Talk:M.I.A. (rapper)/Archive 1

well done article
http://www.ukmusicsearch.co.uk/reviews/m-i-a-arular.asp

well done article. --Klestrob44 02:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC).


 * I agree, great article. --Mrfixter 23:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Where did all this info come from? Impressed. Maybe she's been down here herself... --BazDM 05:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I just collected all the information from countless articles and interviews with M.I.A. over the past year or so into one, big article. --Pinchofhope 07:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

We should suggest this article to be featured!! how do you do that?--Sonjaaa 07:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If Maya was born in 1978 how could she be an 11 year old in 1986? --217.40.99.107 09:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed a good article. One minor comment: "insane electro-squelch" sounds doesn't sound very encylopedic to me. Perhaps dropping the "insane" or quoting a description from a external music critic? In fact, that phrase crops up in a number of other places in Google, so perhaps it's worth directly quoting the original source -- William Pietri 00:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Hi! A Google search turns up a number of copies of this. The MTV version credits her record label. The version on lsfm.net credits Stephen Loveridge with at date of November 2004, which predates this article. Ditto for a press release from the British Council. I'm afraid that this is a copyright violation, so I've sent an email to Stephen Loveridge to confirm. If anybody knows anything about this, could they contact me? Thanks! --William Pietri 00:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Having not heard back, I'm going to call this a copyvio for now. Drat! --William Pietri 20:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless we hear back from the original author, I think the next step is to go through the page history and salvage all of the original material added. If somebody starts that before me, could they please start a new section here and note their progress? Thanks! --William Pietri 22:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Loveridge is credited as the co-producer of her website so probably some the information was ripped off her official site at www.miauk.com. -Nickcin2000 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Good news! I finally heard back from him. He writes:


 * Hi,


 * I'm just writing back to confirm authorship and grant permission for use of the M.I.A. text that you had on wikipedia.


 * thanks,


 * Stephen Loveridge

So I'm going to restore the deleted text. It could still use some cleanup, but it's worlds better than the stub we otherise would have had to work with. --William Pietri 19:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Significant ommissions
Since this article is supposed to be about M.I.A. the person, there's a lot of history between 1986 and her involvement with Elastica. And the fact that she's an accomplished artist. I'll put something in there soonish, but any other content of that type is welcome Mostlyharmless 11:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias in Article?
There seems to be a bias in this article towards, the separatist terrorist groups (EROS etc ) described in the section that describes M.I.A’s early life. My main objection is the one sided telling of the conflict in Sri Lanka. I do not expect a tit-for-tat account of the conflict or an in-depth political discussion, this can be reserved the articles concerning Sri Lanka and the conflict. However ‘taming’ some comments or describing the accounts as ‘alleged’ might be more suitable.

I am not going edit to the article or suggest alternate text, as I believe I might be biased in the opposite direction. However I would appreciate if the maintainers of this article consider the changes that I have suggested.

Review Link
I'm adding the review link of the album placed recently on top to the main article page too. Cookie90 14:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good article, but...
This is already a very promising article, with enough photos, references, etc. I have only the following concern: I feel the language used is too informal in places &mdash; too many adjectives and "hip" verbs &mdash; which indicates a large amount of subjectivity, which isn't suitable for an encyclopaedia. For instance, I'll highlight the following phrases, although there are more:
 * the raucous baile funk sound
 * who had furnished her so successfully with the insane electro-squelch and mangled beats on "Galang"
 * they pushed boundaries even further with hyper-minimalist production and a reworked chorus from Dr. Buzzards Original Savannah Band’s track of the same name to create a hypnotic template for her to fire out her young-girl bravado
 * innovative mashed-up recipe

I would award it GA as soon as the language is cleaned up a bit. dewet|✉ 11:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok cool. I've cleaned up the language a bit. :) Cookie90 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, I'm fairly happy with it. There are a few more of those lurking, but I'll leave it for others to pick out.  Well done! dewet|✉ 20:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Diplo
There is more about Diplo in this article than his own. I think most of that section should be merged into his article. with a

in the MIA page.--Paul E. Ester 15:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah that sounds like a good idea. :) Cookie90 16:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Free download of MIA
coke machine glow has a review and features Piracy_Funds_Terrorism, the complete album as a free download.--Paul E. Ester 23:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bar from entry into US; North American tour
The article says she was 'recently' banned from entering the US. However, the next section says that she performed in 2006 in a North American tour. How about a timeframe: in whidch year was she banned/denied a US visa? (Or was she able to only tour Canada and Mexico, and not the other north American state, the U.S.?) Dogru144 15:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review
I've listed this article at Good Article Review for POV problems. There are phrases like "lush music video", "an innovative recipe", and "who had furnished her so successfully" throughout the article that contribute little to the actual content of the article but interfere with NPOV. —ShadowHalo 07:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC) I've added copyright problems to the GA Review. There are three copyrighted images being used that don't specify the source and don't say why they meet the first fair use criterion (since they are of living people). —ShadowHalo 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources and fair use rationale have now been provided on the image pages. Lifebonzza 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The copyright holder of the images is still missing from the images. I've also added the reason that they appear to not meet the first fair use criterion (that they illustrate living people who make public appearances).  —ShadowHalo 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

M.I.A.

 * result:Delist 4-0

Fails criteria 4: phrases like "lush music video", "an innovative recipe", and "who had furnished her so successfully" contribute little to content of the article and raise questions about POV. It also fails criteria 6(c): there are three images used with no source given. —ShadowHalo 07:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another article which seems to of been written by music critics, and the image tagging thing is a problem too, Delist. Homestarmy 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to delist. Diez2 13:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delist Rlevse 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above, trivia section, lead should be two paragraphs. M3tal H3ad 07:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. LuciferMorgan 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup
This article is been almost a verbatim copy of, which is not a WP:RS, it is written by a person called Stephen Loveridge, who is not notable as a google search for the name does not yield any notewarthiness. It appears to be a personal website/fansite and as such fails WP:RS and cannot be used as a source. Besides the verbatim copy of the said website violates copyright and as such cannot be included in a wikipedia article. Hnnce my reversion. Statements like "The army regularly shot Tamils seeking to move across border areas and bombed roads and escape routes" are completely POV and as such are not permitted.

It is also to note that user:Lifebonzza, Special:Contributions/Lifebonzza, has few edits other than this topic and is a possible SPA.Kerr avon 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read above for permission regarding the use of Steven Loveridge's work granted via email to User:William Pietri. How is it that this article can go through at least two reviews, and not once are your so-called "pov statements" picked out? And Ad-hominem is a strategy of the witless - accusing me of being "a possible SP" does nothing for your argument.Lifebonzza 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stephen Loveridge is credited as the co-producer of MIA's website, as such it is not a independent reliable source who is not biased. He can use any promotional material which is not valid without independant confirmation. PLease read WP:RS regarding Self-published sources. This article violates WP:RS as the self-published source is being unduly self-serving and self-aggrandizing, and is also about third parties like the Sri lankan army.   Hence it is wrong to use MIA's own sources without independent confirmation of serious allegations like abuse by the sri lankan army.Kerr avon 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

user:Lifebonzza, your contributions - Special:Contributions/Lifebonzza shows that you fit the definition of a WP:SPA, as you have made few edits outside this topic.Kerr avon 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that it isn't "self published", but written by someone else, who is credited, and has granted permission for it to be used. If it is one statement that bothers you, add a tag next to it, and another user may wish to add a citation next to it. Lifebonzza 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the definition of a self published source - WP:RS. It clearly states that "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources "


 * Hence there are several issues, first of all as Stephen Loveridge is the co-producer of MIA's website, his comments/articles are therefore classified as a  self published source which violates WP:RS. If BBC or any other reliable source made the same comments then we can take them as encyclopaedic, but not from a self published source. WP:RS specifically states that "The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all",  I fail to see Stephen Loveridge's claim to be notable, hence under that aspect too sourcing from him violates WP:BLP and WP:RS.Kerr avon 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that why you also blanked this - "hiding from the Sri Lankan Army... (which is reported to engage in the torture of Tamil males) cited with Sri Lanka's Torture Shame)? Lifebonzza 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And what I choose to edit has nothing to do with you or this dispute. Lifebonzza 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is that SPA's have a hidden agenda and a undue interest in the article usually and are biased.Kerr avon 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly innocent, and your accusation qualifies as being in violation of WP:No personal attacks as stated on WP:SPA. This source has been approved as acceptable in atleast two reviews. It is evident that because of one statement, that I do not dispute is true, you are attacking the integrity of the source. If you think blanking this statement from the article will resolve this dispute, go ahead - I am prepared to be the better wikipedian, and be done with this, but you don't fool me. Lifebonzza 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. this biography has also been published on mtv.com, as well as on a britishcouncil release, as stated above by User:William Pietri. Lifebonzza 19:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that mtv.com or britishcouncil having published verbatim copies it does not make any difference as it is simply a promotional article which has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, and where no one has stood between the writer and the act of publication.
 * The reason that it violates WP:RS is that it is being used as a primary source and it goes against the guidline mentioned as "about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject". As it involves certain serious allegations about the sri lankan army like "The army regularly shot tamils" etc, this self published source cannot be used to substantiate such allegations. If the allegations regarding the sri lankan army were removed or a reliable sources was found rather than the MIA's own promoter claiming that her father was harrased by the army etc, then only can such comments be used. Also blatant POV statements like "which is reported to engage in the torture of Tamil males" violate WP:BLP which state that controversial and poorly sourced material should not be in a biography. Kerr avon 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I added Totally disputed to the Early life section because it contains; a blatant POV attack against the Sri Lanka Army, factual accuracy of that attack is disputed, that section is depends on a single reference and even it is not properly cited. Lifebonzza should mind that this is an article regarding a singer and not a place for accusations. So do not disturb to illustrate your point. In Wikipeida there is plenty of conflict resolution methods like WP:3O and I recommend you to(as a help for a newbie(?)) go for such processes rather than wasting the valuable time of both parties. Thanks. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  04:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point out the exact "pov attack" statements in the early section here so it can be analysed by myself and other users who do not have a history of pushing a particular agenda on wikipedia, otherwise the tag is going to be removed. This article is about a singer, true, who was directly affected by the civil war on that island, and the actions of the army there, and therefore this section and its contents are perfectly in line with wiki rules. Thanks. Lifebonzza 05:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excusing the blatant hypocrisy, particularly regarding the torture statements, other citations confirming the harrassment, bombing, gunfire etc. M.I.A.'s family and other Tamils were subjected to by the SL army have been added. The template has also been removed. Lifebonzza 07:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The POV statements in question are your edits like which state "The army regularly shot Tamils seeking to move across border areas" which is completely unsubstantiated and violates wikipedia's WP:BLP amongst others. Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia and has to maintain quality standards regarding quality sourcing, if you want you can say anything glamorising M.I.A. on your own website, but not on wikipedia wikthout proper sourcing. A lot of M.I.A's article contains unsourced information which are not verifiable and as such will be removed if no citations are provided, the article needs a cleanup to be more encyclopaedic from its current. All i am interested in is that wikipedia to be a good encyclopaedia and not a place where people can use to defame my country or act as a personal website for self promotion. She may have been affected by the war in Sri lanka but without cites from proper authoritative sites (rather than her own promoter) they are meningless.Kerr avon 11:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That my edit removed blatant vandalism by User:Kerr avon in violation of WP:Vandalism, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, including his edit that she "moved to the Phillipines in the far north of the arctic" (??!!!??), restored cited blanked information etc. and attempted to initiate discussion before further vandalism by User:Kerr avon is clear and plain to see. Earlier in this discussion I said "If it is one statement that bothers you, add a tag next to it, and another user may wish to add a citation next to it". The other user later claims this would be acceptable, yet continues to blank the statement completely from the article, as well as other cited information and sentences. Parallel to this, he pursues an ad-hominem strategy. As stated before, excusing the evident hypocrisy, further discussion on this is pointless. Lifebonzza 14:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not distort facts, the edit rerefencing the arctic had nothing to do with me, it was already in your edit, even before i started editing this article, it was added by a anonymous ip 67.188.200.91 on 26 March 2007 . That IP address is from comcast, and I am from Sri Lanka. So please do not attempt to distort facts and say i added that info.  It is you who by being a SPA are trying to use wikipedia to push forth your own hidden agenda of trying to promote M.I.A. and ignoring wikipedia's guidlines. If you want to glorify M.I.A and blame the Sri lankan government without facts please put up your own website, but please do not use wikipedia were only cited info is permitted.14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the correction clearly made and stated by myself in edit summary., here are other edits made since the correction , , , here's you reinstating the vandalism , and heres my edit removing it again, - demonstrating and specifying that corrections (the Phillippine statement) and other additions made before your revert were being restored and requesting discussion in the edit summary , and here's you reinstating it here with the rest of your vandalism again before discussion has even started. Believe what you want, but the evidence is clear and you don't fool me. Lifebonzza 15:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand that I was not aware of the philipenes bit which was added by someone else, I reverted to previous version (not knowing of the philipenes bit) because you had wholesale removed my edits without reason, your edits show you not only correcting the philipenes bit but reinserting your POV and blatantly untrue statements like the army shooting people trying to cross the border. I will not join in this splitting of hairs further as arguing with SPA's like you who have a hidden agenda is pointless.Kerr avon 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * klm

Denied visa
M.I.A. was denied a visa to enter the US around April/May 2006. _maybe so, but she performed at the Coney Island Siren Music Festival in July 2007. Can we follow up? --Knulclunk 02:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why moved? Move it back!
Why has this been moved to Mathangi Arulpragasum (which looks like a mis-spelling in any case)? M.I.A. is the name on all her records and Mathangi is nowhere. --217.204.11.194 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

, primary meaning of M.I.A. is "Missing In Action". You are, of course, free to move it somewhere like M.I.A. (rapper) as mentioned below. Neil  ム  09:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Support a move to M.I.A. with a bracketed disambiguator, e.g. M.I.A. (rapper), M.I.A. (singer). Oppose a move to simply M.I.A. due to potential confusion with missing in action. —   AjaxSmack   00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Add disambiguator per AjaxSmack, but the redirect at M.I.A. should point to Missing in action. If there are major problems with that, it should at least be a dab. There may be links on music-related pages here to the singer, but outside of that realm, the military meaning is surely the most prominent one. Dekimasu よ! 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hair Cut
"M.I.A's new bob was cut by her Polish friend while on Keratine."

Keratine, really? Then her hair should be in excellent condition. Should that be Ketamine?

That said, I believe Trivia sections are currently considered undesirable (though I like 'em).

Ned-kogar 10:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Associated Acts
I'm just cleaning up the associated acts section - Peaches and Elastica are just acts involving prominent women. I took them off and added Switch. RomanZayus 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You think that Peaches and Elastica were only listed there because they're women? I don't know if they deserve to be listed there, but they're there because M.I.A. did a music video for Elastica and so on--read the article.P4k 01:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn, I forgot all about that music video. She also lived with Justine from Elastica for a bit too, I just remembered. My bad, I'll put them back. RomanZayus 05:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Associated Acts
DriveDelta, the Associated Acts section shouldn't necessarily include producers but Diplo and Switch are also established solo artists, and a large part of her music - moreso than the other producers on Galang or Morganics and DJ Blaqstarr. I reckon they should be put in the associated acts section (Diplo & Switch, that is) but I'll leave it up to you. RomanZayus 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry for the late reply. I've returned your discussion with another user above here that you removed because it's relevant. The Associated acts section - from what I've now read - most often includes previous bands the artist may have been a part of etc. so these two needn’t go in this section, nor anyone else. Your view that Diplo and Switch are "established solo artists" etc. is your opinion - (I can't find much mention of their work prior to her working with them though they've had output) and I can’t hear any evidence they are a "large part of her music" either - not more so than herself of course as well as artists like Peaches, Justine Frischmann (writer), Mackey (producer on Galang, Sunshowers), et al. and the many genres that've inspired her - but anyway - that ‘Associated Acts’ section should be removed altogether because it isn’t relevant to her unless anyone has objections to that. DriveDelta 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)