Talk:Freddie Mercury/Archive 4

Although Queen was never popular with rock music critics...

Sounds like a huge overstatement, especially with the word NEVER. Sounds like this sentence needs to be either reworked or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proman84 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Rock critics" are morons. Everyone knows that. However, there is no reason to be "ashamed" here, especially when the statement is followed by evidence for record sales of 300 million albums and proof that Queen is outselling The Beatles in the UK. Everyone reading it going to see right away that the critics (who like idiotic garage bands that only know three chords) must be wrong. At the same time, it is important that this page does not read too much like a fan page. That is why that portion of the sentence is there. Feel free to make it sound less harsh though.67.190.44.85 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting links

Why do links to Queenpedia get deleted all the time?? I bet nobody has a good answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.201.61 (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet, this broken link remains on the external links. http://www.nndb.com/people/000044389/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.201.61 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ariticle "Quick Failed" without any feedback or explanation!!!

HI,

I want to make it clear here that this article "failed," not because of a democratic process, but because some random editor decided to "quick fail" it. Furthermore, the editor made no attempt to explain any of his motivations here. For that reason, the "failed" nomination box at the top of the page is simply not appropriate at the moment. After all, how an article fail if it was never even reviewed?

I further hope that no attempts will be made to erase this message. It is important that people know about this.

By the way, let me also make it clear that I do not care how the article is designated. Among other things, I admit that it is probably very biased. At the same time, I was hoping that we could at least receive some real feedback or constructive criticism that may lead to improvements. I further hope to receive some sort of explanation of what "quick failed" means.

138.67.44.69 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom of a page. Not the top. That's probably why you're confused. Look at the bottom of the page and you'll see the explanation which was there the whole time. Gscshoyru 23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation! I am glad to receive some real feedback.138.67.44.69 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Some more on Ethnicity

This concerns the facts that Mercury was ashamed of his Indian heritage as well as being secretive about his homosexuality. (1) It is common knowledge in the Subcontinent and Middle Eastern regions that native / ethnic Indians have a massive inferiority complex regarding their language, culture, race, etc. and make up for this by falsifying it. This may be "unacceptable" and come as a shock to European, westernised people or anybody who believes in "political correctness", but nevertheless it is true. And this is especially true in issues relating to India's Central Asian, Afghan and Persian (Iranian) neighbours. For example in Pakistan, the country's ethnic Indian majority is called Punjabi. A Punjabi will typically say that his ancestors were Turkish or Iranian, Afghan or Arab, etc. Whereas the minority Pashtun population of the same country, goes to the other extreme: they are brave, overbearingly proud of their language, race and even of their social backwardness and boorishness. The Pashtuns are Afghans (an Eastern Iranian ethnicity), and have a derogatory (but true) term to describe the moral cowardice that afflicts the Indian and Punjabi ethnicities: "begherat". Even those Punjabis and Hindustanis settled in the Pashtun areas of Pakistan have the temerity to call themselves Pashtun! The truths about peoples must always be acknowledged, whatever the "politically correct" considerations.

Secondly, the Parsi community to which Mercury belonged were Persian immigrants to India who fled the Islamisation of Persia a thousand years ago. Although they have imbibed many Indian features over the centuries, they have retained their cultural and racial stock's "purity" because their small tightly knit communities are isolationist and secretive; they are what the modern term "xenophobe" describes: marriage is forbidden outside the race, and no outsider can just "become" a Zoroastrian by conversion even if he wants to; those Parsis who disobey these rules are expelled from the community. Moreover, they are all rich, indulging in business, are well educated and all are obliged to help one another.

Finally - and this too may not be acceptable to a "postmodern" westernised person - no one is open about his homosexuality in any Eastern culture, be it Hindu Indian, Muslim Middle Eastern or even Chinese. Although homosexuality in the "bisexual" form is rampant in all these cultures, and isn't even considered as a separate sexual "orientation" as it is in the West, it is a "shameful" taboo subject that is never openly acknowledged. No matter how repulsive a westerner might find such a situation, this is the traditional reality on the ground here. So I think Mercury was quite "normal" in this regard. Of course with AIDS around, this taboo needs reexamining, but I don't know how or when that will be possible here. It might take a disaster to break these ancient taboos. There are many westernised and educated people who hold tightly to them under the pressure of their society's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.5.7 (talk • contribs)

Thank you very much for your exposition and comments. (P.S.: Don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ !) ... discospinster _talk 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear your input here. I am assuming that you are from this region as well. 138.67.44.77 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

THe article needs to be edited because he was not persian or indian. He was parsi (descendents of Persian immigrants to India). The tabs at the bottom of the page categorizing him as indian need to be removed.

I think you will find "Indian" is a catch-all term used to describe many ethnicities that live or originate on the sub-continent. Hence "Indian", "Parsi" or "Parsi-Indian" would all be appropriate.

Middle name

I was watching the Untold Story last week and the current headmaster of St. Peters (where Freddie was educated), showed Freddie's entry in the school archives. Now despite many arguments with people adamant that Freddie has no middle name, he was listed in the archives as "Bulsara, Farrokh Bomi". Some of you may know that Bomi is his fathers name, so it is a realistic middle name. Would it be worth putting it into the article?

Cheers. Perry 18:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you properly reference it, yes.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Topic?

hey, how's this an india-related topic? granted the man's indian, but his impact exceeds india and was more global. besides, he wasnt that thrilled with being Indian either. such a project should focus on people whose legacy mostly affected India, such as Gandhi, Syed Ahmed Khan, Ramanujan, etc. not people in the diaspora. put Tony Kanal in the project too, and i'll buy this.

Quote vs. Quotation

I can't edit this page because I'm not a member, and this is only a minor detail, but the verb is to quote and the noun is quotation. So the section in this article would be correctly named "Quotations about Freddie Murcury" not "quotes about freddie.."

Sexuality

How come he is classified as both gay and bisexual? DavidJJJ 19:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because there's a controversy over his orientation. A lot of sources cite him as "openly bisexual," yet many others say he's gay, especially because of the "daffodil quote." I think the controversy should be noted in the article with sources of both assertions, and his category changed to "LGBT" to reflect the uncertainty. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

so is he gay or bi???? i dont get it...............

he is sexual, he had sexual relationships with men and women through his whole life, so he wasn't 100% gay, bisexual would be more appropriate.

He was with a woman for years, probably with other women before her. Later he was primarily (exclusively?) with men. So what box anyone tries to put him in is pretty arbitrary. Count up how many times with each sex, majority wins? Consider his whole life, or what gender he was living with when he died? Frankly I'd call him straight then bi then gay, and appreciate that lives and sexuality are far more complex then simple labels can reflect. 24.91.17.230 06:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Michael

Federico Benitez

"Freddie Mercury was born Federico Benitez in the city of Mexico City..." I don't think this is correct, I don't see any sources for this.

This is an "A" article

This does not read like a "B" article. Go to the nominations page for further discussion.138.67.44.86 04:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See #Assessment— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 05:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is a total GA candidate, one of the best written articles of this type I've seen here. (I'm not a hardcore fan, either.) 172.147.227.44 14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It still needs some work.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 15:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the people above that this reads like an "A" article. I think that it was designated a "B" article quite a while ago and that it has really improved a lot. I am not saying that it could not be improved. It is pretty good though. 138.67.44.38 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New Edits

In terms of edits, I felt that the "World's First Persian and Indian Rock Star" section was too awkward. If you cannot even agree on ethnicity (I think that 90% of the people on here do agree that he was Indian), then this should be removed. It is ridiculous to point out the fact that he was the first rock star to be something undefined. Another suggestion is that the word "powerful" be removed from the intro. I agree that this is an subjective word that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Oh yeah, I also think that "Influences" belongs under the songwriting section. It was too awkward to have it there alone. Another edit involves the addition of a new quote. Some people suggested that the article read too much like a fan page, so I put a more controversial, less glowing quote. Maybe you can think of some others. My goal for the quotations is for them to give insight into Freddie Mercury as an entertainer/musician. 67.190.44.85 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

He was born in India, and was Parsi(or something like that) which is of Persian decent.--Nyeguy 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To help people get their heads around this, think of the Parsi's as Jews. They are a seperate religious and ethnic group living in a different country to their origin. Nevertheless seperating them from that country for 1000 years has produced changes that would make it hard to classify them as Iranian. As you would say "Dutch Jew", or "German Jew", so you could say "Indian Parsi"Ά.

"There Must Be More To Life Than This"

Hello everybody! While looking about more info about this song on Google I've arrived to this article... then I've managed to track down the source of this addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freddie_Mercury&diff=26593416&oldid=26580681 My problem is that I was looking for information about this song because I've just listened to it on Pandora, which means that the song has been released! Moreover, while listening to it, it didn't seem that there were any other vocals besides Freddie's (Michael Jackson is however well known, so his voice can be easily recognized). Can anybody clarify this piece of information? Thanks! --Vlad|-> 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Vlad, I can clear this up. The track you heard on Pandora is likely the solo Freddie version of "There Must Be More To Life Than This" off of his album Mr. Bad Guy. The Michael Jackson version has not been officially released, but the demo version has leaked onto the Web. Suigi 17:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Images (once again)

Interesting picture, the one with Freddie at colleage, never seen it before, thanks for adding that one (even if it is a bit small). Can someone please add the one with him striking that pose at Wembley? He is very much associated with his 'tache and poses/theatrics on stage, so that pic would be very representetive. Maybe also add the black and white of him in the white shirt and black tie from 1990? MatteusH 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the image "Freddie_mercury_1991.jpg" really from 1991? TheClassic (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably. It's from the video These Are the Days of Our Lives which was released in 1991. ... discospinster _talk 02:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim Hutton

I read his book a long time ago. IIRC, when it came out, the Queen Fan Club disavowed the book, stating that Jim was out to swindle as much money as he could from Freddie, and that Freddie never cared about him that much.

I was surprised to find parts of his book as references, when it's nothing more than mere tabloid gossip, not worthy of being considered on Wikipedia.

freddie mercury was born from persian parents - not indian

excerpts from other sites and VH1 was one of them. just do a google search.

"Born Farrokh Bulsara on September 5, 1946, in Zanzibar to Persian parents"

"Freddie Mercury was born Farrokh Bulsara on Thursday September 5th 1946 on the small spice island of Zanzibar. His parents, Bomi and Jer Bulsara, were both Persian."

It should be changed...

Irooni83 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Sohail

they were Parsis dumbass. look at his birth certificate and read his official bios. "Persian" refers to "Parsi" from India. Not the "iranian persian" your talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.1.187 (talk • contribs)

Both Parsis in India and Persians in Iran are considered Persians. Please stay away from personal attacks. Klymen 23:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

no duh klymen, iranians are mostly persian. but in parsi context, when a parsi calls himself or herself a "persian" he/she does not mean "iranian'. people are inserting edits in here calling freddie iranian when clearly he wasnt so.

Persian and Iranian is the same by definition. What was once called Persia has always been called Iran by its people. The Persians who left Persia more than a thousand years ago to escape the Arab's conquest of Persia were by their own definition Iranians leaving Iran. Persia is what western nations (starting with the Greeks) have called Iran. However I think since people are not familiar with the synonymous relationship between Persian and Iranian, Persian should be used instead of Iranian. Also since Parsi’s are now considered of Indian nationality Freddie Mercury’s Indian background should be recognized. Taking that out has no merit. Klymen 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Klymen, I believe "Persia" was a larger than Iran (e.g. it included some of Iraq, Afghanistan etc.). Also, in a modern context, Iran stands for "The Islamic Republic of Iran" and many Zoroastrians perfer the historic term Persia which has no implication of links to an Islamic state; except those of course who are still living there who would state they live in Iran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.183.136.192 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

That's not true, the size of Persia has changed many times and the Persia that was renamed to Iran is the same country. Iran was called Persia before 1935 and its size was not any different in 1934 when it was called Persia. Iran and Persia are the exact same thing. Klymen 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling Freddie an Iranian is incredibly stupid. He was an indian parsi, and by that one assumes that he is ethnically indian AND persian, because say what you will, but the persians that left Persia when the muslim invaders came and that subsequently went to India intermingled with the indian population. A thousand and a half years down the line, it is almost impossible to keep one's genetic background "pure", and even genetic asessments (according to wiki) will tell you that parsis are not that distinct from the indian population of the north - they are quite similar. Much more so than the common Iranians of Iran.

If you want to look at it in another way, Freddie had indian features (although he had an extraordinary look that I havn't seen in any indian, persian, middle eastern, european, etc, he could have easily outclassed the common hollywood actors that are considered stunning). Freddie's mother looks indian, if it were not for her skin which is almost white due to her persian heritage (and yet, it's not rare for indians to have almost white skin).

Heck, he was even schooled in India. So please stop writing BS, and just admit that he was an INDIAN parsi.

He was schoo

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.49.48 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Indian Vs Persian argument again?!

The Persian/Indian argument regarding Freddie Mercury was settled ages ago. The final consensus was to call him British in the intro and recognize the fact that he is considered both the first Indian and first Persian rock star in his legacy section. Please read archived talk pages before bringing up age old arguments and edit wars. Klymen 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you left, there was a consensus that that section was not necessary.

Where did that take place? ... discospinster _talk 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Look in the previous archived discussion.

I have, and the only thing I can find that's related is this, which didn't end in a consensus anyway. ... discospinster _talk 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There are more than 1 billion people who see him as the first Indian rock star and there are close to 100 million Persians who consider him the first Persian rock star. That is a status that is not brought up too much in western media; however it is easily verifiable and encyclopedic. It is something that should be included in his legacy. Klymen 23:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you looked in the wrong box. Anyway, really the section is pointless. There's already a source talking about his rank as one of the top 100 famous Asians and its in the Legacy section. Why make a separate section elaborating on something when his ethnicity is talked about elsewhere. If anything, make it a point in the legacy section. Dont make a whole new point out of it.

I agree. However the whole legacy section is in point form which is un-encyclopedic to begin with. I think rewriting the whole section so it's in paragraph format is of higher priority right now. It's a waste of time to look for a place to merge this thing in when the whole section should be rewritten. Klymen 22:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Don't tell me this point has come up again. Just call him a Parsi for crying out loud. Every other article on some famous Parsi on wikipedia refers to the person as Parsi-Zoroastrian, Parsi parents, or "of Indian origin, and belongs to the Parsi religious minority". Lets settle on it once and for all so we can improve on other aspects of the singer's life, not just his ethnicity. To tell you the truth, I don't think he really cared or was really "proud" of anything in this regard, despite what many claim. I've talked with both Parsis and Iranians and many of them don't really care about Mercury's heritage one way or another. How about we say he's Asian due to his Indo-Persian background, hmm? After all, as South Asians, Parsis qualify in British censuses as "Asian". That's why Dadbhai Naoroji is labeled the "first Asian MP" Afghan Historian 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Asian" rockstar is a neutral term, as Persians and Indians are both Asians. There's a source too.

Asian rockstar has already been mentioned in the article. The first Persian/Indian rockstar is a different topic which has been covered in the talk pages. Please read through them and I'm sure it will answer any question you might have. Klymen 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling Freddie an Iranian is incredibly stupid. He was an indian parsi, and by that one assumes that he is ethnically indian AND persian, because say what you will, but the persians that left Persia when the muslim invaders came and that subsequently went to India intermingled with the indian population. A thousand and a half years down the line, it is almost impossible to keep one's genetic background "pure", and even genetic asessments (according to wiki) will tell you that parsis are not that distinct from the indian population of the north - they are quite similar. Much more so than the common Iranians of Iran.

If you want to look at it in another way, Freddie had indian features (although he had an extraordinary look that I havn't seen in any indian, persian, middle eastern, european, etc, he could have easily outclassed the common hollywood actors that are considered stunning). Freddie's mother looks indian, if it were not for her skin which is almost white due to her persian heritage (and yet, it's not rare for indians to have almost white skin).

Heck, he was even schooled in India. So please stop writing BS, and just admit that he was an INDIAN parsi.

His features were kind of a blend between Indian and Persian actually. His overbite is very reminiscient of an Indian facial type whereas his nose is the stereotypical "Persian" nose found on reliefs and in the modern population as well as among Parsis. I think the whole business is simpler if we just acknowledge that he's a Zanzibar born Parsi raised in India. Most if not all sources acknowledge him as a Parsi born in Zanzibar with roots in India. I dont know what books Klymen is talking about. Every biography or documentary I've read or seen that deals with Mercury's life states that he was a Parsi. The VH1 documentary released 10 years ago specifically mentioned him as a Parsi only, no Indian or Iranian attached. A Zanzibar-born Parsi. Parsis are Indians of Persian Zoroastrian ancestry. They are ethnically "Persian" but they are not "Iranian". Even then, to label a Parsi in his biography as "Persian" would be very misleading as "Persian" is almost always used to refer to an Iranian or someone of Iranian parentage. Just calling him a Parsi would be far better, as it acknowledges that he's an Indian with Persian ethnicity whose ancestors left Iran in the 7th century to escape persecution. The "Persian" is in the "Parsi", no need to restate it. He did call himself "Persian" because thats how most Parsis refer to themselves. They don't deny they are Indian but they acknowledege both. However they use it in the sense of their ancestry, not in that they are "Iranian" or from "Iran" or anything. They dont use it in the context most Iranians do. They aren't labelled as "Persian" though as labelling them that in their biography only confuses people. Parsi is a far more specific term. Only a few sources refer to Mercury as "Persian". They include the primary online biography written by Jacky Gunn of his fan club. I actually emailed the fan club and they stated that Mercury was called Persian because thats what he said, due to it being a more "fashionable" way to portray his heritage. You can email them (their email is on the fan club website). The few other online bios that call him "Persian" get their information from this single online source. Most "Official" and "Authorized" biographical sources, however, define him as a Parsi and his own birth certificate defines him as a "Parsee", not "Persian" or "Iranian". It is stated on the new 60 birthday anniversary documentary "Freddie Mercury-A Kind of Magic" that he downplayed his Parsi-Indian origins because it didnt fit well with his interests of rock and roll and made him seem out of place in the rock world. This is stated by his bandmate Roger Taylor (drummer of Queen) and his friend Peter Straker, who used to tease lightly about his Indian background. Go on youtube and watch the documentary for yourself. I guess what I want to say is, just end the fight and call him "Parsi" goddamn it.

D'oh we're going round in circles again. In UK term British Asian is exclusively used to describe people of South Asian descent. See Zubin Mehta, Sam Maneckshaw, they are Parsis like Mercury and are explicitly referred to as such. After a thousand years of inter-mingling with local Gujarathi population and adopting their culture to call Mercury a Persian would be a travesty. To call him a Persian would be like calling George W. Bush a Swede.

Having said that, I would let it remain. Just to assauge some people's nationalist feelings. Frankly he wasnt even an Indian, call him what he was, British. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Freddie's Famous pose

at wembley stadium in 86, freddie did a pose that i think the swiss modeled after, what song/vid is that pose in?? if you know answer on my talk page please Tu-49 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure its during the song Another One Bites The Dust but the camera cuts to another angle just before he does this great pose on the DVD Live at Wembley. I could be wrong so I'll play the DVD again and find out. Chilkoot (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting

I object to having that grainy picture of Mercury as the main picture. You can hardly see it's him, and since most people remember him with a 'tache, it's better to have the headshot one of him with the 'tache and leather jacket, it's more fitting. No need to remove the one we have now, just place it a bit down in the article.MatteusH 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought a live shot of him would be better.AcidEdge76 12:50, 31 May 2007

Are the new photos i picked better?

The main picture is horrible. Go back to his Wembley shot, it's the most iconic of him. 71.195.95.203 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I heavily second this motion. That shot is terrible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.16.108 (talk) 18:47, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Please take away this picture of Freddie. I don't understand, whoever put this picture knows that there are tons of other great pics of Freddie. The headshot of him or one of his famous poses. Why can't you use that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmis17 (talk • contribs) 06:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The picture that is currently being used is free. If you can find a better free one then fine but all I could find on Wikipedia was Image:Queen 1984 0009.jpg and it looks worse. There are several of the statue but that's not much better either. Any fair use image will be removed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't different rules apply to images of dead people, as no one can go and take a picture of them? --Tyrfing 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Then just put a pic of the statue. It's more iconic and better fitting for an immortal being like Freddie than that badly taken pic.

Seriously, the current pic is even worse. There are millions of beautiful pics out there, it surely can't be that hard to put a decent one> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.55.135 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about whether a picture is good looking, we could use a good picture easily, but we can't use a non-free image. FamicomJL 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotation section

Any objections to removing the quotations section and simply including a wikiquote link? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing Persian Hertiage

Whoever is taking out the fact that Freddie had Persian roots needs to stop. You cannot just "feel that it's akward" that the section of first Persian and Indian rock star should not be there and just take it out. Millions of people read from wikipedia and you are taking out a very important fact. If you just type in Freddie Mercury Persian in Yahoo, everything that comes up will defend that he had Persian roots, some will even say he had Persian parents. Please read this article from BBC and you cannot argue that BBC is not a reliable source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3593532.stm

"Mercury, who died in 1991, was proud of his Iranian ancestry, and illegal bootleg albums and singles made Queen one of the most popular bands in Iran. " - BBC NEWS

Those would believed in the Zoroastrian faith were Persians that fled from Iran to Hormuz, then to India during the Arab conquest. Since you are not "deleting" the fact that he was a Zoroastrian, then you cannot delete the fact that he had Persian roots.

I have noticed that you kept the paragraph about his Indian decent, but you have taken out the one sentence stating that he mentioned in interviews that he was Persian. How can you take out a sentence that he himself has admitted to?

EDITED PARAGRAPH

Mercury kept his Indian descent a secret from most of his fans, rarely mentioning his heritage in interviews. Many friends expressed their view that Mercury felt ashamed of his ethnic origins and feared racial backlash in a country that had long been troubled by race riots and violence against Indian immigrants. On the other hand, fellow band mate Roger Taylor suggested that Mercury downplayed his Indian heritage simply because he did not feel that it would fit well with his rock musician persona.

REAL PARAGRAPH

Mercury kept his Indian descent a secret from most of his fans, rarely mentioning his heritage in interviews. He would sometimes refer to himself as "Persian," perhaps alluding to his identity as a Parsi. Many friends expressed their view that Mercury felt ashamed of his ethnic origins and feared racial backlash in a country that had long been troubled by race riots and violence against Indian immigrants. On the other hand, fellow band mate Roger Taylor suggested that Mercury downplayed his heritage simply because he did not feel that it would fit well with his rock musician persona.

http://www.westhamforum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?tid=8292

This clearly shows that you are picking and choosing what you want his hertiage to be and that is extremely wrong.

Nobody's picking out anything. The fact that we mention that he is a "Parsi" shows clearly that he is of Persian roots. We're taking out redundancy from the paragraph. If you look at any other article on a Parsi on wikipedia (and trust me all Parsis do call themselves Persian often), they will just call them Parsi from India or just Parsi, regardless if they called themselves "Persian" or "Indian". Also, I wrote that paragraph that you are comparing above. I agree with you it should not be edited. There I agree with you. But nobody's downplaying the fact that he's Persian by removing that. In fact, we removed half the Indian references too. I don't want this article to have too much talk on his "ethnicity" which really didn't matter to him as it matters to you guys. I'm just keeping its discussion short by calling him a person whose parents Bomi and Jer Bulsara, were Parsi-Zoroastrians from India. End of story. No more discussion of Persian or Indian, other than the paragraph you are mentioning. Also, lots of official biographies call him a Parsi, even VH1 in all of its features on Mercury call him just a plain Parsi, no Indian or Persian attached. If you type on Yahoo, you'll find thousands of more sources calling him Parsi rather than sources calling him "Persian" or "Indian'. Ciao Afghan Historian 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, to reply to a few more of your points. People reading wikipedia will want to know about "Freddie Mercury" not where he came from. Most real biographies of Freddie Mercury don't even go into this much depth on Freddie's ethnicity other than just to explain his childhood. The only documentary that even talks about him hiding his "Indian/Persian" background is the recent birthday anniversary special "Freddie Mercury-A Kind of Magic". Also, none of the sources you provide say he's the first "Persian rock star" they just say that he's Persian. You're interpreting the sources and thats misleading. The same goes for the "Indian rock star" edits. None of them say that he's actually the first "Indian rock star". They are all just interpretations. We could say he had Persian parents but remember that would imply to most readers that he is an Iranian from modern Iran and that would be misleading as he was a Parsi whose ancestors left that country 1000 + years ago. Likewise, calling him just an Indian would lead many readers to assume he was "Muslim" or "Hindu" or "Christian" or "Jewish" or something. The Parsis are a relatively obscure group from India and none of the average knowledge about India includes knowledge on the Parsis. Freddie had a unique Zoroastrian upbringing that his parents themselves feel is a key part of who he was before he went to England. Calling him a "Parsi" would be far more accurate as its putting his Persian and Indian backgrounds into context. We should keep it as it is, with a brief descriptor of his background as a Parsi-Zoroastrian from India and that short paragraph on his ethnicity, with a proper source. But that's where it should end. A lot of die-hard Persian and Indian fans will want to highlight his Indian and Persian backgrounds by adding in all these paragraphs on how he was Persian or Indian and his significance to either country. That's not being encylopedic. You can't just be selfish and highlight what a random source on the net says. You have to go by reliable sources. And most reliable sources say he's a Parsi, end of story. Afghan Historian 03:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

well, he was genetically form Modern day Iran! and you think you are more merit than the singer himself, he called himself a Persian and you have problem with it! Ali, Lebanon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.46.15 (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Reason: Afghans hate Persians, coz Iranian regime has kicked more than half million illegal Afghan workers as well as their families out of the country! hehe Jason.

Genetically speaking, Freddie Mercury was a mix of indian and persian blood. Modern day gujurati's are very similar to parsis, since the parsis have mingled with the local indian stock over the course of the millenia. And anyways, Indians are at times visually very similar to iranians. They do not differ by that much, imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.55.135 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, His own family said he was "Parsi". According to his own sister, the reason he called himself "Persian" was because nobody knew what a Parsi was, not because he actually saw himself as a "Persian". His own birth certificate says "Parsee". And btw, I'm a Pakistani, not an Afghan. The "Afghan" represents the fact that I'm a Pathan from the Frontier. User: Afghan Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.202.121 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits

OK, some fairly major edits have been made in order to make the article read the way that an encyclopedia article should read. In the first place, there were too many random, fragmented sentences that did not fit anywhere. There were also a lot of trivial facts, such as the names of people who were in Freddie Mercury's school bands. This is trivia that does not belong in an encyclopedia article.

Another issue involves the rambling nature of what used to be the "biography" section. It went on and on before the reader had even been introduced to why Freddie Mercury is famous in the first place. Keep in mind that an encyclopedia article should be aimed toward a general audience with no previous knowledge about Freddie. At the same time, I would argue that the large number of references supplied in the article also allow the expert fan to learn something new as well here.

Freddie Mercury's love life and cause of death are less important than his contributions to rock music. For that reason, these portions of the former "biography" section were moved to a later part of the article. Let's face it, who you fuck and how you die are not things that make you deserving of an encyclopedia article. Music deserves a more prominent place here, in front of these types of topics.

Another thing is always familiarity. Remember that the average person reading this does not know what Zoroastrianism is, for instance. It is important to specifically clarify for the average person what this means, although the average Queen fan may know about it. I changed the introduction to better explain this.

Oh yeah, another thing involves ethnic descriptions. As far as I am concerned, Freddie Mercury was "British Asian" and not "British." Let's face it, Freddie Mercury was not white (although he may have wished differently!). Mercury was of full Parsi Indian descent and did not move to England until he was 17. On the other hand, "British" implies that he is some kind of a white dude. It just does not sound right. A quick glance should tip you off right away to the fact that his ancestors were not from from Britain.

Oh, and another thing is the "quotations" sections. I don't know how you feel, but I think that they look kind of shitty the ways that they are formatted differently. I don't know. A final thing involves the broken links.

67.190.44.85 02:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here from Wiki's "Lamest Edit Wars" page. And now I can certainly see why.

This article is a fine example of why no serious research takes Wikipedia seriously. The edit wars over the banal and irrelevant is bad enough - but the obvious left-leaning over-emphasis on his sexuality and his ethnicity are ludicrous. Obviously, in an actual encyclopedia, his music would be 90% of the page, with some mention of his sexuality and the cause of his death. His ethnicity would rate perhaps a sentence.

74.185.105.135 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Appearance

For a while, his article featured the following: "Also the song “The Show Must Go On” also suggests his illness is progressing. “My make-up may be flaking but my smile stays on” is one part of the line. To hide the fact that he was ill, Freddy used a lot of make-up to hide his features (that came with the illness); the line “my make-up may be flaking” means that his make-up is starting to fail to hide his frail appearance. Also in the song “I’m Going Slightly Mad,” there are several indications to the video. Firstly, the reason why the video is in black and white is not only to show difference in Freddy compared to all the other videos of his being color - indicates his madness - but it also hides his appearance more, hiding all his features (from the illness). Also in the video, you see a black circle around Freddy's eyes; not all of that is make-up. To make it seem like make-up and part of the film, he put make-up along his eyes though the initial dark shade around his eyes came from his illness." Is this verifiable? --Tim, 4 July, 2007

B-class designation is dated

This article received a B-class designation over a year ago. Since then, major improvements have been made. Furthermore, I have yet to see any feedback based upon the supposed designation, so I am not sure why anyone should take this seriously. Perhaps it is time to have another evaluation. On the other hand, unless the person evaluating the article is able to provide some sort of explanation for a B-class rating, then I am not sure why we are supposed to care.67.190.44.85 06:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want this article to be rated higher than B class, it needs to be submitted as a Good article candidate or for A-class review. In the mean time, please don't remove the project tags from the top of this page. --Belovedfreak 11:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Death date?

Personally, I thought Freddie Mercury died on the 15th of August in 1991. But obviously not, because Google seems to say otherwise. Oh well. R.I.P. Freddie. Metamorphosing 14:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. He died in November of '91. Close, though! - Tim, 10 July, 2007

A better description of Zoroastrianism is needed

Simply saying that Mercury's parents were "Parsi Zoroastrians" is not helpful for many readers. Let's face it, Zoroastrianism is an obscure religion that is practiced by only 200,000 people in the world today. Furthermore, a good encyclopedia article should always ensure that everyone can follow and understand what is bwing said. It therefore makes more sense to say,

"...born to Parsi Indians who practiced the ancient Zoroastrian religion."

This is less confusing than "...born to Parsi Zoroastrians."

Someone has clearly taken out the fact that he was Zoroastrian. I have put it back, because Parsi-Zoroastrian is considered a whole. Someone that is Parsi from India is practicing the Zoroastrian faith as well. Or as someone here mentioned, we can put in the quoted sentence above.

OK, I do not at all like the sound of "Parsi-Zoroastrianisms." For one thing, it is redundant. I mean, all Parsis supposedly practice this religion. The second problem is that it assumes too much familiarity on the part of the reader. Let's face it, there are one 200,000 Zoroastrians in the world today. Most people probably do not know that this is a religion rather than an ethnic group for instance. Therefore, the sentence should say: "...bornoto Parsis from India who practiced the ancient Zoroastrian religion." 138.67.44.175 23:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you like us to explain what the phrase "Bohemian Rhapsody" means too? Perhaps as "an enthusiastic instrumental composition of indefinite form to further self-expression"? Why stop there? Pick any technical term that appears in the article, coloratura for instance. Seriously, you don't have to explain terms that have articles behind the links. If a user doesn't understand (and is at all interested), he/she'll will follow it up. -- Fullstop 01:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT ERASE MY WORK UNTIL I AM FINISHED

Trusliver, I was quite disturbed to see that you carelessly erased large sections of my work without any discussion with me beforehand. Among other things, I had been adding large numbers of new references to the Freddie Mercury page. As your carelessness here has cost me about 20 mintues of my time, there is no doubt that YOU are acting as the vicious “vandal” here. I recommend that you discuss major edits with others before making them. Moreover, I hope that you will refrain from making further edits until I am finished tonight.67.190.44.85 06:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss with me before simply erasing messages here

HI, Although the above message may sound very harsh, my work was seriously compromised last night by someone who simply erased large sections of what I had done without first communicating with me. It is my hope that this will not happen again. As you can see, I added many new references to this site. Although his carelessness cost me a great deal of my time, I have yet to hear any response from this individual. 138.67.44.41 16:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Angry messages such as those you've been leaving on User talk:Trusilver are counterproductive and more likely to make other editors consider you to be disruptive rather than an editor working in good faith to improve the article. In this case, a calm discussion here on the talk page regarding the changes you had made would likely get better, and faster, results than repeatedly posting to Trusilver's talk page in anger and edit summaries such as this. Take a deep breath, keep it cool and civil, and it's more likely that things will be resolved faster and easier than by reacting in anger. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I advised you afterward that due to your use of an anon account, it's best if you use an edit summary especially when you are deleting large blocks of text so it does not give the appearance of vandalism. You chose instead to start making personal attacks and leaving disruptive messages. You claim I cost you thirty minutes of time (untrue, all you needed to do was to revert, if you would like me to teach you how to do so, I would be more than happy to), and in making such a spectacle of it, you cost yourself 72 hours of time and it was completely unnecessary. I am sincerely hoping that when you come off of your block three days from now you will see that more can be accomplished with a polite message than a incivil rant. I wish you a good day and a relaxing weekend. Trusilver 19:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this for real?

Mercury (on right) with his college friends in 1964, after a lunchtime drink. Is there a source here? Maybe this picture is old hat to fans, but it seems a little goofy. Especially the description: "His rather conventional appearance hides his hugely extrovert nature!" --Knulclunk 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

== Yes, it is for real == Gladstone22 15:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like him, but it's a stupid picture anyway. By the way, can someone get better pics to this article? All the current stink, to be honest, especially the main one. MatteusH 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Removed

I do not see any reason for why we are supposed to keep the paragraph about Mercury's work with Michael Jackson. The problem is that the material was never officially released. For that reason, I do not think that it is relevant enough to warrant an entire paragraph. I do not see why we are supposed to be "honored" by the fact that they worked together. Do you see any mention of it in Michael Jackson's article? And yet HE is the one who should have been honored. If you have a differing opinion, write me back here. 138.67.44.158 16:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Name change belongs under "controversy regarding ethnicity."

The attempt to bury his name is part of the ethnic controversy. I does not deserve its own section. 138.67.44.175 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As the quotation stands, that is original research. Look carefully: Where in the sentence

A close friend told journalist David Bret: "Faroukh Bulsara was a name he had buried. He never wanted to talk about any period in his life before he became Freddie Mercury, and everything about Freddie Mercury was a self-constructed thing."

do you see the word "ethnicity"? All it talkes about is him changing his name. Remember this comes *before* what Taylor had to say. You haven't told the reader yet that persona and name are related. Watch carefully what effect your sentence has.

^*Mercury has further been criticized for having kept his Indian ethnicity a secret from the public. A close friend^[?] told journalist David Bret: "Faroukh Bulsara was a name^* he had buried.^* He never wanted to talk about any period^* in his life before he became Freddie Mercury, and everything about Freddie Mercury was a self-constructed thing."^* Bandmate Roger Taylor suggested that Mercury downplayed his heritage^* simply because he did not feel that it would fit well with his public persona. ... "

Thats terrible!

Now, back to the OR: *IF* the source actually made that statement in a context which explicitely discussed ethnicity, then you should also include it as such in the article. But as it stands now, its busted. What you need to do is modify that insertion so that a) the subject of the sentence is not his name but his ethnicity. Like this:

Mercury has further been criticized for having kept his Indian ethnicity a secret from the public. Bandmate Roger Taylor suggested that Mercury downplayed his heritage simply because the singer did not feel that it would fit well with his public persona. A similar sentiment was expressed by another one of Freddie's close friends: "He never wanted to talk about any period in his life before he became Freddie Mercury."

See? You've said what you wanted to say and kept the flow going.

-- Fullstop 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. My only point here was that the "name" issue does not warrant its own one-sentence heading and should be incorporated into the "ethnicity" section. 138.67.44.175 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Major edits

I am making major edits. Come here to discuss anything that you disagree with. One of the major issues with the article was that it was biased in favor of the subject. I am trying to make it more neutral. 138.67.44.175 05:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

About time. Can you please change the current pics of him. The main one is really bad.MatteusH 06:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Got another free one? The only other one I could find on commons is Image:Queen 1984 0009.jpg and it looks worse or as was being used a shot of the statue. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

I've quick-failed the article based on the non-free dispute of Image:Bulsara.jpg. That issue should be resolved before renominating the article again. Also, taking a very quick look at the article, I'd recommend expanding the lead section dramatically (see WP:LEAD) and also putting some text in the discography sections, not just two links. Drewcifer3000 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has expressed confusion of my "quick-fail" review, so I'll explain myself a little further. Any article with images under incomplete, suspicious, or disputed non-free status can be failed on the spot without further review. It seems as if Image:Bulsara.jpg has been intentionally mistagged, so until that issue is resolved or the image is removed, the article fails to comply to the GA criteria. Although I quick-failed the article, I also tried to give a few tips to improve the article (the lead and the discography section), and I would recommend taking care of those before renominating the article, as I'm sure they will come up. If anyone has any more concerns, feel free to let me know. Drewcifer3000 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Although I have no IDEA of this non-free dispute issue is all about, I am sure that we can collectively figure it out what we as a page can do here. 138.67.44.69 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. Copyright issues can be pretty complicated, so I don't know how well I can explain things, but I'll try. If you go to Image:Bulsara.jpg's page, you should noticed a box towards the bottom that says the creator of the work gives permission. This basically means the creator of the work has granted Wikipedia permission to use the image of their copyrighted material. This permission has to be documented appropriately to confirm that someone didn't just make it up, and that the author actually did grant permission. The image provides no evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL, so odds are they just made that up. So in other words, having that image up beaks copyright laws and so it should be taken down or, alternatively, the image should be justified for use some other way, probably fair-use. Fair use says that even though something is copyrighted, we should include it because it has some historical significance that is irreplaceable. Fair-use has alot of rules associated with it, which I won't go into, but check out WP:FUC for more info on that. As the status of the image stands, the image's inclusion means the article can't pass GA review. Drewcifer 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)