Talk:M.I.A. (rapper)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Personal Background

IF M.I.A. is member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization than so am I!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander2010 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And for the idiots I am not P.L.O. or a terrorist in the Bushian sense of the word. But I will put great terror in devils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander2009 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

She went to Ricards lodge high school in the late 80s. cmon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.209.103 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw a youtube video where M.I.A. says she was born in Sri Lanka and her family subsequently fled to UK as a refugee, pls see, video Lilaac (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Maya currently lives in Brentwood, Los Angeles according to this NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/magazine/30mia-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=music. Not in Bed-Stuy, as the article currently says. 69.117.23.65 (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)David Chen

M.I.A had a baby boy!

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2225872&blogID=470722549 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.151.153 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what itiots are giving M.I.A.'s baby threats, but they can get it too fuck 'em.

Dodgy References

This para needs sources, especially considering its inflammatory content:

content removed per WP:BLP

This next para provides a source which does not support the statements made:

content removed per WP:BLP

The Guardian interview makes no direct reference to child soldiers, suicide bombers or subliminal messages. Or the burning of Singhalese people.

I'd suggest that both these paras be removed until vaild, accurate sources are provided. Currently this is libellous.Ned-kogar (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the quotes that you posted and I don't believe they exist in the current version of the article. I removed them since we aren't allowed to rewrite libelous information even in the Talk pages.

Also please look down at the bottom of the talk page as there already is a discussion that is taking place on these edits.

--Nickcin2000 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Discography?

DriveDelta, I think if you want to move the Paper Planes Homeland Security Remixes to discography article, then you should also move the mixtapes and singles and everything. We should either have the complete discography on another article, or the whole discography on the M.I.A. page. I have seen how others do it and mostly people just put the studio albums on the main page and then everything else on the discography page. We should do it like this. That would mean just listing Arular and Kala and then having a link to the discography. Since you have taken the responsibility to move the remixes EP I'll let you finish the job and move everything else. Otherwise I am going to move the remix EP back, and I'll finish the job myself later. As of right now its incomplete. It should either be a complete seperate discography, or an included discography on main page just with main albums. Exander2009 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MUSTARD#Discographies. A simple system on the main article can constitute both albums and singles, as it states. I'm inserting the singles table back here. The rest can remain on her discography page. DriveDelta (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK lets draw the line there then. The main article should have singles and main albums only, and then everything else on her discography. Exander2009 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Themes, topics and views

Do not revert mass edits without discussing. Personally, I find this section is small and can easily be merged into the main body of the article. The beginning line is something like "Global ideas and issues are presented in M.I.A.'s art". As the edit summary says, if it’s about issues represented through her art, then a title including the word "Themes" is a better title than just “Political views.” Its contents are likely to be changed/added to over time, to keep it worth staying as a separate section. Edits such as this [1] are necessary because it read like a personal reflection and was essay like. "Themes, topics and views" more than adequately covers its contents, as oppose to the vague "political views". You may indeed have listed some of her political views here, but that's not all that's in this section now. If there's still a problem, we can ask for a third opinion. Cookie90 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am happy that you are interested in this article and Wikipedia and I know we can work out the difference in opinion. It should be indisputed that MIA has Political Views. I have read nearly every piece of media there is on M.I.A., watched every video, and have listened to every piece of music. I totally disagree that the Political Views section is like a personal essay. I provide adequate resources like Rolling Stone, and use quotations from the artist herself as Wikipedia suggests. M.I.A. is one of the most political artists out right now. Look at her latest relase, the Homeland Security Remixes--the very title is political. As far as your "Themes, topics, and views" title--I feel that is way more vague than Political Views. There should without a doubt be a Political views section to M.I.A. Take a look at other political artists' pages, like Kanye West, Rage Against the Machine or even the Dixie Chicks and you will find political sections. I am a major in Political Science at University. That does not negate what you are saying, and I don't know you, but it is relevant because this is my expertise and that's why I chose to write this . What could be more vague then the word topics?? That goes without saying. Views? Of course she has views, I am talking about her Political views.Themes? Websters defines themes as this: 1 a: a subject or topic of discourse or of artistic representation <guilt and punishment is the theme of the story> b: a specific and distinctive quality, characteristic, or concern <the campaign has lacked a theme> One of Maya's biggest themes is her politics. Now if you want to create an overarching title "Themes, topics, and views" with Political Views a subpart of that, that is fine with me. And you can write those other theme sections if you want, but Political Views should be part of it. One of Rolling Stone's article titles for M.I.A. was "M.I.A. goes Global", because she toured the world to record her album and has global political themes in her music. You can argue that anything in the universe can be classified with something else. Basketball in sports, sports in exercise, exercise in health etc. etc. etc. But, in this case, I want to highlight M.I.A's Political Views, with a section to itself, because she has Political Views. Again this is not some personal reflection or something, I base this section on Maya's own words and the articles I have read. Also again, if you want to create a Themes section or something, and have Political Views be part of it, then that is cool with me. But, at this point, no one has written another theme or topic to go under that. There isn't a love theme, or a religion theme or family theme or something. But if you want to write that that is cool, and then we can have use for a bigger title like themes, topics and views. You say its about issues represented through her art. Yes, but its specifically about political issues not just issues. Politics is the study of who gets what, when, where and why. That's why I talk about what I talk about there. Maya has come from a mud hut in Sri Lanka where she used to be harassed by soldiers, to a world renowned musical artist. So, its fitting that we talk she talks about who gets what and why. Just because a sentence is short does not mean its bad. And just because a sentence is long does not mean its good. Einstein said, if you can't explain something simply, then you probably don't understand it. Adding the phrase "a variety" is not clean up or editing, I think its just redundant. You are right there are different themes in Maya's art. And people can add those later, and then we can put that under a themes title or something along with political views. I think that would be a perfect compromise. I would do it right now, except there are no other themes written up yet so it would be redundant. Also, I feel her political views is her biggest theme so that's why the users have it there. Finally I want say again I am happy in your interest, and I am wanting to resolve this and hopefully a better article will result. You bring up a good point that politics is not her only theme, but I do feel it is the biggest. With this said I will revert back. Hopefully in the future when there is more written about Maya, there will be different themes. A lot of the literature on her shows her political theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.111.208 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Exander

Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid you're just confirming everything that I've already written. This is about the difference between a "theme" and a "view", not about whether you and I agree she is political. You've just described the fact that political issues are Themes in her work and that the citations and her quotes you include describe/explain them as such. All true. You use the example Paper Planes -Homeland Security Remixes EP as good evidence. You also admit that they (political issues) are not the only themes in her work. This in itself warrants the inclusion of the word Themes in the title.

That politics is her art's 'biggest' "theme" (which I'm not saying is untrue) does not automatically mean it deserves its own section either, and everything else should be deleted. Sections in wikipedia are present only if there isn't a chance it could be integrated into the main body. Topics were broken down and were included in the section (political topics already included), and the new title allows further contributions should other users wish to add. However these could easily be included in the main body.

Frankly there currently aren't 'enough' "views" mentioned in this section. The other articles you've listed which you claim have similar sections are cases in point. These other sections consist largely of many political "views" and "activism" advocated in interviews, programmes etc. by them independently, and not about how (or that) they are presented through their art ("themes"). So it makes sense that the titles for those sections are "political views" and/or whatever else. You can include her views as part of this section should you choose to do so, and if there are enough, create a subsection with that as a title if you want. That's why the word views was also kept in the title I suggested as a compromise. If you want, the title can be changed to "Political themes, topics, and views" for now, until it's added to further. M.I.A has used "political themes" in her art far more than she has expressed "political views" independently of these. True, citations are provided only so edits do not look like personal reflections, and it follows that the sentences in the section should be written in a way that neutral point of view is upheld. I've now done that. This is an encyclopaedia article, not a dissertation. Remember not to revert back until a discussion has ended and consensus is reached. Cookie90 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree with you, as I said earlier, that Political Views would fit into a section of "Themes" in her music. So, I am satisfied with the current title. I do not agree with adding the phrase "a variety" to the first sentence. I just feel that is not needed, adds clutter, and makes it a weaker sentence. Of course it will be a variety, and plural. She does not have one view, I think that goes without saying. That's an issue of style. Now, I really have a problem with this sentence: "These include lyrical topics and imagery drawing from Arul's own experiences and observations of poverty, the meaning of identity, survival, violence, and forms of prejudice." I actually agree with that sentence, but you don't cite any sources. That's when you start to wonder about how it got there, we need to cite sources. I know for a fact she has articles where she talks about the survival aspect and also in a few interviews. But we should 'cite before we write'. Also, how do you call her Arul? Is that your nickname from her last name? I think that could add confusion with her political leader father Arular among other things. "Arul has also expressed her desire to create, through her art, a way to help others hear voices she feels are not normally heard." I feel the preceding sentence is adequately represented by M.I.A.'s own words and the previous version. I will add the "she feels" part though. Why delete the hyperlink to Sri Lanka? There is a hyerlink earlier in the article to the country, but why not have one here as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander2009 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The practice for WP:Citing sources is clearly stated, and I think you should read the article. As you say, there are sources for this info, and the practice is to add a citation tag to information that is likely to be challenged rather than blank out the sentences completely. Seeing as you agree with the sentence, (don't find it contentious), and it isn't likely to be challenged, I see no reason why you should remove it altogether or tag it, but if you know of sources, feel free to enter them. Calling her Arul is fine, as has been done in articles about her, so long as she is not referred to by her first name (Maya) on the article when being attributed things. That is a stylistic weak point. The information has been readded. If an article is linked once, it need not be linked again in the same article, but I've left this link here. Remember to sign your comments off with the four tildes, and I recommend you read the guidelines on wikipedia. Cookie90 (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am changing Arul to Arulpragasam. Arul is the first name of her father. No other user here uses Arul. There may be other Internet articles that nick her Arul, but it is inappropriate because that is her father's name. Let's use proper names whenever possible. Exander2009 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem with this part? " M.I.A. often talks about the relationship between first and third world countries and the differences that exist between them, but also the similarities. "It's O.K. to add new elements to your ideas, to your existence," Maya says.

Keep in mind that I found this quote Rolling Stone and it is a two sentence quote. It goes along with the other part. What is your problem with the first part of M.I.A.'s thought? "It's O.K. to add new elements to your ideas, to your existence," Maya says. "There will be more bridges built between the developed and developing world." Why do you want to edit M.i.A.'s thought? I am putting it back because I have not seen a good reason and it goes with what you were saying before about not deleting that are not contentious. You gave a good reason why i should leave your sentence, which we can easily find a resource for later, "These include lyrical topics and imagery drawing from Arulpragasam's own experiences and observations of poverty, the meaning of identity, survival, violence, and forms of prejudice." So i left it in. But what is the reason to delete the first part of what M.i.A. says. Why do you delete this: "M.I.A. often talks about the relationship between first and third world countries and the differences that exist between them, but also the similarities."? Do you find it contentious?

I feel this sentence is quite akward: "Arulpragasam has also expressed her desire to create, through her art, a way to help others hear voices she feels are not normally heard in the World." I think it says the same thing I am saying in a different, longer way. Usually when another person has taken the time to come up with a quote or a source and written a perfectly fine sentence I don't try to mess with it even if I feel I could put some sauce on it and spice it a bit. I expect the same. I say this in good faith.

She has not just "expressed a desire" to do this she has pretty much done it. Wants is a perfectly fine word, we don't need "expressed a desire".

"A way to help others hear voices", is akward also. She is not just helping others hear voices she is literally giving a voice to those without a voice. Length can be important but that is a bit wordy I think.

"Her work has featured political and social commentary. " I think the preceding sentence is redundant but I will leave it in.

Please come up with some sources for this sentence. "These include lyrical topics and imagery drawing from Arulpragasam's own experiences and observations of poverty, the meaning of identity, survival, violence, and forms of prejudice." Its a lot of you to claim to know her personal observations and experiences. I have read some Wiki policy, and yes sentences should not be removed without reason, but sentences without sources are liable for removal, especially in pages about a person.

Please see that I have kept a lot of your suggestions. I don't know about you but I think we are very close to resolution if not already. If we go on much longer M.I.A. will have released her third album already! =) Exander2009 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am changing the title of the section to all that is needed, Politics. If we look up Politics in the dictionary we see: 4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person We do not need qualifying words to describe what the word itself already implies and means. Also, this title should absolutely be in bold just as all the others are. Exander2009 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

---

In regards to my addition of M.I.A.'s quote which includes the word "battle", I would like to say that I personally support a NON-VIOLENT battle for freedom of speech in all countries, and not a violent battle. I agree with Jesus Christ, live by the sword die by the sword.

Year of Birth and age?

The article has her born in 1977 and being 30. In this New York Times piece from 2007 the article states at the time, that her manager gave MIA's age as 32 to them, based on her passport. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/arts/music/19sisa.html?pagewanted=print

Where is the source for her being born in 1977?Duhon (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good point. She jokes about her age on her myspace as being 104. I wonder how old she really is. Exander2009 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Near the end of her biography, the article indicates that she learned English in the "late Eighties" when she was five years old. This doesn't appear to match her actual age range. 66.169.239.153 (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After the recent birth of her child, TMZ.COM is in possession of documentation listing her birthdate as 7/18/1975, making her 33.. I don't care enough to follow up/edit, but someone may want to. Hrhadam (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As she was born in the UK, details of her birthplace and date will be available from the UK Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths via sites such as ancestry.co.uk, but you generally have to pay a subscription to access the records...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the UK Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths at my local library, and found that a Mathangi Arul-Pragasam (sic) was born in Hounslow in quarter 3 (July/August/September) of 1975, but nobody of that surname was born anywhere in the UK in 1977, so that suggests the 1975 date is indeed correct............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but that would be original research unfortunately. — R² 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely not if the UKRBMD was cited as a source? It's an official government document, surely that would be considered reliable? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We should be using third party coverage, not using primary sources to aid our own investigation. We are not journalists. Also, there is no guarantee that the Mathangi Arul-Pragasam you saw is MIA? — R² 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable Development EP??

I see there is a "Sustainable Development EP" listed in the template at the bottom of the page. I have never heard of it and can't find any references to it on the internet. Can anyone shed light on this. Also I know her new 2008 tour will be called the Sustainable Development tour. (66.36.133.248 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)).

Singles?

Looks like the singles list is incomplete. If you go to the articles about her albums you will find that there are some singles that are not on the list. Ytred (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Well M.I.A. has officially obtained the American Dream, via England. The people jealous of her are so blinded by their envy that they can't see straight. The voices will not be quieted, the crowd too strong. Love wins out. Exander009, American.

Last Show

I just wanted to comment on her "last show", since I was there but I can't give my personal account, since it's independent research and not verifiable. I've been citing other sources instead, but there seems to be some confusion on the subject, since people modified what I said and seem to have completely missed what the references said. Towards the end of !!!'s set (they performed before M.I.A.), they said to stick around for M.I.A.'s last show ever, which caused some confused looks from the audience.

When M.I.A. took the stage, she seemed noticeably agitated, barking at the sound people to turn up he bass on her mic, but she eventually loosened up and put on a great show. She repeatedly said during the show that it was her last and "I'm leaving, but it's on good terms." Near the end of her set she hinted that she would eventually be back saying "They can't keep me away forever." However, it seems like for the time being, she won't be performing any longer.

It seems hard to believe that a rising star like herself would just quit, but that's what she seemed to indicate, not that this was just the end of the tour or something like that. Also, Talib Kweli took to the stage with her during the encore, but again, I don't have any sources for that other than my eyes. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it might not have been Talib Kweli... I couldn't hear the name very well... it was some hip-hop artist who was there, it may not have been him... Oh well. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I assume your edits are made in good faith, but what you claim is all original research, and non-verifiable. The references you've provided all speculate, and one says they have no confirmation on certain venues' cancellations. The edits have been changed to reflect this. M.I.A has reportedly said, according to one magazine, she is exhausted so she has cancelled her UK dates, (she's cancelled all her other European dates too apparently save perhaps one) and has been writing new songs for a new album. DriveDelta (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also she performed "Hussel" with Afrikan Boy during the encore. [2]. Try not to include your own commentary on the talk pages or main articles, and give more ideas on improving the article here. Thank you. DriveDelta (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Afrikan Boy, that's who it was. And I was giving ideas on improving the article. I was trying to prevent an edit war by citing my sources. No one else was doing the same when they said she was going to continue to tour Europe, which even her label says she has canceled. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And I already said that it was independent research and that's why I didn't put it in there. It was in the discussion page here to explain what was going on. There's no need to take such a tone about it, as I said I was merely trying to prevent an edit war that you seem to want. She has canceled all further dates and even her record label says her dates are canceled and that was her "last show ever". [3] You've thus far reverted my edits that have citations and have yet to provide any proof what so ever to justify your own edits. Like I said, I find it hard to believe that she will never perform again, but I also thought that was hard to believe when Neutral Milk Hotel stopped performing or recording. How about you verify something next time? -GamblinMonkey (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, and read my angry reply above, the more I realize your edits and arrogant tone have annoyed me to the point that I don't want anything else to do with this article. From your edit history, it's clearly your pet project, so do whatever you want with it. I simply had updated information that I thought was important to it that you've steamrolled over and made it seem like there was no significance to that performance, despite all of the cited sources disagreeing with you. To prevent any further conflict, I'll just remove myself from the equation. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are taking my invite for you to contribute further positively the wrong way. Assume good faith, rather than getting angry and worked up. Her label has a news feed with links to some articles claiming it is her "last show ever." That is not the label itself announcing it. If it ever does, then add that in. This all stems from this one article [4] which quotes her saying "this is my last show" and "thanks for coming to my last gig" before claiming she repeated that it was her 'last gig ever' three times, which it doesn't provide any proof of. It's speculative. Notice how this article does not say that. [5] If you want to specify that a New York Times blog assumed from what it quotes her as saying that Bonnaroo was her "last gig ever", then that's a different matter. You state: "No one else was doing the same when they said she was going to continue to tour Europe." Can you post the diff where "they" said this and this edit was made? "You've made it seem like there was no significance to that performance" - I don't know where you got that impression from. On her Myspace she still had Bonnarro and the Exit festival left on which she may or may not perform. Pitchfork stated Bonnaroo couldn't be reached to confirm whether she would perform there or not, speculating it might be cancelled, [6] which she evidently decided to do. Your edits were not backed up by your references. What is present is based on the references provided. I edit across wikipedia, not just on one article, and I ask that you assume good faith. DriveDelta (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow drivedelta, do you think maybe you are just a bit upset by the possibility that one of your favourite artists will be out of the game? If a musician says at a show is her last, that is certainly worth mentioning, even if there is a possibilty it is not her last show. If there is a reliable source then this should definitely be put into the article. --LeakeyJee (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No not at all. As has been noted elsewhere, no MIA quote attributed to her in those refs contains the word "ever" in it, so it remains a rumour as noted here. DriveDelta (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've had time to cool off and reconsider the situation. After looking at it from a fresh perspective, it seems DriveDelta is going at great lengths to erase any information about this being reportedly her last show. Most of your edits recently have been reverting any information about this. As it stands now, the facts are that multiple sources are saying it was possibly her last show, no sources are refuting it. Just on the fact that if an artist claims "This is my last show." it's notable and deserves to be here, regardless of if it was her last show or not. Even if she continues to tour, it is something that has been reported enough that it should be included in the article.

If she goes on to continue touring it can be changed to something like "In June 2008, she played what she claimed to be her last show. However, she later returned to performing begining in xxxxx." There is no reason this information should not be in the article and if you continue to revert it, I am going to request formal dispute resolution on this. You seem to be the minority here and you're out of line. Take a break, let others edit the article, this is the Wikipedia, where anyone is welcome to edit, not just you. If you can find a verifiable source that says it wasn't her last show, feel free to make note of it and cite it, but don't revert other people's edits that are backed up by sources. Thanks. -205.223.124.100 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and was my comment. I wasn't logged in. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And since you mentioned it, the NME article quotes her as "last show ever" [7]. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes the link to Paste magazine I provided [8] links to the NME article as being one of the articles that can't substantiate its claims entirely with what it quotes her as saying. The NME article also states it's getting its story from the NYT blog. As I've stated above, you are perfectly welcome to add that she stated "thanks for coming to my last gig" because that's what your refs state. Your refs do not quote her saying "I am retiring" or anything along those lines and there's a difference. By all means include what your refs quote her saying, but leave out your own interpretation of what she's been quoted, and let others decide for themselves. As I've also said, if you desperately want to include the fact there have been rumours since her concert that it was her last gig ever, there is no problem with that, and there are refs to back that up. I'm more than happy to take this to dispute resolution if needed. :) DriveDelta (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're using a Straw man. I never said she was retiring in the article. I never said anything about rumors. All I said was that she said it was her last show. She said it, it's been verified in the press. I never added my own interpretation anywhere but here on the discussion page and I explained that it was here because it was independent research and had no place on the article itself. I understand that there is no official word on what she meant one way or the other, but Wikipedia doesn't need official words, it just needs something that is verifiable, which her saying that it was her last show is. If you want to mention something about there being no official word on what she meant and confusion on the subject (which there clearly is from reading articles about it), that's fine with me, but the fact that she said it was her last show has a place in this article. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we're beginning to agree. :) Writing 'she performed what she claimed to be her last show at Bonnaroo' is writing your interpretation into the article. [9] Your edit summary describes it as her final show [10] and that Bonnaroo was cancelled prior to her performance [11] which I pointed out is not what the refs you gave said. You confirmed what I read there with your posts giving your views here that's all. As it states on WP:Talk pages, talk pages should not be used by editors as a platform for their personal views and we should try and avoid it. I think the quote "last show" should be in quotation marks too, like in the refs. I've added the full quote in. DriveDelta (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "she performed what she claimed to be her last show at Bonnaroo" is much of an interpretation. She did say that it was her last show, the wording was purposely ambiguous because it's still unclear what she meant. I didn't say "she performed her last show" I just said that she said it was her last show. If you say something, despite whether or not it is true, you are making a claim. I'm also against sticking quotes in everything. That's why we have references in Wikipedia, so we don't have to stick quotes in every sentence. I would much prefer paraphrasing, then linking to references of what was actually said. See Wikipedia:Quotation. As it stands now, it just throws the quote out there with no context and no explanation, causing readers to go look elsewhere to figure out what the heck that means.

Also, I only added the information about her canceling tour dates because someone decided to edit my entry saying she would continue to tour Europe. Now, as for your claim that I'm misusing the talk pages, I would say you reread your link, the sentence right before it says explicitly "Talk pages are useful such that they may contain information that is not on the article, but such information is often unverified and thus unreliable." Which is exactly what my post was: Information that is not on the article and not verified. As I've said previously, I put the information here to explain my edits to prevent an edit war. It was basically saying: "I was there, I don't know what the heck she meant, but she said it was her last show. I cited other sources so you know it's not me just making stuff up." As the talk page policy says "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." What I wrote here was speculation and personal knowledge, well within what's allowed.

Finally, as to what's currently in the article. I still don't agree with the way it is worded. See, the whole reason I originally came here was because I saw the show and came home thinking "Was that really her last show?" when I logged on to Wikipedia, there was no mention of it at all, so I added what I could find a source for. I'm afraid that others will be a similar situation, they hear it from someone or read it somewhere, then come here to check. Like I mentioned above, right now it's just a quote out of context with no explanation. Because of that, I think the best thing to do would be to reword the information to say something like "When she performed at Bonnaroo, she said it was her last show. However, there has been no official word from her or her label as to the meaning of this." You can word it however you like, but I think something like that would be the best explanation given what we know. It would also prevent both confusion and cut down on the number of edits saying she's retiring. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Seems like a lot of editors that seem to bump heads here. Some think she's some genres, others think she's the other genres. I think we need to come up with a consensus of what genres she falls under (and remember to aim for generality). Any thoughts? DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, why don't we all take a vote on the categories? Copy and past the categories when editing, and after sufficient input, the genres will be decided. Make sure to change your votes on all of the categories, and feel free to suggest a category you feel might be missing.

• Alternative - Yes
• Electronic - Yes
• alternative hip hop - Yes
• jungle - Yes
• dancehall - Yes
• folk - No
• alternative dance - Yes
• avant-garde music - Yes
• IDM - Yes
• indie - Yes
• rave - No

Icarus of old (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alternative - Yes
• Electronic - Yes
• alternative hip hop - Yes
• jungle - Yes
• dancehall - Yes
• folk - Yes (perhaps (Traditional an alternative)
• alternative dance - Yes
• avant-garde music - Yes
• IDM - Yes
• indie - Yes
• rave - Yes/No

Her inclusion of global folk traditions in her music warrants a mention, although traditional maybe an alternative. She has had rave songs too, but perhaps not as many. DriveDelta (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't she grime? That's what I always thought. Tooironic (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

LTTE affiliation related edits

This is becoming a problem since there has been an edit war concerning this sparked mainly by a music video by DeLon, a Sri Lankan rapper. This is what was added recently.

content removed per WP:BLP

This content is problematic for multiple reasons.

content removed per WP:BLP

The cited article actually says "Although Arular was not an LTTE member, his close association with Prabhakaran lasted many years.", therefore it actually contradicts the statement it is supposed to be backing. Also nowhere is it mentioned that the LTTE is a considered terrorist organization by 31 countries.

content removed per WP:BLP

She is actually known most for her music. Terms such as "it is said" mean there is no source to these claims ... which are claims that definitely need to be backed up as they are highly controversial.

content removed per WP:BLP

The cited article does not mention anything that is stated in the paragraph above.

For all these reasons I suggest this content is removed.

Nickcin2000 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The cited evidence for LTTE support are in the new "support for LTTE section" which is neutrally written. I have removed the noncited information in the biography section.

The problem here is that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation banned in 31 countries - reference :wikipedia itself [12].

And the artist M.I.A promotes the LTTE in her songs with images of Tigers etc freely displayed. So therefore this support for a terrorist organisation becomes controversial and notable, hence a new section. There is no doubt that if a artist supports osama bin laden, then it becomes notable. So I would welcome your views on M.I.A's controversial promotion of the LTTE and a seperate section for it.Kerr avon (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not be used as a source ... and even if it could, you didn't read your citation as it says that the LTTE is a terrorist organisation in 30 countries.

Please read the intro to the LTTE section. Also see [13].Quote: "Tigers are now on the banned list of 31 countries – i.e. 25 in the EU, plus USA, UK, Australia, India, Canada and Malaysia"Kerr avon (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Tiger which is the symbol of the LTTE is featured prominently in her music videos and posters [8]."

Your cited article does not mention that Tigers are used in her imagery.

Please check the embedded video of her song by playing it. It contains numerous tigers etc.Kerr avon (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Another article you cited[14] states this, "The extent of Maya’s LTTE approval is almost purely speculative, as most of it involves over-analytical dissections of her lyrical output. (Arular tends to be more concerned with conjuring up striking militant imagery rather than making blatant political declarations.)"

This article essentially discredits this section as it claims that this issue is based on speculation. Nickcin2000 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another article in which MIA's support for the LTTE including hosting a link to a LTTE front end tsunami releif organisation is discussed [15]

My only reason for adding this section is that I am a peace loving sri Lankan who has been on the receiving end of mindless LTTE atrocities for nearly 3 decades and I want a balanced view of the conflict. Just like promoting bin laden is wrong, so should be promoting a terrorist organisation which has been the only one in the world to have killed two world leaders. Now that our Sri lankan army is close to wiping them off Sri Lanka, the tamil diasspora has become agitated and is bent on posting misinformation and censoring cited content. I hope that wikipedias policy will prevent the misuse of this wiki in such exercises.Kerr avon (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP carefully. Adding a separate section on "support for the LTTE", a subject that is debated and controversial, violates WP:BLP because a whole section about debated allegations gives WP:UNDUE weight to one side of the story - something that is discouraged per WP:BLP. Additional rant about LTTE and it's political stand (proscribed) is nothing related to MIA. Addition of sentences like the one that claims that her family is funded by LTTE is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. If edits such as this continuous, you may be blocked from editing wikipedia. Watchdogb (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not try to push your rabid pro-ltte propaganda here. The LTTE is banned by 31 countries as a terrorist organisation. There are numerous cited commentaries about M.I.A flaunting her LTTE links. The support of a banned organisation is notable enough to warrant a seprate section.Kerr avon (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Kerr avon. The only problem is that the only terrorist in Sri Lanka is the Sri Lankan government perpetrating terrorism on the Tamil civilians. That, however, does not mean that you add liable material in wikipedia. False material on living people can lead to lawsuits and such and that is why we have strict policies about articles on living people. Making claims about her support to LTTE and other things are WP:REDFLAG claims that need hight quality sources to back them up, not some source from "Villagevoice". Watchdogb (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely stylusmagazine, the guardian are reliable sources, if you want i will remove the villagevoice link, but please note that you cant remove properly cited material. If the material faile WP:BLP then it is upto a unbiased editor to remove it rather than a obviously biased editor such as you, as your edits show you to be.Kerr avon (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:WatchdogB and the other user. The irony is that the villagevoice op-ed article, as do all the other sources User:Kerravon puts forward contradict his claims. One read of them demonstrates that. His edits have nothing to do with improving the article, just pushing his own WP:POV, and he clearly seems to have a personal agenda with regards to the civil war there, the artist etc.. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want to vent about your personal perceptions on anything, do it elsewhere. Also I think some of the information on this talk page warrants removal, considering WP:BLP clearly states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons - should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.DriveDelta (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with DriveDelta - material snipped. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand this debate on whether she's a terrorist or not. It's loosely based on images she has in her videos and her album cover. Apparently talking about your background, about war and politics, is wrong. This topic has been done over and over, but some ignorant rapper had to make this dis song. I mean Rage Against The Machine has done the same topic, and so many other artists have, so I just don't see how one could somehow call M.I.A. a terrorist in this one case. Throw away this stupid uninformed section.76.68.190.41 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is clear violation of WP:BLP going on here as well as WP:REDFLAG requires multiple mainstream sources to back up such controversal claims. I agree that the whole section is not notable Taprobanus (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his previous edits, he was not too keen to include this news article on the page in the past. Go figure. I think we should be alert to the likely partisanship of editors such as this. (Sources [16], [17]) DriveDelta (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

M.I.A.'s has addressed accusations in 2005 and also recently in a statement posted on Pitchfork: "I've heard lots of people say that I'm part of a terrorist group and I'm singing about that, and singing songs for them, but that's wack, I'd never do that." (from [18]) "I don't support terrorism and never have," she wrote in a statement. "As a Sri Lankan that fled war and bombings, my music is the voice of the civilian refugee. Frankly, I am not trying to start dialogue with someone who is really just seeking self-promotion."(from [19]) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Flyingtreemonkey (talk)

Surprise Surprise, the same user has decided to add his POV onto the article again. There has been an article in the Village Voice dismissing the Undue weight given to this by the New York Times article the user uses as a source, amongst other things. As consensus has been reached to remove this, that's what has been done. DriveDelta (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

: Please note that user:DriveDelta is a SPA whose contributions [20] have been only made to M.I.A and related topics shamelessly promoting her and silencing anything critical of her. The new york times is a citable and reliable source, and if M.I.A courts controversy by alleging genocide in Sri Lanka she should accept articles like this from the international news media. If the new york times is giving undue weight then DriveDelta should take it up with them instead of trying to censor things here. Since NYT is a reliable source and the article got considerable media coverage (just google it) I am going ahead with the edits.Kerr avon (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You should learn to assume good faith on the part of users. The points that have been raised are legitimate in that it does seem you've come to a conclusion on her work, and you're trying to string various bits of info together, often unrelated, finding a cite, and then writing it in a way that puts foward your point of view and your self-confessed attempts to discredit her. I've removed the part on the LTTE itself, as that isn't relevant here. "Sri Lankans who have seen her videos have interpreted" is also a very broad conclusion/insinuation based on one source given, and I agree with User:Realist2 [21], is gossipy and not worthy of inclusion here. It's not official or a significant enough group/individuals to be included on a biographical article on the artist anyway. Next, this part is shady - It says:

"The video for her song “Bird Flu,” shows children dancing in front of a roaring tiger which is the LTTE logo.[22]"

Can you find many reliable sources that say "She uses the LTTE logo at the end of her video" or "that looks like the LTTE logo"? This looks like a violation of WP:SYNTH. That she uses a roaring tiger doesn't validate your addition in this section. If there aren't more sources forthcoming, it will probably be removed too.Wubbabubba (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

People Vs. Money Tour or Sustainable Development Tour?

The article for M.I.A.'s third tour is called the People Vs. Money Tour but she calls it the Sustainable Development Tour in a bulletin sent from her official YouTube account. There are blog sources that call it the People Vs. Money Tour, so I propose we put in the article that it is also known as the Sustainable Development Tour.

--Nickcin2000 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Contoversy section

This is with regards to the new section Kerravon has added here. I think it warrants removal, as it fails WP:UNDUE. The coverage of this has not been in multiple reliable sources to warrant a mention on her page, as WP:UNDUE clearly states there should be and I think it's a copy of what's currently on the Paper Planes song article, which is what it's specific to. This is currently on that page too. As WP:UNDUE clearly states, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" and "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." DriveDelta (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Icarus of old (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, seeing as these edits clearly stem from a desperation to get that person's name on her article/s, failing WP:Advert, WP:Soapbox and WP:UNDUE, I propose that this person's exploits against her are mentioned on their page alone if they have one. DriveDelta (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Watchdogb (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless more sources are found which discuss this, I'm inclined to agree. Add WP:COATRACK to the list. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that there is a WP:Coatrack scenario. This is the consensus to remove the section. DriveDelta (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)— DriveDelta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Kerr avon (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Im unfamiliar on this topic but just want to mention that this topic has gain significant coverage on the entertainment media, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Nitraven (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Half those given reference is not WP:RS. Regardless of the coverage giving some sources does not mean that this incident is not WP:UNDUE among other things. I thing the consensus is here DriveDelta. Watchdogb (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I take that half are RS then? These were for the request of SHEFFIELDSTEEL, you seem to have made up your mind. So I don't think they matter to you. Again this is FYI. CheersNitraven (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear that user: DriveDelta 's edits [23] show that he has made most edits with regard to M.I.A and topics related to her hence is interests can be questioned. It is most likiely he is her manager or some other person worried about her marketing image (text removed per WP:BLP). So that makes her even more notable and controversial. Just like if a artist supported Osama Bin Laden with images of al-qaeda what would be the media hue and cry. So as such a controversy section is acceptable as this controversy has generated sufficent media interest as mentioned above by Nitraven.Kerr avon (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Watchdogb. Not enough reliable sources, nearly all are reproductions of a WENN publicity wire on blogs failing WP:RS, and clearly gives WP:UNDUE weight in any case. No adequate reason given for inclusion. Consensus reached to remove. DriveDelta (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)— DriveDelta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Kerr avon (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly reached as Kerr Avon does not provide any counter arguments to the concerns raised by others and instead indulge in name calling and WP:OR (not to mention WP:SOAP). Watchdogb (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

HOw on earth can you claim that the BBC is not a reliable source? If you feel it isnot so then let us seek mediation for this issue. Please do not remove information from reliable sources like the BBC (text removed per WP:BLP)Kerr avon (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The only consensus I see is that of Watchdogb & DriveDelta. Besides articles on wiki are meant to cover all aspects of that person, event. etc, even controversies associated with them (eg 50 Cent). Therefore I see no reason to exclude a controversy section on this article, especially due to the media coverage gained by this in the entertainment media.Nitraven (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is the absence of rebuttal to the points raised. There have been a multiple issue raised with the section and none has been rebutted and thus consensus is achieved. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There certainly are media sources discussing the controversy, and some of them (the BBC and NME) meet our criteria for reliable sources. One distraction from the discussion is Kerr avon, who is unwilling to assume good faith on the part of other contributors, and who has made posts here which are clearly in breach of our WP:BLP policy (I have removed the controversial, defamatory and unsourced material). I would also like to encourage editors, not to argue about what the consensus is, but to try to discuss with a view to achieving consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The main points to consider are 1. Is a controversy section warranted and 2. Can the BBC and other RS be used to make a entry which would not violate BLP. A controversy section is certainly warranted based on the high amount of discussion and articles from RS which question M.I.A's LTTE involvement. and the BBC is a reliable source and the fact that this delon controversy was prominent enough to be mentioned on the BBC means that the controversy should be mentioned in this artists biography. Other artists like 50 cent] too have a controversy section. If we can achieve a consensus regarding this matters then we can stop all of this edit warring.Kerr avon (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that a reasonable compromise would be to include some material about the DeLon controversy, although I do not think there is enough material here to justify its own section. Personally, I would seek to include it in material covering her political views.

We must also take care, per WP:BLP, not to make any allegations ourselves on the subject of M.I.A. "supporting" the LTTE or terrorism. We can report that DeLon "alleged", and that M.I.A. "denied" those allegations - but we must not presume to tell the truth of the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole point here is that we must be careful of what we add per WP:BLP and not make wikipedia liable. I agree with sheffield in that we should just add that into the politics section. There is, however, one small problem. 1) We should leave out sentence that "alleged that she supports terrorism". We can write something like "Sri Lankan rapper alleged that she supports (or promotes perhaps) LTTE but she denies the allegation claiming that her voice is that of a Civilian refugee" or a derivative of this sentence. We should stay away from allegations of Terrorism because we must understand that Terrorism is a political word and in the 21 century it is necessarily affiliated with negative emotions. We must understand that adding Terrorism can possible lead to bigger problems to wikipedia as BMG might take exception for such a thing being included in her article. The sentence that I suggest is NPOV and does not give UNDUE weight to something that is nothing but an attack on popular artist by a more largely unknown artist. Watchdogb (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also please remember that the video will not make featured in any popular websites like Youtube and others since it is a violation of Copyright and has been aggressively taken down by Youtube. Watchdogb (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The LTTE is banned as a terrorist organisation in 31 countries [24]. What we can say regarding M.I.A is that "There has been allegations that she supports the LTTE which is banned as a terrorist organisationin 31 countries." Tthen we can say that Delon alleged this and m.i.a denied it etc. The Delons diss on M.I.A received considerable media coverage cause delon is a prominent artist too, he has charted on billboard, he is sri lankas foremost rapper. If DeLon was not prominent then this controversy would not have occured. So there is no violation of undue here. A lot of people who do not like prominence drawn to undesirable activities tend to quote the WP:Undue ad nauseum to expunge info from reliable sources, which we need not do here.Kerr avon (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, adding "Ltte is banned..." violates WP:SYNTH (as none of the source that cover this story on MIA has covered LTTE's status), WP:WALL, WP:TOPIC and subsequently WP:BLP. Any such addition will be removed immediately in standards with WP:BOLD and WP:BLP. Also, Delon is not prominent at all, the reason that this controversy was covered by media is because of pitchfork. The reason pitchfork gave this any coverage is because this story has a underlying political reason. Watchdogb (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember this article is not about LTTE, it is about M.I.A, just because some two bit rapper alleges does not mean such statemenst have to be included in an encylopedic article. The best solution was provided by User:SheffieldSteel. I concur with it 100%. This has to be within the politics section. Taprobanus (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is there are so many more reasons as to why this info shouldn't be mentioned here than should, and those insisting on its inclusion do not explain how by including it, it doesn't break the numerous policies listed (including WP:Soapbox, WP:Advert, WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK and undoubtedly more). A complete confession by a user who has an agenda against the artist saying the main reason why it should be listed is because of their WP:Original research, is enough of a WP:REDFLAG to seriously consider whether its inclusion in an encyclopaedia article on M.I.A. would be beneficial at all. Neither are we a news repository. Again I'm inclined to agree with Watchdogb here. Whilst I completely agree that it definitely does not merit its own section, claiming that its appearance in a few sources that could be considered WP:RS due to M.I.A.'s "denial" does not counter the point that it doesn't warrant a mention even in line format here, as WP:UNDUE states "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject" and "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." As the last words state, it applies to statements, as much as it would to sections. I do not think it has appeared across enough RS, it is currently on the Paper Planes article. Frankly, I think it should be removed from there too. I know that the suggestion to include it with material on her political views was made in good faith, however, it would help if it was described how it would fit there exactly without breaking more policies. It does not change the fact numerous policies are being broken by its inclusion here in any form. I stand by my suggestion earlier that seeing as this is, among other things, a WP:Coatrack scenario, I propose that that needs to be fixed so fewer policies are broken. DriveDelta (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

These edit wars

It's getting ridiculous. We had the past edit war about the accusation of M.I.A. being a terrorist and whether or not to include it into the article, and now something as simple as the genre. Let's not forget there is a template for this (Template:Infobox Musical artist#Genre) and it clearly states: Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). Obviously there can not be any genres listed as alternative, indie, electro clash, IDM, or any other type of subgenre. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 19:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But when prominent articles like New york times etc publish articles regarding her support for the LTTE, then it becomes notable. The LTTE is banned in 32 countries as a terrorist organisation. If a western artist were to support Bin Laden then indeed it would be so notable as to warrant inclusion in her bio inthe wiki.

The edit wars are due to SPA's like user:DriveDelta whose contributions [25] have been only made to M.I.A and related topics shamelessly promoting her and silencing anything critical of herKerr avon (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Pineapple Express

Why is there mention of "Paper Planes" being in the trailer for it. The way I see it is that her popularity has exploded since it's inclusion in the aformentioned movie trailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GZUS96 (talk • contribs)

Image copyright problem with Image:Galang.ogg

The image Image:Galang.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Instrument: MacBook Pro?

I'm sorry, but since when is a Mac an Instrument? Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

having a baby, mentioned on Tavis Smiley show

I don't feel like editing the article myself to include this, and I don't know if it belongs there. But I watched her on the Tavis Smiley show, quite visibly pregnant, and she talked about how she was stuck in LA due to being pregnant because doctors told her she shouldn't fly. I hope she can keep her private life private, which is why I wonder how much should go in the wiki, but seeing as she came on the show and talked about her pregnancy it's not like she's keeping it a secret. I hope her private life can be private for her family's sake but I'm glad she's in the public eye because I do enjoy her music and I think she has important things to say.

She also talked about the Tamil situation on the show, in a very conversational manner. I would go look up her interview if they want to put her views in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.252.63 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

M.I.A. was not a 2009 Grammy winner for "Swagga Like Us"

The editor might have forgotten to tag on the word "nominee" under the Awards section. 99.227.97.238 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've correct the article to make it clear she was a nominee --Megaboz (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where's Diplo?

Why is there no mention of Diplo in the entire M.I.A. article? His influence, production work and their relationship have all played such a big role in M.I.A.'s career, no? It doesn't even mention him in relations to Piracy Funds Terrorism!

There used to be a section about there work together but it was deleted. Anyone know why?

I found that old text and updated it. Please review and debate whether this should be added. I strongly believe it should.

Meeting Diplo and Piracy Funds Terrorism, Volume 1

File:Miaswitchdip.jpg

M.I.A., Switch and Diplo at BBC Radio. The three collaborators were nominated for Record of the Year at the 2008 Grammys for their work on the hit song "Paper Planes".

After hearing his single, "News Flash", and loving it, Arulpragasam tracked down and met with Diplo, the Mississippi-born DJ originally named Wesley Pentz, to work on some material. She says of his song now: "It had that same homelessness about it. It didn't have a particular genre, which is what people always say to me: Your song doesn't fit anywhere. So I went on a mad mission to find other people like that, because then we could make a home.". "Besides me being a white dude from Florida and her being a Sri Lankan girl in England, everything else was the same: [We were both] film graduates, [listened to] all the same music when we were kids, were going in the same direction right now in music, it was amazing," he said of their meeting. Coincidentally, when Arulpragasam first met Diplo he was playing her single "Galang" as she entered the Fabric Club in London, which he got from a worker at i-D magazine.

The next month, Arulpragasam left for Philadelphia to work on the production of her first composition and the hidden track on her album, "M.I.A.", with Diplo, and to also collaborate on new material. Nothing worthwhile came of it, until Diplo began experimenting with a capellas of the tracks on Arular, remixing, sampling and mashing them up with already famous rappers and musicians, eventually using the material created during the sessions to build the mixtape Piracy Funds Terrorism.

The mashup Piracy Funds Terrorism was initially only given to the press and handed out at early live shows, but because of the album's huge underground success, Turntablelab.com began releasing the mixtape exclusively through their website around December, 2004. The mixtape added to the already building hype of Arulpragasam's debut album and also forced people to acknowledge the mixtape subculture in general. It also established M.I.A.'s growing fanbase within the music and MP3-sharing blogosphere.

Diplo later produced the third track on Arular, "Bucky Done Gun," which mixes the raucous baile funk sound from Rio de Janeiro with a sample from the "Theme From Rocky". The two were romantically involved for 3 years and briefly toured together, but eventually broke up. While Diplo was heralded as "the mastermind behind M.I.A.'s politics!", Arulpragasam countered those allegations saying, "I find it kind of insulting that I can't have any ideas on my own because I'm a female, or that people from undeveloped countries can't have ideas of their own unless it's backed up by someone who's blond-haired and blue-eyed."

--ColinStutz (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

content

The article about the rap artists Mayangi Arulpragasam (MIA), ought to contain the recent spate of controversy generated by her appearance on the Tavis Smiley show where she accused the Sri Lankan government of engaging in genocide. Here are the links to PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler's lengthy disavowal of her claims and the New York Times article along the same lines. The Tavis Smiley show was forced, thanks to international pressure, to retract the coverage it gave to MIA and to hold an actual interview with the Sri Lankan government.

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2009/02/rapping_about_genocide_1.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/asia/11mia.html?_r=1

An online encylopedia is useful only in so far as it is accurate. When it is hijacked for political purposes, it fails to perform the service it promises.

BBC profile

Caught this piece by Stephen Sackur at 05:45 this morning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hmn8c - the audio is only available for the next 6 days, and might not be available outside the UK. Might be of some use to editors of this page, so I'm posting the link here. --NSH001 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please add this to bottom of the "Politics" section

Since I am a new user and cannot edit this page, could someone please add this to the bottom of the "Politics" section? Click "Edit" to view source:

On January 28, 2009, M.I.A. sat down for an interview with PBS television host Tavis Smiley, in which she clarified previous confusions about her alleged association and support of the voilent activities of the Tamil Tigers. She blames propaganda for the misconception that "when you think Tamil, you automatically think Tiger" and that we need to be taught that "Tamil equals Tamil civilians," since the Tamil Tigers are a completely seperate entity. She is opposed to the violence committed by the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers

Thank you in advanced! LazyLaidBackEditor (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose then the section where it describes her using imagery of children dancing in front of a painting of a tiger in one of her film clips should be moved to follow this, considering the irony. Ninahexan (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Year of birth

TMZ obtained M.I.A.'s son's birth certificate, which lists his mother's date of birth as July 18, 1975, as opposed to July 17, 1977. M.I.A. actually signed the birth certificate herself, so it would make sense that she checked her birthdate and that it is correct on the birth certificate, no? — Spanish lullaby (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

TMZ and the corresponding link are not reliable, we need reliable third party sources to mention it. — R² 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And is there any independent verification of this birth certificate info outside TMZ? A couple of hours with CorelDRAW or some such software suite, and almost anyone can make a "valid" birth certificate. And doesn't it take about 14 weeks to get a copy of a birth certificate in California? Dl2000 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

birthdates inconsistent

the first line of the text states her birthdate as July 18, 1975. "Mathangi "Maya" Arulpragasam (Tamil: மாதங்கி 'மாயா' அருள்பிரகாசம்) (born 18 July 1975)..."

Under background information on the right side it states her birthdate as July 17, 1977 "Born 17 July 1977 (1977-07-17) (age 31)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.212.220 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — Σxplicit 18:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinion on the Sri Lankan Civil War?

Has M.I.A. made public comment on the end of the war?  Skomorokh  04:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think she's said anything about the end of the war, but I did find this piece that says M.I.A. posted on her Twitter that "the war in Sri Lanka is not against the tigers, it's against the Tamil people!" I'm not sure if this has any significance. — Σxplicit 05:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Born in UK or Sri Lanka?

On the Bill Maher show on May 22nd, she talks about coming to the Uk when she was 10 years old in 1986. She doesn't actually say that she was born in Sri Lanks, so was she born in the UK then went back to Sri Lanka? Wuzza (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC) wuzza

I saw that too and just argued with a friend who read England on wikipedia. It seems to be pretty clear that she was born in Sri Lanka. In another portion of this talk page there's a mention of a youtube video when she says this, another mentions her learning english later (~5 years old), as well as other sources e.g. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4532506 and http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_was_the_singer_rapper_known_as_MIA_born clearly indicating that she was born in Sri Lanka. I'm not sure why nobody has made this change yet though? -Ajay site 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Os2man (talk • contribs)

ENGLISH PLACE NAMES

In the U.S. it very often happens that people refer to streets solely by their first element. Madison Avenue is called just Madison. Sunset Boulevard, Sunset and Sunset Strip are all the same place.

But you cannot take such liberties in Western Europe. If there is a Hessiche Strasse in Germany, there may well be a Hessiche Landstrasse nearby. In France you should not ask for St Malo when you mean Rue de Saint Malo or Boulevard de Saint Malo.

In London we have a problem with Americans arriving and asking to be taken to Oxford, and after an unnecessary 140 mile round trip finally revealing that they wanted to go shopping in Oxford Street. People setting off for Edgware when they wanted the Edgware Road is a very common one, but this will only take you 15 miles out of your way.

MIA had an exhibition in the Euphoria shop in the Portobello Road. While there is less risk in this case of people being misdirected to Portobello, a suburb of Edinburgh (and Dublin), there is no reason for supplying the wrong address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.46.161 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Genres

I'm all for generalization, but I feel that labeling M.I.A. as just 'Electronica' is a vast oversimplification to the point of being factually inaccurate. It fails to capture the large international influences of the music, which is a fairly major element of it. Zazaban (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but to avoid misuse of the field (which I believe was the reason it was blanked), genres should be sourced. I wouldn't object to additional genres if they were sourced and verifiable. — Σxplicit 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple more are mentioned in that specific source. Zazaban (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, alternative is mentioned in the same Allmusic source that sources hip-hop, dance and world. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Movies

The song "Paper Planes" was used in Slumdog Millionaire, should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.99.126 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New images available

9 new, good quality images of M.I.A. have become available at Commons:Category:M.I.A.. Please take a look and add any suitable ones to the article. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Gush gush gush

"An accomplished visual artist by 2002, M.I.A. came to prominence in early 2004 through file-sharing of her singles "Galang" and "Sunshowers" on the Internet."

Are you out of your freaking mind? Take off the rhinestone glasses and write like an encyclopedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.55.69 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)