Talk:Salman Rushdie

Rushdie and Israel

In light of the picture of Rushdie with Pres. Peres, does anybody know anything about Rushdie's political opinions regarding Israel? I think it would be interesting in the article.

Matter of WP:Due and WP:Relevance.

Similar to other aspects, info about his awards is already extensively highlighted in the lead, despite an entire section dedicated to it. Therefore, details of Rushdie's five marriages and divorces have received controversy and are highly relevant due to their media coverage and impact on his public persona and legacy. They provide context to his life, warranting their inclusion upfront. StarkReport (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Nationality

Hi, sorry for my ignorant and silly comments on this. However, I find the current lead sentence pretty distracting, and imo, we should either change the descriptor to "Indian-born" (as what we've already done to Albert Einstein) or omit it (as what we've already done to Elon Musk, Tina Turner, Paulina Porizkova, etc).

Regards, Thedarkknightli (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead already states that he is an "Indian-born British-American novelist". Kerdooskistalk 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kerdooskis: well, I mean, imo, we should either trim the descriptor to simply "Indian-born" or omit it. Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thedarkknightli: Wasn't this discussed already at great length in an RFC that you started a year back? Abecedare (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Abecedare: yes, we did reach a consensus that him being born in India is lead-worthy through that RfC; conversely, there isn't a consensus that we should trim (or omit) the descriptor, is there? Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the discussion and the sources cited therein. I think this is getting tendentious and hope that if you wish to restart the discussion, you'll present some sources and better arguments than that you find the particulars of Rushdie's transnationality, which is central to his literary output, "pretty distracting". Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Abecedare: OK, thanks for your timely reply and thank you guys indeed for your participation in that discussion. I've just read it and the sources cited therein thoroughly. Well, the FAQ page of Elon Musk says his three nationalities (South African, Canadian and American, which are all relevant to his notability) have all been omitted in the lead sentence cuz "including these nationalities in the opening sentence in a balanced way would be complex ...", which also applies to Rushdie's case imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It could be argued that in Musk's case, understanding his nationalities/citizenships isn't key to understanding his work. In Rushdie's case, his background is indeed more intimately connected to his work. Kerdooskistalk 18:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. As was also discussed at the RFC and mentioned in my above comment ("which is central to his literary output"). And here's Salman Rushdie himself (circa 2019):

CHRIS HAYES: Your work in many ways, I mean, going back to "Midnight's Children" and certainly through "Satanic Verses" and other works really wrestles with the sort of questions of identity and also the sort of dark-core nationalism and fundamentalism as these kind of out chemical forces in people.

SALMAN RUSHDIE: Yeah. I've been an immigrant most of my life. I started off being an immigrant from India into England, then from England into New York. So that condition is my normal condition, and that is actually for a writer not a bad position to be in because you feel simultaneously inside and outside of society.... So yeah, those subjects of belonging and un-belonging and who you are when you and your family move halfway across the world and find yourself in a different culture, different language surrounded by people you don't know. How do you deal with that?... I've never managed to write a book that did not have an Indian character at the center of it. I never managed to do it because those are the eyes through which I see the world.

Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead re: his 4 divorces

Before I state this, I just want to make it clear that I don't have much of an opinion on Rushdie at all; I don't know much about him or follow him. But it feels strange that the lead would mention his 4 divorces; I'm not sure of any other lead section that includes that (save for Elizabeth Taylor, but the way her marriages are included in her lead is FAR better than the way Rushdie's marriages are included, with context to make it clear why they were relevant to the mystique and media attention around her personal life). In Rushdie's article, that sentence almost feels like a non-sequitur because it doesn't fit at all with the paragraph in which it was included. It just looks tacked on there, with zero context. It currently reads as follows:

"He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters. In 2012, he published Joseph Anton: A Memoir, an account of his life in the wake of the events following The Satanic Verses. Rushdie was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in April 2023. Throughout his life, Rushdie has had five marriages, four of which ended in divorce."

I removed that final sentence a few months ago, with the following edit summary: "I'm not sure how his five marriages/four divorces are relevant enough to be included in the lead; including that in the lead feels like it's veering into violating a WP:NPOV (especially when it is already fully included in his "Personal Life" section)".

However, I noticed it was re-added, and the person who re-added it (@StarkReport) stated in their edit summary, "Rushdie's multiple marriages and divorces have recieved controversy and is highly relevant due to their media coverage and impact on his public persona and legacy. We have also wrote info about his awards on lead despite a entire section dedicated to it."

I don't agree, and I'm not convinced, but I don't want to delete it yet again if there are people who think it really needs to be included in the lead. But if it is going to be included front and center like that, I personally think it might benefit from having a little more context, right? Like, instead of just dropping it there as it is now, maybe include 2+ extra sentences or reword it to make it clear why that is even relevant to be included in the lead, like, "Rushdie's personal life has been the subject of controversy due to his multiple marriages and divorces" (and then maybe a sentence or two to explain where the controversy is coming from/why it is controversial).

Again, I really don't like the way it is currently included; it just looks awkward and out-of-place, and as it currently sits there, it really doesn't feel relevant enough to be included in the lead. If there isn't any extra context added to justify it, I think it should be removed again and not placed back. Afddiary (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Afddiary, "I'm not sure of any other lead section that includes" Well, that seems like a WP:OTHERCONTENT to me. But, actually the first two paragraphs already covers what he is notable for such as literary achievements, controversies, and influence. The third paragraph, focusing on honors and teaching positions, reads more like promotional material. To ensure WP:Balance, including key aspects of his life, such as his divorces, is relevant, as it reflects coverage in reliable sources and provides a fuller picture of his public persona, preventing the lead from appearing overly promotional. Given that Rushdie’s multiple marriages and divorces are significant parts of his public life, frequently mentioned in profiles and interviews, it is relevant to include this in the lead.

And it's not really "front and center"; it's actually written at the end without delving too deep into it, whereas the details about his honors and awards are actually front and center, so to speak. However, if you still feel it needs extra length, then I can think of something like: "Rushdie's personal life, including his five marriages and four divorces, has attracted notable media attention, particularly during his marriage to actress Padma Lakshmi." StarkReport (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think your underlined+italicized sentence is an objectively better sentence than what is already there. My main issue with the sentence was with how out-of-place and awkward it felt; as it currently stands, it doesn't belong. It doesn't relate to any of the other information in its paragraph, and it is an off-topic sentence that swings the lead away from presenting a neutral point of view.

I would personally recommend replacing the sentence that is there currently with your underlined example because (1) including information about his personal life attracting media attention gives the sentence context it doesn't currently have, and (2) including an example of a specific relationship/marriage that attracted media attention gives the sentence context it doesn't currently have.

As it stands, it really does feel like an off-topic non-sequitur that doesn't belong with everything else. Proposing WP:Balance should also require ensuring that the balanced material included actually fits into the article and flows with preexisting text; it shouldn't feel like a disjointed sentence tacked onto the end of the lead, as "Throughout his life, Rushdie has had five marriages, four of which ended in divorce" does. That was why I recommended Elizabeth Taylor's article as an example of that kind of personal life information being included properly, as well as in a way that flows with the rest of the paragraph (and the lead as a whole). Right now, the sentence in Rushdie's article does not flow with the rest of the text in its paragraph at all.

In fact, I may also propose removing it from that paragraph and placing it into its own paragraph below (although that would very likely require more text on his personal life, because including one sentence on his personal life in the lead, and having that one sentence centered around a controversial topic, really wouldn't feel balanced). I don't think it is inappropriate to include a paragraph containing nothing but accolades, followed by a paragraph that goes into more contentious aspects of the subject's personal life.

Again, the current structure of the lead is objectively awkward. It needs to be changed. Afddiary (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don’t see it as awkward since it was only mentioned in passing. It's worth noting that, according to some sources, his multiple marriages are just as controversial as his works: India Today, Daily Mail, Standard, National Post. StarkReport (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'm just an English stickler (having studied English in university and being neurodivergent) and saw the sentence as a severely unacceptable non-sequitur that read as a way of introducing controversial information in a non-neutral, awkward way.

It would be like having a paragraph in the lead of someone like, say, Lady Gaga, discussing her accolades and awards and then abruptly tacking controversy onto the end: "Gaga is an acclaimed artist. Gaga has won a ton of Grammy Awards, like this, this, and this. Gaga has a song on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs list. Gaga's media presence, including wearing a dress made of meat at the VMAs, has generated controversy." To me, at least, in attempting to balance the paragraph to include both accolades and controversy, ending on an unrelated controversy doesn't introduce balance; it jeopardizes balance and feels off. However, presenting that information with context, and potentially in its own paragraph if it can't be introduced to an existing paragraph in a way that flows with the rest of that paragraph's theme/text, helps the lead to flow better – and I think Rushdie's lead reads much better now.

(I'll add that I do think the lead could be improved with a little more information, maybe 1-2 extra sentences on his personal life/marriages/divorces, given that his multiple marriages have generated enough controversy to have garnered that much media attention; however, upon re-reading it, I don't think it's urgent or needs to be immediately addressed.)

Anyway, take care, and I do appreciate the great alternate sentence you offered. :) Afddiary (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Math error

The Personal Life section states that Padma Lakshmi was 28 at the time of their marriage in 2004, however her entry lists her birth year as 1970 which would make her 33-34. It also states Rushdie was 51, but being born in 1947 he would be 56-57. 142.67.252.130 (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The source gives 28 and 51 as their ages when they first met in 1999. I've made the correction. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)