Talk:Born Free (M.I.A. song)

I'm going to take off the deletion tag, since this controversial short film/music video by a significant artist has been covered by MTV News, Pitchfork, and NME, which are all established independent music media outlets, as well as a blog hosted by NPR (National Public Radio):

http://www.metro.co.uk/metrolife/music/823394-m-i-a-releases-controversial-born-free-music-video

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1637769/20100426/mia__4_.jhtml

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monitormix/2010/04/mia_video_for_born_free_nsfw.html

Praghmatic (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Single, not only a short film
It is a single, so why is the page called "Born Free (short film)"? Clif (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

because at this point the music video is more notable than the song itself128.189.208.237 (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it was a standard error, for you are right, the song was leaked a few days beforehand, and the film is the video, while the single has received a huge response it has been moved to the song page.Lifebonzza (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of term "ginger"
As near as I can tell, there's no good reason to use the term "ginger" here when red-head or red-headed is preferred usage. I'm not going to change it, but it seems a bit odd as it currently is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.177.223 (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it yesterday. 89.128.177.223 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Starlancer changed Ian Hamrick quote, but new version of quote didn't match NME ref, so changed it to a quote I saw at that NME page. --EarthFurst (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, Maya refers to them as "gingers". Scartol  •  Tok  16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

VEVO's copy?
Article says "The video was then re-posted on YouTube by VEVO, ..." I assumed that copy was deleted from YouTube. Is VEVO's copy at http://youtube.com/watch?v=IeMvUlxXyz8 ? (when I look at that page I see "This video contains content from Vevo, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.") --EarthFurst (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find the video at Youtube either. I doubt Youtube is actually allowing a repost. Either that or they silently deleted the repost shortly after again. In any case, I don't think it is viewable on Youtube for anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.176.229 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Link works fine for me, the video's definitely on youtube and viewable in the United States with a youtube account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.252.187 (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Using WP:RS sources
Do not use sources that are unreliable. Individuals who are not involved in the making of the track, have made questionable claims in the past, and/or peer review in general is not accepted as reliable on wikipedia as it violates WP:Neutrality and these claims are generally considered biased. The article does not suffer without it. Lifebonzza (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I added the info on the drums after doing some research based on the question, "Who plays the drums on this track?" I felt that the sources I'd cited were reliable. In general, I'd appreciate not having all of my edits removed summarily on the grounds that I cited one source that isn't up to another editor's standards. Thanks. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! I understand you acted in good faith. It is encouraged that material is independently verified for third party use. Self-published blogs by those not involved in the track, are not experts in the topic of the article and/or have made questionable claims in the past are not generally accepted as reliable sources on information about the article topic that is presented as fact. That is why it was removed. Please read WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:RSOPINION for more info on these rules and when, where and how some exceptions can be attributed. Peer review/ opinion that follows wikipedia policy on reliable sources can be accepted as reliable, but only in certain circumstances. If the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have independently done so. I've refined what has been written to only include what is mentioned in the source on there. :)  Lifebonzza (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)