Talk:Freddie Mercury/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

death certificate

Image:Fmdc.jpg

see for correct name (ext.). before before posting.

CAN SOMEONE ADD THE COPYRIGHT TO THIS? I dont know if it would be under the British gov or not.

Vocal Range (real)

In Queen - Live at Wembley, Mercury on "A Kind Of Magic" towards the end riff's out several consonant notes, with the audience following. Towards the end, Freddie says "I can't go any higher". I'll think you'll find that top note is a Baritone note. You'll also find he speaks in a Baritones bottom notes, making him a baritone. His higher notes are falsetto. Despite being an exceptionally brilliant singer, he is still confined by normal vocal range. His recorded range means little, as my recorded range peaks at F#6. I assure you I could not hit that note every day of the week, day in, day out. Vocal range is the ability to hit a note on command, he is not a tenor.--Manboobies 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


I have to disagree with you here. The thing that you have to understand is that Freddie Mercury had vocal nodules in the throat. For this reason, he often did not hit the highest notes in concerts, some of which were two hours long. Furthermore, it is possible that Freddie Mercury could have hit higher notes even that what was recorded. He was always so concerned about maintaining good tone that he may not have even hit his highest possible notes in public. Furthermore, his highest recorded not was actually recorded later on in his career. Perhaps he could have gone even higher when he was younger. At the end of the day, vocal range is not really what makes a great singer. What is important is TONE and Freddie Mercury maintained excellent tone over a three octave range.
By the way, if you think that your voice is in the same league as Freddie Mercury's voice, then let me give you a challenge. Try singing the second verse of "Another One Bites the Dust" without using a falsetto. I don't know too many tenors who can do that!! (TAY)
Also remember that Freddie had been smoking for close to 7 years by the time of the Wembley 86concert! If you listen to early Queen stuff his voice is much higher/ better than Wembley.
Whether Freddie had vocal nodules in his throat or not is none of my concern. Most singers sing lower and change key live, eg, metallica go down to C# Minor instead of E minor live. Now, as I said before, Freddie is a Baritone. There are several reasons for this.
Freddie spoke in around Ab2. That is a Baritone's speaking range. A baritone speaks in the bottom of a baritone's range. Freddie is not a tenor. A tenor speaks in a tenor's bottom notes. He does not (and I might note despite being gay he didn't even artificially raise his voice into a tenor's range which many gay people do). An ability to sing a note that is above one's Diapazon and in another's does not make one that higher diapazon. For the same reason many Rock singers are baritones despite their incredible ranges. Mercury is one of them. You also are personally attacking me, and my abilities and have made several inferences, and statements implying I have implied superiority & this is simply not the case.
Lastly, Freddie often donned Falsetto. This is notable in "Impromptu" on Live at Wembley. Those were Tenor notes. He couldn't hit them in real head voice. He is a Baritone.--Manboobies 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and please sign your comments)

Thanks for your insight. I will try to incorporate some of these things in the original article without using terms that are too technical for non-musicians.

    Just to tell you Freddie was not the person in the band who hit the highest notes it was Roger

Gay versus bisexual

The most commonly edited lines are the ones involving whether Freddie Mercury was gay or bisexual and whether he was Indian or Persian. There seem to be constant editing wars over these two points. I think that he could be either gay or bisexual, depending on who you ask. as for the Indian vs. Persian issue, he considered himself to be Persian . Both of his parents were Persian after all. I do think that both of these subjects should be brought up on the page though, since I think that they are an important part of his identity.

I personally wold consider him to have been bi- because he had relations with people of both sexs... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.169.129 (talk • contribs) . (this comment was removed by 132.181.52.105; deletion reverted by Hbackman 02:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC))


Freddie never admitted to being Gay (or bisextual).

Never admitted to being gay???? Just go take a look at the video for "I Want to Break Free" and let's talk about "admitting" anything... Just look at ANY Queen video, or any footage of Freddie Mercury - he is about as subtly gay/queer/bi/not-straight as the Village People!... He absolutely REVELS in it - and more power to him! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.141.65.60 (talk • contribs) .

That doesn't mean anything, read the other section related to this topic for more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.181.52.105 (talk • contribs) .


--->see gay or bisextual for the continuation of this topic.

> See Iranian/Persian vs Indian for discussion on his nationality.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.181.52.105 (talk • contribs) .

Freddie's real name

Freddie's real name was actually "Farok". However, so many other sources incorrectly list it as "Farookh" and "Farrokh" that this error is hard to change. See Snday London Times article in talk page for proof of this.

Was it Farookh Bulsara or Farrokh Bulsara? I see a ton of hits on both spellings. Which is it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It was Farrokh Bulsara, if I'm not mistaken. This was my comment and someone just combined it with the other one.-User: Afghan Historian

I think it´s a little bir erroneous to say that his being Iranian is erroneous after all he was of Parsee origin and that makes him an ethnical Iranian for the Parsees are originally from todays Iran;).He was an amazing artist inside and out and it´s an honor for Iranians to count him as one of theirs.

I read that Freddie real name is actually spelled "Farok". But yet that birth certificate link below looks pretty official. Does anyone know whether this certificate is real? When his mother pronounced it in a documentary, I specifically noted that she placed the emphasis on the first syllable.

Where is the evidence to support the claim that Freddie was born with Pluto as his middle name? Where is a link to the Nov. 23 1991 statement which would support or refute the claim that Freddie "came out as bisexual" in that statement?

I have edited this section many times to delete the name Pluto as it is misinformation to claim that Freddie was born with the middle name Pluto but it keeps getting put back up. Why is that? I thought anyone could make updates. The only places on line that claim Pluto was his middle names have copied their information from this site, which contains incorrect information. Here is a link to the birth certificate where you will find no mention of the name Pluto.

http://mr-mercury.co.uk/Images/Birthcertificatefreddie.jpg

If you look at the birth certificate, it clearly states by Nationality that Freddie was Indian. Not Iranian/Persian. 14:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Probably because his parents were citizens of India, nonetheless his parents were both originally Persian and Freddie and his parents considered themselves Persians (as opposed to Indian). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.181.52.105 (talk • contribs) .


His parents never considered themselves Persian, or said they did, at least. Only Freddie did and they were not merely Persians but Indian parsis of Persian descent. And, it is also contested as to whether Freddie really considered himself Persian or was just trying to cover up an Indian background. He had Persian forebears but they lived and developed in India way too long for him to be merely just a "Persian". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.221.1.62 (talk • contribs) .

gay or bisexual?

Can anyone tell me how to update this information?

I am also interested to find the justification for the claim that Freddie came out as bisexual in his final statement the day before his death. Curious because he wasn't in the closet as a bisexual as this had been the standard line given in the 70's. He was however in the closet as gay and I suspect that the person who wrote this is implying that he came out as gay in his statement. This is a transcript of Freddie's final statement:

"Following the enormous conjecture in the press over the last two weeks, I wish to confirm that I have been tested HIV positive and have AIDS. I felt it correct to keep this information private to date to protect the privacy of those around me. However, the time has come now for my friends and fans around the world to know the truth and I hope that everyone will join with my doctors and all those worldwide in the fight against this terrible disease. My privacy has always been very special to me and I am famous for my lack of interviews. Please understand this policy will continue."

So, where in that statement does he come out as gay, or even bisexual for that matter, as was claimed in the article?

Any help on getting this information updated?


Max says: I'm adding this interesting discussion because it got deleted in later version:

Why wikipedia doesn't mention that there's no single evidence besides his "friends", that he was gay? No single picture and no witness until he's dead? Interesting, huh?

Try visting a Gay Bar in Munich where there photos on the wall of F.M. and Barbara Valentine in that establishment. IsarSteve 12:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury WAS GAY. End of history. People have to stop saying he was bisexual. He was not. He had sex with like 5 woman in his life, at most. Thats why I ask to the line "Freddy Mercury was bisexual, but never fully came out to the general public" to be removed or rewritten. Tomazrui 08:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

IsarSteve: You tell me that if I go visiting some random bar with my _girlfriend_ (girlfriend for christsakes) and that bar happens to be gay bar, that makes me gay, huh? Also very possible that it wasn't gay bar at that time. Tomazrui: Yeah, that's very strange "gay". Sleeped with 5 women and 0 men. Come on. I still insist that there's no single evidence that Freddie was gay. End of story.

Tom Oliver says: Freddie Mercury might have been gay in his head, but he was not gay in his heart. I dont know how you can dismiss the fact that he loved a woman and call him gay, becasue life is not as black and white as that. Just look at the photographs of him and Mary Austin and then listen to the song 'Love of my life' and tell me again that he was 100% gay. There is more passion in his voice in that song for Mary Austin than there is in any song ever writen previous and prior.

To Tom Oliver: Man, are you serious? Please tell me you are kidding. Tomazrui

This is fascinating but not very helpful for the article. If there are reputable sources that say he was gay, we say he was gay. If there aren't, we don't say anything. That's how Wikipedia works. Stevage 19:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Max says: Stevage, the problem is that there are no reputable sources... The only reputable sources would be the photos with his lovers (sorry, not that faked one with the cat and another dude who written a porno book and claimed to be Freddie's lover).. Or Freddie admitting himself he's gay... The fact is that there's no reputable source indeed... That's a tale people keep telling each other after Freddie's death... Also the fact is that Freddie is very charismatic and handsome, also being from different culture... And certain people interpret it in wrong ways. For instance "I want to break free" video - anybody familiar with Parsi culture will tell you that it's very common for artist to wear woman's clothes there)... Why nobody's saying that Roger was gay (huh.. what a cutie in that video..) or Brian? It's very interesting idea to ponder... And when I listen for Queen again and again, it gives a whole new meaning of all the text... Sad guy who loved the woman and in the end given up... Pretty interesting, huh? MaxStafford 17:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In my mind it's simple.Gay people consider Freddie to be their ticket for acceptance(hey, if he was gay, gay people cant be that bad).In a way, they fear that if they accept he was bi, they will lose their "flagship", so to speak.He wasnt straight,but i think that Tom Oliver's comment about "Love of ny Life" is the best comment in this forum.Deny it if you will, but you'll not change my mind.Of course, it doesnt really matter.Whether he was gay,bi,straight or a eunich, this is absolutely not what he would like us to remember him for.Let us rather admire and cherish his music and his neverdying spirit.He wasnt Freddie Mercury due to his sexual preferences, but rather due to his talent and personality.I bet he s laughing at us right now..-A.C.

That's private!!

Who the (sorry) is interested in the private life of anybody? I've delete the part about that!

Sorry, dude. If you're a public figure, you kind of have to get used to that. I restored it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

And I have deleted it!!

Don't do that again, please. Wikipedia provides relevant, notable and encyclopaedic information, and the information you removed qualifies as that. You might not be interested in it, but in that case it's better just not to read it rather than delete it. Worldtraveller 13:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


Ok I don't want to fight with you. Stay with your opinion, but I wanna say that the official sites of Queen don't publish such informations you did here. Why do you write so much about his sexual life? In an encyclopedia you'll never find such detailed informations!

A.M. 17 May 2005

I'd just point out that it would be a very rare biography that didn't contain details of someone's personal relationships etc. Queen fan sites are aimed at a different audience and contain different information. I hope you'll keep on contributing to this and other subjects - you might consider signing up for an account as well, although it's not mandatory of course. Worldtraveller 15:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


Yes, Queen sites are aimed for a much better audience, who isn't interested in such things. Today many people want to know who sleeps with whom in the prominent world. A.M. 19 MAy 2005

People!!! Who cares if he was gay or whoever. He was a great man, talented and genious. What he did in his private life, who he slept with - was up to him. I personaly don't give a damn. All I know (I do mean I know) he was a nice human being, generous, cared about others and created great music.

nine #1 hits

"Bohemian Rhapsody": Topped the charts of Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the UK.

"Love Of My Life": #1 in Argentina for an entire year

"Somebody To Love": #1 in The Netherlands in its original release, and in the UK in a cover version by Brian May, Roger Taylor, John Deacon, Mike Moran and George Michael

"We Are The Champions": #2 in the UK; #2 in the US; #1 in France for 13 weeks

"Crazy Little Thing Called Love": #1 in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Holland and the United States

"Under Pressure": Credited to Queen & Bowie, but essentially Mercury's according to bassist John Deacon. Melody and lyrics were created by both Mercury and Bowie. #1 hit in Argentina, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK. A 1999 remix topped the charts in Czech Republic. In 1990, rap artist Vanilla Ice sampled the main bassline on his worldwide #1 hit "Ice Ice Baby".

"Living On My Own": Originally recorded in 1985, a remix was released after his death and topped the charts in the UK

"Innuendo": Again credited to the band, but Mercury was the principal writer (with input from drummer Roger Taylor in lyrics). It was #1 in the UK and South Africa

"I'm Going Slightly Mad": Credited to Queen but composed by Freddie, this track topped the charts in Hong Kong in spring 1991

Iranian/Persian or Indian?

Last week I read an article about Queen and it mentioned of how Freddie was always proud of his "Iranian" ancestry. So, did Freddie see himself as more of an Indian Parsee or an Iranian? I really need to know!


By Farrokh Dasturi:

Hi I am an Indian Parsi. They way I see it Farrokh ( we both share the same first name), identified himself as Iranian, simply to downplay is Indian heritage. Most Indians especially some of the monrities are ashamed of their Indian heritage, just like Jews of yesteryear America and many Hollywood stars and pop musicians of Jewish origin changed their name and even denied their Jewish heritage).

Farrokh Bulsara is not the only Indian to deny his heritage, there are some other minorities too, eg : Guy Sebastian ( Pop idol in Australia is of Indian -Sri lankan Catholic parents..he even goes as far as to claim that he has some Portuguese blood), Sir Cliff Richard ( This legendry rock star never admits to his Anglo Indian heritage and is content with the masses ignorant that he is simply British), Englebert Humpendrick ( another anglo Indian from Chennai), Norah Jones ( 5 time grammy winner, denial of Indian heritage although she is the daughter of Pundit Ravi Shankar), so are the lead guitarists of the Californian uber rock band of the 90's Sound garden ( Kim Thyall) and Sum 41 ( popular punk rock band : Dave Baksh), fortunately Dave Baksh has a strong Dravidic ( dark skinned) look to clearly identify him as an Indian. The Bassist and long time boyfriend of Gwen Stefani i.e. No Doubt's Thomas Kunal is known for using fake contacts and confusing people as to his actual Indian heritage. Many more out there you never know !


The way I understood it was that he saw the idea of him being Persian as seeming more glamourous for his stage personality than being Indian.....I recall a controversy where Queen performed at Sun City in South Africa, when Apartheid was in full effect. There was quite a backlash against Queen for "endorsing racism." I believe that it wasn't until after his death that Freddie Mercury's Asian origin became widely known, for instance there was some surprise that he had a traditional Zoroastrian funeral service; many people had no idea he belonged to that group. I honestly think many fans assumed he was from a southern European background - because of his stage name I thought he might have been Greek-British, like George Michael or Cat Stevens.24.28.186.200 04:52, 19


Arun July 9, 2005 04:33 (UTC)

It is true that Parsis are ultimately of Persian origin, but one thing must be remembered, they left Persia some 1000+ years ago. In the more than 1000 years they have been in India, they have absorbed Indian culture to a full extent with the exception of religion. Indeed, other than for their Zoroastrian religion, there is little if anything really culturally "Persian" left in the Parsis. Even their mother tongue is a dialect of Gujarati, not Persian. And while they do undoubtedly have ties to Ancient,pre-Islamic Persia, they have absolutely nothing to do with modern Persian culture as that in part dervies from the Islamic culture which the Parsis fled.Calling one Persian nowadays identifies him/her with the Modern Iranian Persian culture of Iran. And Freddie Mercury was not from Islamic Iran. Calling Freddie Mercury Persian would be the same as calling Steven Spielberg Israelite Hebrew even though his remote ancestors left Palestine some 2000 years ago; his ties end with his Jewish faith, in ethnic and cultural terms, he is an American.He cannot be identified with modern Israeli culture. Neither can we do the same for a Gypsy, even though his ancestors left India around the same time the Parsis'left Iran. Mercury's Iranian heritage ends with Zoroastrianism and the Persia up to the end of the Sassanian empire. After that,his ancestors adopted Indian culture and became an Indian people of Zoroastrian Persian background, with nothing but their faith to tie them to their former homeland. Therefore, Freddie Mercury is ethnically an Indian Parsi who grew up and lived in Zanzibar, India and the UK. He can be identified with these places but not with Iran. And even if the argument that calling him an Indian underplays his Iranian heritage is true, this would also apply to other Parsis like Zubin Mehta, Dadabhai Naoroji, JRD Tata, Madame Bhikaji Cama etc. And I doubt many Iranians are going to want to list these people as ethnic modern Persians.These people were Indians to the T. I am not denying the Persian origin of the Parsis. I am simply saying that their origin is too far off and their cutural evolution in India over the past 1000 years is too much for one to classify them as Iranian/Persians. And, if one wants Mercury's personal definition of himself, it would probably be more that of British than anything else. If he did make some claims pertaining to Iranian pride,it was probably more to cover up his Indian past rather than of any real pride. And,to tie up my argument, his last name, "Bulsara" is not Persian/Iranian, its purely Indian. [[ Afghan Historian 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]](sorry for not mentioning my name earlier.


Guys, no offense. But as a parsi myself, I attest to the fact that Freddie Mercury ( real name Farrokh Bulsara) was a 100 % Indian. Parsis are Indian period case closed.

Simple, Iranians are a much broader term which includes Shiite moslims, Bahai's, Zorastrians ( descendents of modern day Parsees). Parsee in India however, have ofcourse migrated from Iran, but more than 70% of them have intemingled with the mainland Indians at some point. Besides, they have adopted the Indian language of Gujurathi. Evidence of Freddie's surname i.e. Bulsara itself is an indicator. Bulsar is a town north of Mumbai ( Bombay) Gujurath. To consider Indian Parsis as Persians or Iranians ( one and the same) is as dumb as calling the Protestant hugenots of Britain as French !

P.S For that matter many English should call themselves Norweigns because centuries back, the Nordic invaders of the North fought the Saxons making the Normans as English as others there.

-Guys, I've done a lot more reading and I'm about to concede that yes, Mercury can be considered of Persian/Iranian descent. Lets not argue about it anymore. -User: Afghan Historian

Could you give us any references? Books, links etc. --Candyfloss 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Will someone stop calling Mercury Persian. He was an Indian Parsi, which isnt necessarily the same.


I may be mistaken, but I believe Parsees are more likely to identify as culturally and ethnically Iranian than Indian. by 81.134.132.242


Parsees from India also have Iranian ancestry but in the hundreds of years they have been in India, they have married outside their community. 152.78.254.131 2 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)


I am not going to revert the changes by 81.134.132.242 again as it is not important to the article. But I disagree with 81.134.132.242. Although Indo-Iranian people are linguistically and anthropologically related to the Caucasian race, very rarely does one see an Iranian or North Indian as white. So, I think Freddie Mercury can't be classified as white. 152.78.254.131 2 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)


[Edit for above and below.] It may be true that skin color and ethnicity are two different things. However, the user above stated that judging from his skin color, it can be determined that he most likely is not of Iranian or Indian descent. Indian, agreed. On the other hand, Persians are light skinned depending on the region. Dont forget that the word aryan derives from arya which is also what Iran derives from.


The text never even mentioned anything about his skin color, "white" or otherwise, it just talked about his ethnicity. Although i'll admit his skin being quite light colored may have led to confusion as to his Indo-Iranian heritage among Europeans, that wasn't mentioned in the article at all. Don't confuse skin color with ethnicity.

As to the whole Parsee/Indian thing, the issue seems to be a lot more complex than just saying "he was Indian". If the Parsee population is "assimilated", why is it many still practice Zoroastrianism and not Hinduism, or even Islam? Why was Freddy Mercury himself given a Zoroastrian funeral? It seems like there's more to it than simply saying that the Parsee are "Indian" - and Freddy Mercury's case complicates it even further. For example, he was born in Zanzibar, so he could also be said to be "Zanzibarian" (not sure if that's the right adjective, but you get the point). Of course Zanzibar was also under British control at the time, which makes him British as well. So he was Indian, Zanzibarian, and British. I think it's perfectly sensible to also recognize, on top of this, that he was of Parsee descent, which are a community in India that are ultimately culturally and ethnically Iranian, and not Indian, in origin. Simply calling him "Indian" is just far too vague, and the denying of the Iranian heritage he had is likely to also confuse readers. --81.134.132.242 2 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)


Well, i equated being caucasian as being white. Yeah, i guess calling Freddie Mercury simply "Indian" underplays his Iranian heritage. But Freddie Mercury can't be called Iranian because if, for example, he had a grandparent who was Indian, that makes him 1/4rth Indian and 3/4rth Iranian. The only way to confirm this is to trace his lineage. It's hard to believe that the Parsees who emigrated to India in the 8th century don't have any Indian blood. There are examples of the so called "assimilation". check out John Abraham for one. 152.78.254.131 2 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)


Irani is commonly used as a synonym for Parsi in India, and is a relatively common Parsi surname in India. Parsee (or Parsi) itself signifies that he is of Iranian descent, with ancestors practicing the Zoroastrianism. Use of Persian for a Parsee would be like calling an American whose ancestors immigrated on the Mayflower an Englishman, unless said Parsi had relatively recent Persian ancestry. I've changed it to read that he was born to Parsi (Zoroastrian) parents from India.

-But he never spoke Persian! Nor did he follow Iranian culture other than Zoroastrianism. Parsis, aside from race and religion, are culturally, nationally and linguistically Indian.

-I read Taraporevala's book on Parsis and it seems from the interview with Mercury's mother, they considered themselves to be Indian Parsis. Calling them Persians is a bit too simplistic as Parsis have a separate history and identity from other Persians. I know this from some Parsis I know.(My next-door neighbor happens to be an Indian Parsi.)


I removed following sentence:

Despite the fact that he had attained success as an ethnic minority, Mercury was often very elusive about his background. Although Parsis are technically an Indian ethnic group, Mercury claimed instead to have been of Persian descent.

It is arguably true that he is of Persian descent and might have his own reasons to discount his Indian birth/distance himself form other Indians. I would think it is POV to describe this as elusive Refdoc 07:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people do not like the fact that this point is brought up under the "legacy" portion of the article. But I think that it is an important part of his legacy, so I put it back up there. Let's face it, there are not many Indian rock stars!


Um, what are you guy's talking about? How about we go by what Freddy Mercury has said himself, THAT HE IS AN IRANIAN!!! His parents believe it or not, were born in India, but they are Iranian, and they can speak Iranian like Freddy himself can! I actually remember seeing an Iranian interview with him, when I was younger. I have changed some things from Indian Parsi, into Persian, or Iranian.

-He said he was Persian, not Iranian. And, he rarely talked about ethnicity to begin with. He was of Persian descent, as all other Parsis like JRD Tata and Sam Manekshaw are acknowledged as on wikipedia. But he wasn't Persian or Iranian. As an Indian Parsi of Persian/Iranian descent, he had a culture distinct from other Persians, an Indian/Persian culture that he abandoned to become famous in western society. Like other Parsis on wikipedia, we must acknowledge him as Indian Zoroastrian of Persian ancestry. He was of Persian ancestry, not a full Persian himself, as he said. I think you are really misinformed or are lying when saying he gave an Iranian interview. He never performed in Iran. His parents never spoke Farsi either. Give a source for that please. Much of your information sounds false. I do agree though, that, as a Parsi, he had Persian roots. -User: Afghan Historian


It doesn't matter what other parsees (parsis) think about their nationality, or whether statistically speaking majority of them consider themselves Persian, Indian or Iranian or just Parsees. The fact is that Freddie considered himself to be Persian, he indicated that he was Persian and that he was proud of his Persian origins, so did his parents. I don't understand why it's so hard for you guys to accept that he considered himself Persian not Indian!! I think the best approach is to call him Persian (Parsi) but he definitely is not an Indian because he didn't consider himself to be Indian! (despite what his birth certificate might say) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.181.52.105 (talk • contribs) .

-This argument is bull because if we should label him the way he considered himself to be, than we should label Merle Oberon as Tasmanian because she claimed and considered herself Tasmanian. But she wasnt. Neither was Freddie an actual Persian. We should record facts, not opinions, and the FACT is: he was an Indian Parsi of Persian origins. He never talked about ethnicity much and considered himself British, not Persian. He rubbed the BRITISH FLAG over his body, not the IRANIAN OR INDIAN FLAGS. He may have made a few claims to Persian to hide his Indian background, which is probably true considering how rarely he spoke about ethnicity to begin with anyway and the Bulsaras initially difficult adjustment to British life after their arrival(I got this from the article below). Most people who are fans of Queen will tell you that they think of Mercury as a White British guy because that is what he passed himself of as, not a Persian or an Indian, a white Briton only! Also, stop this myth that his parents saw themselves as Persian Iranians. I dont know where this comes from. From the interviews they gave, they seem to consider themselves Indian Parsis. The parsis on this page also make the argument for him to be an Indian of Persian origins. Overall, we should record the fact, he was a British singer of Indian Parsi heritage. He considered himself British most if not all the time during his stardom. He is more a part of Britains legacy than anything and probably Zanzibar and India as he was born and grew up in those places (as stated repeatedly before). He never performed in Zanzibar or India or even Iran during the liberated Shah's time (for someone supposedly so proud of Persian origins with an opportuinity to perform in an area with a liberal regime). The least acknowledgement of his ethnic past was a performance for Live Aid and African poverty as well as a small donation to his old Indian boarding school. He never did anything that small or even smaller than that for Iran or anything Iran-related. He was of Persian origins but thats just it apart of Zoroastrianism, which doesnt count as religion is not a factor for being a South Asian. He grew up in both India and the Zanzibari Indian community. His friends and family in these areas were all Indians, Parsi and non-Parsi alike. He never spoke Farsi or Dari either. He spoke English and maybe Hindi or Gujarati. He was a BRITISH SINGER OF INDIAN PARSI HERITAGE! CASE CLOSED! Sorry for repeating myself, but the information repeated is sooo necessary for back up of the argument —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.41.240.68 (talk • contribs) .

No offence but your argument is not at all coherent! I don't know what Merle Oberon has got to do with this. Talking about Freddie Mercury, he was orignally Persian, both his parents were Persians. He was born in Inida but clearly didn't consider himself an Indian. The fact that he didn't "rub the Iranian flag over his body" is also irrelavant. Rubbing a flag over your body can be seen as a political move to support the government of a country, I can assure you that you won't be able to find many Iranian born Iranians who are prepared to rub their own flag over their body!! How do you know he did not speak Farsi or Dari? The story line behind some of his songs are following a Persian theme and he uses non-English non-Indian words in some of his lyrics too, which could indicate that he knew how to speak Persian too. Anyhow, he was originally Persian (immigrating to India or being born in India does not make one Indian, esp when they clearly consider themselves otherwise). I don't know if he was ashamed of being born in India (as you say) or what but whatever the reason he prefered to consider himself Persian and he had enough grounds to do so...we should respect that and stop calling him Indian. That's why I said calling him "Persian (Parsi)" is a good way of putting an end to this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) .

As a Parsi who was not born in India, I can understand why Freddy Mercury would say he was Persian not Indian. It has absolutely nothing to do with being ashamed of being an Indian. I dont know why anyone would be ashamed, its just another country isnt it?? The reason he would claim to be Persian is the same reason i do at times: Most people DO NOT KNOW who or what Parsis are and it's usually a 20 minute discussion to sort out the facts. Parsis are Persian. The muslim populous that inhabits Iran today are known as Iranians. Ask an Iranian if he considers zoroastrians the same as him, and he will say we all have the same blood. (Ive done this so i would know) Im not denying an Indian heritage - the country saved our faith from almost certain extinction. However, if you read up on it, youll find that it was the Indian ruler at the time of our migration to Indian, who insisted on Parsis being separate, not being allowed to marry into the indian public and mix blood. As a result of living in India for so many years, yes, we adopted the language and the sari, but our prayers, our faith and our community is unlike anything resembling present day indian religion. We are still considered a minority in India and beleive it or not, not all Indians know who parsis are. (again from personal experience) As for Parsis having the same 'blood' as Indians, its important to note that marrying out of the parsi fold in India is very much discouraged and children of mixed marriages are not considered Zoroastrian. They are not allowed into the temples or allowed Persian burial rites either. As for Freddy Mercury, the man was obviously a beleiver in his faith, because he was buried according to our Parsi rights. Seeing as how the man has passed on, I suggest that we leave him be, because disecting his ethnicity isnt going to tell you anything about who he was as a person. How about we just honour what the man said about himself? Parsis have names like Bulsara (for the town Bulsar, where his family is from) because indians and the British occupying India had a hard time with the persian names we probably came with. Thats why we have surnames like Carpenter and Doctor. They represent the professions our families were proponents of. And for the record, Parsi means 'From Pars.' (PARS is in Persia.) - Natasha Chinoy.

-Afghan Historian here. I thought we agreed that he would be labeled as Indian Parsi (Persian) so that both sides of his heritage are recognized. Someone keeps changing it to either Persian or Indian Zoroastrian (Parsi). Since many people on here have a problem with calling him Indian, even Indian Parsi, I changed it to read Persian or Persian Zoroastrian to see if everyone was satisfied. But soon after, it's changed back into Indian Parsi. Let's just stick with my original arrangement. And, as this is an encyclopedia, we must acknowledge that he was an Indian, despite what he claimed. Wikipedia records facts, not opinions. We cant just erase the fact that he and his ancestors were part of India for 1400 years, even though they are of Persian origin. Also, the extreme secrecy that Mercury kept, regarding his pre-British life while he was still alive and famous often leads me to conclude that his claims to Persian pride were not really sincere but just ways to hide the past he didnt like to talk about. I cant help concluding this. I try to be a bit more open to the possibility that he was proud but the entire scenario just does not permit it as so, as well as the attitude of his mother and sister in the interview with Taraporevala. I dont know why but the whole situation of his history leads me to this conclusion, as well as his ever-strong hunger for fame and popularity. Anyway, lets stick with the term that addresses best what he was, Indian Parsi (Persian). This way, both his Indian background and his ultimate Persian origin and possible pride in such origin are recognized, with none downplaying the other. -[[Afghan Historian 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)]]

-I found a link talking about the racial abuse that Freddie initially went through before he blended in and became who he became. http://www.netmemorials.co.uk/Freddie%20Mercury.htm. This should be helpful. If anyone trusts this, then we can come closer to deciding whether he was downplaying Indian heritage or not.

-Well, I think I'm going to conclude this debate once and for all. I read a very genetic history link for Southwest, Southern and Central Asian populations. A study of Parsis show that while in terms of y chromosome they are Iranian, in terms of MtDNA, they are like other Gujaratis, showing that a predominantly male Persian population arrived in Gujarat some 1300 years ago and mixed with local women at first and then took up endogamy, in contrast to what legend tells us. I guess than that even genealogically, Freddie Mercury cant be Persian as it isnt full. The best thing to say is that he was a Parsi or Indian Parsi, or whatever. But Persian just seems a bit...really stretch. He's of Persian descent, of course, but not Persian. He speaks no Iranian language, he came from an Indian Zoroastrian culture and he isnt even genealogically pure, especially if his mtDNA is almost completely Indian. Also, his jaw structure looks pretty Indian, even South Indian. I come partly from an Iranian people, the Pashtuns and I havent seen any one among them with that kind of a mouth, not even among the Iranian Persians I know. Basic point, he's a British singer of Indian Parsi backgroun who wasnt open about himself to too many people and probably was comfortable being a white Brit anyway. Lets leave it at that. I mean, come on, as Natasha said so wisely, debating about his race isnt goint to tell us one BLOODY thing about what he was as a person. He was a damn great singer would be my first response if you asked me about him, not "is he Indian or Iranian". --User: Afghan Historian

I've seen many Iranians with similar mouth structure, esp among the Zoroastrian community in Iran. Beside, since when mouth structure has been the basis for determining one's origin? Mercury himself said he was Persian, and he had enough reasons to say so. I don't see why others can't agree with the guy himself on his origins! wasn't he better qualified to say where he is from than us? He was Persian and he wanted to be regarded as such, if you want to stretch it, we can also call him Parsi (which has Indian embedded in it). So, Persian|Parsi, is prob the best way of referring to him, in terms of origins.

Did it ever occur to you that Parsis generally have pride in Persian origins at the same time when considering themselves Indian? This is a common Parsi feeling, and if Freddie did make a claim to being "Persian", he was doing what other Parsis do. Also, his own parents call him an Indian, his own sister, (who knows him better than you or I) said he was an Indian Parsi. (You should definetely read his definitive biography, which, unfortunately, is published only in England. It is the one authorized by his family and contains, in both their and his friends minds, the truth about his life and background.) His childhood Parsi friends identify him as Indian and differentiate between Parsis and Persians. If you want to go from a genealogical identification, you could call Freddie a Persian. But, when people are called literally "Persians", they mean they are Iranians, not Tajiks or Parsis or Dari-speaking Afghans, especially in modern times. We should call him Indian Parsi, as the term "Parsi" signifies that he is an Indian Persian, as opposed to an Iranian one. Calling him literally a Persian Parsi is redundant, if not misleading. And really, for all this stuff about his wanting to identify with Persia, let me remind you that he considered himself "British", not "Indian", "Parsi", "Iranian" or "Persian". He was known as a strong supporter of the British monarchy and was often "happy to death" whenever he got British national awards. If he truly had any feelings for Iran, why didnt he ever go perform in Iran before the fall of the Shah? Why could he not speak a word of Persian? Sorry but "Bismillah" does not count. Also, I listened to some of these other songs that apparently have "Persian" embedded all over them, like the "The Prophet's Song" and I read and heard that they are about Noah and the Flood, not Zoroaster or some Iranian topic! Also, a lot of the eastern sounding influences on A Night at the Opera, have been officially proven to come from influences from Lata Mangeshkar, an Indian singer. The Arabic words he sang at the begining of one song, have also been proven to come from his background in Arabic Zanzibar, as well as "Bismillah". The point is, he is an Indian Parsi (genetics prove that Parsis do have considerable South Asian ancestry) who was not open about himself and would go to great lengths to keep his background a secret. He considered himself a White Briton and revelled in it. We, as encyclopedians, can only record the facts, not opinions, so we should label him what he best can be described as, "Indian Parsi" who later became British. End of story. I dont think even Freddie himself really cared over what people labelled him as, he would have been most happy if people called him "British" or "English" only and forgot all the oriental stuff. He was, in my mind, a great rock singer if not the best of all time, and I think it is tragic we argue so much for just two words of biographic detail. We never do this for the thousands of other Parsis who also feel proud to have Persian origins. -User: Afghan Historian

Ok, that's a long paragraph there - most of which have already been addressed and debated in this section (read the section for more info). However, I will re-iterate three main points:
1. Yes, it did in fact occurred to me that Parsis (most of them including Freddie) are proud of being Persians...Now, Parsis are Persians who moved to India. There is a Province in Iran, called Fars. Many years ago it was called Pars, and people from there might also call themselves Fars. But as far as Parsi goes, when someone says "Parsi", they are referring to Persians who've moved to India. So Parsi has Indian in there, calling someone an Indian Parsi is redundant because by saying Parsi you are already saying that they are from India. Calling him Persian (Parsi) however says that he is originally Persian but belongs to the Parsi group of Persians, so although this might be somewhat redundant too but it's still better than Indian Parsi (cuz there is no other recognizable Parsi group).
2. Calling oneself Persian and being proud of one's Persian heritage, does not obligate nor requires the person to associate themselves with the Iranian government/regime (Neither before nor after Shah). I will refer to myself as Persian too, but I do not support the regime (neither the current nor the previous one) ... so saying that Freddie was not talking about Iranian regime is irrelevant, many Iranian born Iranians do not identify themselves with the Iran's regime (and that goes for both Shah and his successors).
3. I think it's tragic to be debating this too, but the fact is he regarded himself as Persian and he was Parsi. So calling him Persian|Parsi would both respects his national legacy (as in his birth certificate and family origin) and his heritage (how **he** liked to be regarded).

This is somewhat irrelevant, but how do you know for sure that he couldn't speak Persian? About Noah, did you know that Noah's ship came down in Ararat, which is located in North-West of modern-day Iran (bordering Turkey)? So, although this doesn't change anything, just for the record know that Ararat and Noah are somewhat related to Persians too!!

Regardless of the connection, Queen did not have Persia or Persian culture in mind when they wrote the song. And the point is Parsis in general see themselves as Persians or of Persian descent in addition to being Indians. We acknowledge them as Indian Parsis with the word "Parsi" signifying Persian living in India and the ethnicity they like to be called. Persian is in the Parsi so no need to say it. And, at this time, Pakistan was coming into existance so there were plenty of Pakistani Parsis as well. Indian Parsi is to distinguish him from the Pakistani branch. Parsis are known for a fact not to use Persian as their mother tongue or in any other capacity. They use Avestan as their liturgical, not Persian. Freddie, if he did speak anything eastern, would have spoken Gujarati or Hindi. Not Persian. His own parents acknowledge their mother tongue as Gujarati so theres how I know. And you misunderstood what I was trying to say, he considered himself British above anything else. The awards were just an example. Most people who know about Queen know that he portrayed himself as British or "white" to his fans and the public. He never even went to perform in Iran when the liberal Shah was there. And at this time, he was performing in Japan and South Africa and other non-Western countries. Never in India or Iran. For someone "proud of being Persian" he sure had little consideration for his "fellow Iranian fans". Also, he told people his name was Frederick, not even the Persian Farrokh. Also, Parsis have mixed with Indians quite frequently as their MtDNA shows (look at Parsi article). They're very much Indian and not Iranian, in modern context. I dont think I will say any more as I think I've said all that needs to be said. I'm also guessing you're Persian/Iranian. Not trying to be offensive or anything. -Afghan Historian 20:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Legacy

I took out the Japanese legacy part, since it did not seem very tightly written. To me, the rest of the article read very well, until you got to that part. However, right after I took it out, it was put back in within minutes. So I guess that some people find this interesting. I wonder about what other people think.

  • Considering how supremely popular Queen were in Japan, I think it is notable to mention Mercury's "legacy" there. - TIM
  • This whole section is redundant. It's just a list of all the Japanese cartoons that have a Queen reference. Really, it only deserves a mention in the trivia section, not a huge section.

Katamari Damacy

The "King of all Cosmos" form the video game Katamari Damacy (or Damashii) is modeled on Freddie Mercury, including costumes.

Images

Who keeps stealing the images? I mean, every couple of months the latest photo gets stolen and then someone has to replace it with another one. Does anyone know what is going on here?

The new images are great, but, golly, they need to be spread out over the length of the article. Bunched up near the top is unattractive! Anyone want to tackle it? I'm assuming the copyright status on the images is kosher. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily assume that, my friend. I'm suspicious of any images readily found by a google search and uploaded by inactive accounts. Maybe I'm too suspicious, though. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 04:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not. Copyrighted images is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems. It's easy to find dozens a day. I just didn't want to open that can of worms. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

compare with German Version

I am just coming from the German version of this article, which was kind of short. But I am suprised, how many differences in dates and names one can find in those two versions. It may be interesting to verify some facts. E.g. the German article on Freddy states, he himself mentioned the second name Pluto as a joke to a journalist, who did not understand the joke and took it for real. Further more, it says he was 17 upon arriving at London. Small facts, but still facts!?

Edit war heating up

I see an edit war starting on this article. SAMAS keeps making changes that keep getting reverted (for good reason, they are poorly worded and remove a great deal of information). If I were an admin, I'd revert his edits and protect the article until we get this resolved. Instead, I'll just have to hope that we can discuss this like civilized wikipedians, here. The points:

  1. SAMAS removed most of the first paragraph and summarized it. He also included a number of typos. Why? What is wrong with the detailed information?
  2. SAMAS added "the Street Fighter character Eagle was reimagined as a tribute to Mercury for Capcom vs. SNK 2." but it was removed by Protohiro.

Personally, I see no justification for #1, but #2 seems a fine addition if it is indeed true. If it isn't, it should be left out.

Let's discuss things here before we get into a fisticuff. SAMAS, do you care to provide justification for your edits? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that SAMAS' first edits seem really pointless (clearly, because I revertec it). The video game issue sounded fishy to me and not terribly notable. But I am not an expert on Freddie Mercury protohiro 17:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never edited any previous paragraph(Either I'm being confused with someone else's edits, or it was unintentional), only added the information about the fighting game characters. I apologize for the typos, though. My mind moves faster than my fingers, and they tend to skip ahead to catch up.

I will admit that the video game references aren't groundbreaking or anything, but I figured they were intresting enough to be mentioned. Sol's similarities are rediculously extensive, and mentioned in the Guilty Gear section.

I certianly didn't mean to start an edit war over it.SAMAS 11:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iranian ancestry

Have people lost their minds here or what? Nobody is saying or even suggesting that Parsis are not of the Indian nationality - but they are certainly of Iranian ancestry. Exactly what is the problem here? Is there a misunderstanding of certain words? If so, please consult a dictionary and look up the words ancestry and descent and lineage. For heavens sake. SouthernComfort 11:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Sunday London Times discussion of Asian background

THE GREAT PRETENDER (11/1996 Sunday London Times article)

Freddie Mercury, lead singer of British rock group QUEEN, who died of AIDS in 1991, hid his Asian past. Turned out immaculately in a loose-fitting sudreh - a shirt of white muslin symbolising his innocence and purity - the proud eight-year-old boy appeared indistinguishable from dozens of young Parsee Indians undergoing their initiation into the Zoroastrian faith. With rice grains and rose petals flecking his neatly clipped hair, little Farok Bulsara left the traditional Navjote ceremony to smiles from his parents, Bomi and Jer, and returned to his boarding school where he was already being groomed from a privileged colonial adulthood. That was never to be, but another infinitely greater elite awaited young Farok. As Freddie Mercury, the brilliant singer of the rock band Queen, he became one of the world's pop icons. But few of the millions of fans who mourned his death in November 1991 could have had any idea that he was, in fact, Asia's first rock superstar.

So why did Mercury, who might have become a respected and high-profile spokesman for the new generation of integrated British Asians, so ruthlessly deny his roots? And why only now - five years after he died of AIDS-related illness - are those roots being publicity exposed in a collection of previously unseen photographs recently exhibited in London? To discover the answer we must start with his childhood. His father, Bomi, a middle-ranking cashier at the High Court in the then British-controlled East African island of Zanzibar where Farok was born at the Government Hospital on September, 5 1946, hoped his son might become a doctor, lawyer or perhaps even an airline pilot, a profession to which the Parsees increasingly gravitated. His mother, Jer, who relished the cocktail party lifestyle of a civil servant's wife, had similar dreams for her son. To ensure that he had the best education possible they sent him back to India, their homeland, and enrolled him at the exclusive St Peter's School in Panchgani, several hundred kilometres from Bombay in the cool hills of Maharastra.

It seemed their wishes would be fulfilled. Farok, who was seven when he arrived at the school, was a bright pupil and he prospered, though, inevitably, he was nicknamed "Bucktooth" by his fellow pupils. At the age of eight he met his maternal aunt Sheroo Khory when she visited him at the school. Sheroo now 74, says: "I remember him with great affection. Even before I got to the gate, he saw me and came out to greet me. Then he showed me round with great enthusiasm. He was fond of school and made friends easily." Mohammadi Dholkawala, one of Farok's classmates, remembers how the boy topped the class in most subjects in the six years he was at St Peters. Yet it was not only in academic work that Mercury found his metier, Sheroo says: "Farok bagged so many prizes at school. He was an all-round junior champion. He excelled at everything - boxing, fencing, table tennis, you name it. He was also a very talented artist."

But it was his talent for music which really startled her. Once, while Farok's parents were visiting, his mother began playing the piano and he copied it right away. "He was so small that he had to turn the stool up on its end to reach the keys," says Mrs Khory. "Then he began the tune that his mother had just played. I asked him who taught him and he replied that he'd heard mummy playing it. "Then another time he was listening to the radio. It was Indian music and when it was over he played the same tune. Still, we didn't believe he could do it right off like that. We thought someone must be teaching him.

"But he did once more and we realised he had real talent. That's when his parents arranged for him have special music lessons at school. He must have been about nine or ten." By his mid-teens, there was only one slight concern. Though still neatly groomed, and with his black hair clipped respectfully short, young Farok Bulsara was among a small group of pupils who had cottoned on to a disturbing new import from Western society: rock'n'roll. Supplementing their shirts with bootlace ties and sporting dark sunglasses, the boys had even gone as far as forming the school's first pop group, daringly named The Hectics after Farok's flamboyant piano playing style. About this time his excellent academic record began to falter.

Although the boys were never allowed to perform outside school, Nariman Khory recalls what was probably Farok's first public performance when the family went for dinner and the band at an Italian restaurant struck up How Much Is That Doggy In The Window. Aware that Farok was humming along, a member of the band asked him to join in and he took to the stage and sang. "After the song he was all flushed and shy, but while he was on the stage you could see that he had presence, even at that age," says Nariman.

Some 15 years later, the boy's name having been changed to Freddie Mercury and the piano switched for a twirling microphone stand, his showmanship was to become the trademark of the world's most successful glam-rock band, Queen. By then all traces of India had been removed. Though his aquiline nose, flinty eyes and deep olive complexion gave him a Latino or vaguely Oriental look, few of his many millions of fans ever guessed they were hero-worshipping the first Asian pop star.

Mercury was certainly not about to alert them to the fact. In the few personal interviews that he granted, he deliberately obscured his past, divulging only that hailed from Zanzibar. Some biographers even referred to him as Persian - which, since the Parsees resettled in the Bombay region around the ninth century and consider themselves Indian, is stretching the truth. What brought Mercury to Europe was changing face of African politics. Fearful that their comfortable position might be jeopardised by Zanzibar's independence, Bomi and Jer joined thousands of Asian families seeking a secure future in prosperous Britain. Along with 17-year old Farok and his sister Kashmira, 10 they packed their belongings and arrived in decidedly unexotic Feltham, a London dormitory town under the Heathrow flight-path.

As they moved into Gladstone Avenue, a dreary cul-de-sac of 1930's semi-detached houses, residents peeping through their frilly net curtains at the area's first influx of Asian immigrants raised eyebrows at Jer's traditional sari. The unfamiliar scent of spices wafting from the kitchen window further aroused their suspicion. If their neighbours found themselves lapsing into prejudice, their fears were soon allayed.Within a month, recalls Derick Burgess, who lived nearby, the Bulsaras looked every inch the English family.

The Bulsaras maintained links with the Parsee community. During holidays from Marks & Spencer's Hounslow branch, where she rose to supervisor, Jer returned with Bomi -who worked for an airline-to visit Freddie's grandfather, a respected priest in their home town of Bulsar on the Gujarati coast. Freddie, who had changed his name while still in India, rarely accompanied them. Reshaping his hair, first into Jimi Hendrix-like bush and later into the long-back, feathered-top cut that epitomised the 70's, he turned his back on his upbringing. After he left Ealing College of Arts and his pop career began to take off, Bulsar, Bombay and the Parsees were never mentioned.

As his reputation grew, Mercury became more and more secretive. He instructed Bomi and Jer never to speak about his past, and they still respect his wishes today. Visitors are politely turned away from the affluent Nottingham suburb of Mapperley, where 88-year old Mr Bulsara and his wife, who is about 10 years younger, moved into a newly built bungalow to be close to Kashmira and her family earlier this year. Burgess, a regular guest during the Gladstone Ave days, says Freddie was equally coy about his sexuality. He would arrive in his Rolls Royce with his female companion of many years, Mary Austin, but never with his boyfriend, Jim Hutton. Whatever his fans would have made of his gay Indian background is, in any case, of no concern to Mr and Mrs Bulsara. To his doting parents he was, and remains, a brilliant and beloved son. As Jer Bulsara wistfully said, while providing the captions for the photographs on exhibition: "This was our baby."

"Show preview" button

"67.161.159.218", please could you use the "Show preview" button. Thank You. --Candyfloss 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ethnic origins" section/sources

http://www.brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssbaug04.html

Brian May, Thu 26 Aug 2004:

QUEEN IN IRAN - STOP THE PRESS !!! (REALLY!)

Amazing isn't it, how far "news" can travel, and amazing how no-one checks its source. The story about "Queen being the first official release in Iran" has actually hit news media all around the world. But it appears that the original story was wrong, and all the journalist channels just copied it without checking. How very crap of them. It really shows how little you can trust what you read in the papers.

The truth ? The word I hear from EMI Arabia is that they are TRYING to clear a Queen compilation with the Iranian authorities, but so far have not succeeded. So this "First" is clearly a pirate - a bootleg. How funny. Must get one!! ha ha!

Cheers Bri --Candyfloss 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following sources from the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3593532.stm
http://www.gmax.co.za/feel04/08/29-freddiemecury.html --Candyfloss 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

POV?

Some sections seem to suffer from POV issues. Deckiller 00:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Naturally. All articles about pop stars are like that. It's very hard to write objectively. You could help us out by identifying the sections and suggesting ways to improve them. Or introduce new information to the article which will even up the bias. My introduction is fairly biased, but I'm not sure what I would add to even it up. Stevage 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to talk pages within articles

It would be much appreciated if people would stop adding links to talk pages. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia - please treat it like one. SouthernComfort 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Final Say on Ethnicity

-Most Parsis on Wikipedia are listed as Indian Parsi parentheses Persian. I've decided to do this for both Zubin Mehta and Freddie Mercury. That way both their Indian background/culture and their ultimate Persian origins are recognized (even though this can also be taken care of by the word Parsi, which is the original form of Farsi before the arrival of Islam and the Arabs. -User: Afghan Historian


Lucky Bastard

You know what, after listening to some of Queen today and thinking about the ethnicity debate (which I was never aware about till a year ago) I realized what a lucky bastard Freddie Mercury was!!! I dont think there are that many Indians or Pakistanies who become that famous in the western music industry and are taken for white all the time and their Asian heritage completely vague and almost unknown. Despite his rare claims to Persianness, the average fan and expert of Queen think of him as a regular white British guy!! Very few know of him as an Indian Parsi or a Persian from his claims. Most Indians in his time would never get that far in popular culture and would have been derided as darkies or "Pakis". And, unlike Mercury, most Indians do not have a full racial ancestry to somewhere else from 1200 years ago to fall back upon when under ethnic suspect. Mercury did. After all, Farrokh is a common Persian/Iranian name and Bulsara was not a common Indian name in western understanding so many took it for a rare Persian name (the many who heard his vague ethnicity claims). He could also pass for Iranian, without suspect of foreigness as well as white. Maybe some saw his "darkness" but presumed that he was southern European or something, maybe even Welsh (who are quite dark). I find it ironic that a Parsi like Mercury could pass as and be considered White for the average man in Britain and the West when only a few generations prior, Parsis like Dadabhai Naoroji or Shapurji Saklatvala were derided as "blacks" (even though Naoroji looked just like the typical full Anglo-Saxon English gentleman, spectacles, white beard and all). I dont think I could do the same thing. Afghan ancestry is still pretty exotic and foreign enough for many to call me a dark muscian, if I became one in popular culture. Does anyone agree, though, that the man was too lucky to fall under ethnic suspicion at his career height? -User: Afghan Historian


Biographic Sketch

Someone's erased the biographic sketch! Put it back on.


Proud Of Being English

-Whovr edited the legacy section to read he was more proud of being English is absolutely right! Despite few claims to being proud of Persian ancestry(which, as an Indian Parsi, he had) he always felt British at heart. He never showed any true regard for the East whatsoerver, be it his old homelands of India and Zanzibar, or the land of his ancient far off ancestors, Persia/Iran. -Cyrus

Asiatic features

-I disagree that Mercury never showed a trace of Asiatic features. If you look at him carefully, you can easily notice distinct features born by South Asian or Middle Eastern people such as dark eyes, the Parsi peaked nose and black Hair. He also had quite a tan if you put him with other white people. Also, if you ever carefully watch some of his stage show recordings, you will notice a faint streak of gaudiness typical of Bollywood movies. The last remanants of his Indian past, one could say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.221.1.181 (talk • contribs) .

Gaudiness has nothing to do with being Indian or being exposed to Bollywood. He was a stage performer and they have to put on a show. People this ignorant shouldn't be allowed to post their opinions online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.212.76.4 (talk • contribs) .

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. Hbackman 07:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

-You up there. I did not say Gaudiness was Indian, there was a form of Indian gaudiness very discreet in his shows. This is a quote from Salman Rushdie, though, not mine. Be a bit more careful when you read please! And I dont know why people are so out of shape of calling him Indian Parsi. No mattere what he felt, that is what he was before becoming a Briton.

Vocal Abilities

Hello,

In all your respect, I believe that the article is somewhat overestimating Freddy Mercury's vocal abilities. In no way did Freddy Mercury every hav an operatic style of voice. An operatic style of voice is completely different to that of Freddy Mercury, the only two singers in rock with this type of voice were Tenors Messiah Marcolin and Michael Kiske from Candlmass and Helloween, respectively. These two used a lot of vibrato, used operatic tecniques, and voice fermattas of more than 20 seconds that would dwarf Freddy Mercury's vocal style in a heartbeat. Besides, if Freddy would have had an operatic style he wouldn't have developed vocal nodules, these develop from abuse, lack of warmingup and yelling too much. The two singers I mentioned never yelled and always maintained an excellent, tone range and operatic style in their respective ranges, unlike Freddy Mercury.

As a second note, I would like to point out that the article implies that Mercury is amongst the best singers in the 20th century, of all music, which he certainly is not. The article fails to say that the poll is also topped by John Lennon, who is considerably inferior to Freddy. The Poll is based on popularity, not on actual vocal abilities and vocal quality, which is why I believe the article should be changed.

Thank You Very Much, and I wait for an answer in due time.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.135.185.175 (talk • contribs) .


I totally have to disagree with you here. In the first place, I also believe that John Lennon was a great singer. This is due not to his technical abilities, but to his distinctive style. In a lot of ways, it could even be argued that John Lennon was a vocal pioneer whose un-self-conscious style has been adopted by many recent singers. Furthermore, I understand that many music experts voted in both the BBC poll and the MTV-2 poll. For this reason, I don't see any reason for discounting either one.

On the other hand, unlike John Lennon, Freddie Mercury certainly possessed extraordinary vocal abilities. If you want an example of this, try singing along with the second verse of "Another One Bites the Dust" without using a falsetto! I dare you to try it!! Furthermore, Freddie Mercury sings this second verse while still maintaining a very masculine sound. Most tenors who could sing in this range would not have the kind of resonance that Freddie Mercury has and so would end up sounding "like a girl".

I'm not sure what you mean by the opera comparison. Obviously, comparing opera singers and popular singers is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't believe that anyone is trying to make such comparisons in this article. Futhermore, while many opera singers may possess great technical ability, they are generally neither as distinctive nor as original as many famous singers in jazz and popular music. For this reason, I do not think that it is possible to suggest that all opera singers are "better" than all non-classical singers. (TAY)

Well, first of all let me clarify something. Not because Freddy Mercury can reach high notes does it mean that he is a good singer. I am an operatic bass from a conservatory and cannot reach the notes Freddy Mercury can reach, but he cannot reach the low notes I can reach. I have no doubt I am a much better singer than Mercury, as is any opera singer. First of all, the trainning required to create an operatic voice and develop one takes years of daily trainning, it's a different type of voice. In rock singers, do not train as much as classical singers do, the voices are completely different, I would dare Freddy Mercury to attempy singing Beethoven's 9th symphony, the fifth movement, I seriously doubt he would be able to sing such areas, considering that his voice is not trained for opera, were as operatic tenors, would be able to sing the second verse of another one bites a dust without falsetto, and would do it much better than him, not screaming, but with a potent, melodic, and vibrato laiden voice. Please do not compare opera singers and rock singers, it's not like apples and oranges, it's like comparing the quality between an insecticide spraying airplane and a supersonic Jet, the difference is abismal, Opera singers are immensely superior, again due to trainning and education, so then again, Freddy Mercury has nothing of an operatic voice in him whatsoever, nothing, so please consider erasing that section from the article.

Secondly, I disagree with you in Lennon's pioneering vocal style. Lennon's vocal abilities are completely limited. Apart from that the "experts" on the poll need to be checked, because there is no way in hell John Lennon is better than Frank Sinatra or Freddy Mercury. Sinatra and Nat King Cole are infinetely superior to both of them. And as you say if the pole was not based on popularity and only on quality of voice and vocal techniques, why weren't any classical singers, and I don't mean popular classicals such as Sinatra, but fulltime operatic Tenors, Baritones or Basses from conservatories included in the lists, when it is clear that at least one should have been included. I am terribly sorry but your assertions are erroneous.

Thanks


Well, in the first place, I agree that vocal range is not everything. Obviously there are singers who can sing very high and very low notes, but who lack good tone or a distinctive style. On the other hand, I find it comical to even ponder what a male opera singer would sound like singing "Another One Bites the Dust"!! While some of them may be able to hit these notes, I don't think that anyone would want to listen to that! Let's face it, popular singers can do things that opera singers can't. The style that male opera singers use is just too rigid and stilted for popular music. Furthermore, many popular singers and jazz singers improvise and often add elements to the music that were not originally there. There is more room for creativity in popular singing than in opera. For that reason, I think that many of the greatest singers of the 20th century were in jazz and popular music. However, this also does not mean that I do not love and appreciate opera as well.


--

My 2 cents to this discussion come from not my own knowledge or experience, but from quoting a person who surely knows what she is talking about.

Her "experience" cut short: Her parents were in every way related to opera, father was a costumer and mother an opera singer. Her kindergarten was opera's back stage. Later she herself became a singing teacher.

She always compared Freddie Mercury to the 17th-18th century castrato singers. Her evaluation of Mercury's voice was that Mercury's voice is a natural castrato, his voice is like the castrato's, but without castration. That coming from a professional should surely say something. Now also keeping in mind the many low range songs Mercury has sang... well, that's quite a vocal range. :)

"Freddie liked to take it up the arse."???

Has anyone noticed the trivia section contains "Freddie liked to take it up the arse."???? Isn't this pretty much vandalism?? I don't think this is meant as anything but ...

Polaris75 21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

While it could be true, this is nonetheless a form of vandalism.

Rewriting The Songwriting Section

The songwriting section has no real encyclopedic value (especially the last paragraph, but in any way, all of it is crap). I suggest to remove or rewrite it, giving attention to songwriting and production style. For instance, most of Freddie's compositions are piano-based, while "Crazy Little Thing" was clearly written on a guitar (Freddie commented on that on an interview, said he "wrote it in a bath" or something). I noticed that a lot of his piano stuff is in B flat major ("Bohemian Raphsody", "It's a Hard Life" and others). There are also Freddie's contribution to "Radio Ga Ga". Although credited to Taylor, Freddie has said on a promotional interview for "The Works" that he "turned the song inside out" while Taylor went on a skiing vacation. On the same interview he also said that "Is This The World We Created?" only featured his (Freddie's) lyrics, while the music is by Brian. And what is this crap about "mini opera"? Is there such a thing? Freddie was a brilliant progressive rock songwriter, but his skill was ignored because of his showmanship (like Jordan's defensive play). EV (IL).


Comment: Well, I agree that Freddie Mercury was a great songwriter. You could add some of these things, but the point of an encyclopedia article is also to be relatively concise as well. When sections get too long, they should be shortened. How many Wikipedia articles do you see that feature huge run-on paragraphs that as impossible to wade through. At least this section cab be easily read.

End Comment.

I cut the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Hope nobody dissaproves. :) EV (IL)

  • I added a paragraph commenting on the number of long songs he wrote that used several different styles of music (i.e. Boh Rhap, Innuendo, Liar, etc.). -TIM

Childhood picture

Found this pic. Is it genuine? Shawnc 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The pic looks like the ones i've got in a book "Freddie Mercury: A Definative Biography" but i think Kashmir Bulsara-Cooke holds the copyright over it. Image:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 10:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian or Indian

Well i find it kinda amusing some guy is bent on replacing Iranian with India. Parsis are very much an INDIAN community. They played leading role in Indian Indepenndence movement. They were exiled/expelled from 8th century Muslim Persia. Over 12 centuries they've adopted Indian culture, names and languages. As for people thumping BBC article as claim for his Iranian parentage, (whoever accused Beeb of factual correctness) Freddie had ancient connections to Persia but NOT Iran. Iran is a modern day Muslim state while Persia is an ancient culture. The term Indian Parsi in my opinion does justice to all his exotic ethnic origins. Lastly i must say in spirit Freddie was neither Indian nor Iranian nor Zanzibari or whatever, he was a Briton. Image:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 23:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They Practice a Persian religion. The haven't adopted anything
Farrokh is also a Persian name Klymen

Multiple personalities...

Well funnily if your see [1] I.P 65.101.164.136 whp claims to be User:AfghanHistorian, you will find that he makes one edit calling Freddie an "Iranian" and then reverts back his own edit to the original version. Weird indeed. Image:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 10:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Parsi is not Persian

I dont get this, Parsis have CONSIDERABLE Gujarati ancestry and their mtDNA is closer to Gujaratis than modern day Iranians. Hope you get that.

NAME?!?!?!

Shouldn't we start by saying his real name, Farrokh Bulsara? Also, shouldn't this page be under "Farrokh Bulsara?"71.31.235.105 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

His real name is adequately explained (and bolded) in the first section under Early life, and the article title properly is his stage name as per the MOS. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Billvoltage 20:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, although it will be impossible to ever correct this, Freddie Mercury's real name was actually Farok Bulsara. That is according to the Sunday London Times article that can be found on this talk page. Freddie Mercury's mother has also confirmed this. On the other hand, I am puzzled by the birth certificate. Either it is fake or it may have the name incorrectly spelled.

Either it is fake, or his name is spelled as stated above... Birth Certificates are legal documents... Billvoltage 11:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if the birth certificate is real though, it has three different things crossed out. It is also not written very clearly. Maybe mistakes really were made on the birth certificate. I think that Freddie Mercury's mother knows what she named her son, and she claims that it was Farok.

You think. Fine, but remember that WP only works with verifiable sources. -- I@n ≡ talk 09:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway it is, his STAGE name was Freddie Mercury - the name the whole world knew him as. And as far as I know he did change his name, or at least tried. Now how his birth name was spelled is a problem - on the othere hand the question is how is it read? I saw many versions of the name Farrokh, Farok, Farokh... Donny 12:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Freddie died on the same day as KISS drummer and vocalist, Eric Carr, causing Eric's death to be somewhat overshadowed."

I dont know if thats compleatly true. Freddie is odvesly more well known then Eric. I think if Eric would have died on any other day it would have gotten very little press (if not none)

I have to agree with you, as how can one even compare KISS to Queen? Yes that is an opinion, but seriously, the charts show that Queen was more popular, and would, no doubt, have recieved more press-time... My thought on the subject Billvoltage 23:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to "Persian"

There is no article at "Persian," only a disambiguation page. If you need to use the word persion, please use a piped link such as "Persian people|Persian" or "Persian language|Persian" (and there are many other pages on Persian topics) so that a real article is reaches. Thanks. --Iggle 09:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

ok i have seen how this debate has been going. I think to satisfy the NPOV standards it is important to address both Freddie Mercury's Indian and Persian background. I made a little change. I said rather that he was the first Indian/Iranian rock star because despite what many people have been saying about how he denied his Indian background and stuff yet at the same time, many Indians (those who actually know about his background) consider him to be the first Indian rock star. Thus, satisfying both ends, I have addressed him as the first Iranian/Indian rock star. BengalRenaissanceEccentrica 00:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute

Kindly pay attention to the last changes made on this article by an anon ip editor, and take a consensus decision here. --Andy123(talk) 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


"The Voice?"

User 201.102.107.8 has posted saying that Freddie was known as "The Voice", but there is no place saying where this information was obtained... I have never heard him called this (although I am quite young, being barely three months old when he died :( ...) So if anyone knows an official site that may be sourced for this, I think it would keep Wikipedia safe on the "crystal ball" perspective. Billvoltage 01:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Songwriting

Perhaps a good idea would be to create a separate page focusing on his songwriting style (use of unusual rhythms, keys, chord functions, modulations) in a more musical way, and to leave here the basic data.

*

Holy F***!== Why are you trying to add the names of five students to an encyclopedia article? Talk about trivial factoids. That is worse than the Japanese legacy thing that was finally removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.44.85 (talk • contribs)

Alright one: Stop bitching. Two: Sign your things so I know who you are. use the four tildas. Three: I was using Vandal Fighter. It was a rather major edit that deleted a lot of information. I thought that it looked suspicious so I reverted it. Four: Your not god. This is a democratic experiment of sorts, so lets put it too a vote. If you win, cool, I really don't care that much. I just figured that an encyclopedia should have as much info as possible. Galactor213 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New Section is way too long

OK, there is nothing wrong with the newly added material. But it is way too long for an encyclopedia article. If you add things, just add a paragraph or something.

I agree the new bio can be edited down and cleaned up 136.159.187.178 05:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, saying this is a flash point right now, I'll just say that I think the length is fine. However with random deletions without discussion, vandals calling him a homo, and odd things like that, I'm going to say that we should have a vote or something before shit hits the fan. Thoughts? Galactor213 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mercury was Parsi which means Persian which means Iranian

Who here is denying this? Klymen

For starters, anyone with a grasp of the differences between cultural origins and nationality. (By way of illustration, my paternal heritage comes from Sindh province in what is now Pakistan, but was still unified British India when the family was still there. It doesn't make me Pakistani.) Cain Mosni 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Although it is nowadays generally spelt (and pronounced) Farsi or Farsee.
Nuttyskin 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If Freddie Mercury was a black man in US he would have been called African American. Even though his grand grand grand grand parents would have been from Africa. Same with being of Persian descent and living in India.
Parsee's moved to India to keep their Persian Identity after the Islamic conquest. They didn't move there because they wanted to become Indians. Parsee's are Iranian. They always were and always will. They practice Persian festivals (Norooz), they follow a Persian religion. They name their kids Persian names. The only asinine argument here is the one saying Freddie had nothing to do with Iranians. As a Parsee he is Persian. He, himself even once said he is Persian. Klymen
Freddie Mercury is Persian according to the following bios

http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/mercury_freddie/bio.jhtml http://freddie.helenheart.com/fred_bio.htm http://launch.yahoo.com/ar-257248-bio--Freddie-Mercury

If Parsi's moved to India to escape Islamic culture, and Iran is the archtypal theocratic Islamic state, can you not see it's a little ludicrous to call Mercury "Iranian"? Also when neither he nor his parents never were in that country for a single second of their lives? --feline1 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What Iran is right now as far as Islam goes doesn't take away from the fact that it is a Persian state. Also Iran was not always the "archtypal theocratic Islamic state" that you call it. This has been the case for the past 27 years. Before 1979, even though Islam was the major religion, Iran as a country was quite secular.
To be ethnically Iranian or Persian you don't have to visit the country. I am ethnically Persian and I have never been to Iran. I also want to emphasize that Iran and Persia are one of the same. Persian and Iranian are in no way different than each other. Klymen 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Facts do not change to suit individual desires. Cain Mosni 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they do not. Klymen 00:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Good. I'm so glad we've established that what you "want to emphasize" (your own words) is completely irrelevent to the facts as they should be stated (this being an encyclopaedia, not a debating ground).
The documented fact (that inconvenient concept again - documentation and verifiability) is that he was Indian, born to Indian Parsee parents, and no more Iranian than I am either an Indian or a Celt in spite of my heritage. You can't sensibly go back countless generations to a culture's deep origins just to suit your own convenience. Yes, Parsee culture has its distant roots in Persia. No, it's not the same as being Persian (Mooness' attempts to squeeze a hominym out of the two notwithstanding). And certainly not Iranian. Any way you cut it, the Iranian tag is ludicrous. And whether you consider yourself Persian, Iranian, or a 3-headed Venusian is not going to change those facts. It's tantamount to debating whether grass is really green, or should we call it blue just because blue is prettier. Not that it's going to change anything. This subject is rapidly becoming a farce and, I imagine, a perfect example for detractors of Wikipedia to point at (and that's after only monitoring the situation for just one day). Cain Mosni 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Feline1...any 2nd + generation immigrants by your discription would be stripped of their ethnic identity. Irish-Americans have lived generations upon generations outside of Ireland and in the United States. That doesn't mean they aren't Irish. Go to a pub on St. Patty's day and you'll see... they are Irish and Proud. As far as Iran's current government. Sweetheart, its only 30 years old. Iran is a very diverse country filled with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Bah'ai and yes... the birthplace and truest blood Zorostrians. To deny history because of current events is just ludicrous...not to acknowlege a vast and ancient group of individuals. Mooness 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, frankly I think it is pathetic, these continual attempts to pigeon-hole Freddie Mercury into your own pet ethnic labels. What a surprise, Klymen is a self-professed Persian, and wants themself & Mercury to bathe in the same spotlight! You don't think Freddie was a slightly bigger person than that? He sang to people in every continent, no matter what colour their skin was or where they were born! It's pointless continually editing the opening sentences of the article to just have one label - the man was born in Africa, educated in India, lived as an adult in Britain, whilst touring the world, from Brasil to Japan, from Australia to Canada. His parents were born and raised in India, a Parsi family, tracing their ancestry back to ancient Persia ... and you want to reduce that all to one stupid little label saying "Iranian"?? You really think that sums it all up best? You really think that's the best editorial style? The most neutral point of view? Jeez, this is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia - leave the editing to the grown-ups, eh?--feline1 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear feline1, No need to be sensitive about the matter. I am in no way trying to pigeon hole Freddie in to my own pet ethnic labels. I’m using cited facts to back my arguments. Freddie Mercury’s parents were Persian. I can give you thousands upon thousands of articles, books and biographies of him that would support this. I have no problem with Indians taking credit for his nationality, however to take away the fact that he was Persian and replace it with Indian is where I draw the line. By all means, they should write a paragraph saying how Freddie is admired and loved in India as an Indian Rock star. I would not delete it. However to take out the Iranian part and replace it with Indian, that’s when they’re doing the pigeon-holeing that you’re talking about. I never took out the Indian part in the opening paragraph however I believe the current edit of the article which does not mentioned background is the appropriate one. It is best to let the readers decide for themselves. You are right, he did sing for everyone regardless of skin color or race. And I think you can learn something from him. I honestly think you don’t think much of Iranians and seeing one of your heroes being one is bothering you. I mean why else would you say, calling Freddie Mercury Iranian is reducing him to a stupid label. I can’t believe you would go as far as commenting about a NPOV after making a comment like that. I believe you’re in more dire need of growing up than me. Please leave personal issue out of your arguments and stick to facts. Klymen 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Feline, the only edits I had read were "British-Indian of Persian heritage" and simply "musician". I don't know what you might be referring to when you say that Klymen pigeon holed Freddie into "Iranian". You are right, Freddie Mercury was a man of the world. As such, if we mention his place of birth, place of education, the many countries where he toured and created music, and if we acknowlege his parents...then should we not also honor his parental heritage? I didn't have any issues with "British-Indian of Persian heritage" and I have little issue with just "musician". Although, unlike Klymen, I don't find this to be the best resolution. The best resolution was to be all inclusive (ie. "British-Indian of Persian Heritage") and not at all exclusive. I feel like his persian heritage is simply being oversighted because of the current political stigmas associated with Iran today. Unfortunately, I find this bias somewhat juvenile. Irrelavent of what a countries current status is, individuals should not be denied the right to express their heritage and to find pride in a shared heritage of a famed individual. So, if you claim that Klymen is simply Iranian and wants to thus associate himself with Freddie Mercury... why would you even deny him that? No one is denying the Indians or the British from their claim. Sadly, I feel like I'm hearing personal biases rather than facts. I do have to admit that Klymen has provided many documents wherein Freddie's parents have clearly stated their Persian heritage. If for nothing else, to honor them, I would think that it is not too much to ask that his Persian Heritage be acknowledged.Mooness 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying anything - I am just sick to the back teeth of these asinine edits and reversions to this page nearly EVERY BLOODY *DAY* (jeez!). Responsible editors have repeatedly contstructed succinct and appropriate sentences for the opening paragraph which mention all of Mercury's various ethnic and national ties, and every day, some pillock comes along and deletes it all and just puts "Indian" or "Iranian" or "British" instead. It's totally tedious and personally my patience with it is exhausted.--feline1 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Feline, I think your a sensable person. Lets us just agree on one discript and then stick together against people that continually edit. I mean, I feel like we have agreed that its the EDITS that are pissing us off more then the all inclusive discripts. So, my vote is for "British-Indian of Persian Heritage"... I think that covers everyone and everything and should please most people. I read somewhere somethign about "British-Asian", but that's so vague to me. Feels like we'd be mixing heritage with a general location "asia" or with the race "asian" which would confuse future generations reading these pages to no end. This is after all an encyclopedia, so lets be informative. "British-Indian of Persian Heritage" gets my vote!Mooness 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is too bad that you do not know what the term "British Asian" means. Maybe if you read about it on the Wikipedia article, you would realize that it is the correct term for someone who was of full Indian Parsi descent and did not move to England until he was 17. By the way, since when was Persia a country? I am not a historian or anything, but I happen to know that the country is now called Iran and that people from this country are referred to as "Iranian." 67.190.44.85 04:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How bout we just call him "Of Middle Eastern/Asian descent" and get it over with? Seriously, there is more important things to discuss. Get over it. I'm tired of seeing revert wars over Freddie Mercury's ethnicity. Who cares? The man is famous for a lot more things then being Persian/Indian/Flavor of the day. Just my two cents. Galactor213 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening Sentence makes no sense!!

Folks, this sentence makes no sense: "Freddie Mercury was a British Indian of Persian origin musician." I don't care what you call Freddie Mercury in terms of ethnicity, just make it make sense! To me "British Asian" is the right kind of compromise. It is just plain weird to call Freddie Mercury Persian, since the country is now called Iran. Either call him Indian, Iranian or Asian. But don't write sentences like the one quoted above.

How about we don't say where he is from, the readers can decide for themselves. After reading the whole article Klymen
He was born of British Indian nationality - i.e. the country whose citizenship he could claim was British India. There is not, and never was, any such place as British Asia. On the other hand, if you're talking ethnicity, and presuming British nationality, then Asia's a big place - again India is still more correct. It is also true that he was of Persian culturual origins by way of his Parsee origins, but again it is more accurate to state specifically that he was of Parsee which implies the Persian link. Given those simple facts it's not difficult to structure a sentence which is both gramatically correct and accurate. I'm not going to bother, because I have no doubt a fool with an agenda will just monkey wrench it again. This page is demonstrating all that's worst about Wikipedia, which is a shame and utterly disrespectful to the man's memory. Cain Mosni 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Solo albums

Freddie Mercury also released two solo albums: Mr Bad Guy (1985) and, with Spanish soprano Montserrat Caballé, Barcelona (1988).

If he performed with someone else (Montserrat Caballé), it isn't a solo, by definition. JRawle (Talk) 22:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is his solo project, apart from Queen.

11th May - Several Changes

I deleted the last part of the 'singer' bit (since evidence for the "gimmick" quote hasn't been yet posted), and added some comments on him both as pianist, instrumentalist and songwriter. Hope you enjoy them and feel free to point out any mistake you find or to complement the sections.


The new changes are very interesting, but need to be trimmed a lot. The goal of an encyclopedia article is to be concise. It should also be easy to read for a person who does not know a thing about Queen. TAY

- I think the best idea would be to make the extended sections in separate pages, but to keep the added info. Plus you don't need to know about Queen to read the 'pianist' bit :)

I agree that a lot of the cut information was interesting. The Japanese legacy was also interesing, but I also cut it out because it cluttered up the article. I think that the current length is just about right.

I think it's ridiculous having half of the article focusing on his homosexuality and such short info about the music.

At the same time, I think that a lot of people are interested in personal aspects as well. But it is definitely ok to add more to the songwriting, singing and musical inspiriation sections. TAY


vocal range

The article claims that Freddie's highest recorded note was a falsetto "D". I'm not sure this is correct: listening to "Seven Seas of Rhye" from Queen II, and examining EMI's published "off the record" transcription, he appears to sing a top A in that one (in "for-ev-ahhhhhhhhhhh!").--feline1 08:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC) F1 is impossible to sing. I think his lowest note was around G#2 but not F1. C2 is a deepest basso profundo note and only few sing lower Barry White who could sing G1.

The A in Seven Seas of Rhye is an A5 (second A above middle C, 880 Hz). The D note in that article claim is a D6 (third D above middle C). So, it's higher than the A you're talking about. --Manolito Mystiq 10:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the most asinine editing I have ever SEEN on wikipedia

Really, this article seems to be subjected to some of the most moronic editing I have ever seen on wikipedia. All this stuff about Mercury's nationality is covered in the Talk archive. Repeated uncommented reverts by moronic troll IP addresses is just completely ahine.--feline1 23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree! I think mostly everyone in the South Asian scholarship studies has accepted the fact that Parsis are an Indian/Pakistani ethnic group and are distinct from their ancestors. Heck, Jinnah should call himself Central Asian because a thousand years ago, his Gujjar ancestors emigrated from there to India. His own authoritative biography and b.c. have said that he was Indian as well. I also think its an utter shame we argue so much over a small piece of biographic detail. I dont think Mercury would have even cared what people called him and would have been fine with being "British". Really, the idea of Mercury's "pride in Persian origins" is kind of exaggerated. People take them, if they were made, way too seriously. And come one, Parsis are proud in Persian origins (no different than what Freddie would have done, if he meant it) and we dont see the same edit wars for them, do we? Basically, someone's trying go back a thousand years and change history. -Afghan Historian 23:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made some simple and concise edits to the article to try and prevent these moronic "Iranian" vs "Indian" edit wars, adding some explanatory sentances. Clearly, the adjective "Iranian" is inappropriate to describe Mercury: he was not born in the country, nor were his parents, nor did he ever visit the country, and in fact the current Islamic state of "Iran" did not even EXIST during much of his life (being instead the kingdom of Persia.) Nor was he a "Tanzanian musician" - Zanzibar was a British colony when Freddie's parents moved there (from INDIA) and not part of the republic of Tanzania till nearly 20 years later. Freddie never played a note of music in that country!--feline1 23:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Iran was known as "Iran" throughout Mercury's life, having adopted that as its English name in 1935, before he was born, although the Shah declared both "Iran" and "Persia" acceptable names in 1959. So Iran was in use as the name of the country throughout Mercury's life, with Persia used as an alternate name from 1959 to 1979 or so, or less than half his life. See Iran naming dispute. --Metropolitan90 04:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Freddie Mercury was Persian. It doesnt matter if he was born in India, Zanzibar or Mars. Parsi's in India are Persian(Iranians). This is not an opinion it is a fact. Klymen
OK, so my great-grandparents were Irish, and I was born in Scotland. Does that make me Irish?
Nuttyskin 14:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. You're Scotish Irish. Or Scotish of Irish descent. The same ways black people in US are African Americans. 136.159.187.178
I'm sorry - that's absurd. My maternal grand-parents where part-Irish, part-Scottish, part-Hugenot. Does that make my Mum Irish Scottish Hugenot English, and me Irish Scottish Hugenot Sindhi English? Where the Dickens does it stop? Cain Mosni 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

talents

I think all his talents should be highlighted and maybe some audio samples. - Mtmtmt 00:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, if you know how to do it, then put some in!
    • I am going to talk with the webmaster of www.f-mercury.com.ar about using some audio clips. - Mtmtmt 04:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

found something

I found this on anouther talk page (Talk:Indian rock)

"Mercury's Iranian, not Indian, why's he on here?"

"Do you know what a Parsi is? In medieval times, the Persian empire was invaded by the Arabs and converted to another religion - some Persian Zoroastrians fled to India, where their beliefs would be tolerated entirely. Thus Freddie Mercury's family have lived in India longer than most families can trace their ancestry - they are for all intents and purposes Indian, or Indo-Iranian, or Irano-Indian - go back far enough and anyone can trace their ancestry to another country, but people dont divide the British into Celts and Vikings. The geographic region where generations of a family have lived, what culture they have lived in, etc, are obiously more important than some kind of tenuous ancestral claim. Why did Freddie Mercury favour being called a Persian? Many people speculate it was either Parsi nationalism, or some belief that it was more vogue than being an Indian - he wouldnt be the first person of Indian origin to have some kind of shame in the poor country of his birth. I assume it is because of his own insistance that you believed this, however, his article - Freddie Mercury - make it fairly clear." - Mtmtmt 07:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Appearance

I'm certainly new at this, but one thing does come to mind: all photographs of the man contain his "70's image." The statue was a nice touch, but no detail or illustration truly shows the change in hair, dress, build, the mustache, and the alteration of his image in general. --AWF

I agree and if I knew the first thing about uploading images and getting permission to do so, I would fix it... However I will add it to the Queen wikiproject "To Do" List... Billvoltage 02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

mustache against AIDS?

A little known fact is that Freddie Mercury did not succumb to AIDs until after he shaved his powerful mustache. It should also be noted that Ervin "Magic" Johnson grew a Freddie Mercury style mustache shortly after being diagnosed with HIV to combat the disease. This fact can be backed up by Robert "Magic" Jones.

the above paragraph was added in a new edit, but it doesn't really seem valid to me and I think it should be suported by some facts... On the other hand I don't think it matters, and that it was logical that he shaved when he was ill...

if you find this to be important it can be put backDonny 22:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I really have to doubt it's legitimate. Funny, though.--69.145.123.171 23:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

God of you to put this here but I think it's pretty much vandalism, as true or not true as it may be (he did actually shave his mustache shortly after being diagnosed). Galactor213 02:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

infobox

Should the infobox read Freddie Mercury or Farrokh Bulsara? Because he never officially changed his name. - Mtmtmt 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Freddie Mercury". - Candyfloss 21:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names
While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start with the complete version. - Mtmtmt 09:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought he legally changed his name in the early 70s to Mercury. - Zone46 23:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Leaving random links sloshed everywhere and not converting them into refs is a sure fire way to fail your nomination. I know you didn't nominate it, but if you converted the links it'd probably pass. And perhaps vary the captions. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 11:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)q

In terms of writing, the article is very good. I agree that the only major problem is the linking issue. You need to have references at the bottom of the page. Some of the things need to be referenced as well. For instance, there are quotes in the "Personal Life" section that are not even referenced at all. If the sources of these quotes could be found, it would really help the quality of the article. tay

OK, now that references have been added, it is important to try to document every quote and other facts. In particular, the article is still lacking sources for some of the quotes. If I cannot find them, I will eventually erase them and replace them with quotes that can be cited. After these additions, I think that the article, with a few grammatical improvements, should be accepted as a Good Article. However, I would still be interested in knowing the specific reasons for why it failed the first time. Again, I am assuming that the major problem involved the lack of references and citations.

Please stop changing the edits to the "Reference" section

Over the past week, I added references in order to cite all of the sources. Since I was the one who retrieved virtually all of these citations over the past 6 months, I am quite disappointed to see that some editors are attempting to ruin my efforts here. If you cannot make positive contributions to this article, please refrain from making any at all. Even though I actually wrote over 60% of this article, I am tired of having to continuously fight against idiot editors. In fact, the reason why this article is so much better than those for the other three Queen members is that it is the ONLY one that I have been involved with. Please respect the work that I have put into this article and stop what you are doing. In particular, stop reverting my edits, and stop making edits if you do not speak English well. Enough is enough!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.159.218 (talk • contribs) .

Due to your excellent knowledge of English you are certainly able to read the following Wikipedia guidelines: (1a) Wikipedia:Civility, (1b) Wikipedia:No personal attacks, (2a) "Wikipedia's current best practice for numbered footnotes (using <ref>...</ref>/<reference/> tags) is explained at Wikipedia:Footnotes", (2b) "IMPORTANT: Footnotes using {{ref}}/{{note}} templates (and their variants) are becoming obsolete: A more up-to-date system uses MediaWiki software <ref>...</ref> and <references/> tags ..." (Wikipedia:Footnote3) – Best regards from the "idiot" who improved your references section... Candyfloss 14:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To Illiterate German Idiot/Nazi,

As I previously explained, please refrain from ruining the article with your poor grammar and fascist manner of removing footnotes. Although you are probably a Nazi, the original purpose of the Wikipedia encyclopedia was to be democratic! Therefore, references should be as easy as possible for ANYONE to change. Since I was the one who added 90% of the references in the first place, this point is of particular concern to me. I should also warn you that I am on the verge of removing several more of the quotes that are not cited. Please refrain from being a Nazi while I finish fixing the references. On the other hand, if really are intent upon ruining this article, I do not have time to stop you. I notice that you have been coming to this site every day for quite a long time, but that, in general, your contributions do more harm than good. On the other hand, I really do not have the kind of energy for fixing this article that you seem to have for ruining it (i.e. I do not visit the site in the obsessive manner that you obviously do).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.159.218 (talk • contribs) .

??????????????????????????????????????????? 67.161.159.218, why don't you sign your posts? Candyfloss 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To German Fascist,

Again, you simply do not seem to understand the principles behind what made Wikipedia the "democratic" encyclopedia. That is, until fascists like yourself started trying to take it over. The purpose of Wikipedia was for any person to be able to anonymously come in (without have to sign in or give out information about themselves) and edit pages without having to fear that they are being watched by anyone. However, since you are clearly a fascist, you do not understand this concept. As I explained above, because it blocks casual users from being able to easily add references, the cryptic Wikitext that you keep trying to add is also fascist in nature. Although Wiki-obsessed people like you may find Wikitext to be "cool" and "trendy", it is also very undemocratic. Damn am I tired of having to explain basic democratic principles to Nazis! (From Anonymous. Ha Ha! I bet you wish you could dig my identity up and then put me in a concentration camp!)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.159.218 (talk • contribs) .

..... - Candyfloss 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I must agree Candyfloss, he should sign his comments. Secondly, I would appreciate it if we would quit calling people names. You also should have proof to back up your statistics (e.g. the percentiles...) I wish to say that if you calm down, and actually read the wikipedia guidlines for references, you will be able to understand the other user's point of view....Billvoltage 02:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

is this birth certificate real?

Is this a real brith certificate? Did it come from freddie's mum? http://mr-mercury.co.uk/Images/Birthcertificatefreddie.jpg Anyone know? (BLM)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.159.218 (talk • contribs) .

Jones, Lesley-Ann. Freddie Mercury. The Definitive Biography. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1997. - Candyfloss 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Source of this quote??

Here is a quote that has been added to this article a couple of times:

"All my lovers asked me why they couldn't replace Mary (Austin) but it's simply impossible. The only friend I've got is Mary and I don't want anybody else. To me, she was my common-law wife. To me, it was a marriage. We believe in each other, thats enough for me. I couldn't fall in love with a man the same way as I have with Mary."

Does anyone know where it comes from? Can you cite a source, such as a magazine article or an interview? If not, I don't think that it belongs here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.159.218 (talk • contribs) .

Gay or Bisexual?

Does anyone know whether Freddie Mercury was gay or bisexual? Under the links to other articles, he is listed as both.

No, nobody knows. It's a secret.

He was bisexual. I'll removed the "Gay musicians" tag; it's basically redundant. WesleyDodds 22:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I love how you know all... Seems to me that we should let you take over the entire operations of Wikipedia... Also, if the person who asked this first will look into the archives, we have discussed this before... Billvoltage 02:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He said "I am as gay as a daffodil, my dear!", doesn't that make him homosexual?

Well call me old-fashioned, but I tend to regard what people do in bed as more pertinent to their sexuality, rather than just what they say to the press...--feline1 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair-does, and besides I always found daffodils a bit bisexual anyway...

Are Queen fans idiots?

People, there are things on this Wikipedia page that are pretty disturbing. In the first place, although I have attempted to change a misspelled word several times, someone deliberately reverts the word back. Folks, "millenium" is not a word! I understand that it was probably just a careless typo. However, it is pretty ridiculous to refuse to edit a misspelled word.

I am also getting tired of the absurd notion on this site that Freddie Mercury was Iranian. Although certain sources may claim this, it is OBVIOUSLY not true. Damn am I tired of trying to edit this!!

A final issue involves the fact that I, as the primary author of this article, should have the right to use my own preferred citation method. After all, I was the one who added 24 of the 28 references. I feel that the use of Cite.php in place of standard tags that anyone can easily edit is actually contrary to the basic principle of Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is supposedly the "editable" encyclopedia, and the word "wiki" apparently comes from a Hawaiian word meaning "fast". This asinine HTML-like Wikitext that is found in place of standard tags is an abomination, as far as I am concerned. On other hand, I do not have any problem with putting citations after the period, if that is easier to read. That is fine by me, even though you would not do this in a scientific paper. I also have no problem with using another citation method that would be easy for everyone to edit. In fact, it is exciting when people make interesting new edits.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.159.218 (talk • contribs) .

(1) Stop your ridiculous personal attacks. (2) "as the primary author of this article"/"I actually wrote over 60% of this article": You wrote "over 60%" because you have removed many contributions by other users... (3) Of course, "'millenium' is not a word". But it doesn't matter if this is a word or not if "millenium" (sic!) is part of a cited article: It has to be the same spelling as in the original title, no matter if this QUOTE (!) is grammatically correct or not (then use: "sic"). (4) Why did you remove my corrections regarding footnotes 2 (dead link), 23, 27 and 29? (5) I agree with you that it should be easy to add references: The new <ref>...</ref> citation method makes it a lot easier (!) to add references IMO (e.g. you don't have to add the footnotes in the right order in the references list). - Candyfloss 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I completley agree with Candyfloss. And I never disputed that you wrote "over 60% of this article," I merely asked if you would show us facts about this, otherwise it was mere speculation...and you talk abotu a scientific paper, but... well... You seem to not know to keep the spelling presented from the original article being quoted... And as for references, I know less than I should about wikipedia's reference bits, and as such, I do not mess with them...
So, in conclusion, no being a Queen fan, or even just a Freddie Mercury fan does not make you an idiot... (if I were to be mean, and throw another personal attack back at you, this would be the ideal time... However, I see myself as above that level, and shan't do it) Billvoltage 21:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I DO NOT AGREE!!

Freddie is known for his talents, not for the bad choices he made in his life! He screwed up! It is not the fans fault, so stop calling fans stupid!

I understand your concern. However, the above remarks (about Queen fans being stupid) were aimed at everyone else (not him, but the rest of us) because we keep editing the page, when he believes that only he should have control of it. Billvoltage 07:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Billvoltage. I think the sence was "you that are here editing are idiots" not "you are idiots to listen to Queen." Or so I understood from the talk earlier. Still is pretty offensive. Donny 15:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Related?

How are these two sentences related? "Mercury wrote most of his songs on the piano, often choosing keys which where difficult for the guitar (e.g. E flat major). Brian May has remarked that this necessitated him to employ some difficult fretboard fingerings, and that this contributed to the bands' distinctive guitar sound." And: "Although Mercury possessed only rudimentary skills on the guitar, he also wrote many lines and riffs for various songs (e.g. those for "Ogre Battle" and "Bohemian Rhapsody") on guitar. He also wrote "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" on the guitar."

They were both in the same paragraph, but they seem to be two different ideas, competing for front stage. Billvoltage 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Both sentences relate to how Freddie writes songs. Mostly he uses the piano, but sometimes he'll use the guitar. ... discospinster talk 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

ie vs eg

This was recently put into an edit summary: "and I.E. means in example. They're the same thing, it just has to be capitalise" which is incorrect. eg doesn't equal ie... they ar different things altogether. IE means id est not in example. Taken from wikipedia as meaning, ""That is (to say)", "in other words", or sometimes "in this case", depending on the context. Never equivalent to exempli gratia (e.g.).

Id est, i.e., "that is", is commonly abbreviated "i.e."; in this usage it is sometimes followed by a comma, depending on style." EG, however, means Exempli Gratia, which means "for the sake of example" (As taken from wikipedia, "Usually shortened in English to "for example" (see citation signal). Often confused with id est (i.e.).

Exempli gratia, i.e., "for example", is commonly abbreviated "e.g."; in this usage it is sometimes followed by a comma, depending on style."

Also taken from wikipedia as describing the confusion, "↑ Exempli gratia (e.g.) and id est (i.e.) are commonly confused and misused in colloquial English. The former, exempli gratia, means "for example", and is used before giving examples of something ("I have lots of favorite colors, e.g., blue, green, and hot pink"). The latter, id est, means "that is", and is used before clarifying the meaning of something, when elaborating, specifying, or explaining rather than when giving examples ("I have lots of favorite colors, i.e., I can't decide on just one")."

Thus given, these two do not mean the same thing, and as such I am changing it back, as it isn't not giving examples, but elaborating on the "keys which were difficult for the guitar" that freddie chose. Billvoltage 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Sexuality

Over the past few days I have seen changeds made that turn him from homosexual to bisexual. We need to find proof one way or the other before this escalades into an edit war... Please, if someone has this proof, present it, and let us decide if it is true or not... Billvoltage 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that any real proof of Freddie's sexual preference exists. Just leave the issue unsettled.

I can understand that, but we need to have the fact that, since there is no proof, we need to post, somewhere that people will see, a message saying to leave it unsettled. I do, however, still have two remaining questions; what musicians category (gay or bi) do we place him in, if any? and why did you not sign your post? Billvoltage 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very hard to prove this one way or the other. You really can't do it, honestly, because what is considered gay and what bi? The definitions of these words aren't even clear. I would put same-sex tendencies. This could mean either one, but it shows that Freddie Mercury was in the GLBT community. Also, I changed "his homosexuality" to "being gay" on the page. Homosexual is actually a politically incorrect term that is taken offensively by many gay people. I hope no one has a problem with this. Andrewlargemanjones

Homosexual is the scientifically correct term, but I really don't care enough to change it. Di4gram 08:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury consistently and concurrently referred to himself as gay and as bisexual: gay in that he was same-sex-attracted (as opposed to straight), and bisexual in that he was also opposite-sex-attracted (i.e., not exclusively same-sex-attracted). It might seem strange to us, used to exclusive definitions, but it's worth bearing in mind that in the early Gay Liberation movement, the word gay was considered to have a much broader meaning than now; and that many GL activists were behaviorally bisexual.
Nuttyskin 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should change the category to "LGBT musicians" or something like that. It seems like that would cover all the bases. - 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IP 62.47.178.31

Let me remind you that using sock puppets to revert is something you get banned for. It is very obvious who you are. All these sources: http://www.answers.com/freddie%20mercury = Freddie Mercury (WIKIPEDIA!) + http://www.allmusic.com, you put in the edit summary conforms that he is Parsi, in fact they even say Persian not Parsi. You should also know wikipedia is not considered a source for wikipedia editing :). Also the lower part of answers.com is taken directly from wikipedia. --Spahbod 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I totally sympathize with you. Cuntyfloss, or whatever her name is, seems really intent upon ruining this site. Well, I wish you good luck in getting this utterly obnoxious user banned! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boab (talk • contribs) 23:59, 03:37, 20 July 2006.
Why don't you sign your comments?? Best regards from - Candyfloss 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC). P.S.: User:Boab = User:67.161.159.218, see above.

Japanese Legacy: what is the point of it?

Guys, I really do not understand what the Japanese Legacy is all about. I mean, I just do not see what it adds to the article as a whole, other than a series of really trivial factoids. One thing that would help this section would be more analysis and fewer examples. Although I agree that this section could potentially be really interesting, without some kind of overall analysis, it is nothing more than a bunch of facts that fail to come together in any coherent way. I think that the whole section should be deleted unless people can come up with some good reasons for why it should be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boab (talk • contribs) .

Why is the word “millennium” misspelled yet again?

Folks, who is misspelling the word “millennium” again? The fact is that the actual poll conducted by Channel 4 in England was called the “ Music of the Millennium Poll,” or something along that line. I don’t care that the person who discusses this poll on a private web page spelled it incorrectly. The point is that the name of the poll was the “Music of the Millennium Poll.” There is no justification for misspelling it in the references just because some random person on the internet misspelled it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boab (talk • contribs) .

Well, a quotation should be respected, and should be left as is, or else it's a edited quotation, which doesn't make it a true quotation anymore. On the other hand, I see your point. It's after all a typo. I don't think there can't be a wrong party for this. --Manolito Mystiq 10:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Reference/Citation method

OK, I think that it is time to have a real discussion about reference methods used for this article. My opinion is that the current method (Cite.php over the traditional "note" and "ref" tags) is really crappy. Among other things, it is harder to make changes, and all of that text is impossible to wade through. I am interested in some intelligent responses to this question, including what exactly the advantages of the current citation method are, since I certaintly cannot see them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boab (talk • contribs) .

Crucial references needed

One of the major problems with this article is the overall lack of citations. For instance, how do we know that Freddie had four extra teeth? Can anyone cite an actual source here? I find it strange that, although certain users (I will not name any names here!) insist upon using a citation method that I hate, they never add any references themselves! I added 24 of them, so now it is your turn to go figure out a source for Freddie's four extra teeth. Maybe the photographer Mick Rock would be a good start, but it is your turn to dig up your Queen/Freddie Mercury bios. We also need a page number for the Indian singer that Freddie liked a lot as a child. Since all of my Queen books are buried under a bunch of my parents' crap in the garage, I expect someone to go dig up the Laura Jackson book and tell me (it is in the first chapter). Another thing that needs to be confirmed involves the amount of money that Freddie Mercury was expected to have earned versus the amount in the will. It is in the book "A Show Must Go On," but the copy that I read was in a library that is 60 miles from my house! So go look it up, and make sure that the amounts of money are correct. A final thing is Freddie's height. I also heard that he was 5'9, but I am sure that this is in a book somewhere. So get your Queen junk out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boab (talk • contribs) .

Two of the links already do not work!

Holy F***! I cannot believe that links #9 and #11 already do not work! Well, I am certainly not getting involved! What in the word are you doing to this article? On the other hand, I had them all working perfectly about 1 month ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.190.44.85 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 July 2006. (= User:Boab)


Citation for teeth

GReat to see that someone added a citation for Freddie Mercury's teeth! Thanks for helping out here. But I still do not see any solid evidence for the four extra teeth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.67.56.94 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 July 2006.


He was not Iranian!

Can we make it an unwritten rule or something that he was not Iranian at all, to prevent further idiotic edits of this article? It has already been established that he was a "British Asian" of Indian Parsi heritage, and yet we still get moronic edits from people who appear to have their own agenda with this article. Craptacular 08:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, so wrong. Freddie Mercury's parents were Persian, which makes him Persian. I can give you pages upon pages of articles, books and biographies of Freddy Mercury that would support this. The only thing idiotic is trying to prove it otherwise. The only person with an agenda is someone who deletes referenced and confirmed facts not only by experts on the matter but by Freddie Mercury himself. 136.159.16.100 18:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll - Iranian, Persian, Parsi, Indian, British?

I propose a straw poll whereby we try to gain some consensus on how to describe Mr. Mercury's ethnic and national origins. It might not make a difference to the edit wars, but it will at least give us something to point to to show that we've talked about it. I'll go first:

  • "Freddie Mercury was a British musician of Parsi heritage." - if someone wants to know what a Parsi is, s/he can read the corresponding article; no need to call him an Indian Parsi, since Parsis are mostly Indian (geographically) by definition - "He was born in Zanzibar and spent his youth in India before emigrating to the U.K. at age 18."-- ... discospinster talk 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the introductory sentences of the article need be burdened with any of these words. It can just say "Freddie Mercury was a musician, best known as the frontman of the rock band Queen". That's the most important thing. All the details of how he was born in Zanzibar to Parsi Zoroastrian parents from India before moving to the UK - that is already dealth with quite clearly in subsquent paragraphs. Trying to summarise it in the intro with one term like "Iranian/Persian/Parsi/Indian/English" is just reductionist and partisan and will irritate people. It's also basically irrelvant to why Mercury was famous.--feline1 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't intending it to be the introductory sentence. It was just an example of a sentence. The information could go anywhere in the article. The issue irritates people already, as evidenced by the talk page and the history of the article. If we are going to mention his ethnicity at all, then there has to be some consensus on how it is to be done. Otherwise the article will continue to be reverted and re-reverted. ... discospinster talk 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that the opening statement should say: "Freddie Mercury was a British Aisan musician, best known as the frontman of the rock band Queen." The second best opening sentence would be: "Freddie Mercury was a musician, best known as the frontman for the British rock band, Queen." In the case of the second sentence, if you do not mention his ethnicity, you have to at least say that Queen was an English rock band.

Later in the "early life" section of the article, I think that "Indian Parsi" is the best term to use. However, I also think that it is appropriate to mention the fact that Zoroastrianism is an ancient Persian religion.

Finally, I think that it might not be a bad idea to acutally have an additional paragraph pertaining to Freddie Mercury's ethnicity. In that paragraph, it could be explained that he actually called himself "Persian." 138.67.56.93 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are having a poll on a fact. It's like having a poll on 2 + 2 being 4. Freddie Mercury's parents were Persian, thus he was Persian. End of story. Nothing about Freddie Mercury being Iranian is idiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.16.100 (talk • contribs)
Unfortunately, as you can see from this article's history, everyone seems to have a different view on what the "fact" is - Persian, Parsi, Iranian, Indian, Asian. Hence the poll. ... discospinster talk 19:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well can we use facts to settle the issue. I dont think anyone can disagree with the fact that his parents were Persian and thus he was Persian. It’s been mentioned in all of his bios and even he said he was Persian. How can people have different views on that. It's black or white. You're either Persian or you're not. And if he is Persian then by definition he is Iranian. I have no problem with people calling him Indian, but craptaculars constant removal of the Iranian section and his refusal to accept facts is very biased and one sided. Klymen 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
you guys, this is so silly. You all make it seem like this is a personal friend of yours whom you want to say YOU had dinner with last. Are you forgetting that this is an encyclopedia. The idea is to inform and that means that we should be having LOGICAL, ADULT conversations. Not this mud slinging of "my culture is better than yours". Go to the top of this page. Please be adults about this and understand that its not personal. His parents were Persian, meaning they IMMIGRATED FROM IRAN. He thus has Persian heritage. DONE. He grew up in India and was a national of both India and Britain. DONE. He was born in Zanzibar. DONE. Why, are you allowing your personal biases come in and ruin the bottom line facts? He's a British-Indian of Persian heritage born in Zanzibar. Done. Everybody, happy! Don't let your biases ruin facts. This is going to be around forever. People deserve to know the facts without bias.Mooness 20:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get that his parents immigrated from Iran? Parsis have been in India for 1,000 years. They are a culture distinct from the Persians who remained in Persia/Iran. Let me just add here that I have no chauvinistic motivation for my comments - I am not Persian or Iranian or Parsi and I have no ties to Asia whatsoever. ... discospinster talk 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Just the fact that people call him Parsee makes him Persian. Parsee means Persian. 136.159.187.178 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple - the birth certificate. He was born with British Indian nationality (that is to say - citizenship of British - i.e. colonial - India, not that he had dual British and Indian nationality, which the modern post-colonial Indian government does not allow), and of Parsee racial origins. The documentary evidence is incontrivertble. Romantically he may have liked to refer to himself as persian, but the fact remains he had no immediate links. I could call myself a cheesecake, it doesn't mean I am one. To claim that his Parsee heritage automatically makes him Iranian is positively absurd (political agendas notwithstanding). Cain Mosni 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not absurd at all, If you were to read on Parsee's you would know that they've always been Persian and will always remain Perisan. They do share the same cultural background with the Iranians. They practice Norooz (The Persian new year). They name their kids Persian names like Farrokh. They also practice an ancient Persian religion. The only reason they moved to India was to preserve their Persian identity. They didn't move to India because they were so eager to become Indians. Also if your parents were cheesecakes then yes you would be a cheesecake, no matter where you were born or how long your cheesecake parents and cheesecake ancestors lived somewhere else Klymen 00:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
He is not of "full Persian descent" any more than Quebecers are of "full French descent". French Canadians have a culture that draws on European French culture, but there are also distinctions due to being in a country with a large population of British heritage (not to mention the Italians, Caribbeans, Chinese, Ukrainians, Dutch, Jewish, and all the other ethnicities in Canada). This cannot be helped, of course, because French Canadians have been here for 400 years. ... discospinster talk 19:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
good point. They are called French Canadians. If you go to their articles there is no one trying to erase the french part out. That's what's going here. People want to take the Persian out of the article. That's my only problem with the edits. I don't mind keeping the Indian, but taking out the Persian, calling names and telling me to shut up is not a civil way to edit an article on wikipedia. Klymen 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to take the "Persian" out of "Parsi". I think everyone here acknowledges that Parsis have Persian heritage. What I disagree with is the assertion that Parsis are fully Persian, which you made above ("they've always been Persian and will always remain Perisan"). They are not, any more than French Canadians are fully French. They are French Canadian. And Parsis - though their language, culture, and religion are strongly historically Persian - are Parsis. ... discospinster talk 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"and of Parsee racial origin"-- wonderful! Your coming along. Now all you have to do is figure out what Parsee racial origin is and your find that saying he is of Persian (or more correctly Parseeyan-- meaning "those who are Parsee" meaning those of Parsee racial orgin, lol) heritage, is absolutely correct. Thank you for re-itterating a point which we have been trying to make! I would disagree with anyone wanting to call him Iranian, and to be completely honest, I don't know that anyone does. But, he is undoubtably (as even you stumbled into saying) of Persian heritage.Mooness 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just call him Parsi for gods sake, because he is Parsi. Alternatively just musician. --Spahbod ☼ 04:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

hey, we dont do this for other parsis. let's treat him the way other parsis are treated. call him indian parsi. "persian" is in the parsi. even if parsis are "persians", do we call tajik persians "iranians"? Sohrab Irani 07:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I also vote for British Indian of Perisan Heritage. I also would like to vote to keep the "First Iranian Rock star" along side with the "First Indian Rock Star" Paragraphs int he legacy sections. that should make everyone happy?! Klymen 07:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

we dont call other parsis the same way. no reason to do this for freddie. klymens wants this because he thinks mercury is an iranian rock star due to persian pride and will go far as to disregard 1300 years of history of parsi development in india to make an exception. Sohrab Irani 07:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

his official biography by lesley ann jones says "indian parsi". this was authorized by his parents and sister as well.! Sohrab Irani 07:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not disregarding anything. Parsi's have always been Persian. As far as Freddie went Please read these http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/mercury_freddie/bio.jhtml http://freddie.helenheart.com/fred_bio.htm http://launch.yahoo.com/ar-257248-bio--Freddie-Mercury

These are offical bios of him from VH1 and Yahoo music. I can give you many more if that what it takes. His parents were Persian and Freddie was Persian. He even said it himself. Klymen 07:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, vhi was known to have made some mistakes. also, his official biography carries more weight than online sketches based on faulty urban-legend based information. many also say his first name was "frederick"! also, you disregard the racism that pressured freddie to say he was "persian". also, look at Parsi article and read about the mitochondrial study. Sohrab Irani 07:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

you dont seem to acknowledge his offical bio book from lesley ann jones. read it and tell me whether you think freddie's an "iranian". you know, khomeini should call himself arab, because he's a sayyid.! Sohrab Irani 07:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying Freddie's Indian background. I have no problem with his indian background. That is not my problem. My problem is you, denying his Persian back ground. A background which is a confirmed fact by his parents, sister and himself. He had a Persian name, He practiced a Persian religion. He called himself Persian. Yet for some strange reason you keep editing the article to take that out. That is not in good faith. I want you to know that I'm not trying to say Freddie Mercury was ONLY PERSIAN. I understand the parsi's have a rich and unique background that is different that thoes of the Persian in Iran. However, they are of Perisan origins, They follow the same customes (Persian new year NoRooz). I hope we can come to an agreement to keep both his Indian and Iranian legacy in the legacy section of the article. I'm pretty sure that's they way Freddie would have wanted it Klymen 07:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You want to talk about weight. I don't think you can disagree as far as Freddie Mercury goes, no one carries more weight than Freddie Mercury himself. Please do not bring politics in to this. What khomieini should be called is a totally different topic. I can give you wide array of things I think he should be called. but as far as Freddie goes, I have no problem with his Indian nationality and his Parsi background. I just want to know why you want to take out his Persian background. Something that was not only important to him but also to his parents and family. Klymen 07:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


But WHAT is the problem? It's a complete no brainer. You just need to add a sentence saying "Mercury on more than one occasion referred to his ethnic background as "Persian", along with all the other sentences about India, Parsis, Zanzibar, Ealing, Munich, his love of Japanese antiques ;-) All this stuff can go in a succinct paragraph. It's so simple! --feline1 09:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop trying to run Wikipedia articles soely based on what they think is right, or appropriate. Saying that the five Hectics band members are unneseccary is just like saying that listing the Queen is. But I'm sure you'll come up with an excuse why it's okay to have one of Freddie's band's but not the other in his article. Stop trying to be a control freak and decide for everyone what's appropriate and what isn't. This is not your encyclopedia. It is a free network and you have no right to be removing other people's verified information just because you personally don't approve of it as an article. Be it for it's legnth, information. or just because you don't want someone meddling with your precious vision of the "Perfect" Freddie Mercury artice. Some people enjoy an article with more information and just because you wouldn't want to read it dosen't mean you have the right to decide for everyone. Let other people have a chance to change the article. Whether or not you deem it ideal in your eyes. Again it's not your encyclopedia and you should not be treating others verified information as a lead weight on your precious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.10.182 (talk • contribs)

Have any of you squabbling teenagers READ the wikipedia Parsi article?? It is crystal clear what the term means and their Persian ancestry. This straw poll is not going to be of any worth if most of the people voting on it are demonstrably moronic.--feline1 09:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks against other editors.. ... discospinster talk 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but we all have a breaking point. Much of the drivel on this article constitutes an attack: on reason, logic, and my faith that there is hope left for humanity. How can someone's vote be valid if they are a mentalist? In the UK, for example, people who have been certified as insane are not eligible to vote.--feline1 12:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could come with a final resolution on what we're going to put in the opening paragraph. I think "British-Indian of Persian decent" should cover it all. Klymen 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds so wonderful to me! A conclusion! I like "British-Indian of Persian decent" a lot. I think that does cover everything. I've been staying quiet because I really wanted to see what everyone's points were. I think Feline said it best... it IS crystal clear that Parsi's are of Persian decent and that is all anyone is asking for here. So, lets just agree on that. And Mr. Irani(Ironic, really that your name is Sohrab from the Persian/Iranian Book of Kings by the Persian/Iranian poet Ferdowsi and your last name is "Irani")... I just wanted to point out that Tajik's, Western Afghans, and even Kashmiri's often do consider themselves "Persian" though not Iranian. Even amongst us southern Azarbaijani's there are those who celebrate No-rooz and understand that it is imbedded in the Zorastrian tradition and call themselves Persian. Why would you even minimize the first and only Empire of your ancestors? I would be proud that the Parsi's spread so far and wide. That they envoked the doctrines of peace and humility. I would be proud of them! So, I do think that its fair to say that he too is of "Persian decent". Mooness 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It is quite moronic to prefer the term Persian to Parsi. If anyone in this "debate" is in any doubt what Parsi means, they can go and read the wiki artilcle on it. Parsi is not IDENTICAL to Persian, othewise why would the term exist. It is like saying Quebecois is identical to French, or that Kiwi is identical to British. We do not need to have a vote about this, it is demonstrable through appeal to elementary reason. User "Kylmen" virtually insults the intelligence of us all with their willful stupidity on this issue.--feline1 19:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If I ever said anything that was insulting your intelligence or some other user, you can use facts and logic to debunk my arguments. The only one insulting your intelligence is yourself with personal attacks. Please if you have any problems with anything I have said, I am open to discussion. If you prove to me that I am wrong then not only would I back down from my argument I would also start to back your argument. So please be civil and participate in good faith.136.159.187.178 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Look missus IP address, I have been discussing facts, you can check this my reading my talk posts: its easy, you move your eyes across the words. Remember to open your eyelids first if that helps. If you are now want tell lies as well by pretending that this entire discussion is not moronic, then sorry, I can't. The Baby Jesus would strike me down.--feline1 22:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
OK... you guys... Persian comes from Parsi-yan -- it is ONLY the group name. Like Irish vs. Irishmen or English vs. Englishmen or America vs. Americans (who by the way, include Mexicans, Canadians, etc... we're all "American" from the Americas). Iranians don't even call themselves Persian in Iran. And the only reason they do it outside of Iran is because westerners labeled global maps and called Iran, Persia. But, in reality... its never been Persia to the rest of us. I think this is a really funny cultural divide issue. In the East, Middle, far, western Asia, South East Asia... Iran is Iran. Persian is the group of people who are of Parsee decent. I can't seriously be the only person who is feeling like 1 strand of hair is being picked apart because of bad labeling. Its clearly in the word Parsi-yan (they who are Parsi).Mooness 19:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I also just want to add something on a personal note and would like you guys to reflect on it. My kids will probably be born in the US, as I was since my parents immigrated here. And if they ever denied their Azari heritage... I'd WHOOP there asses--lol ;) I assume those of you that are Indian, Parsi, or whatever you choose to call yourselves, would feel the same way. So, just think back that Freddie would be most like us or maybe our children. I would honor his "persian decent" just for the sake of his parents. I don't know why everyone is being so phobic about it, anyway. His grandparents were DEFINATELY born and raised in Iran. You can't deny that and no one is even asking for that... you too afraid to even "gesture" in that direction by saying he is of Persian decent, which as I have previously pointed out, is a far cry from stating that he's Iranian.Mooness 19:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

uh mooness, many indians in bombay have the last name irani. yet they consider themselves indian. many americans have the last name 'english' yet they consider themselves american. dont be impudent. also, freddie's grandparents were also born in india. in fact, parsis have been in india since the 700's AD. they are no longer iranian. also tajiks do consider themselves persian but not iranians. same with parsis, to certain extent. also parsis have mixed with indians (dna studies) and they follow mostly indian customs. they're not like recent iranian immigrants as in your situation and your kids. these people are like the gypsies.ALSO ,HIS PARENTS DONT SEE THEMSELVES AS PERSIAN! Sohrab Irani 03:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sohrab, I was not in any way taking away from you or your identity when pointed out the irony of your name. I'm sorry if you were offended, I'm somewhat of a playful person and just found it to be ironic and kind of interesting. I also believe you meant to call me "ignorant" not "impudent" ;)-- no worries, though. I agree with your statement with regards to Tajik's. I stated myself that considering yourself Persian is different from Iranian long before you validified my point. As far as your further statement about Iranian immigrants being "gypsies", I'm not sure whether I am misunderstanding you or whether there is a rather rude tone that I am reading. Being that Iranians are noted for having one of, if not THE, first civilization in the world, it is difficult for me to think that they were ever really "gypsies". As far as your last statement, you sound tremendously confident. I wonder whether you have a close personal relationship with Freddie's parents or if you could please provide us with evidence supporting your statement.Mooness 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter if Sohrab gets Freddie Mercury's Parents on wikipedia and have them testify they’re not Persian. Freddie himself said he was and this article's about Freddie Mercury and not his parents. To assume this was due to racism or his shame of his Indian background is random speculation done by people with biased agendas. That's what I believe is the case. However I have no problem with the current version of the article in which both Persian and Indian backgrounds have been honored. Let’s not get side tracked and focus on a solid and true statement for the first paragraph that everyone can agree on. At this point I have suggested "British-Indian of Persian decent". Please if you disagree with this statement give your reasons and perhaps present a better line. Klymen 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "British-Indian of Parsi decent"... Candyfloss 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
But like you guys said, Parsee's are Indian and saying it like that would be like "British-Indian of Indian decent". 136.159.187.178 01:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Quick note: Here is something intersting I noticed. India became independent on 15 August 1947, however Freddie Mercury was born a year earlier (5 September 1946) which means when Freddie Mercury was born India was not sovereign country. Thus technically he can not be of Indian nationality. Klymen 21:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See birth certificate: "Nationality: British Indian"... Candyfloss 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to run Wikipedia.

Everyone needs to stop trying to run Wikipedia articles soely based on what they think is right, or appropriate. Saying that the five Hectics band members are unneseccary is just like saying that listing the Queen is. But I'm sure you'll come up with an excuse why it's okay to have one of Freddie's band's but not the other in his article. Stop trying to be a control freak and decide for everyone what's appropriate and what isn't. This is not your encyclopedia. It is a free network and you have no right to be removing other people's verified information just because you personally don't approve of it as an article. Be it for it's legnth, information. or just because you don't want someone meddling with your precious vision of the "Perfect" Freddie Mercury artice. Some people enjoy an article with more information and just because you wouldn't want to read it dosen't mean you have the right to decide for everyone. Let other people have a chance to change the article. Whether or not you deem it ideal in your eyes. Again it's not your encyclopedia and you should not be treating others verified information as a lead weight on your precious article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.10.182 (talk • contribs)

The only person I know of who seems to be trying to run a wikipedia article by him or herself would be user: 67.161.159.218. This person believes that is up to him or her to make the decisions as to how the article should be maintained. I do not know of anyone else who seems to be doing this. So if you do some proof would be nice, rather than generalizing that everyone visiting this site is in it only for their own gain or for themselves alone. Billvoltage 21:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I could make a suggestion - could users under the age of 20 be banned from editing this page for a while? I think that would stop the edit war immediately.--feline1 22:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Aww, but that would knock me out of the running, and I simply wanted to remove his ethnicity from the article altogether. On the subject of running this article though... was that cleared up? Because I reverted his edits and he fucking FLIPPED on me. Two people have done this now, one of which ranting on weather on weather or not I had the mental capacity of a walnut or some such... anyway, did he finally decide to call it quits? Galactor213 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I must aggree with Galactor213, for two reasons, I too am under the age of 20, however I do nothing to this page except revert vandalism (when I see it). No person can really set a limit like that, unless it was upon age as reckoned by maturity (but what would be used as the standard? How can one measure such a thing?). I am sorry, but that would not solve the problem (well, it would, but it would also make some more, as some good editors would not be allowed to edit...) I am sorry, but I am not sure how to fix this, unless you know of a way by which we could measure this maturity age... Billvoltage 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Heh, I was somewhat kidding by the way. I do think it's sort of a biased opinion, but I know he was meaning to say let all of the people who seem to be possessive, use leet, and freak out randomly cool off and not edit. I still don't understand how all this exploded so much... I mean, really, it's not that big of a deal is it? My thoughts. Galactor213 04:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Better Picture?

Don't you guys think we should find a better/bigger picture to put at the top? I know that's his signature pose but that pic's a bit weak.

First Indian and Persian rock star VS British Asian

Since Persians are not part of the British Asian "label" I dont think it is a proper title for that section of the article. Thus I think Indian and Persian is more descriptive and correct than British Asian. Now I'm not saying Freddie was not British Asian however since that section of the article talks about his Persian background I think British Asian is confusing. Klymen 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is just that it sounds somewhat awkward to say "The World's First Indian and Persian rock star." Maybe the paragraph should be moved to a different spot in the article and called "Ethinic Background." 67.190.44.85 14:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it might sound a bit awkward. That was the main reason I didn't want to merge the two 136.159.16.100 17:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Isn't it about time to archive this?? It is, afterall, rather long...Billvoltage 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I love the advice, but I don't know how to do this. I suppose I should have been a little bit more specific, so, let me ask a bit more specifically, Would anyone care to either archive this, or care to teach me how? Billvoltage 01:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Instructions can be found in the how-to guide WP:Archive. Go for it! ... discospinster talk 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury Movie

Is there really going to be a Mercury movie? If so, this should definetly be put in the article.Freddie Mercury Movie

I think these Freddie Mercury biopic rumours are pretty mysterious, this was recently posted on QueenZone: http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a77/airdrummer/Depp-Freddie.jpg, but its authenticity is still being debated. Another point of interest is that Brian May is pretty well-known for shooting down false rumours as soon as they turn up, but he's been silent on the matter. Perry 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Related article: http://movies.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1239028.php/Johnny_Depp_to_play_Freddie_Mercury

Lyric Tenor

It does not appear to me that there is enough documentation to say that Freddie Mercury was a "lyric tenor." Although I do not doubt this fact, it is not good enough to simply cite a personal web page. After all, it could just be the webmaster's opinion that Mercury was a lyric tenor. In order to really prove this fact, you need some kind of external citation from a published article. On the other hand, I think that the web page does a good job at documenting vocal range. Because you are not going to find an official article that documents vocal range, I think that this personal web page is sufficient to establish an objective fact like vocal range, but not a more subjective matter like vocal weight.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.44.85 (talk • contribs)

You can hear what his voice was like by listening to some Queen records!--feline1 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
However, as he says, not everyone is educated enough to define what vocal wieght Freddie was. We need a source from some site or book whose author has the education to make such a claim... Billvoltage 20:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


ancestry

I found this great article about Freddie's ancestry: http://www.queenarchives.com/viewtopic.php?t=137 -- Miketm 03:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That was a great read, however it was full of speculations.136.159.187.178 08:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

regardless of he gave himself as label, it does not change fact. he was not iranian, so that label does not belong there. he never spoke persian nor did his parents. we can include, however, that he called himself persian. we cant say that thats what he was, but we can say that's what he liked. Sohrab Irani 19:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean we can't say he was Persian. Beside himself saying it, there are thousands of articles, books and biographies that say he was Persian. 136.159.133.199 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Many people of partial Indian ancestry in the west, particularly in Britain (Merle Oberon, Engelbert Humperdinck) tried to conceal it as it was seen as an indicator of lower class, so it's understandable that he may have wanted to identify as Persian. It has been documented that he was ethnically Parsi. Parsis are related to but not synonymous with Persians (our distingushing attributes are Persian relative to the Indian norm, but Indian relative to the Persian norm!). I am not really one to get into a debate over this but this article seems to make it seem like any person of Persian descent living in India is considered a Parsi, which is simply not the case. VirafPatel 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to put real name in intro

The purpose of the intro. is to give a brief introduction. There is no need to put Freddie Mercury's real name there. Basically, the opening paragraph should be a quick explanation (that a non-Queen fan could understand) of why he was famous and why anyone should care about the rest of the article. There is also no need to list every obscure band that he was ever in. The point of an encyclopedia article is to be concise, and I do not see why this belongs in a box that should only contain important things. 67.190.44.85 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps it does not need to be in the intro, but it should be in the article. I put it in the "Early Life" section - since that is when he was known by that name, that seems like the most appropriate place for it. NickBurns 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new photos

Hi, Mike. Thanks for putting up the new photos. I think that we can re-submit the article as a "good article" now. 138.67.44.69 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've just found this:

freddy was gay he always was. And i hate gay people. If you have any problems with thisw call

under "singer and performer". I tried to take it out, but I can't see it on the 'edit this page' tab. Could someone please sort this out? What a fucking retard this person is.

That's because User:80.43.91.249 removed it while you were looking for it. Thank you for your attention to the article. ... discospinster talk 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

who took "Persian Rock star" out?

I reinserted this part into the article as their are many (especially Iranian) fans who consider him Persian based on his Parsi roots and on his own statements. There was a big edit war over this, and I want to avoid that and bring back more focus on the other parts of the article. BTW, nice job on these additional pictures. Now, if we could just lengthen the introductory paragraph a bit, and provide some more details in with regards to different aspects of his life and musical legacy, we can certainly bring this to a featured article status like that of Phil Collins. Afghan Historian 15:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree who took it off? 136.159.133.244

Its back on. Hopefully thats done with. Personally, I dont think he should be labelled Iranian, as Parsis are no longer really Iranian. I also think literally calling him Persian (despite whatever he said) just confuses people with regards to his heritage, as most people mean Iranians when they say someone is Persian. I originally wanted him to be labelled as just an Indian Parsi with a quick note in the legacy background that he identified himself as a Persian rather than Parsi or Indian. Also, about these thousands of books and journals that call him "Persian", from what I read, most books called him Parsi Indian. I dont know what some people mean when they say thousands of biographies and books call him Persian. From what I read, they all call him Indian. The VH1 documentary on him also refers to him neither as Persian nor Indian, but simply Parsi. The only sources I can think of are his fan website bios and amateur sketches by others based on information in the original fan club bio. Nevertheless, he did call himself Persian (perhaps more in the regard Parsis generally do, rather than as an actual Iranian) and many Iranian fans like to identify him as such, so I guess this is the best. Afghan Historian 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Parsis left Iran (Persia) over 12 centuries ago, hence no parsi will call himself persian. Its like saying im not Australian or American coz 300 years ago my grandfather came over from Cornwall, England to Australia or USA !!!!


I just wanted to note: when editing this or any other article, please be careful with this nationality thing. Before stating something like this, find out exactly how the person him/her' self wanted to be labeled. Noting a country of birth is one thing, but identifying a person's nationality by country of birth, if the person moved to another country might sometimes be wrong and even offensive. Northern

Website?

Under what basis is that website put in Freddie's infobox? I don't think any website could be regarded as official for someone that died 15 years ago. Andymc 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

indeed, especially since that is a site to promote a book and a cd-dvd collection. I think he could have a sort of a official site in terms of a queen related thing... but this isn't really about him... I think it should be deleted Donny 17:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Baritone?

It seems to me that even though Freddy Mercury naturally fell in the Baritone speaking range he was not really a baritone, but a tenor. In the songs where he sings confortably he is always in the tenor range, never in the baritone range, which would absolutely mean he is a tenor, if he wasn't most of Queen's songs, especially the slower ones would have been composed for a baritone voice. Not because he has a baritone speaking voice does it mean he is a baritone, there are many people with deep voices who are in fact tenors and vice-versa. Perhaps she should consider changing that section of the webpage into saying that "...even though his speaking voice naturally fell in the baritone range, his singing voice was that of a tenor..." Kiske 19:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have enough experiance to say this with knowledge? We had a discussionn ealier (not sure if it is on this page or one of the archives) and we decided that we needed someone who had expertise that could "weigh" his voice. I know I can't tell the difference, so I cannot make any call, educated or not... Billvoltage 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Magazine Article

Hello. Listen, I was going through some outdated Cat Fancy magazines, and I noticed there was an article dedicated to Freddie Mercury. It talked mostly about his love for his cats and how they impacted his life. There was even explanations about some of his songs that were about his cats, such as Delilah and Mr. Bad Guy. I don't know if it'll be useful, and if it is, I wouldn't know what section to type it under. And I don't know if it's already been added, too. But I have searched through almost everything, and I haven't found it. So if it's not too much trouble, I'd like to know if I could put up this part. ¡Gracias! Kyo cat 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this might belong under "Personal Life," so put it up there!138.67.44.153 04:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So I can put it up? ¡Muchas Gracias! er.. Thank you. I'll get to work right away. Kyo cat 01:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added that part in. I hope it can be useful. I'm glad to help.¡Adios! Kyo cat 01:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the new information. It is interesting, and I think that it tells a lot about Freddie. I edited it some to make it shorter, but I think that it is the best addition that I have seen in months. Puedes anadir mas informacion, si quieres. 67.190.44.85 04:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

heh heh, thanks for making it shorter, I know I put too much... I'm just glad nobody deleted it! I'll add more stuff when I get the chance. ¡Adios! Kyo cat 21:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Death Quote

There is a quote, under the header Death, and I was wondering, do we have a source for that? Billvoltage 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

it shouldn't be hard to find. I saw his statement a few times... Donny 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cat Page

OK, guys. The cat stuff is interesting, but if you want to work on editing, do not change the article back unless it also includes the new Mike Myers quote and the removal of the word "legendary" from the "Early Life" section. I personally feel that the current paragraph is more concise and that you should make edits from there. Maybe we should have a vote on it.67.190.44.85 01:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Multitudes of Edits

Honestly, 67.190.44.85, what is it going to take to get you to stop editing the article one sentence at a time? You revert a quote from "Queen: In their own words" which is a very telling statement from Freddie about Freddie. A simple search would have found a source. *Sparkhead 02:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, If you want to add a quote, then it is your job to find the source, not mine.67.190.44.85 02:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote's been there for a while. If you have an issue with an existing item in an article, put a {{fact}} tag on it or something similar. Don't simply delete it. And learn to edit in larger chunks. Thanks. *Sparkhead 03:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now your quote is back up there, in addition to the youtube interview that I put up. We will just keep them both there. If you happen to have a source for the number of key signatures used in "Bicycle Race," that would be great too.67.190.44.85 04:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You need to learn to work with other editors and be a bit more considerate in your editing. Getting a named account would be a good idea as well. When I originally put the quote back in, I put in a valid source. If you did a simple diff you would have seen the one character change to make the ref point to the correct source. If you insist on editing and reverting as you do, you'll get reverted by multiple other editors, and you've violated WP:3RR with your repeatedly removal of the quote. *Sparkhead 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to post "B-class article" designation

Guys, there is no need to post the B-class article designation. After all, is there any reason for why we should take this seriously? Since we have yet to receive any feedback or explanations, I would say that this "expert" opinion is pretty useless. Furthermore, I compared this article with others that were rated as "B-class." Do you know what I found? I discovered that most of these articles were utter crap. In other words, the "reviewer" simply does not like Freddie Mercury. And who is this person? Among other things, I would venture to say that he probably does not even have a real job (unlike me, since I am a chemist). I would assume that you all have real jobs as well, so why is his opinion more worthy than ours?67.190.44.85 05:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has yet to be listed as a "Good Article" so it cannot be listed higher then B class. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Queen/Assessment) Also why are you using the word "ours"? You seem to be the only one with a problem here.
These templates help to categorize articles so that WikiProjects can identify articles that need improvement. Also they are a major factor in getting articles included in CD versions of Wikipedia.
miketm - Queen WikiProject - 06:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have to say that I do not see any compelling reason to insist upon listing the article as “B” quality. I asked you why we should take this seriously, and I have yet to receive an intelligent reply. By the way, please learn how to write like an adult. “Then” and “than” are two different words. Since I am the primary author of the page, I get really tired of trying to edit shit-ass writing every week. Although I appreciate the nice pictures that you have added, you clearly to not appreciate all of the effort that I put into writing it. 138.67.44.79 07:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said this is not a "Good Article" so it cannot be listed higher then B class. How hard is that to understand? This article still needs some work and a new layout before it can even be considered for a "Good Article" nomination. Look at the Elvis Presley article it is much longer and more comprehensive and is listed as "B-class". WikiProjects have been using these templates for some time now and no one else has a problem with them. These are a vital part of WikiProjects and it is not your place to remove them. And no you are not the primary author of the page you are just some person making tons of mini-edits (which is very annoying) (without using edit summaries which is even more annoying). Once you become a registered user, learn how to edit properly, and learn how to interact with other users then you can have an opinion. — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 08:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Rudimentary

I don't see the point of the comment (rudimentary) under what instruments freddie played. HOW an artist plays an instrument is individual to such a degree that it should not be compared directly. John Petrucci of Dream Theater is the opposite kind of player to Blixa Garbeld in Nick Cave and the bad seeds- who would dare say that one is better than the other when Blixa never aspired to be technically proficient? This might be airy fairy for those of you that dont play an instrument but I shure do and resent this word RUDIMENTARY. In my view our Freddie could make magical music with a spoon! I will delete the word and if any one out there puts it back, please write to me and tell your justification. And please chech out how Roger Taylor describes the musical abilities of Freddie on the making of Bohemian Rhapsody film. PLEASE RESPOND —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merqury5 (talk • contribs)

Not much to respond to. You're completely correct, and you've made the edit. Done. *Sparkhead 11:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of Quotes

Please stop rearranging the quotes. I've put them in order of those who have worked closest with Mercury, followed by that who are closely associated with his music, followed by others in what I perceive as order of notability on the topic of Freddie Mercury. Any issues with my ordering please bring them up here. Thanks. *Sparkhead 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My goal in setting the order is to get the average person interested enough to finish the entire list. Since the Bowie quote is not particularly enthusiastic compared to the others, I did not think that it should be first.

I think that it should be ordered in terms of how interesting the quotes are and how well known the person is. This way, the average person will have a reason to finish reading all of them. The most interesting for the majority people is the Kurt Cobain suicide note. This is a famous note that have been read over and over by thousands of fans around the world. It is also interesting, since who would have thought that the grunge star would have been thinking about Freddie Mercury at the time? The Axl Rose comment is also very poignant and surprising. The Mike Myers quote was much more generous than the Bowie quote, so it should come next. The David Bowie quote is not as interesting or enthusiastic. The Caballe quote should be put down lower too, since most people do not know her, even if she is a great singer.
That's extremely subjective. My ordering, listed above, at least attempts objectivity. There is zero reason for Cobain to be before Bowie or even Myers or others who are famous in their own right and were actually involved in Mercury's life or music. *Sparkhead 02:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I ordered the list in order to reach a compromise. You can have the Bowie quote first, but I want the Axl Rose quote next, since I think that it was a much more interesting and enthusuastic. You can have the Caballe quote next, but then I want Cobain. You can then add Robbie Williams, but I think that Mike Myers is mush more interesting.67.190.44.85 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I decided that, since I put up 8 of the 9 quotes (Mike put up the Bowie quote), I should get to decide upon the order. However, if you want to dig up some quotes and contribute to it, I will allow you complete control over the order. On the other hand, I don't think that it is fair for you to act so controlling over quotes that I put the time and effort to transcribe and put up. 67.190.44.85 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Review WP:OWN. There's no logic to your ordering beyond "this is what I like", which is POV (see WP:NPOV). The ordering I've put them attempts to use neutral reasoning as I've described above. If you want to WP:RFC it, please do so. *Sparkhead 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sparkhead about the ordering of the quotes. Anyone viewing the page will expect to see Freddie's friends before some random other person who had no contact with Freddie. I expect to see that when I view the page, after all anyone can say something good about Freddie, it's most relevant to the article if it's his close friends and colleagues who are quoted first.
Please remember that per WP:OWN, no one user owns the content, this is a community project. If you don't want the content you added to be edited, you should not add it to Wikipedia.
I also urge you to contact an admin and attempt to resolve this dispute BEFORE either of you revert the quotes again. Revert wars help no one. —B33R(talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You'll see I attempted to open a dialog on the quotes with this section in talk. You'll also see from 67.190.44.85's comments here and recent edit summaries, consensus doesn't seem to be of any concern to him. I'm trying to WP:AGF but it seems like pure disruption. I'll ask again before going to RfC or an admin route. *Sparkhead 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to give preference to "friends," but to be informative to the average person, who may or may not even know who Freddie Mercury was. The average person is more familiar with Kurt Cobain, Mike Myers and Axl Rose than with M. Caballe. Moreover, you can expect people who have worked with a given performer to say good things about him. On the other hand, it is much more interesting when unexpected artists from different genres make complimentary remarks. The best way in which to resolve the issue is simply to put the quotes in alphabetical order. Since the T. Amos quote is weird, it was removed. On the other hand, I have to express my opinion that your efforts here are doing more harm than good with regard to the quality of the article. 67.190.44.85 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of notability with respect to the topic of the article. Mentions in articles hinge on a number of factors, notability with respect to the subject is one of them. Alphabetical order is hardly relevant. I'm asking you to revert your changes and wait for some input. I'll also ask you to stop your "comma corrections" with associated uncivil (see WP:CIVIL) edit summaries. Thanks. *Sparkhead 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've contacted an admin anyway, hopefully this situation can be resolved with his help.
For the record, British English does actually put the punctuation outside the quotation marks. —B33R(talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also put a note on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Queen page. In American English, the placement of punctuation is a matter of style. Either way is considered acceptable. To go through an article changing such, accompanied with questionable remarks in the edit summary, seems to be indicative of a problem with WP:OWN. *Sparkhead 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: Since, at the moment the consensus (ok, it's a small consensus, but it still is one) is for the order to be as I had placed it, I've put it back to what it was before today (at least since the 24th). I don't want the article to be edited by others and require partial reverts in the future. I am willing to discuss changes, but don't want a constant revert back and forth. *Sparkhead 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the ordering of the quotes should be alphabetical. Boab 03:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the majority consensus is for an alphabetical compromise (2 to 1), I have changed the ordering. 67.190.44.85 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as it stands, it's 2:2. And I asked you to leave it as it was until a consensus was reached here. And I'm LMAO at this, and I invite anyone to check for themselves, Boab is 67.190.44.85's sock puppet! Boab follows the same editing style (lots of small edits in a extended period of time), is only active when 67 is not, has a similarly abrasive style, and seems solely focused on this article. Which would make it 2:1 in favor of priority order. *Sparkhead 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am attaching a link that explains the basic rules of grammar. Please refrain from making Queen fans look like morons. Here is the link: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_quote.html. 67.190.44.85 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yet another link to AMERICAN ENGLISH. We're dealing with BRITISH ENGLISH here, Freddie Mercury was for the most part of his life a BRITISH CITIZEN. FAVORITE = FAVOURITE and the quotes go outside the punctuation. —B33R(talk • contribs) 08:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Cannot believe an argument on punctuation. 67, (please use your ID), this is en.wikipedia.org, NOT us.wikipedia.org. I reverted your changes because when quoting a title/name, "Crazy Little Thing Called Love," is poor styled compared to "Crazy Little Thing Called Love", and you left the article in an inconsistent state with respect to style. *Sparkhead 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that an alphabetical listing makes more sense... Billvoltage 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury *was* a baritone

Guys, Freddie Mercury was a baritone who maintained good tone in the tenor range. M. Caballe classified him as such. The baritone range extends from the G 10 notes below middle C to the E above middle C (i.e. from the G2 to the E4). If you look at the range listed on the page, he obviously falls right into the baritone range. In particular, during the "Live At Wembley" concert, it is clear that Mercury is more comfortable in the baritone range. 67.190.44.85 05:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here is the quote, in case you want proof: Montserrat Caballé (1992): “He asked me what I thought of his voice, admitting that when young he had wanted to sing opera. His voice really was that of a baritone, though his fans would of course not have accepted that sort of voice. So, to prove a point, I got him to sing a duet with me – Violetta’s and Germont’s ‘Dite alla giovine’ from ‘La Traviata’, which I think was taped. He sang it very well. I don’t know how much more opera he would have been able to do, though he was such a creative person. I’m sure he would have been able to improvise anything. Freddie was a great practical joker – we both liked a laugh, though when we were working it was very serious. And although we were sometimes working for hours at a time, we were never tired or bored. He would come into the studio and say, ‘Look, my dear, I have another creation!’ Then he would play ‘La Japonaise’, ‘Guide me Home’, or ‘The Fallen Priest’, the most operatic piece on the album. Working with him was such an inspiration. I had so much respect for his workmanship” 67.190.44.85 01:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

More Work Needed on "Barcelona" album

Guys, more work needs to go into the "Barcelona" discussion. I feel like it needs more. I hope to see some helpful contributions here. Sparkhead, you seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Why don't you put some work into fleshing this part out? 67.190.44.85 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your editing style is abrasive and disruptive. Using a sock to attempt to get your point across isn't the best move either. That isn't exactly an invitation for other editors to work with you. *Sparkhead 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Restoration

Boab, I reverted back to the agreed upon version then restored some of your additions. Your change to the header of the "Death" section, as well as the removal of the overbite and Jackson sections all were unwarranted, as well as your Americanization of some portions of text (including spelling changes). Please do not make major changes without discussion. Thanks. *Sparkhead 20:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Editing

I see you're at it again with the multitude of micro edits that result in a major change of the article. Stop it. We had a decision on the quotes and on much of the other material which was reverted by other editors that you've put in once again. Before you add anything to the article, do two things: write it up in user space and ask for views here. Reviewing WP:OWN might be a good idea as well. Thanks. *Sparkhead 17:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

I feel like the three sentences in the intro. paragraph should be merged as they are at the moment. Looking at the Vivian Leigh article, which was recently a featured article, the first paragraph is made up of several sentences, rather than three separate paragraphs with 1 sentence each. Here it is, in case anyone wants to use it as a model for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Leigh.138.67.44.38 23:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Quote Order

See Order of Quotes, above. I'd like to get a poll on this. Without socks. Regarding quote ordering, I've put them in order of those who have worked closest with Mercury, followed by that who are closely associated with his music, followed by others in what I perceive as order of notability on the topic of Freddie Mercury. That ordering was reverted first to an order that one editor thought "would be more interesting" and then to an alphabetical ordering. So, what should the order be? Please chime in below. Note that due to the constant IP switching of the editor in question I'll ask that only named accounts comment. Thanks. Spark* 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

By Involvement with Mercury/Notability

  1. Spark* 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical

Other

  • I don't care how you order the quotes. However, I want you to come on this page whenever there is an editing war. For instance, I want you to explain why you think that F. Mercury was a tenor and not a baritone. There is a discussion up there that you have not answered. I do not deny that he fit well into the tenor range, but I want you to explain your point of view first. It is better to discuss things that to have editing wars.67.190.44.85 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine

Time magazine has voted Freddie as one of the most infulential Asians. I would like to add this to the list of commendations he has received and also highlight some of the points raised by them. http://www.time.com/time/asia/2006/heroes/at_bulsara.html. — warpspeed 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 03:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
So do I. But this article doesn't have a list of commendations that I can see. In the Legacy section, I've renamed "Recent Polls" to "Popularity" and added this link. Just a stub though, so warpspeed, please do add highlights you feel are appropriate. *Spark* 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ISO Time Formatting

Please stop with the ISO Time formatting. When someone is not logged in as a user, the time formats to what is in the source, and not only is September 5, 1946 more readable, it's not vague. "5-9-46" is (depending on whether you're used to M-D-YY or D-M-YY). When someone is logged in, the time formats to their preferences. 24.186.20.138 00:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just logged out and see what you mean. I had no idea it did that when your not logged in.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Adriana Mercury

There is an article titled Adriana Mercury containing many false claims about a person who is purported to be Freddie Mercury's daughter. If the article is still there when you read this, I would appreciate it if anyone would comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriana Mercury so we can get rid of the false article. --Metropolitan90 23:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Seven Seas of Rhye an International Hit?

Well, this song, as far as i know, was never an international hit, so i suggest that someone remove that claim from the introduction. 130.237.89.78 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a huge hit in Japan. It was like Beatlemania.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That isn't stated on the Seven Seas of Rhye page. Hit = charting and I see no such info for the song in Japan. *Spark* 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Farrokh? Faroukh? Farrock?

Well, I don't know how much this means, but I found this site (http://zanzibar.net/zanzibar/didyouknow ) which, on the fourth bullet down, spells his name as Farouk, not Farrokh, or something similar...

I was wondering if this should be taken into account... Billvoltage 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've re-linked the birth certificate which shows the spelling as Farrokh. *Spark* 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think that birth certificates are a little more legel than tourist sites... :) Billvoltage 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Derivation of "Mercury" name

Could someone add something about where and when Freddie picked up this name? I believe it was the title of one of his songs and that he did not start using Freddie Mercury as his name until after their 2nd or 3rd album. An important step in his career. s-slaytor

It's in the Queen (album) article, the song is "My Fairy King". I see no reliable source for that claim. If you think it fits in here some where, add it or propose it here, does seem more relevant here than in the album article. --*Spark* 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"I see no reliable source for that claim." The source is Brian May... - Candyfloss 19:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the claimed source. That article is extremely short on references. I'm not disputing that as truth, just a lack of cites. --*Spark* 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Freddie used the name "Freddie Mercury" from the start of Queen. http://www.queenpicturehall.com/albums/q01q.shtml You can see on the back of the original first album that it says "FREDDIE MERCURY" rather clearly. Though, yes, "My Fairy King" and his made-up land of Rhye are likely where the name originated, he had already decided to use it by the time they were signed. "Freddie" however was his nickname far before then, taken from Farrokh. -- Michi (not a registered user yet, sorry!)

Japanese Legacy

This recently added section isn't about legacy at all, it's about trivia for Mercury in Japanese culture. Degrades the quality of the article per WP:TRIV and does not belong in it. --*Spark* 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nodules

When he developed the nodules is not particularly clear. I thought at first they may have been a complication from AIDS but I guess not since AFAICT he didn't do any concerts after he started showing symptoms of AIDS Nil Einne 14:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Photo

Nice big photo at the start of the page - perhaps too big? Could we have a smaller thumbnail linked to the actual picture please? --¬¬¬¬ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.43.9 (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Test

In regards to the image

Why not use Image:Hannover7909.jpg as the primary image? In fact, the current image's fair use rationale doesn't really hold up for this page when Hannover7909 is right there - fair use is acceptable when a Free image isn't available, and Hannover7909 is a Free image, right beneath it! Jumbo Snails 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this picture gives a better perspective of him than the previous picture had. It's also a smaller picture TheGamerDude 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that we now have two rather similar images, and nothing that shows him in his long-haired youth. - Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we need more photos. One of Freddie in the 70s (not the Hannover pic of him in the black leather pants; it was too grainy), why not the one with him wearing the red and white harlequin leotard (must have been from Earl's Court)- it was perfect, but someone removed it - Why? Copyright violation? if not, that one would be perfect. One more pic would be nice, the black and white one of him with a white shirt and tie would be good; it shows how much the disease changed his appearence, even though he there still looks .. welll... not as gaunt as in 1991.

Also, should not the main photo be a more "formal" one, like a head shot? Then i think the above suggested ones would be the best: either the one with him in the black leather jacket, or the one with him in the white shirt and with the smirky smile on his face. The Wembley pose pic is great though, don't remove it; just move it further down the page. Come on, people, this article needs some good, representative photos which does Freddie's changing looks and image justice! MatteusH 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

What citizenship did Freddie Mercury hold? I would have assumed that he was (initially) a citizen of Tanzania, but since he also lived in India, where his origin lay, he may have been able to apply for Indian citizenship easily. And obviously, it is likely he became a naturalised Briton later on in life, but whether or not he renounced his other citizenship(s) is another unknown factor. Can anybody confirm what citizenship(s) he held?

Thanks in advance.

Cypriot stud 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He was born in Zanzibar which at the time was a british colonie. So he was, from birth, a british citizen.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 18:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

According to his birth certificate, he was a citizen of the colony of British India so he held British Indian citizenship. After Indian independence, they probably remained in some sort of dual british colonial - Indian citizenship in accordance with commonwealth laws at the time. As residents of Zanzibar, they definitely were British Overseas Citizens, a status held by all Indian (including Parsi) residents in East Africa at the time. That's why so many Indians were allowed to come from here to Britain. User: Afghan Historian

Well, seeing as Wikipedia's regulations state that the nationality tag used in biographies is their citizenships, Freddie Mercury should be "a British-Indian singer..." so I will edit that now. Thanks for your help.
Cypriot stud 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was when he was born though. After Indian independence, such a nationality probably ceased to exist. They may have had some dual residence thing between India and colonial Zanzibar, plus commonwealth priveliges, as India was a dominion for some time. But they definitely held British Overseas Citizenship, as Indian subjects in East Africa. All the Parsis on Zanzibar had it. That's why they were allowed to come to England. User: Afghan Historian

Stamp

"The stamp caused controversy because Queen drummer Roger Taylor could be seen in the background." This sentence is unclear and I feel the section needs reworking. Did the stamp cause controversy because it commemorated Freddie Mercury and Roger Taylor was in it, or because stamps usually featured Royal family members? Nicwright 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason it caused controversy was because, up until that time, the only living people allowed on a stamp were royalty. So to be on a stamp you had to be dead or royalty. Rodger Taylor mentioned this in one of his many interviews. Admiralross2400 14:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I just happened across this article, but it seems to me that it is an "A" class bio article, rather than a "B". It seems pretty complete. To bring it up to FA would require more citations, but it seems better than a "B"? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is definitely an "A." Most "B" articles are really quite bad. This article reads well and has 40 references. 138.67.44.65 23:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has to be listed as a "Good Article" first (see #No need to post "B-class article" designation and Wikipedia:Peer review/Freddie Mercury/archive2).— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Picture!

Oh my God! That is one God-awful picture of Mercury. It dosen't look like him at all! It really needs to be changed into either a picture of him from the early years (long hair and make-up) or even better him performing in a concert because that is what he's most famous for! Would someone who knows how to change the picture please do so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.29.111 (talk • contribs)

The picture is very appropriate for a biography.--Miketm 00:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That picture is really depressing looking! Why not get one during a concert. It is alsocame from a time when he had been diagnosed with AIDS. Why not get a healthy picture? 67.190.44.85 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
A live photo is not appropriate for the main photo. It should be a promotional photo, preferably a head shot.--Miketm 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This? --SparqMan 21:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a good picture, the reason I didn't use that one is because nowadays every picture of Freddie is from the era, I felt the photo there now shows off his profile well. Also it was used as the cover for one of his biographies.--Miketm 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you MEAN? I find him all sorts of handsome in the current photo. It's also one of the few where he looks somewhat ethnic. Actually, I find the suggested photo above to be extremely unflattering. But meh, meh, meh. 67.85.178.227

Guys, the sickly picture needs to be replaced. As a woman, I can assure you that Freddie Mercury was very hot. This is evident from the photo that is up there at the moment. 67.190.44.85 01:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The photo you placed in the article has been deleted before.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is too bad that you deleted it, since it was pretty damn hot. The one up there now is pretty familar though, even to people who are not into Queen. 67.190.44.85 04:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
i didn't delete it.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 09:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, whoever deleted the former picture should hang his head in shame. The new one is the worst I have ever seen of Freddie. Someone get the former one back, please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.167.131.224 (talk • contribs) .
The picture that is up there, is, in my opinion, the best looking picture of him... However, this is not the picture he was known by. He was known by the short hair, and the moustache. I believe that we need a picture with short hair and the moustache. Billvoltage 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think I would agree that he was more know with the moustache, though many should recognize him from bohemian rhapsody video. But why aren't there a few pictures of him thru the aritcle, showing various periods? I also agree that the current photo is a good one of him, maybe just add later a live photo from the 80s, covering live and moustache...Donny 22:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What about this one from 1987?; http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/510/fredchairnw9.jpg . At the Freddie Mercury Photographic Exhibition, it's labelled as "Freddie's favourite photo of himself". So not only was it a favourite of Mercury, but it is a highly recognisable picture, what with the moustache and the cheeky grin. Perry 15:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have added three photos showing his appearance in 1974, 1985, and 1990.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Having just watched the Live Aid DVD performance, I don't think the current 1985 photo is from Live Aid.--Undertow87 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The Live Aid logo is in the background.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 12:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The picture is not from Queen's 20 minute Live Aid set (Bohemian Rhapsody, Radio Ga Ga, Crowd Participation, Hammer To Fall, We Will Rock You, We Are The Champions), but rather from later in the show, when just Freddie Mercury and Brian May returned and performed Is This The World We Created.—Perry 13:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. Thanks! --Undertow87 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What about this: http://www.yaysports.com/ncaa/images/Freddie%20Mercury%20-%20We%20Are%20the%20Paper%20Champions.jpg A fantastic picture displaying the charisma and face that the world knew and loved, I definetly think we wont get a better picture

I reject the current picture. It's much too grainy. Knight of Ashitaka 20:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The picture right now is way too grainy. So, change again, yes? Anton1234 18:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the current one is not very good. What was wrong with that picture of Freddie during Live Aid, when he sat down on the chair? :S

Once again I recommend this picture - http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/510/fredchairnw9.jpg. At the Freddie Mercury Photographic Exhibition, it states this picture was Freddie's favourite self-portrait, and you can see why. Perry 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that picture looks pretty good. But if you plan to say that that was his favorite portrait, you should be prepared to back it up. But yeah, it looks nice. Anton1234 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone add this pictures please http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/7/78/Freddie_Mercury_06_-_Live_At_Wembley.jpg/150px-Freddie_Mercury_06_-_Live_At_Wembley.jpg

What!? No picture!?! How many Freddie Mercury pictures are there, and Wikipedia, arguably the largest and most popular source of information for the connected world, doesn't even have one as a main photo!?! Come on, guys, get SOMETHING up there! Anton1234 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A big thanks to the person who added the current Wembley picture. Can someone please add some more? Maybe one of Freddie in the 70s (not the one of him in the black leather pants; it was too grainy), why not the one with him wearing the red and white harlequin leotard (must have been from Earl's Court)- it was perfect, but someone removed it - why? copyright violation? if not, that one would be perfect. One more pic would be nice, the black and white one of him with a white shirt and tie would be good; it shows how much the disease changed his appearence, even though he there still looks .. welll... not as gaunt as in 1991. Also, should not the main photo be a more "formal" one, like a head shot? Then i think the above suggested ones would be the best: either the one with him in the black leather jacket, or the one with him in the white shirt and with the smirky smile on his face. The Wembley pose pic is great though, don't remove it; just move it further down the page. Come on, people, this article needs some good, representative photos which does Freddie's changing looks and image justice! MatteusH 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, a big thanks to the person who added the current pictures. Now, can we also add a pic of him live (the Wembley 'pose' pic would be great) and maybe also the one of him in the white shirt and tie from 1990? MatteusH 11:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

annoying outing

Freddie Mercury had always been fairly open about his homosexual tendencies. In a March 12, 1974 interview for New Musical Express, he told the interviewer: "I am as gay as a daffodil, my dear!" I find this a bit annoying as it is portrayed almost as a coming out by freddie. Anyone who has a fair understanding of the english language, the age of this comment and freddies particular type of humor will understand that this IS NOT a coming out. Gay is not originally a word for homosexuality, it is by my understanding more of a state of mind and manner. It is freddie playing with words. I tried to disarm the impact of this sentence earlier by editing in that is was an ambigous statement. My edit was removed so I won't bother doing it again. But note that I strongly dissagree of taking his statement out of context and using it here for some kind of validation for the claim that freddie was open. Through my studies I find that freddie could be open with people he trusted, but people knowledgable in Queen history knows that they were carefull in making statements to the tabloids and that NME was no friend of Queen. If I could get some support for this we might get this segment a bit more correct. In saying correct I mean not putting words in freddies mouth. We should stick to what was actually said and done with some sound judgement. In freddies name.

I concur, the meaning of the word gay used to mean happy. Only until recently has its meaning been taking over to mean homosexuality. I am pretty sure Mr. Mercury knew both the old and new definitions and was probably having fun with it. Though this total guessing, he may have been quoting an old movie or book. In essence, without further explanation of his quote by him, we will never know what he meant. --Lincoln F. Stern 18:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'Living On My Own' his only solo #1 single?

Did not 'Barcelona' top the Spanish charts...? MatteusH 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.