Talk:Mia Khalifa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Newsweek

Great story...!

http://www.newsweek.com/meet-mia-khalifa-lebanese-porn-star-who-sparked-national-controversy-297023

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

UK Independent

Another...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pornhub-star-mia-khalifa-receives-death-threats-after-being-ranked-sites-number-one-adult-actress-9962293.html

--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Veronica Vain

Another porn star who has recently become famous is Veronica Vain/Paige A. Jennings.[1][2][3][4][5] Someone might want to start on article on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD07:E900:2DB8:731F:4536:6F43 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You might want to bring this up at the Porn Project linked above. But Vain/Jennings is little more than a WP:1E media person because of her connection with a financial institution and her choice to go into Porn in a fairly public manner. No doubt in order to stir up interest in her career. I put a mention of her in Lexington Steele's article, but I don't see a need to start writing a BLP yet. She has not won any awards, let alone been nominated. Give it time. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What is Mia Khalifa's religious denomination?

I suppose she's either Maronite or Melkite. It would be nice if someone included this information in the article and added the article to the appropriate category. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC) -She's a non-practicing Catholic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There's more than one kind of Catholic. Maronites and some Melkites are Catholic. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You go find a source that confirms it then. A non-practicing Catholic may not know. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Trust me, if she's Lebanese, she knows. In the Middle East religion is oft-intertwined with ethnicity and it's kind of a big deal. If I come across a source like that, I'll add it here. (To anyone interested in current Lebanese or Israeli affairs, read about this week's Miss Universe incident that has happened between these two countries' representitives.) 213.109.230.96 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015

She is 22 now. Nathancoors (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nathancoors: The template used in the infobox automatically updates the subject's age according to the date. As of right now, the age shown is 22. I suspect that you may have viewed the article before it became Feb. 10 and it therefore still said that she was 21.

If you'd like more information about that template, it can be found at Template:Birth date and age. Dismas|^(talk) 08:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2015

Please add in the popular culture section that an iOS developer has even created a flappy-bird like game called Flappy Mia Khalifa on the App Store in homage to her. Here is the link : https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/flappy-mia-khalifa/id965233099?ls=1&mt=8 VanNord (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, that edit should not be made. The game is not notable in and of itself. Also, there's no obvious tie in. It has her name but that's it. Dismas|^(talk) 14:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning as you didnt check out the game properly. What do you mean that it has her name but there is no obvious tie ?? If you play the game , you can see that there is even the "Timeflies" song playing inside it. The game is just not popular yet but it is clearly dedicated to her in my opinion.

Is there a reliable source that has covered this? If not, the information is irrelevant to this article. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Twitter as a secondary reference

A reference from Twitter is not needed if the same information can be gathered from a third-party reliable source like the BBC. Even if it is being used as a double-check, there are still countless other third-party reliable sources for this fact. I'm not saying this article is, but otherwise it would be possible to construct a whole biography only by taking people's Twitter communications. The fact that she is a Lebanese Catholic is in the public sphere and we shouldn't resort to Twitter when better sources exist. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

Insert | image = Porn-star-Mia-Khalifa.png George047 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No way. This is an obvious copyvio, and you know it. See [6]]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2016

Mmmhhhccc222 (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC) mia khalifa true name is (Redacted)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

mia khalifa true name is (Redacted) pornographique actric from libanan christian religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmhhhccc222 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The Hottest Girl on the Internet

Could we include this analysis that claims she is The Hottest Girl on the Internet (With Diagrammed Proof)

http://sneakhype.com/chicas/2014/10/hottest-girl-on-the-internet.html

78.148.75.177 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes we can say

Amitoj singh (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Retired?

This Washington Post article says she's retired from porn. Worth adding to the article, especially if it's verified elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well user:Xtremedood is sock puppet of User:Calm321. The user who always trying to push the very very important information for him.--Jobas (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant to this discussion. However, since you brought it up, I used multiple accounts since I was being threatened online. You are free to take up any issues with the appropriate noticeboard, but lets focus on the issue. Xtremedood (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

( ( the program is a low but this is a mia khalifa page ok ) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.7.249.89 (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring by Jobas and Mia's Catholic identity

user:Jobas keeps on removing sourced content from the page. He has been warned on his talk page [7]. Mia chose to represent herself in a controversial role. She also self-identifies as a Catholic. Whether she is practicing or not does not take away from her identity. Due to the nature of her acts it is of vital importance to include her true religious identity. In one of her roles she referred to the religious practices of an other religion as "gross" and "problematic." It is therefore relevant to include her real religious perspectives. There are many non-religious figures figures, such as Salman Khan who have their religious identity on their Wikipedia page. Although Salman's name is Muslim, he refers to himself as both Muslim and Hindu, an identity that is controversial and rejected by many. It is however a relevant declaration from the personality and remains on his Wikipedia page.

Since Mia identifies as a Catholic it should be included. Also, her last-name and nationality may cause confusion to people, since Lebanon has a very small Catholic population (most Christians are Maronite) and the last-name "Khalifa" is taken from Caliphate which is Islamic. It is therefore very important to include that Mia is Catholic and stems from a Catholic background and does not have any connections with the Islamic religion or Christian-Maronite religion. Calm321 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you having issue with this don't worry no one will think that mia is a muslim her relgious background already mentioned and included inside the article so the very very important information that mia is not a muslim and her "true religion" is catholic is mentioned and included even the article is also under category:Lebanese Catholic. your contributions in Arabic wikipedia that been refused in every time show that the main reason of pushing including her relgion in evey place in the article becouse you dont want people think she is a muslim. This Sentence from the article: Her family is Catholic and she was raised as a Catholic, although she is no longer practicing. it;s enough since her religious background has no role or influnce on her work or her controversial role. By the way the warn was by you. And by the way i been warned by you :) you should read more about The three-revert rule --Jobas (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not divert the issue. The issue is regarding sourced and relevant materials pertaining to her life. The fact that she may be non-practicing does not take away from her Catholic identity. She self-identifies as a Catholic. It is a relevant material to keep on the page. Calm321 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Calm321. There's no reason to remove this information, especially because of the controversy she has caused. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And how you decide that she may be non-practicing does not take away from her Catholic identity? in several interviews she mention that she is not practice so it;s mean nothing pushing the informtation about her religious background 5 times in the article it;s a porn star not a nun, and in Middle East where she grow up when you asked someone about his religion he answer his childhood religion, so her answer in twitter is not that evidence. any way this information included once, no reason to mention it five times becouse her carer do nothing with her religion.--Jobas (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jobas: You do make a good point that it is a bit overmentioned, so Calm321, how about we remove the instance at the end of the lede? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

user:Sturmgewehr88, What do you mean by the "end of the lede"? Calm321 (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes its overmentioned, i think this part: In a twitter post from her official twitter account, Mia identifies as a Catholic. should be reovomed since its already been included that she raised a catholic, this part has no sense.--Jobas (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Calm321: sorry, it wasn't where I thought it was, but now another user has removed it nonetheless. Is this good enough for you Jobas? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure that was my point from the first place, her religious backgorund was a bit overmentioned, and now it much better since its already included her relgious backgorund no need to add and include more about it, in the end this figure is a porn star and her relgious background has a zero role or influnce on her work. the part that been removed has no sense just overmentioned.--Jobas (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You are the only one who try to pushing propaganda by this account or by your sockpuppets account, her religion backrogound is already mentioned in the section Early life, the media didn't even talked or covered here religious background, only in one interview with the BBC she the one who mentioned that she not a practing catholic any more, Twitter is not consider a reliable source here and it's been deleted from the article. she is not practice any more, her religious backroung has nothing to do with her career or and she didn't became famous due to religious reasons, by the way the pron star ather Nadia Ali receiving attention for being a practicing Muslim in that industry and the media cover her religious backroung such here How Donald Trump’s RNC Inspired a Muslim, Gay, and Trump Porn Craze and Muslim Adult Performer Nadia Ali On Reconciling Her Job With Her Religion and Muslim adult film star Nadia Ali received death threats for making hijabi porn movie, but here the case is different, Mia didn't became famous due to religious reasons, she receiving attention for being a not practicing catholic any morein that industry, and the media did not cover her religion backround.--Jobas (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "Christian" from infobox and addition of details already mentioned in article

Pinging @ user:Sturmgewehr88, as discussed several months ago, consensus seems to be that her religion should be included, however, the most recent revisions of user:Jobas indicates a considerable change of the details. It is already mentioned in the article's description that she is non-practicing, and I do not think it should be included in the infobox as it would be redudant and not to mention, other celebrities, no matter how non-practicing they are do not have included in their infobox details of religiosity. Such details I think should be left in the article. Xtremedood (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well user:Xtremedood is sock puppet of User:Calm321. The user who always trying to push the very very important information for him.--Jobas (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant to this discussion. However, since you brought it up, I used multiple accounts since I was being threatened online. You are free to take up any issues with the appropriate noticeboard, but lets focus on the issue. Xtremedood (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well as the admain User:EdJohnston warned you: The language that she is a 'non-practicing Catholic' has been in the infobox from time to time, and is properly sourced to an interview with the actress reported on the BBC. People revert that occasionally without proper discussion, the discussion on Talk last July endorse the 'non-practicing catholic' solution. And there are many article do said non-practicing catholic or lapsed catholic in the infobox for example.--Jobas (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the only one who try to pushing propaganda by this account or by your sockpuppets account, her religion backrogound is already mentioned in the section Early life, the media didn't even talked or covered here religious background, only in one interview with the BBC she the one who mentioned that she not a practing catholic any more, Twitter is not consider a reliable source here and it's been deleted from the article. she is not practice any more, her religious backroungd has nothing to do with her career or and she didn't became famous due to religious reasons, by the way the anther pron star Nadia Ali' receiving attention for being a practicing Muslim in that industry and the media cover her religious backroung such here How Donald Trump’s RNC Inspired a Muslim, Gay, and Trump Porn Craze and Muslim Adult Performer Nadia Ali On Reconciling Her Job With Her Religion and Muslim adult film star Nadia Ali received death threats for making hijabi porn movie, but here the case is different, Mia didn't became famous due to religious reasons, she receiving attention for being a not practicing catholic any morein that industry, and the media did not cover her religion backround.--Jobas (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Real name

Mia's true name is (Redacted) and she used to study in one of Beirut's most prestigious schools before travelling to the US. See http://www.kataeb.org/en/news/details/434907/The+Truth+Behind+Mia+Khalifeh's+Identity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.200.92 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Lebanese Falange Party is a reliable source, especially as in their sources they have only listed themselves. If a Lebanese newspaper – preferably one with a weak/none political/religious editorial line – also carries this story, go with that as your source instead. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Karim Najeebzai (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Length of time in the industry

Do we have a second source for the statement "three months"? Given the amount of material by her in circulation, this is definitely a tenure length that can be disputed. It doesn't necessarily mean her career wasn't as brief as described in the article, but a second source to support the three month claim would be helpful. There is precedent for celebrities to downplay past porn careers. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly how much material is there? What is the amount that is expected to be shot in a 3 month period? The standard for inclusion is verifiability not truth much less speculation about what cannot be possible. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pinging, user:Sturmgewehr88, user:Jobas, as previously discussed here [8]. It is important to include Mia's Catholic identity due to the religious nature of her popularity. I find it very strange that the fact that she wore an "Islamic hijab' is mentioned in the lede here [9], however user:Jobas continually removes mention of her Catholic identity from the same lede. If you are going to mention Islam, you should at least mention the fact that she is a Christian, as it is relevant. Many are under the false idea that she is a Muslim, so it is important to include this in the lede as well. Xtremedood (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose adding the line: "while wearing the Islamic hijab, even though she identifies as a Non-practicing Catholic" as indicated in the following edit [10], to adhere to WP:NPOV Xtremedood (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

See here Religion in biographical infobox Overwhelmingly clear consensus to remove religion from the parameter, The article mention that: "She has claimed that her family is Catholic and that she was raised in that religion, although is no longer practicing", no one ever cliams that she is a Muslim, you are the only one assume that, her religion isn't a key trait she were ever prominently noted for to begin with, she is a porn star, Just becouse it's so important for you, dosen't need to push it in every corner inside the article, it is already been mentioned that here family were Catholic, and she is no longer practicing, and that enough.--Jobas (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That is relevant to infoboxes only, and it makes the clear distinction that for articles where it is relevant, no consensus is made. "How to implement this removal while ensuring that those cases in which the religion is significant to the article subject is adequately covered either in the body text or in a custom parameter will potentially require a second RFC". As previously discussed, it is important to include this piece of information. If "Islamic hijab" can be in the lede, why can not her Catholic identity? Xtremedood (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You been edit warning to add religion in religion parameter in the infobox, her religionn is irrelevant here (plus she cliams she no longer practicing), she is a porn star, what has do her religion with her career, Her career as being a porn star was met with controversy in the Middle East that's why it in the lede, her religion background (since she is no longer practicing), it is not that relevant here. and it is only important for you (previously discussed here [11] was open by your sock puppet account), you are the only one who push to add it in lede and infobox and several time in the Early life section. It's mentioned in Early life section that here family were Catholic, and she is no longer practicing, and that enough.--Jobas (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not try and derail the topic. Clearly read what I said, it is not about the infobox. It is indeed relevant to include it into the lede. Xtremedood (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the actress in question has become famous due to religious reasons, do you think that her religious affiliation should be included in the lede next to the statement so that it reads as "while wearing the Islamic hijab, even though she identifies as a Non-practicing Catholic" as indicated in the following edit [12] ? Xtremedood (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- She didn't become famous for religious reasons, she become famouse for her porn career and because she performed sexual acts. she is no longer practicing with and it's irrelevant with her career, so what that had to do to mention in it the lede. stop pushing that in the article. her religion is already mentioned in the article.--Jobas (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Support - The controversy of her wearing a hijab is significant, which makes the fact that she's not actually Muslim significant as well. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Support - she was clearly famous for religious reasons. This should therefore be mentioned in the lede, as the religious garment is mentioned in the lede. Xtremedood (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - it would appear to me that she, like the majority of other porn stars, was most famous for what she wasn't wearing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - No convincing argument for inclusion so leave it out. It's false to claim she became famous due to religious reasons. Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It says so in the lede. There is also a misrepresentation in the history of the personality, which does not take into consideration that she still identifies as a Catholic which is proven from her official Twitter post [13]. Wikipedia should not be the place for religious propaganda, but should be a place that describes facts. Why is this user trying to deny the facts that she still identifies as a Catholic and that it is a significant issue to address with the controversy? Xtremedood (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - there are websites that list her as having a Muslim background such as [14], [15], which is blatantly false. This is a clear misconception that some people have and WP should be the place where objective facts are presented, not censoring. She was also famous due to the religious controversy [16]. She clearly says here that she is not Muslim [17] and that she identifies as Catholic, [[18]], why then is this objective fact that she still identifies as being a catholic being censored, while her role as wearing a "Hijab" (a clear Islamic symbol) clearly mentioned in the lede? As I have said, WP should not be the place of such religiously motivated bias. Xtremedood (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You are the only one who try to pushing propaganda by this account or by your sockpuppets account, her religion background is already mentioned in the section of Early life, the media didn't even talked or covered here religious background as what make her famous, only in one interview with the BBC she the one who mentioned that she not a practicing catholic any more, Twitter is not consider a reliable source here and it's been deleted from the article by different editros and you still push it here. she is not practice any more, her religious background has nothing to do with her career and she didn't became famous due to religious reasons as you cliam, and the media did not cover her religion background as part of her controversy. The source that you mentioned is cited that Pornhub star Mia Khalifa receives death threats after being ranked the site's top adult actress, so how her religious background is part of her controversy or how she become famous.--Jobas (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks are against WP policy. You also have a history of sockpuppeting [19]. I misunderstood the policy, so you bringing it up all the time seems to be an attempt to derail the conversation. As mentioned in the link, her porn career got famous after the controversy of using a Muslim symbol. This is not propaganda, but facts. Covering up facts is against WP:NPOV policy. Consensus has to be in accordance with WP policies. Stick to the topic. Also, the statement in the Early life section gives the illusion that she is not a Catholic. Whereas the sources clearly indicate that even though she is not practicing that she still self-identifies as a Catholic Xtremedood (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Mia Khalifa's notability does not arise from her lack of being a practicing Catholic, but from her acting career. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per above - She became notable for her career not her religious beliefs. –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More normal job?

It is written like a tabloid gossip. What is this "more normal job"? That is not stated in source but regardless it is ger who said it. And we shouldn't be using a phrase like that to describe someone's job. It should be changed to She stated in July 2016 that she has a "more normal job" after her retirement from the porn industry. 117.214.241.44 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I kind of thought the same thing but I was busy doing other edits in the article and that one slipped my mind. Since the full quote is given below and it doesn't mean much at all in the lede, I just removed it. Webcam model might be "more" "normal" to some, but out of context it's... just dumb. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Petition is not notable

Even if there is coverage of a petition to make her the ambassador, it was clearly a joke, and was only signed by a few thousand nonetheless. The article's subject has not reacted to it, therefore she has nothing to do with it. There would be BLP headaches if every online petition, especially the not-so-serious, would be mentioned. If people disagree and it is notable, put it in the personal life section, it stands out too much in the lead which is supposed to be about the most important details. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree. You shouldn't remove content based on your opinion of its importance bypassing the more objective criteria of WP:UNDUE, which designates the weight of inclusion on the amount of coverage by reliable sources.[20] I will reinstate it in the personal life section. The lead should also be revised to remove items that are not in the body of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Just a prank. Not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed, but the source for this petition has an image they claim is from Wikipedia? Why isn't an image on this article? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove serious BLP issue

This line is only half of the tweet, which was clearly a joke. Definitely need to remove from Wikipedia: On April 20, 2017, Mia told her fans, through her Twitter account #miakhalifa, that "I'm HIV positive." 71.191.43.147 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't generally use Twitter as a reliable source so I've removed it per the policy on biographies of living persons for now. If better sourcing is established, it can be re-added if cited properly. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links

This is listed as a "Good article". Usually four "External links" are normally acceptable, and five with consensus, but it does not need six "External links". Common arguments to remove extra links have been that Wikipedia does not have to provide for every aspect of a subjects presence, especially on the web, because Wikipedia is not a social media outlet or "a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.", and [[Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember|"Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

Would someone take a look at trimming the external links section to four or five? This would be a better option than tagging the article, or exploring a GAN or community reassessment. Otr500 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• No takers? I am going to delete at least two "External links", since there is an "official" link listed, so Twitter and Twitch.tv are candidates. If this is reverted I will see if a magic number of six can pass a reassessment per WP:ELPOINTS, WP:ELNO, and WP:ELBLP. --- Otr500 (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding Sports Personality

After quitting her performing work, she's been an incredibly vocal sports personality through many media platforms. I wanted to add that in under occupation since it's essentially one of the big things she does now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maherblast (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding Twitch Streamer under "Occupation"

Beginning in April of this year, Mia has begun to regularly stream on Twitch.tv. She has primarily used the platform to stream her playing Fortnite, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, and Lords. Her twitch:--Johndo22 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Interview

She says in this video interview that she never worked at Wataburger and was approached by someone while she was at a mall about if she is interested in starting a career in modeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talramass (talk • contribs) 06:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing "Webcam Model" from first opening paragraph of main article.

The interview used as the citation for her being a "webcam model" is an interview with terrible grammar and punctuation from over 2 years ago. She has not been on the site she modeled on in about a year. Furthermore, there is no information listed for her on the profile she used as well. This is clearly not her current occupation. Johndo223 (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

ImDevilx (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't include where she works today which is the internet production company Rooster Teeth owned by Fullscreen

 Not done. ImDevilx, please read the yellow box above very carefully. You need to propose your edit in the form of "please change X to Y", and you must provide a reliable source that verifies the content that you want to add. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

Mia Khalifa Net worth according to google Khalifa has a large social media following thanks to her 4 million Instagram and 2 million Twitter followers. How much is Mia Khalifa worth? As of 2018, Mia Khalifa's net worth is $ 2 million. Please change "fomer" to "former" due to spelling error. 2601:644:300:2691:257C:270C:6EBB:D478 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Should mention her religion

Many people including myself thought of her as Muslim and came here to confirm that. Although I found that she was raised in a Catholic family, I believe that should be mentioned at the top as well. Because her name being translated in Arabic is more than enough to mislead someone who doesn't know about her religion and they might very well leave the site without looking further, with the wrong information of her being a Muslim. Even if you argue she no longer is a Catholic or something along the lines, the fact of her being born and raised in a Catholic family remains and should be mentioned at the top, because its far more important than her name's translation in Arabic. Muhammad Zakariya Q (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, when you find reliable secondary sources of the high quality we require for biographies of living persons feel free to make an edit on that subject. This page is for discussions on changes that have been made to the article. This is an entirely volunteer project, Muhammad Zakariya Q. If you see something wrong, fix it. John from Idegon (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a “career” in porn

If Khalifa worked in porn for three months, it was not a “career,” it was a job. The Oxford American Dictionary defines “career" as "an occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress.” Merriam-Webster defines “career” as "a field for or pursuit of consecutive progressive achievement especially in public, professional, or business life.” And also "a profession for which one trains and which is undertaken as a permanent calling.” Nicmart (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Was it really 3 months tho? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:75A3:C000:F959:FF2D:2929:21E3 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Mia Khalifa's birth name (Redacted)?

There seem to be myriad sources saying that (Redacted) is Khalifa's birth name and "Mia Khalifa" is just a stage name.

Can someone either refute this or add (Redacted) as her birth name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.117.255.70 (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not how thos works, IP. You need to provide reliable secondary sources for your proposed change, and gain consensus for it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

West Ham United

Should Khalifa's support for the team be included? @Egghead06 and Drmies. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Danny, I appreciate it. As you know, I'm a no on this. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Drmies: No problem - you are both experienced editors (and I'm not, but please don't take this as condescending, its hard to communicate tone through text) and I wanted to help resolve the dispute. Question: would you mind explaining this edit? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well, if her support for this team is so important that it should be included in her biography, according to the other editor, then shouldn't the article obtain membership in the category? If there were a subcategory for West Ham supporters, that would be preferable of course, but the other editor would be more knowledgeable on that topic. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Drmies: I do not believe that either that category, or the one that Egghead06 added, should be included. Would you be willing to remove it from the article? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think that's up to the other editor to decide. I think that trivia should go, although one could make the argument that for FSU she actually did something. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a person where their notability relies on their ability to deal with others bodily fluids. Beyond that, it's down to editors what is written. She was mentioned as being a supporter of Florida State Seminoles (whatever that is?). I see the addition of her support for West Ham as no different and more recently referenced. So it's a yes.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Egghead06: do you believe that the category should also be included? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:DEFINING has more to say on this than my view. On the other hand, WP:DEFINING is abused and ignored very frequently. For other supporters of West Ham, such as James Corden and Ray Winstone where their support of West Ham is equally mentioned under their personal life section, this category is not there.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's a matter of editorial judgment, and in this case it shows a lack thereof. Just about everyone is a fan of something. In the case of FSU (and you can click on the link if you like), she did something related to them, which could be an argument for keeping it. You have none, except for "she likes it", which is as relevant as her haircut. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No, she did something widely reported as a West Ham fan as opposed to this Florida team where she attempted to do something.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

Change "After moving to America" to "After moving to the United States" in the --- Early life --- Section. Renatosjoao (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sportsball has been cancelled for a few months now, please update this

The page currently says, 'Khalifa has been announced to co-host SportsBall alongside Tyler Coe, with its second season premiering July 16, 2018, exclusively on RoosterTeeth.[25]' this came and passed. The series has since been cancelled. She was co-host for the full run of the series as far as I can tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coystags (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Length of porn career

She was not active in porn for only three months. More like 2014-2016 with a comeback in 2018. Source.

I propose this sentence: After three months, Khalifa left the pornographic industry to pursue other interests.

Be changed to something like: After starring in various porn videos from 2014-16, she largely quit porn to pursue other interests.

81.166.207.7 (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

But the IAFD is a reliable source, as it is the best-documented database of adult films in the world. Wikipedia uses IAFD in several articles (see John Holmes, Ron Jeremy, in both articles it is used to document lenght of career/number of films starred), but in this article we're simply going to take the actress' word for it, over a much-used database providing detailed information? Makes no sense... 81.166.207.7 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

IAFD's years active designation is automatically derived from the release dates of the (non-compilation) video not on the production date of the scenes. It is inappropriate to assume she was performing the years the videos are released because producers sit on some scenes for years before release. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree Polanskyjr (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

website not affiliated with her

MiaKhalifa.com is listed as being her website, but in the interview discussed here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49330540 she says it's not her site or under her control at all and she wants the url to br changed. Please can someone edit this urgently, given the press and publicity it would be good if this was corrected asap Annafjmorris (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not her official website Polanskyjr (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Not the Netflix's Ramy but it is the Hulu show, Ramy. Change from Netflix to Hulu. 2601:C1:2:B260:B97F:46B4:DF67:179B (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Updated, as you are quite correct. Curved Space (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

I would like to correct some incorrect info about her post pornographic career 2409:4042:2808:1B21:9DE2:ABFA:A52B:4168 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Such as? Curved Space (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

I believe we should change her “Occupation” from “Former Pornographic Actress” considering she was changed and has moved on from that point in her life. She was manipulated into something that is now toxic and she deserves to have a better label from here on out. My suggestion is that it is changed to “Tiktok Star” or “Influencer” 2601:40B:301:1B20:E5E3:DF51:65D4:94F (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It is a biography, and biographies cover the life of a person including their occupations. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

The first sentence starts with social media personality, but she is most known for being a pornographic actress, so why is pornographic actress put at the end of the sentence? Please move to the start. (Redacted) 11:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done her one year stint in porn isn't why she's notable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add information regarding her anti-pornography stances.

Hello, I was the person who put the "Anti-pornography activists" category. The reason is that recently, she started to put anti-porn stances on social networks. After she retires from porn, there're some interviews that can be labeled to stances against her former job. So, it'll be a good moment to collect information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadFreak781 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mia Khalifa in 2019.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Change post-pornographic carreer to influencer and mediatic personality (2015) Swissglubier (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Curved Space (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Any person in the context of contribution, productivity, or otherwise deemed "work" or "career" would be defined by ALL of her productive roles, not one, unless one term summarizes it. Productive roles in this case would include both paid and unpaid contribution to life. An important point is that individuals can change roles, play multiple roles at once, stay in the same role, or otherwise change ideology and behavior during their lives. DrahGnikcuf (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Official website

Given that she has herself spoken against miakhalifa.com as her official website, I don't think it should be kept. A person should have the right to choose their own "official website". So I have changed it to the twitter. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe change it to onlyfans.com/miakhalifa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.147.133.213 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

I am requesting to change some incorrect information on this page about Mia’s life such as years active.

Years active 2014-2014. She is not active anymore. 2601:44:C000:CCD0:994A:932B:19A0:6EAD (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not just her activity as a pornographic performer, it covers other media as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

hey this is chu from india I'm interested in write or edit in wikipedia. I'm love to write about politics, corruption,scams etc. so you can trust me. Sudhchu (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  A S U K I T E  04:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Real name

Her real name (BLP violation removed) is not in the article on purpose? I already tried to add it but they always delete it. --BartocX (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLPNAME. A published, reliable source is required for any personal identifying information. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Political views

I strongly suspect that Mia Khalifa's comments on the Israel–Palestine conflict fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, etc., but in any case a Tweet by Hen Mazzig is not a reliable source, nor is the New York Post in general. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, Newsweek, Jerusalem Post, Daily Mail, and many others found this newsworthy. I think a heading on her political views should be written or restored. --Mrmalabi (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Newsworthy does not mean encyclopedic. The sources you name don't inspire confidence either. See WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:RS/P#Newsweek (2013–present). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've been removing statements cited to poor tabloid or clickbait sources like the New York Post and International Business Times while using WP:RSP as a guide. There is an abundance of them in the article. Every detail about Khalifa does not need to be fleshed out if they can only be cited to these types of sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Specifically, personal details such as full names and dates of birth should not be added unless backed up with quality sources. I've removed such info already per WP:BLPREMOVE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed her current marriage under WP:BLPNAME because the engagement and marriage were cited to what seems like tabloid sources. Further there are conflicting reports (all tabloids) on Google News about the actual state of their current relationship.[21] Wikipedia is not supposed to be TMZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

While I see where you're coming from, I don't really see why my edit was reverted. The marriage situation wasn't clear no, but what is clear is that they were in a relationship for years, that's why my edit only stated that they were in a relationship not that they were married. If her opinions on sport are relevant enough to be included despite being supported by similar sources as the ones I added, and a multi-year relationship is not then I have to say I find that quite strange. Maybe I'm missing something though. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

My position still holds. If only tabloids are interested in her relationships, we shouldn't be. The easier solution is to find the better sources that discuss her relationships if they already care about her opinions on sports. If they don't care about her romantic life, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Is Master Herald really a better source than Expressen, one of the main newspapers in Sweden with a reliable reputation? I don't like the idea of a newspaper being in a tabloid format automatically excludes it from being considered a reliable source since not all newspapers in tabloid format are unreliable. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading that Master Herald article, it is not any better and its information and others sourced to tabloids have been removed. Opinions about Expressen[22] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Reddit porn in 2012

I believe the page would be improved by mentioning her posting of porn in 2012 on reddit. This would likely serve as a prelude in the pornographic career section. It doesn't even need a new source, it's mentioned in reference 7 "Khalifa was already getting interested in sex work. In 2012 she posted a series of naked pictures to Reddit's gonewild page. In February 2014 she resurfaced on Reddit, this time on its cuckolding page."

LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Edit to Ms. Khalifa's page, her birth date is (BLP violation removed). It only lists her birth year currently. C.L. Swisher 06:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Date of born

She was borned on (Redacted) OficirPopović (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

OficirPopović, birth dates need to be widely published in reliable sources to be included. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please add her birthday, which is (Redacted). As per WP:TWITTER, this source would be acceptable. [23] 2600:100C:A203:FD7F:7D9F:DA78:3DA5:8B20 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The tweet is simply a picture of Khalifa plus the number "28" followed by a birthday-cake emoji and a "face with pleading eyes" emoji (🎂🥺 – and the date is February 10, by the way). Inferring anything from this requires that we interpret what these numbers and symbols mean, which is original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

There seems to be no mention that her real name is (Redacted). The only source I trust on this is Google itself, but it appears to be a generally known fact. I'm not sure how to proceed without any original research, but I thought I would mention it. Apologies if this is not a new request. sugarfish (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

A Google search is not a reliable source. Redacted unreferenced WP:BLP info above. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2022

Change her name to (Redacted), keep Mia Khalifa as a stage name. She confirmed in her TikTok that her name is (Redacted) however goes with Mia Khalifa. Rocketvflush (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Link, please? Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

Mia Khalifa's real full name is (BLP violation removed) while "Mia Khalifa" is just a stage name so please make this edit to provide people with the most accurate information. WikiVillain000 (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. All content on Wikipedia, and especially that which relates to living persons, must be attributed to a verifiable source. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Mia Khalifa and Jhayco started dating in 2021 and later broke up in 2022. 216.74.233.114 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Sarah Joe Chamoun" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sarah Joe Chamoun has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 21 § Sarah Joe Chamoun until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Hi, I'm not sure about what qualifies as a "reliable source" - and norms seem to vary wildly per subject here on Wikipedia. Does this count as source for either her real name, her birthday or both? https://www.ibtimes.sg/better-lesser-known-facts-mia-khalifa-that-will-seriously-blow-you-away-50607

Cheers, 31.138.24.130 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it's clickbait WP:BLPGOSSIP. The headline gives that away; plus WP:IBTIMES. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding her legal name to the article

Yesterday, I made a revision that added Mia Khalifa's legal name using sources that I am 100% sure confirm her name. It was rejected on the grounds of misusing primary sources, and point taken.

However, my follow up question is what would be necessary to add this information to the article? A news article that refers to her by this name? And to that note, from which kind of news page? Any help would be appreciated. Csab6482 (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS describes different kinds of reliable sources. The list at WP:RS/P gets updated now and then. However, the responsible way to write an article, especially a biography, is to seek out the most reliable sources on a topic first, then summarize what they say fairly and proportionately. Not first decide what you want to include and then go looking for sources, which is likely to lead to problems of undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ridiculous. Provide reliable sources?? Everyone knows her real name, it is even mentioned on this very page! Not to mention, a quick search for “mia khalifa real name” using any search engine will yield the correct result in a split second.

Asking for a reliable source for a well known fact is like asking for a reliable source “proving” that 2+2=4.

This is just bureaucracy plain and simple. Rules for the sake of rules. You’re kidding yourselves.

By the mere fact that this article was locked you end up leading people to this very page where her actual name is clearly listed. 84.229.23.19 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:TANTRUM. The process was laid out. Either it's followed or the name isn't in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

The article has a link described as “Palestinian terrorists” which links to an article of a different name describing violence. This is a subjective description and should be amended to reflect the article name 2A04:4A43:4CCF:DECF:9911:9B55:7EFB:9EF0 (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The WP:LABEL has been removed along with detail cited to poor sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)