Talk:Freddie Mercury/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Freddie Mercury. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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. H ig hway ^{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)

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)