February 28 1989 letter to The New York Times; the comment is mentioned in the 1994 Times piece 'Roald the Rotten', by Ann Hulbert, but I couldn't find the entire letter itself. --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Couldn't find the actual source of Greer's comment, but it was widely quoted outside of anti-Rushdie sources, often as "a megalomaniac, an Englishman with dark skin". Others who, at the time of the Satanic Verses controversy, were harshly critical of Rushdie included Paul Johnson, Roy Hattersley, Norman Tebbit, and Auberon Waugh. --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recall John Le Carre as also being harshly critical of Rushdie at the time, specifically saying something about how his actions endangered the mail room girl at Rushdie's publisher.  Le Carre and Rushdie had something of a public spat over it.  Alexwoods 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the effort towards more credible sources. However, there has been no progress with points 2 & 3 , whether the quotes were about the book or the man, and also importantly with regard to their original context. BrainyBabe 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Muslim critics

message: What ethnic group does Rushdie belong to? Hindi and Urdu aren't restricted to any one group, and of course neither is English. 74.232.226.191 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is of the Kashmiri_people.--Steven X 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity? 

message: "In 2006, Rushdie stated that he supported comments by the Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, criticising the wearing of the niqab. Rushdie stated that his three sisters would never wear the veil, that it was a limitation on women. He said, "I think the battle against the veil has been a long and continuing battle against the limitation of women, so in that sense I'm completely on [Straw's] side."[18]"
Did Rushdie attract any significant critism for his opinions on the niqab? this section just states his opinion and doesn't have anything saying why this is a "controversy". Without an active dispute or argument it isn't controversial and therefore it's just being used as a tar-brush tactic and is POV. Elmo 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't Rushdie that was controversial here; it was Straw. Straw criticised the niqab; British muslims criticised him.  Rushdie intervened in the controversy on Straw's side. Richard Gadsden 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  niqab controversy? 

message: The anti-Rushdie film International Guerrillas is like Osma bin Laden mets the Rocky Horror picture show.
:There are some pictures of the film posted at 
http://weirdostuff.blogspot.com/2005/12/pakistani-jihad-musicals-vol1.html
:--Wowaconia 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocky bin Horror Picture Jihad 

message: There are two glaring errors which I am sure Salman himself would not approve of:
"...by opening a chain of Casino's and Disco's in the country..."
The two apostrophes should NOT be there, not to mention the fact that those two words should not be capitalized either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.107.127.32 (talk • contribs).
:Fixed.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation errors. 

message: in the section "the controversy of the satanic verses" it's a bit ambiguous. it says that he converted to islam, but wasn't he raised as a muslim. someone might want to clarify that he switched to atheism or something in that general direction.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.222.51.64 (talk • contribs).
:On Christmas 1990 he converted formally to Islam, and then recanted a few months later. Ahassan05 18:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: He converted to islam

message: this is bull. all of those bullet points are redundant, unimportant and.. quiet stupid. get rid of them, please. who needs to know that rushdie co-hosted a show?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.130.91.47 (talk • contribs).
:That's a fair point. The section isn't labeled Trivia, but that's what it amounts to. The worthwhile items should be integrated into other sections of the article, and the rest ought to go.--ShelfSkewed Talk 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good call! Abecedare 02:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't read this before I re-added a couple.  I agree that most are worthless, but thought BJD and Mehta were worth keeping -- feel free to change the wording.  BrainyBabe 13:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any problem with those items going back in with the context you provided, although the Bridget Jones item still doesn't strike me as particularly significant. How does Rushdie's cameo constitute "public discourse"? Was there anything about it that had a direct bearing on his life or work? --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "public discourse" isn't quite the right phrase.  I was searching for an overarching first sentence that would slot the examples into a framework.  The point about the film cameo is that he appears as himself at a literary launch party, parodying the perception of famous authors as spending their time hobnobbing with even more famous celebrities and drinking champagne.  I believe that, at the time the film was made, he had not been out of hiding all that long.  It's interesting that that is one way he chose to reposition himself in the public eye. BrainyBabe 22:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rushdie in popular culture 

message: I propose to change the title of the article to 'Sir Salman Rushdie', and the caption above his picture to 'Sir Salman Rushdie'. He was, after all, knighted, and even if people disagree with this we cannot deny that it happened.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.92.236 (talk • contribs) 
:So who's denying it? The first four words of the article are "Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie", and there's an entire section on his knighthood. But your proposal won't be adopted. See WP:NCNT and WP:COMMONNAME.--ShelfSkewed Talk 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) :: Wikipedia has detailed guidelines for such articles. See the relevant guideline for  article title (bullet point 5) and for  article's lead sentence (bullet point 4). So we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. Abecedare 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name - his is now a Sir... 

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

message: Link #15 should link to:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article414681.ece
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Timur1 (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for spotting that! The link has been updated.Abecedare 03:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Link 

message: I've changed the flag icon by his birthplace from that of India to that of British India, since India gained independence from Britain in August 1947, while Rushdie was born about two months prior to the event. Rashed 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you misunderstood Rashed's point, India07; when Rushdie was born, India was under control of the British.  Therefore, the flag was changed to mirror the flag that was used at that point.  I don't necessarily agree with the placement of flags in Biography infoboxes, but Rashed's point is historically valid.  Personal opinion regarding British owned India is irrelevant.  This is a needless point to make, however, because the flag has been changed back to India's without discussion.  María (críticame) 12:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is a flag representing the place of birth of Salman Rushdie, it should be that of British India as that was the country of his birth. Showing the current Indian flag denies a historical aspect of Indian history and is anachronistic. Nobody is under the impression that British India exists in any form today. Edward Said's article has the British mandate flag for Palestine despite the non-existence of that entity today. Wikipedia should reflect the reality and Salman Rushdie was born when India was historically a British colony. Jayran 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a fact and if an icon is to be used then it should be the correct one.  Also, Rushdie himself made much of this distinction in his book Midnights Children.  simonthebold 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why hasn't anybody changed this yet? I guess I will.--Lairor 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icon 

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

message: "The film was popular with Pakistani audiences, and it "presents Rushdie as a Rambo-like figure pursued by four Pakistani guerillas"[23] and surrounded by the Israeli armed forces.[24] Rushdie is portrayed as "a smug, bespectacled butcher in a double-breasted suit, who lives in palatial splendor, [and who] personally slaughters his enemies with a huge blood-soaked sword".[25]"
It I don't think Rushdie is a rambo-like figure if he is a smug bespectacled butcher in a double-breasted suit. Maybe the hero of the film is supposed to be the rambo-like character? I haven't seen it, but I doubt anyone would want to portray Rushdie as a Rambo-like character (even if they hate him).
Lewi5will 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The smear film: A mistake? 

message: From Wikipedia's Persecution of Christians Article: "Ayub Masih, a Christian, was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in 1998. He was accused by a neighbor of stating that he supported British writer, Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Lower appeals courts upheld the conviction. However, before the Pakistan Supreme Court, his lawyer was able to prove that the accuser had used the conviction to force Masih's family off their land and then acquired control of the property. Masih has been released.[35]"
Does anyone know Rushdie's reaction? I mean, did he care or does he even know? Though it may not be needed in the article, I was wondering about his thoughts on this. IronCrow (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salman Rushdie and Ayub Masih 

message: i shortened the section on the pakistani movie again, this article does no need spend almost more space on it then it does on rushdie's books. all the info that is needed is there, start an article about the movie if you want to...trueblood (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection just seems to be your own personal POV. You destroyed my edits on this subject and now you wan't to destroy another editors edits. You do not own this article. Colin4C (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no offence meant, i shortened it because this article is about rushdie, his work, his life and so on, why don't you start an article about the movie itself, you could recicle all the info from here, i promise i will not touch that article...
trueblood (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't YOU make some positive edits for a change - like on Rushdie's books you mentioned. I am sick to death of editors who glory in deleting the referenced, relevent work of other editors because of some idiosyncratic POV and contribute absolutely nothing themselves. Colin4C (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I'm assuming this rushdie character is not alive, so I'm being brave enough to indicate this in his birthdate (.e. 1947-present). I'm not all that familiar with the policies etc. so i hope i'm not breaching any npov issues. cheers all, --ToyotaPanasonic (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no NPOV issues, but wikipedia's manual of style has a different recommendation (see this specifically), so I am reverting your well-intentioned edit. Abecedare (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  being more specific re: is he dead or alie 

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

message: Insert formula here
most mulsim and arab novelists and philosophers lack essential knowledge about there so called enemy (salman).majority of them didnt even read a single line from his (provocative) novel (satanic verses).
:: Their loss. He should be their admired Grand Old Boy if their hope is literary greatness. Chicopac (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  salman rushdie...the unknown in the muslim world 

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

message: Im not trying to be a pain here, Im just interested in the honorifics policy on wikipedia looking at islam articles, You cant place PBUH or SAW or refer to Muhammed as a prophet, yet you can use the honorific Sir when refering to a person-an honorific that isnt recognised outside of Britain technically anyway.-Why is the policy so?86.156.52.67 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting if provacative question, would be interesting to know the answer. Anyone? 217.33.127.162 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not familiar with the policy regarding honorifics, but as far as I know you can refer to Muhammad as an "Islamic prophet". I know because I am the one who promoted the article Muhammad in Mecca with that title a few months back, on DYK section of Main Page. He is recognized as a prophet in Islam, and there is nothing wrong with calling him that. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: Just exactly which traditionalists are Mr. Rushdie referring to in the quotation? Shouldn't the "traditionalists" link, lead to a relevant article and not;
Traditionalism may refer to:
The systematic emphasis on the value of Tradition. 
The Traditionalist School of thought, an esoteric movement espoused by René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon et al. See also Radical Traditionalism. 
Catholic Traditionalism, a current within Roman Catholicism. 
Carlism, a Spanish political movement in the 19th and 20th century. 
Traditionalist world view (American), a world view associated with American cultural conservativism. 
The Traditionalist School in 20th century Dutch architecture. 
A current in music, exemplified by Ralph Shapey. 
None of which truly explains which traditionalists he means. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditionalists 

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

message: why is he given the indian  nationality in his name? he has chosen to be british and should be termed as a british not an indian. or Indian born of british nationality currently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.161.206 (talk • contribs) 
: He is called "British Indian" because he fits the definition; more importantly that is what reliable sources call him; and most importantly, he self-identifies as a "British Indian novelist" (see The New York Times Guide to the Arts of the 20th Century : 1980-1999, page 2650). Abecedare (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Indian ? 

message: Can a small description of Booker prize winning Midnight's Children and its plot be added to the above referred section and the controversy it caused by attacking then PM Indira Gandhi
:A sufficient description of Midnight's Children's Booker Prize win and subsequent success are listed already in the section; any plot details, etc, is at the novel's article.  I have never heard of such a controversy.  Do you have a source?  María (críticame) 12:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Literary work 

message: Salman Rushdie is of Indian origin, but he does not currently hold Indian "nationality" - he's a British national.  The infobox in this article should reflect this, as should the list in the Booker Prize article. -- 144.32.53.40 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, agreed but I have left British-Indian in the lead. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality in infobox 

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

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

message: Why is Rushdie's name transcribed in Arabic? This is not a native tongue of the Indian subcontinent. Sure, his names derive from Arabic, but my name, David, derives from Hebrew, would it be transliterated in an article about me? Perhaps Urdu (which uses a similar but NOT identical alphabet to Arabic) or another native language of the Indian subcontinent would be more appropriate? Or leave it without a transcription?
:Please sign your comments.  The alphabet IS urdu because it's basically the same as arabic (except for a few letters) and more closer to persian.  But since Urdu names are usually from Arabic/Persian, his name can be perceived to be in any of these three.
-- Basawala 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Perhaps Urdu (which uses a similar but NOT identical alphabet to Arabic". Completely false, Urdu uses the same identical alphabet to Arabic in addition to several other letters. 130.113.128.11 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore proving the OP correctedness: "similar but NOT identical alphabet". Alphabet is a grouping. Adding letters means the grouping is not identical. Thank you for supplying the source of difference between the two: the addition of letters. H15 H16N355 |K1N6 M3 (T47K) 03:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Name in Arabic

message: this article does'nt evaluate salman rushdie objectively.
the satanic verses conterversy has given him fame while several
other english writers may have been ignored due to their 
unconterversial writing.
      please comment.
   i have read a article by british author, which states that salman rushdie deliberately profited from the notoriety and conterversy of
his book. his worting has been criticised as being sub-standard.
i am sorry that i can't give details of the source
 V.Srinivas -- 28-02-2012  117.213.211.113 (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since one of his books won the Booker of Bookers, there would have to be pretty substantial criticism to warrant inclusion. The vast majority of criticism relates to the Satanic Verses controversy, which has a large in the article. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  satanic verses 

message: Shouldnt there be a section for the critique of his literary work? I recollect reading something on Times of India recently... Shaad lko (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No criticism section? 

message: "literary works"
......Rushdie has published many short stories, including those collected in East, West (1994)....
reference to East, West should link to internal wiki page found here: []  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.40.179 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  quick note concerning a missing link

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

message: He is missing from :Category:James Tait Black Memorial Prize recipients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.173 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2012‎
: Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing category

message: He belongs both in :Category:20th-century novelists and :Category:21st-century novelists. There are less obvious novelists than him in those categories.
:--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing categories

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

message: In the infobox, his birthplace reads "Bombay, Bombay Presidency, British Raj". Please change it to "Bombay, Bombay Presidency, British India". The British Raj was the name given to the rule, but Bombay and the provinces were under the crown and belonged to Britain. 117.192.208.199 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Rivertorch (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Raj 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#Early_life_and_family_background
First sentence is incorrect.
Salman Rushdie is not the only child.  He has 3 sisters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmb1oQcRmkM
at 0:10:36
E22881 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now. The article has been subject to a lot of vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up! Rivertorch (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 11 August 2013 

message: I know India is a very ethnically diverse country, but I've rarely seen Indians who look like him. Is his family originally native to India or are they immigrants? I heard once that his ancestors came from Iran, and so that could explain him coming from a Shi'a Muslim family (when the vast majority of Indians are Sunni), his white skin and fairly European looks. Can someone explain where Rushie is originally from, and what Indian ethnic group he does belong to?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't Salman Rushie look Indian? 

message: I understand that he's a former Muslim, calls for reform in Islam, and has held beliefs that do not condone the muslim view of God, but did he ever say that he is an atheist? I haven't read anything to say he is, unless I am missing something... Anyone? IronCrow (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christopher Hitchens quotes Rushdie early in Hitch-22 as saying something like "The title God is Not Great is one word too long." Hitch and Rushdie were good pals, so we're left to assume that the word "Great" is the one SR had in mind. Mashapiro (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: An anonymous-IP editor just changed Sunni to Shia in the "Politics..." section, and I can't find any sources that conclusively say that his family was Sunni or Shiite. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't seem to find a good source for this, I suggest we remove it for the time being. /Julle (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni or Shia? 

message: A Wikipedia biography is by necessity an attempt to tackle the very most important parts of someone's life and work. For example, in this fairly long article, one (1) sentence is spent commenting on Rushdie's education. Given that, is it really relevant that John Hegarty thinks Rushdie doesn't talk enough about his past as a copywriter? Is it a very central piece of what can be said about Salman Rushdie? /Julle (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the sentence for now. /Julle (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copywriter, John Hegarty 

message: The article states that 'Since 2000, Rushdie has "lived mostly near Union Square" in New York City.'. Given the threats that have been made to his life, and the fact that other persons accused of blasphemy against islam have been killed (notably Theo van Gogh), don't you think it would be better to remove his location from the article?
I can't find anything in the Wikipedia guidelines relating to information whose dissemination could create a real danger to living persons.
I had removed this sentence myself a few weeks ago, thinking that it had been added with malicious intent, and that removing it would be uncontroversial. But my edit was reversed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argaï (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salman Rushdie's current location

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Salman Rushdie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116101644/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/58358/supplements/page.htm to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/58358/supplements/page.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113033937/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rushdie.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rushdie.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130415232311/http://southasiandiaspora.org/salman-rushdie-midnights-child/ to http://southasiandiaspora.org/salman-rushdie-midnights-child/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501041146/http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth87 to http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth87
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011052625/http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1099 to http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1099
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429175834/http://www.impacdublinaward.ie/2007/shortlist.htm to http://www.impacdublinaward.ie/2007/shortlist.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206005645/http://news.emory.edu/Releases/RushdieProfessorship1160159900.html to http://news.emory.edu/Releases/RushdieProfessorship1160159900.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114151659/http://movies.indiatimes.com/International/Rushdie-visits-Mumbai-for-Midnights-Children-film-/articleshow/5432895.cms to http://movies.indiatimes.com/International/Rushdie-visits-Mumbai-for-Midnights-Children-film-/articleshow/5432895.cms
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100304213538/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Irrfan-moves-from-Mira-Nair-to-Deepa-Mehta/H1-Article1-499416.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Irrfan-moves-from-Mira-Nair-to-Deepa-Mehta/H1-Article1-499416.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312235349/http://www.hindustantimes.com/interviewscinema/T-te-t-te-with-Deepa-Mehta/493632/H1-Article1-493584.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/interviewscinema/T-te-t-te-with-Deepa-Mehta/493632/H1-Article1-493584.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2603984.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Salman Rushdie and wife Padma Lakshmi have divorced. Silverweed 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ouch. Chicopac (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rushdie/Lakshmi divorce

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Salman Rushdie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404115658/http://booktrack.serveronline.net/blog/?p=164 to http://booktrack.serveronline.net/blog/?p=164
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504085720/http://www.artsandletters.org/academicians2.php to http://www.artsandletters.org/academicians2.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125234432/http://jaipurliteraturefestival.org/program-2011/speakers-2012 to http://jaipurliteraturefestival.org/program-2011/speakers-2012/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Salman Rushdie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706135755/http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100721_fanning_flames_jihad to http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100721_fanning_flames_jihad
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: In the article, we link to his article The East is Blue, where Rushdie promotes the use of pornography as a means to advance what he cynically calls "freedom" (ie - weakening societies, the commercialisation of sexuality, de-humanisation, etc) in the Middle East and beyond. I think this should be mentioned in the prose of the article and it is quite an astonishing, explicit connection between pornography and imperialism, as well as laying out British "values" (the British Queen calls this man a knight). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: why are you wikipedia exactly? Brough87 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for using pornography to weaken societies 

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

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

message: Salman Rushdie is attacked onstage in Western New York. The author Salman Rushdie, who spent years in hiding and under police protection after Iranian officials called for his execution, was attacked and stabbed in the neck on Friday while onstage in Chautauqua, near Erie in western New York, the state police said. 2.177.137.55 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I already semi-protected it for three days. Should be good enough for a starter. Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! (37 minutes ago: “Dr. Martin Haskell, a physician who was among those who rushed to help, described Rushdie’s wounds as “serious but recoverable.””)☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6757369.stm - someone should add this? 81.86.44.208 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to add 'Sir' to the front of his name. This has precedent, Sir Ian Botham recieved his knighthood at the same time and his page has added 'Sir'. Doktor Waterhouse 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As other people have noted above, WP is not a soapbox. I'm pleased Rushdie's got a K, too, but this isn't the place to write celebratory essays. I'm sure we'd all be grateful if you could confine yourself to making comments that are directly relevant to producing a NPOV, encyclopedic article.Bedesboy 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is a Knight Bachelor. No post-nominals. Not an OBE as far as I know. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is he a knight yet? Does this "transformation" take place on the announcement in the honours list, or when he receives the accolade?--Eva bd 16:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good question! BBC is already using, "Sir" for him, so I guess the transformation occurs at the announcement. By the way, Kittybrewster  is correct that Salman (or Salmon as the official announcement spells it !) is a Knight Bachelor, which means that he has not been accorded membership into a order of chivalry and in particular is not an OBE. Abecedare 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you only gain the title after the ceremony? (Compare Edward VIII, who was most definitely a king despite never having a coronation.) Marnanel 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is gained upon appointment. That wasn't always the case, but it was so confusing as to who used what when that they decided to just allow use immediately.--Ibagli (Talk) 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knighthood

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

message: This edit introduces a line of no encyclopedic significance. it is blindingly obvious that any minimally famed author - much less Rushdie - getting stabbed in public while delivering a lecture will "send ripples" through the literary world. Such expressions are nice to hear (and feature in PRs etc.) but convey little of significance. Contrast this with the PEN statement which is encyclopedic since it claims the attack to be unprecedented. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it seems premature to make such a sweeping statement. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  21:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance and lack 

message: First line of article suggests date of death is 12th August 2022 which is incorrect. Suggest removal of this to only show DOB. 82.27.18.81 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done Cannolis (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022 

message: It already describes him as dead at the beginning of the article when he’s still alive? 🤷🏼‍♂️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:7180:bed0:c90b:dcd7:78b3:aff0 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone saw that he was taken off his ventilator and automatically assumed he died because they were stupid. LordApofisu (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature death reporting? 

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

message: In some news reports about the "Chautauqua Attack" (or whatever the term will become), Rushdie is referred to as something that sounds like "Cecilman". Where does this come from? Nothing is mentioned in the article about anything like this. CFLeon (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean “Sir Salman”. 2A00:23C8:691A:4601:ED38:BC6E:894C:2824 (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I MEANT what I said. Someone else on the same (BBC) program called him "Sir Salman" as you suggested, and it sounded quite different- there definitely was no "r" sound in the middle and the first vowel was radically different. It may have just been that the two guests had South Asian accents. CFLeon (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? 

message: It is not yet clear the motive and it is premature to conclude this stabbing is motivated by the fatwa -- however likely that is. Perhaps it ought to be placed in the personal life section with a sub-heading, but will wait for consensus. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The venue at which he was about to speak is significant in this context: a summertime meeting place for renowned writers or speakers to speak on affairs of arts or the world: the Chautauqua Institution.Dogru144 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A clue, but we still do not know and hence it is inappropriate to place it in the fatwa section until a motive is determined. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By Aug 15, it is known that the attacker had extremist sympathies, specifically for IRGC. World leaders have condemned it as religious extremism. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 attack placed in fatwa section 

message: A tweak is needed on the last sentence of the lead, as it is open to misinterpretation. It currently reads
“A man rushed the stage and stabbed Rushdie several times just before he delivered a lecture in Chautauqua, New York.” So, after the was stabbed Rushdie delivered a lecture? Or the man who stabbed him delivered the lecture? It also disagrees with the previous sentence that “Rushdie was attacked during a speech in New York”. Was it during or before? It would be better framed as “Just as Rushdie was due to deliver a lecture, a man rushed the stage and stabbed him several times in the neck.” 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:8C07:C590:CA17:C049 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, plain and simple: a man attacked, stabbed (once in neck, several times in body), and then the perpetrator delivered a “lecture”, 'internally' ☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 20:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What are talking about, Pietade?? Rushdie was stabbed before he gave his lecture.  The alleged attacker, Hadi Matar, 24, of Fairview, New Jersey, was pulled off of Rushdie and taken into custody. Anyway, the OP's suggestion of a language tweak was appropriate. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   Already done At time of review the relevant sentence reads as . I think that is sufficiently clear as to what happened. —Sirdog (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Is this worth putting only this in the lead? Rushdie has been the subject of several failed assassination attempts. 12 people died in a riot against the book. Perhaps all of the violence connected to the book can be reworked into a summary sentence. DenverCoder9 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022 (2)

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

message: Rushdie liberally uses Bombay film Gossip magazines to write, sometimes word to word. I have seen this in Satanic Verses. Here one paragaph talks about how an actress, jilted by her superstar boyfriend, behaves when he is seriously injured. Rushdie copied a Stardust or Star & style article word to word about Rekha after Amitabh Bacchan's accident in 1982 . My problem here is not that the charecters in the novel are similar to real life people but plagiarizing text). The other example concern's Moor's last Sigh. Here also an acress takes part in a festival procession (Ganesh festival, I believe). The decription was word to word about Bombay film actressPadmini Kolhapure dancing in the festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.96.126 (talk • contribs) 
: Please see WP:NOR. - Fuzheado | Talk 01:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: In section 4 (Awards, honours, and recognition), the Booker Prize is listed with the wrong year. It was awarded to him in 1981 and not 1988. Jfpascoal (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Booker Prize award 

message: I've reverted an edit that describes the most interesting aspect of the Satanic Verses as "Rushdie became the subject of controversy". In the events after Rushdie's novel, most of the "controversy" (see article) was not about the novel itself (and whether it's appropriate to print a book that references three Quaranic verses), but controversy about reactions to the book—especially the violent reactions—debates about how to preserve freedom of expression, etc.
It is notable that Rushdie was persecuted by actual violence, certainly more notable than the fact that "death threats were made against him". 
It seems inappropriate to frame: (1) author publishes book (2) violence and fatwa ensue (3) there is a a debate about free speech / political violence, as "controversy about the book". It's controversy about the violence from the book. I wouldn't frame violence as part of "debate". 
Please discuss why violence against him is not notable in the lede before re-adding. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The violence against Rushdie is already mentioned in the lead, so I am unsure what type of change you are requesting. Can you please be more specific? Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rushdie became the subject of controversy" 

message: For a person birn and raised in India this is not self evident L.Willms (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldnt it be said in which language Rushdie wrote his books? 

message: please add, it is important. Salman Rushdie#Religious and political beliefs ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK  19:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses the Template:Infobox writer, where there is no such parameter. Regards --A.Savin (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: then, we should change it. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK  21:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion in info box 

message: So, from Rushdie's words via the NYT, their relationship lasted from 1999 to 2007, which I'm assuming means everything was finalized by the end of the year? And it's certain they're no longer married.
There's been past discussion on their divorce, but sources state she asked for a divorce from Rushdie in January 2007, and they filed in July 2007.
Usually someone high profile would have some official details written about a finalization of divorce, like Kardashian's highly publicized marriages, among many other people. But all I see is just other articles citing that 2007 is when their relationship ended. Though I guess it's also plausible that if Rushdie and Lakshmi might had details of their divorce finalization private from the public eye. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Padma Laskshmi divorce