Talk:Freddie Mercury/Archive 5

Time to renominate as Good Article

Now that we have done everything that Drewcifer recommended, I think that we are ready to renominate this article as a Good Article. The reason it failed had to do with the use of copyrighted photos, not with quality. Furthermore, the French version of this article was recently a featured article. Although I in no way mind, they did use a lot of the information from this page. (At the same time, I have borrowed things from some of the foreign language pages as well.) If you want to nominate it, go to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates. SInce I already nominated it, someone else should try this time. I also made a lot of edits, so I am actually not supposed to be involved at all.138.67.44.69 23:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the citations need to be cleaned up. They are difficult to read/follow,^[n1] have no consistent citation style, and there are several that are listed more than once.

I suggest the use of {{harvnb}} referencing with the accompanying use of {{citation}} templates. Such a transition would resolve the three problems I've mentioned. It would also allow proper page numbering and proper footnotes.^[n2] See Rabindranath Tagore for examples.

-- Fullstop 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

^{n1) in the one case where I ran into this, a link was only provided once, even though the same source was listed multiple times, so I had to look around for the other reference to find the link.
n2) such as this one, to explain little things out-of-line.}

Thanks changing the citation method! It looks great! The only thing we need now is to fill in some of the missing page numbers and sources. 138.67.44.69 04:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. I will do what you are saying.67.190.44.85 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I had four hours to spare. :)

Incidentally, I found that many of the web references to articles/etc are actually on a fan website. The links should be moved out of the citation itself. For example, by adding a (*copy*) tag at the end of the citation, with "*copy*" being the url/link. Otherwise, it looks like you don't actually have the original articles, and that the citation is based only on the copy. If that were so, you would have to cite the copy, and not the original.

Also, for those periodical articles with an editor instead of an author, the originals should be dug up and the names of the authors determined.

You might wish to split the Bibliography section into "Books"/"Periodicals"/"Web News"/"Fan sites" (or some such division). You could then use (for example) '; Books' to subdivide the section without the sub-section names appearing in the table-of-contents.

-- Fullstop 01:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fullstop, Great to know. I will have to follow these rules whenever I add new references in the future. I will also work some on the missing pages over the next week or so. I wonder about how I can get it looked at for Featured Article status now, since people who work on an article are not supposed to nominate it. Whatever. That sort of implies that it may never be nominated by an outside person. 67.190.44.85 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Its probably a good idea to ask for "Good Article" status before you try for "Featured article" status. :)

To ask for GA status, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article candidates‎. There are no restrictions on who can nominate an article.

-- Fullstop 07:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that the peer review is outdated. A new one should be requested/handled before applying for GA. -- Fullstop 08:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Time for a Peer Review!

It is now time for another peer review. In particular, I am interested to see opinions regarding whether the current article is overly biased in favor of the subject. At the same time, I think that it is necessary to establish for the reader why this particular individual is important. After all, it is quite a lot to read. Although I think that we have incorporated a good criticism section, I want to ensure that this article reads like an encyclopedia article rather than a fan page. 67.190.44.85 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Did Freddie graduate cum laude?

"The family moved into a small house in Feltham, London. Mercury enrolled at Isleworth Polytechnic (now West Thames College) in West London where he studied art. He ultimately earned a Diploma in Art and Graphic Design at Ealing Art College,"

I've seen a documentary in which they tell thar Freddie Mercury graduated cum laude. The article doesn't mention it? I think it is interesting since it shows how huge his talent was for creativity. 193.190.253.148 23:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"cum laude" isn't a concept that's found often in British educational establishments, and so probably isn't an official designation. Also, with every possible respect to Freddie's musical genius, Ealing Art College is not exactly a prestigious organisation, and a Diploma not a very high qualification. Even if he graduated top of the class it wouldn't be real evidence of his (undisputedly huge) creative talent. 199.71.183.2 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

This article has been renominated for Good Article status. Many edits were made based upon the peer review. New photos and a new citation method have also helped to improve the quality of this article over the past couple of months. Boab 06:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made numerous reference fixes, along with small grammatical fixes. The article now looks like it should be able to easily pass the Good Article criteria. FamicomJL 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor grammar etc aside, the article will fail as long as people keep fiddling with it improving it. An article needs to be stable for it to meet GA. -- Fullstop 17:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Fullstop, all we're doing is helping fix the sources, which would more than likely only keep the article on hold if we hadn't done so. A day's worth of ref and citation editing isn't going to fail the article. I just noticed what you meant, just now. Looks like a few other editors were making numerous edits to the past in the manner of a few days. My apologies for adding to it. FamicomJL 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You misunderstood,... :) What I was referring to was the new material that have been added since filing for GA. "Minor grammar etc" (to quote myself) are of course not an issue. And there would not have new citations that needed fixing if new material hadn't been added. :) -- Fullstop 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

errr. yes, thats what I meant. And no need to apologize! We're all in the same boat. -- Fullstop 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my bad then. :) That's one of the things I hate, when the citations get all messed up, with awkward spacing and such. FamicomJL 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the new references that I added yesterday. I forgot about the "stability" issue. I will refrain from adding anythinbg else. I wonder when and how we will know the results. 138.67.44.69 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New references are fine too -- as long as they are just new references for existing material, and not references for new material. Whats important is there are no significant changes to subject matter, "significant" being left to the discretion of the reviewer. :Incidentally, the article is tagged with "Category:All pages needing cleanup", which can be grounds for a quick fail. I don't know when that tag was added, or why, but if the issue has been resolved it should be removed asap.

-- Fullstop 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the fact that there's a "page needed" citation in there. Please, someone find the book and get the right page, I don't want to see this artice failed over ONE citation...FamicomJL 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to whomever fixed the citation. FamicomJL 04:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Never popular with rock critics

I don't think that there is anything to be ashamed of here, although maybe we should have a vote. Remember that this is not a fan page. It is an encyclopedia article designed to show every perspective from a neutral point of view.

Furthermore, it is quite clear that the critics were off here. Trust me, the guy who panned Queen II does NOT want to be reminded of this. After all, he was not able to forsee that this band would go on to spend more weeks of the UK Album Charts that The Beatles!

By the way, "Rolling Stone" continues in its attempt to ignore Queen and Freddie Mercury. For instance, look at their lists of greatest whatever and tell me how many Queen songs you see. Despite the fact that "Bohemian Rhapsody" has been voted #1 again and again and again, they refuse to acknowledge it even as one of the top 100 songs. There is something really anomalous (and maybe even sinister) here that should be pointed out. Boab 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

True or not, you're not citing it. And "Although Queen was never popular with rock music critics" needs a citation to be in the article. Gscshoyru 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing specific bad reviews to show he was generally badly reviewed includes your own analysis. You need to cite someone who has done the analysis and says so. Otherwise it can't be in there. Gscshoyru 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do doubt that Queen "was not always popular with critics"

OK, the sentence will be changed from "never popular" to "not always popular." The three citations given make it clear that this is the case.

By the way, is it surprising but true that the addition of the criticism actually enhances the reader's appreciation for F. Mercury. In the first place, it make this one of the rare articles on Wikipedia that is actually believable. In other words, unlike all of the other pages, this is not a fan page. By the way, see my criticism of the Mariah Carey page, which I am trying to get removed from Featured Article status. In the second place, it is a great accomplishment on the part of F. Mercury and Quene that they were able to perservere in the face of criticism that in many cases is just utterly hateful (a bucket of urine?!).Boab 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you change it to "not always," then it's not in any way special. No book or singer or movie is always well reviewed by all critics, you can always find one that doesn't like it. So it's not notable enough for inclusion if you do that. Gscshoyru 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although most artists have probably received some bad reviews at one time or another, Queen was picked on a lot by rock music critics. The same thing is true of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. For whatever reason, rock critics have decided that they like songs that are comprised of 3 chords and that have no melody. They also have an unfortunate tendency to want to elevate words over music. Unfortunately for their sake, these same critics probably don’t appreciate Bach of Mozart either. Whatever. At the same time, there is no reason to panic here, and this in no way diminishes Freddie Mercury’s accomplishments. I also think that the current sentence is a nice compromise here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boab (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My two cents (cf. NB below):

"The critical reception given to the band's output continued to be somewhat unfavorable despite this huge popularity" (thats a direct quotation)

The appropriate ref would read:

<ref>{{harvnb|NNDB|2007|loc=para. 5}}.</ref>

The accompanying citation is:

* {{citation|author = NNDB|title = Freddy Mercury|year = 2007|publisher = Soylent Communications|location = Mountain View|accessdate = {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY2}}|url = http://www.nndb.com/people/521/000044389/}}.

NB: Notwithstanding that NNDB is cited by hundreds of articles, I'm not certain whether anything by Soylent Communications counts would qualify as a reliable source. :)

-- Fullstop 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to change it if you want. Your choice. Boab 04:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved

Shouldn't there be dates in the references/bibliography for when the web pages were last retrieved? --andreasegde 00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Freddie's Anime Apperance

A character who is a direct reference to Freddie Mercury appears in the anime Cromartie High School. He looks like him, he is called Freddie by the characters, there's a guitar riff whenever he appears, and several times he'll be seen with a mic, or musical instrument. I believe this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.138.165 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2] (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) contains no original research.

1. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

1. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
2. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.[4]
3. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:

(a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Pass IMHO SriMesh | talk 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

After this article achieved GA, a few edits were made that I erased today. I think that "falsetto" is a better term, since the "countertenor" link says that this term generally only applies to opera singers. Although the new link to the book with F. Mercury's family looks interesting, I feel that this sentence does not belong in the Criticism and Controversy section. However, it looks like an interesting book, so I left the reference there. Feel free to add material from the book to other sections. However, I do not feel that it is appropriate to make any kind of excuses in the Controversy section, even if it seems harsh. Oh yeah, and the gay bathhouse thing is documented very well in the "Freddie's Loves" video. No doubt about that. It is important here I think, since readers would want to understand how he contracted HIV.Boab (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrian relion should be mentioned in Early life section

Hi Fullstop, Although the footnotes are very nice, it is important to point out explicitly that Freddie Mercury's family practiced the Zoroastrian religion. This is a very crucial and insightful piece of information. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is sufficient to simply say that he was a "Parsi." Trust me, the vast majority of readers will fail to acquaint the Parsi ethnic group with the Zoroastrian religion. In fact, I did not know what either of the two terms meant myself until I looked them up. My point here is that some kind of explanation is needed here for the average reader. Perhaps you could supply a short and accurate description of Zoroastrianism here.Boab (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that the "vast majority of readers will fail to acquaint the Parsi ethnic group with the Zoroastrian religion." But this article is about Freddie, not about the religious beliefs of his parents. Unless you have a source that describes Freddie's beliefs, any allusion to it would be an extrapolation. During his lifetime, Freddie was not exactly the "apro Freddie" (Gujarati: "our Freddie") that he is today sometimes eulogized as.

It is really sufficient to have a footnote, you can move the footnate ref to be directly after Parsi if you prefer, or alternatively, put "(Indian Zoroastrian)" in parenthesis after "Parsi", and put the footnote ref after the ')'.

With respect to a "short and accurate description of Zoroastrianism": It is either not possible or not meaningful to describe a religion in a "short and accurate" fashion. If its short its going to be broken at some level. Eg, "Zoroastrianism is a belief in God." This is short and accurate, but not meaningful.

By way of intellectual excercise, take a look at the article on Catholicism and try to squeeze that definition into "short and accurate" statement. Or, more to the point, squeeze Zoroastrianism#Basic beliefs into a "short and accurate" statement. Its simply not possible to do so in a universally understood fashion, e.g. the application of western religious dialectology to an eastern religion would give false results (also: Wikipedia aims to address a universal audience, not specifically a western one).

In short: Its simply not possible nor advisable to attempt to "supply a short and accurate description of Zoroastrianism". If it were, the lead sentences of the Zoroastrianism article would already have it. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

African

Technically, he was born in Africa. Does he count as an African by birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.59.128 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If a Brit is born in Hong Kong, is he Asian? 74.68.122.74 (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

HIV

I read some articles and they all say different times when Mercury got HIV/AIDS

Here's my list:

(Contracted HIV in 1984 on the Works Tour) (Contracted HIV in 1985 during Rock In Rio) (Diagnosed with AIDS in 1987) (Diagnosed with HIV in 1987) (Freddie Hid his illness for 2 years) (1989-1991)

The question is when did he first contract HIV?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregsynth (talk • contribs) 06:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the disease is such that it can exist symptom free for varying amounts of time, so that information is impossible to know. I don't think effective testing existed back then, so it's probably all guesswork. Pairadox (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Main Image

Why did we change the main image? He looked much better in the last one. 74.68.122.74 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever why someone removed the nice photograph that had been there for a month or more. I just restored it, and I hope that we refrain from putting up images that are either copyrighted or that look bad. Boab (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably want to take a look at this IfD then; it appears the image you prefer doesn't qualify either. Just because it's been up for a while doesn't mean it's a valid image. Pairadox (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Then for pete's sake, can we find an image that doesn't look awful? FamicomJL (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Find a Freddie Mercury forum and ask if anyone has a picture they'd be willing to release under a free license (without any non commercial clauses)? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, Let's go ahead and keep the nice photo. If it is deleted, then I would personally recommend that we refrain from putting up anything at all. The former photo does not even look like Freddie Mercury, and the resolution is terrible. 138.67.44.154 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, let's keep the one we know we can use. It's not the greatest quality, but it does look like him (well, okay, it IS him) and it's better than anything else on the page. Oh, and if you're going to change the image you should also make sure you change the caption. Pairadox (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am going to figure out where the nice photograph comes from. It will probably take a few days though. By the way, photographs are not actually required for a Good Article. For that reason, I say that we should not put up anything at all if we cannot have the best. Boab (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Only free licensed photos can be placed in the infobox. Please stop putting non free images there. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, non-free images may be used when acceptable alternative are not available. For that reason, there is nothing wrong with the nice photo. Please read the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline. By the way, I recommend that more of you join the current debate over the nice image versus the ugly one that is currently up there. Just come to this page: this IfD. Boab (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No non free image can be placed in the infobox. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it can. That is the whole point of the non-free use rationale guideline! By the way, here is an example this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notorious_big. Note that this article has Featured Article status as well. A non-free image was allowed here, since this subject is deceased. The same thing is true for Freddie Mercury.Boab (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that the free use rationale is very strict and constraining. As said before - it can be used if no free replacement could be found. But this is a photo of a man, there has to be a free alternative. It is not the same as with album covers - you can't use an alternative picture there. And by the way you can only use pictures of albums if you describe them in the article. You can't use them just to illustrate the artist for instance. But here you need a picture that has no copyright, or alternatively a picture that the copyright holder will let you use in this article. So you could theoretically ask someone to give permision. But that is a long shot I guess.
As said, all the images DO depict Freddie. Them being ugly to someone is not enough of an legal statement as far as I understand.
About the notorious big article - take a look at the revision that was promoted to a featured article - it has a different picture, that has a GNU public licence. I don't know when someone replaced it, but I also doubt that the man being deceased is a good reason for fair use. it's not as if that is the only existing picture of him, and that there won't be any others. Donny (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Donny, A quick glance at current Featured Articles indicates that the non-free use rationale is in fact quite common. In fact, large numbers of Featured Articles are currently using copyrighted images. Here are some examples that I found right away: Sex Pistols, Hector Lavoe, Pixies, The Supremes and Selena. Virtually every Featured Article about a movie shows a copyrighted poster. Click on just about any Featured Article about a movie to see this: Halloween, Gremlins, E.T. The same thing is true about albums as well. I should point out here that I did not have to have to do much work in order to find these examples from Featured Articles.

It does not follow that an inferior image must always be used in place of a non-free image. After all, that is why the non-free rationale exists in the first place! There is no doubt that somewhere in this world people have some private photographs of The Supremes, The Sex Pistols and/or Selena. But let’s face it, much like the current Freddie Mercury photo that is up there, a picture taken 30 years ago from the 10th row at concert is probably not going to be of much educational value. The non-free image rationale exists not because there are NO other alternatives out there in the world. There are. The problem is that they would have no educational purpose. In the case of the photograph of Freddie Mercury that is currently up there, it barely resembles him at all. In fact, unless we are trying to give eyesores to our readers, I see no justification for including it at all! See my non-free use rationale for an explanation for why the nice Freddie Mercury photograph has a lot of educational value both for this article and for the British Asian article. Boab (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Left-handed sentence

I am not aware of any documented evidence to support the left-handed sentence that is up there. If you can find something to support this in the form of an interview, a book or a newpaper article, then great. If not, it needs to be removed. Notice how carefully EVERYTHING is cited on this page. This is no exception. 138.67.44.154 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I once saw a picture of him with Queen signing there recored contract with is left hand. Its on the net.72.9.21.87 (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any real evidence for "Bomi" as a middle name?

Does anyone have a good reference for "Bomi" as a middle name? It does not say this on the birth certificate, so I took it off. Maybe someone can find something.Boab (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Liam Fitzpatrick of Time Asia

There is an article somewhere which tears apart Fitzpatricks racist and patronising article about Mercury i.e. "It's time to recognize him as the great Asian artist that he was, and to bring his memory home." and "To the world he was the rock star Freddie Mercury, lead singer of Queen, with features and an accent that were ethnically vague but probably British, if one had to guess. (Indeed, he was listed as one of the 100 Greatest Britons in a 2002 BBC poll.) There is a statue of him in Montreux, Switzerland, but none in the Eastern hemisphere. The truth, however, is that Bulsara was the son of two Indians from Gujarat and was a member of the small religious community of Parsis, or Zoroastrians."

All this despite the fact that Mercury: 1) Spent virtually his entire life in the UK, 2) Never identified as Asian or Indian (he was not even ethnic Indian!), 3) Always, always and strongly identified as British and spoke English natively, 4) Had every right to identify as British, 5) His memory is already home, as the UK was his home! I will try to find the article that shows the Fitzpatrick article for what it is, racist crap, but if anyone else knows where to find it, please link to it. I am completely disgusted. Khorshid (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disgusted or not, you can't insert your own POV into an article, and especially not in such a way that it misleads a reader into thinking a source says something that it doesn't. When you find the article, then it can be discussed how to integrate it into the article. Pairadox (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how pointing out Freddy Mercury's ethnic background is racist. If someone wants to adopt him as an "Asian Hero", how are they being racist? He was born on the island of Zanzibar, so he's also African.--Conjoiner (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Khorshid, you're only making these useless accusations because of your personal bias as an Iranian and your need to selfishly portray Mercury as one of your own. The fact is, he wasn't really. He was a Parsi, and while Parsis may be ancestrally Persian, they are different from other Persians in that they settled in India over 1300 years ago! And culturally mingled with Gujaratis at that to form a ethno-cultural identity all of their own. They are part of the subcontinent historically and culturally, regardless of their foreign ancestry. Many communities in India are like that. Besides, there is ample genetic evidence to prove Parsis did initially mix with Indians, contrary to popular belief, so yes, all Parsis have a degree of Indian ancestry, such as Mercury. Also, his own sister said in an interview with Sooni Taraporevala that the only reason Mercury called himself "Persian" was because nobody knew what a Parsi was (among their circle) and that "Persian" was the closest thing. Not because they actually consider themselves "Persians". They consider themselves "Parsis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.202.121 (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Current images

Hi guys, I in the first place, I have to say that I was disappointed that I was the only one who voted about the nice image that we previously had up there. Unfortunately, it was erased without any other votes here. At the same time, I know that a lot of you cannot stand the UGLY 1984 photo that was previously up there.

A quick glance at current Featured Articles indicates that the non-free use rationale is in fact quite common. In fact, large numbers of Featured Articles are currently using copyrighted images. Here are some examples that I found right away: Sex Pistols, Hector Lavoe, Pixies, The Supremes and Selena. Virtually every Featured Article about a movie shows a copyrighted poster. Click on just about any Featured Article about a movie to see this: Halloween, Gremlins, E.T. The same thing is true about albums as well. I should point out here that I did not have to have to do much work in order to find these examples from Featured Articles.

It does not follow that an inferior image must always be used in place of a non-free image. After all, that is why the non-free rationale exists in the first place! There is no doubt that somewhere in this world people have some private photographs of The Supremes, The Sex Pistols and/or Selena. But let’s face it, much like the 1984 Freddie Mercury photo that is up there, a picture taken 30 years ago from the 10th row at concert is probably not going to be of much educational value. The non-free image rationale exists not because there are NO other alternatives out there in the world. There are. The problem is that they would have no educational purpose. In the case of the photograph of Freddie Mercury that is currently up there, it barely resembles him at all. In fact, unless we are trying to cause eyesores, I see no justification for including the ugly one all! Good job for removing it, Winterboxblues. See my non-free use rationale for an explanation for why the nice Freddie Mercury photograph that Winterboxblues put up has a lot of educational value both for this article and for the British Asian article. Boab (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We have said to you millions of times that Wikipedia is first and foremost the free encyclopedia. I am sure it is possible to find a better image and get someone to release it under a free license. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Let’s compromise for the moment. As far as I am concerned, that 1984 photograph is an utter abomination. In fact, having worked on this article for some time, I can assure you many other people have expressed similar complaints about how ugly that photo is. I also cannot image Freddie wanting that thing up there at all. Furthermore, as the person who has been designated to maintain this article (I wrote most of it and added 80% of all of the references), I would personally recommend that we refrain from putting up any photographs at all until we can find something that is decent and that has some educational purpose. Remember that Good Articles are not required to have photographs at all. For that reason, I agree with the approach taken by Winterboxblues.Boab (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If a free image is available then use it. If no free image is available then a fair use one can be used. It has nothing to do with the quality of the image. Boab, could you please show me where the vote was taken to appoint you as being "...designated to maintain this article..."? I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury MBE?

An anonymous user recently awarded Freddie Mercury an MBE. As the edit came from an anon IP, and googling Freddie Mercury MBE draws a blank, I suspect this was a test edit (or even pov), so have reverted it. Any comments Paul20070 (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The awful images in the article

There are basically zero good pictures in this article. I haven't seen change in the pictures for months. Someone PLEASE change these immediately. I can't stand them. They're blurry, far away, not informative and overall useless. Seriously, someone needs to get rid of them. I'm wikipedia-retarded, so I can't do it without getting the images deleted within a few hours but you guys seem to know what you're doing, I would expect someone to have changed them by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterboxblues (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the images are ugly but it comes down to the fact that there are free images available which must be used before fair use ones. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I think that I summed up all of our feelings above when I referred to the ugly 1984 photo as “an utter abomination.” It is disgusting. What bother me the most about it is that it makes him look like a fat, bloated old man when Freddie was actually quite attractive (I am a female fan, so trust me here!).

One good piece of news is that there is no fundamental reason for why we should have to keep the ugly photo!! This has to do with the non-free rationale. As I discuss in detail above, these are VERY common, especially in articles that deal with people who are no longer living. I list a lot of examples of this in my post above. In fact, as you may know, some articles even feature little clips of copyrighted music. As long as you can establish that no person could conceivably generate any kind of commercial profit, then there is actually no problem with using copyrighted materials.

It does not follow that an inferior free image must always be used in place of a decent non-free image. Anyone in doubt should read the first criterion of the non-free agreement rationale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#1. According to this criterion, the real issue here is EQUIVALENCE. In this case, because the ugly 1984 photograph has very little educational value (I can't even tell whether he has a moustache in the photo!!), it is NOT EQUIVALENT to the nicer photos with regard to educational purpose. Therefore, according to this criterion, it would be totally acceptable in this case to replace it with non-free image that looks nice and that actually gives the reader a feel for what Freddie Mercury looked like. Because ethnicity is such a big part of the article, a good photograph would further serve an important educational purpose.

I really appreciate the attempts of Winterboxblues to make some pages with nice photos. I hope to see one of them used here in the future. However, perhaps we should refrain from putting up anything in the inbox for the moment in order to avoid editing wars. At the moment, we should probably not anything in the box. Boab (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this picture? http://homepages.compuserve.de/Adatr/qk10.jpg FamicomJL (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Boab, you are still missing the point- articles that have fair use images do not have free images availiable. I say again, if it really bothers you that much then why don't you post on some Mercury fan forums and ask anybody if they have an image of Mercury that they own the rights to that they would be willing to release under a free license? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, NFCC#1 is about EQUIVALENCE, not availability. In other words, it only applies when there are two images of EQUIVALENT eduational value. Since I can't even tell whether he has a moustache in the ugly 1984 photo that you insist on, it actually serves no educational purpose at all. Therefore, NFCC#1 in not applicable. By the way, I notice that you gave up really quickly in your attempt to remove the non-free image on the Selena page. They made it pretty clear over there that they are staying with a non-free image. We should do the same here. By the way, anyone who is in doubt here should also see the discussion that Gustav and I had on the non-free rationale discussion page. It is clear that they agree with me here and not Gustav.

At the moment, we should comporomise. At one extreme, we could put up the nice photos that Winterboxblues and Pearinc added the other day. At the other extreme, we could put up the old 1984 image that no one can stand. I say that the best compromise involves taking all of the images out of the infobox for a month or so. At that point, we can make a better decision here that will not turn into the sort of editing war that has taken place here over the past week. It is also a shame to see Winterboxblues and Pearinc put so much time into making new images only to see them removed in editing wars. Boab (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The image of Freddie Mercury provides an adequate representation of Mercury as stated in the policy. Although the resolution is low, you can still see that it is Freddie Mercury and that he is posing in his signature stage pose, therefore it will stay until you can find a better image. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Winterboxblues and Pearinc did not put a lot of time into the images. The 1984 phot looks like Freddie Mercury so there is no reason to replace it with a non-free image. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really disagree that the photo up looks like him. Tell me, if you had never heard of Freddie Mercury, came to this page, and looked at the picture, what would be your first impression? I'm guessing not one that's very good. It's a bad picture, end of story. I really can't understand photo rights or anything, so I'm basically lost when it comes to putting up photos, but please, can someone change this? I've tried, and failed, and I don't see why wikipedia is doing this to this particular page. Almost every page of a celebrity I see, there's always a picture that I've seen floating around the internet, it's definitely not one that belongs to the person who uploaded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterboxblues (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Free image from Flickr!

Hu Guys, I put up a nice free image from Flickr. Boab (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Freddie1985.jpg is a fair-use image not a free one and according to you it came from http://www.selenaforever.com/ and http://www.starpulse.com/Music/Selena/Pictures/ not flicker. So it's removed again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cambridge, Because Flickr images are free in the first place, there is no problem here. By the way, the reason for the Selena thing is due to the fact that I took it directly off their site! Boab (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. See Wikipedia:Images#Finding images on the Internet and see the sentence "Flickr has a Creative Commons section at http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons." Only some images on Flicker are free. Take a look at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jayredtheredjay/2249685348/ or http://www.flickr.com/photos/js229/2249695974/ which both have a valid "Some rights reserved" on them but http://www.flickr.com/photos/19171480@N00/398217471/ says "All rights reserved". So no that image is not free and it doesn't even fall under fair use. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, You are right here. I did not see the copyright symbol. Boab (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this page too far to the left?

Hi guys, I was reading through this page, I found a comment from one of our readers above in the section called "Edits." Talking about the article, he says that "the left-leaning over-emphasis on his sexuality and his ethnicity are ludicrous." There may be some truth to this. Since I was the one who wrote the Ethnicity section, I would be willing to take down the second paragraph. However, I wonder about how other people feel here. I also have to disgree that the article is no good. In fact, it is listed as a Good Article and currently receives 50,000 views each day.Boab (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest image

Assuming that we are trying to use a free image over a better non-free one (there is no fundamental reason why we have to do this), then I recommend that we try one that does not hurt your eyes. FamicomJL (who has made a lot of important contributions to this page) suggested this one to me. I have to agree.Boab (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New Image

I am asserting my fair use rights here. The use of my image is in full compliance with Wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. The key concept in NFCC #1 is educational “equivalence.” In other words, when two photos of equivalent educational value both exist, there is no doubt that the free image must be used in place of the non-free image. On the other hand, shades of gray begin to emerge when the free image in question is lacking in educational purpose. In these cases, NFCC #1 applies.

Freddiecropped.jpg

In comparing the non-free image (click on the image above to see it) to the free image (to the right), there is no doubt that the two are not equivalent with regard to educational value. In the words of NFCC #1, the free image to the right does not have “the same encyclopedic purpose” as the non-free image to the left. Furthermore, large numbers of our readers have come to the talk page over the past few months in order to complain about the low quality of the current free image.

There are several reasons for why the free photograph above is generally lacking in educational value. Among other things, it is difficult to tell whether or not Freddie Mercury even has a moustache (discussed in the article) in this photo. The photo is so bad that the reader further cannot see his face. Due to the fact that ethnicity is an important aspect of the article, a photograph with decent resolution would be of much educational value. After all, many of our readers have wondered about how Freddie Mercury could have kept his Indian ethnicity a secret from fans for so long. The close-up photo to the left speaks a thousand words.

I want to point out here that I reduced the resolution of this uploaded image and that I cropped it in order to remove about 40% of the original area. A non-free rationale and a copyright tag have been added as well.

A quick glance at current Featured Articles indicates that non-free images are quite common in articles dealing with deceased subjects. In fact, large numbers of Featured Articles are currently using copyrighted images. Here are some examples that I found right away: Sex Pistols, Notorious BIG, Hector Lavoe, Pixies, The Supremes and Selena. I further challenge anyone to find a photo in any Featured Article infobox that is as educationally uninformative (and ugly!) as the one here. From my experience, I would say that the dreadful Freddie Mercury photo above is a real impediment to this article ever achieving Featured Article status.Boab (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The non-free image can't be used on this page either. You can only provide a link to it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cambridge,Provided that readers are able to click on the link in order to make comparisons, I do not have any issues with simply showing the link. Nevertheless, it is important for the sake of fair use rights that people have a chance to see what I am saying here. I look forward to any responses over the next month or so. My hope is that we can resolve this issue on this page.Boab (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

THere is a link to the image. It's just that a fair-use image can't be displayed here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Eight Octave Range?!? I think not!!!

Sory folks, that line about him having an eight octave range has to go!!

I was reading the article there and almost exploded with laughter at the idea of it! Apart from the fact that from a physical point of view this is simply impossible (we are talking the same range as a piano), the references are dodgy to say the least.

The first reference for this point leads to an article that isn't there any more, and the other refernece leads to an article (http://f-mercury.com.ar/eng_characteristics.htm) which, remarkably, begins by explaining that freddie had a range of three octaves and a major sixth.

I will remove this point in a day or two, unless, unless there are objections

--78.137.134.56 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Dermot

This USA Today article suggests he had a four-octave range. I've heard mostly four and a half. I'm no expert, so I can't say. faithless (^speak) 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Exaggeration was added 20:01, 7 March 2008 by Guitarpower16. Editor must have dreaming of Sarah Vaughan. :) Removed. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi faithless, Yeah, I was looking into it and it seems the current guinness world record holding male voice only has a range of 6 octaves. So I think you're right, 4 to 4 and a half is more in line with reality. Trouble is though, we really can't say anything conclusive unless someone goes and documents it by listening to all of his recordings, which is pretty unlikely to happen. So, should we simply let it say that he had a wide vocal range and avoid alluding to any particular number of octaves? What do people think?

--78.137.134.56 (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Dermot

http://www.f-mercury.com.ar/eng_range.htm http://www.f-mercury.com.ar/eng_notes.htm

Looks to be three and a half octaves. 128.122.88.213 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Discussion

Folks,

I think that we can all agree here that the 1984 photograph looks amateurish and unprofessional. Because the reader can’t see his face clearly, including whether he has a moustache (mentioned in the article), the image is lacking in educational value. Furthermore, since the article discusses Mercury’s ethnicity in detail, a better image would definitely improve the educational value of this article. After all, many of our readers have wondered about how Mercury could have kept his Indian ethnicity a secret from the public for so long. A good photo would speak a thousand words here.

No current policy on Wikipedia currently dictates that an inferior free photograph must always be used in place of a better fair-use image. On the contrary, the key policy here is Non-free content criteria, while the key concept involves equivalence. For those of you who may be interested, here are the actual words of NFCC #1:

NFCC #1. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

When attempts are made to replace an inferior free image with a better fair-use photo, the burden falls upon the uploader to prove that the free image is inferior and that it would NOT have “the same encyclopedic purpose” as the fair-use image. As long as you can demonstate that this is the case, then you can proceed to replace the inferior free photo in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. No problem here!

Folks, fair use rights exist on Wikipedia (see the Non-free content criteria). Although large numbers of people routinely delete fair-use images without bothering to look at them on a case-by-case basis, this kind of behavior is beginning to infringe upon basic fair-use rights.

By the way, I would love to discuss and/or debate these issues with anyone who is interested. I had a very exciting conversation a couple of weeks ago on the Non-free content Talk Page. It was clear that I knew what I was talking about!Boab (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that the linked website owns the copyrights to that image, but since you are assuming it does, why not simply request the owner of that page to release the image under CC or whatever? -- Fullstop (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did he grow up? (inconsistency in article)

First we read that he grew up in India, then it says he lived in Zanzibar until age 17. Now which is true?

82.156.190.255 (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing photo

Hi Guys, A current discussion on www.queenzone.com makes it clear to me that large numbers of people are still quite unhappy with the ugly 1984 photo and want it replaced. Just the other day, it appears that another user made yet another attempt to replace this ugly thing with something better.

Unfortunately, many of the people on the current www.queenzone.com discussion have never used Wikipedia. By the way, I already outlined clearly the reasons for why the ugly photo can be fully replaced with a nicer one in full accordance with Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, I see that no one really wants to debate me here. Too bad.

The best way in which to resolve this issue is simply to get rid of the photo. After all, photos are not required for a Good Article. Furhtermore, since you can't even see his face, the ugly 1984 photo has no real educational value or purpose here. As a Good Article contributor to this article, I also refuse to waste my time fixing many of the grammatical/factual errors that have recently poppped up until this dreadful photo is removed.Boab (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

When there is a free image available a non-free image can't be used. That is Wikipeda policy and is not subject to debate. You have been told this before so why keep bringing up you interpretation of the policy. As to your "...I also refuse to waste my time fixing many of the grammatical/factual errors that have recently poppped up until this dreadful photo is removed.", I'm sorry but you can't hold other editors hostage to your threats and attempts to own the article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBay, In fact, no current Wikipedia policy dictates that a non-free image must always be used in place of a better fair use image. I challenge you to quote an actual policy here. More specifically, I challenge you to quote a policy in support of your argument that "when a free image is available, a non-free image can't be used." By the way, I would love to engage you in an actual debate here.

(Note that NFCC #1 is about "educational equivalence." In other words, when an "equivalent" free image exists, you are correct in saying that a fair use photo would be unacceptable. However, complications clearly begin to emerge when an inferior free image fails to serve "the same educational purpose" as the proposed fair-use image. These types of issues must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.)

As I suggested above, the best way in which to resolve the issue of an unpopular image is simply to remove it altogether. This is a nice compromise, and I suggest that we vote. I would like to hear from Winterboxblues and Zadarspot, since they have also put time imto uploading images. I should be back in a couple of weeks. Boab (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote: Removing ugly photo

Hi Guys, I suggest that we remove the ugly 1984 photo from the article altogther. In other words, let's refrain from putting anything up there at all. I am sure that Freddie would be very ashamed to think that thousands of people are seeing this terrible thing! Whoever put this thing up there must really have something against Freddie.

Not only does the photo look unprofessional, but it conveys no useful information (can you even see his face?). In particular, I hope to hear from those of you who have worked on the article. By the way, note that images are not necessary for a Good Article. Boab (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)