Talk:Sunny Leone

Ancestry

In article,it is called she is daughter of Shikh immigrants from Punjab,Punjab is part of India,so it should she is daughter Indian immigrants from Punjab.I hope there will be a reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.73.120 (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Added new link

I have added this link: [1]

This link is not new. It has been on this page for a long time now, but someone deleted it, and I have added it once again, but someone deleted it again, and I have again added it. The page features an extensive gallery of Leone's gallery. --Jo (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hint: it's called linkspam, that's why it keeps getting removed... Tabercil (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is it linkspam? It is not advertising anything, is it? --Jo (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be advertising anything. If it is unwanted and keeps showing up, it's spam. See WP:EL for info on what is/isn't allowed in external link sections of articles. Dismas|^(talk) 03:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sikh and Hindu

She cant be a sikh, as it is mentioned in her boigraphy that she was born "Karen Malhotra". Malhotra is a hindu banyiyan caste. Malhotra cant be a sikh. However, she could be a punjaban, but definately not a sikh. 115.131.1.34 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Will someone explain to me why people keep switching that she was raised Sikh with Hindu when the cited article says she was raised as a Sikh? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've bumped into prior opposition on this count as some people do not believe she is Sikh - see User talk:Tabercil/archive9#there is no such thing as sikh background and User talk:Sikh historian/Archive01#Sunny Leone among other bits. That's why I ended up phrasing it as I did. What I think we're running into here is the same kind of thing seen among orthodox Jews saying that some others are not Jews (e.g. see here and here). Tabercil (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Sikhism is very different in this respect from Jews. A Sikh is defined very specifically in the Sikh Code of Conduct which is published by the SGPC (Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandak Committee). This body oversee's the control of Sikh Temples and also presides over issues and controversies. What they did in 1920 (and continue to do today), is get advice from all Sikh bodies as to what constitutes being a Sikh. These Men and Women have published this in the form of a Sikh "Constitution" and these are the minimum requirements to be a Sikh. Some examples are:

• Keeping of the 5 k's - Kirpan (small dagger upon ones person at all times), Kesh (unshorn hair), Kanga (Comb to keep the hair tisy), Kara (steel bangle), Kachera (small breaches). Does Sunny Leone keep these?
• Avoidance of the 5 thieves - Kaam (Unhealthy Sexual Obsession), Krodh (Unhealthy Ire/Anger/Stubborness), Moh (Materialist Obsession), Lobh (Greed gluttony) and Egotism - (obsession with self). In this instance Sunny does not seem to avoid but promote Kaam.

Note this is not about Othodoxy or Liberalness, but just what the definition of a Sikh is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh-history (talk • contribs) 07:17, June 26, 2009

Maybe what you're saying is true, but I'm still going to insist on something which indicates from her own mouth that she is not a practising Sikh. Otherwise we're skating a little too to being in violation of WP:BLP in my opinion. Tabercil (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Might this article in the Toronto Star reflect what Sunny has done?

Tabercil you are abusing your authority as an admin and removing legitimate refrences. The reference I added clearly describes what a practising Sikh is. You killed it for no reason. You do not own this article.Please leave the reference and tag it for discussion rather than deletion. Please adhere to Wikipedia rules and adhere to WP:NPOV. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, per wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, what Tabercil did was correct. As I have warned you on your user page, what you are doing is violating wikipedia's policy on original research, specifically prohibited synthesis, when you conclude that she is not a practicing Sikh based on sources that demonstrate what a practicing sikh should be. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No. You should discuss references before reverting. You do not own this article, and therefore you should abide by Wikipedia rules. I have also warned you about ownership of this article and am considering mediation. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please post your concerns on the biographies of living people noticeboard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew we would get there. Next time instead of being confrontational, discuss and assume good faith. You have accused me of not assuming good faith yet all along I have asked for things to be discussed. These needless warnings could have been avoided if you just discussed in the first place rather than revert. Regards and Best Wishes --Sikh-history (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have to say but if you made identity as a sikh by that code of conduct it would be far less sikhs also morbidfairy could i just say that code of conduct sikh-history is providing is for a baptised amritdhari sikh which does not apply Sahajdhari sikh who just believe in sikhism but do not adopt any of the overt symbols ,i hope you can come to a conclusion on this regards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Misterconginialtastical 21:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats the point. An Amritdhari is a practicing Sikh, wheras a Sehajdhari is a non-practicing Sikh. Regards.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No you can not class it as not practising the religion,as it is still practising the religion probably around 80 percent of sikhs are sahajdhari does that make them none practising sikhs,or even sikhs atall,sorry but this is ridiculous it wont be needed to be stated in the article as it said she was raised a sikh not IS a sikh --Misterconginialtastical —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

I think you need to read the SRM. You cannot change a religion just to suit and fit your own needs, especially organised religions. She can call herself Sehajdhari, she can call herself non-practising Sikh but she cannot call her self a practising Sikh.Saying that, another central principle of Sikhism is Gurmatta (i.e. consensus), and if by Gurmatta they chose to abandone the 5k's, promote Kaam, then that is fine. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but any discussion about whether Sunny is a practising Sikh must be backed up by references to her. I left a message on Sikh-history's Talk page which I'm going to quote from here:

Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy is very clear about what constitutes suitable sources; from here: "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." (emphasis mine) We cannot use an article that deals in generalities about what is suitable conduct for a Sikh; from here: "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically." (emphasis mine). I'm not saying you can't add anything about her not meeting Sikh standards, I'm saying such an addition must be done in accordance to Wikipedia rules.

If you can find an article from a reliable source that clearly states that Sunny Leone considers herself a non-practicing Sikh, you can add it. If you can find a statement in an article from a reliable source that clearly states that Sunny Leone specifically would be in violation of the Sikh commandments due to her working in pornographic films, that might be something that can be added to the article... but run it by me first with regards to the quality of the source. Don't take my statements as saying you flat out can't add anything about her not being compliant with Sikh standards. What I am saying is that any such addition must meet the bar set by WP:BLP, which is admittedly a higher standard than non-biographical articles face.

As a consequence, the material being added about her being non-compliant with Sikh beliefs does not, in my opinion, meet the standards met by BLP as none of the added material specifically mentions Sunny. So it's being pulled out. Future additions that don't explicitly refer to Sunny will be removed immediately - from BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis original) Tabercil (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to request mediation for this. I think people are overstepping the mark here and are not assuming good faith. Please discuss before deletion. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll drop a note on WP:THIRD in hopes of getting some other people involved here. In the interim, I'm removing the italics you've placed on the statements as I feel they constitute undue weight. This does not mean I agree with the statement! Tabercil (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've had a read of the above comments and would like to offer you a third opinion. I think the nub of the problem comes down to one of original research. If Sikh-history is basing their claim on a comparison of Sunny Leone against a list of pre-requisites, then this would constitute original research and therefore be inappropriate here. If Sikh-history is basing their claim on a reliable source that makes this claim, then that source should be included here. I confess that I haven't read the Sunny Leone article, but I presume it is a biography. I see no harm in stating, with an appropriate reference, that she describes (or has been described) as being a (insert appropriate type here) Sikh. If there are published sources which dispute this claim, then I think it would be appropriate to include a comment to this effect (including the citation) and a link to the main Sikhism page so the interested reader can pursue the matter further. Obviously it is inappropriate to launch into the intricacies of what constitutes which kind of Sikh in a biography (unless, of course, that biography is of Guru Nanak etc.). So I would encourage focussing on reliable sources that directly state and/or question her status as a Sikh. Drawing conclusions about her status based on other documents, in my view, falls squarely under the banner of original research.

I hope that is of some assistance.

Regards, Blippy (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the offending sentence and the references I added:

Even though Leone tries to maintain a link to Sikh traditions, this is in theory rather than practice with her career.^[5] She has also said that she is unlikely to leave the adult film industry due to religion, saying that "girls will leave the industry claiming that they found God. Well, the fact is, God has always been with them the entire time."^[5] A practicing Sikh does not have sexual relations outside marriage^{[85] [86]}as according to their belief this "can build barriers against God in their lives".^[87]

Does the second part constitute WP: Original research? The second part just states what is written in the references. I think the crux of this is, what is the subject. I would argue, in this particular sentence it is Sikh/Sikhism/Sikh Traditions. In which case reliable secondary sources about the subject can be used. If we are saying the article is about a Sikh pornography star, then surely we can add a secondary source on what Sikhism says about sex. Keys here are Sikh, Sex and God. [The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Writing_style ]. Any views? Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, the entire bolded sentence fails WP:OR when it's used in the article about Sunny. It'd be perfectly fine in an article about Sikh beliefs in general or the religious objections section of the pornography article. But because there's no explicit reference to Sunny in the references for your proposed sentence, we can't use it in Sunny's article. Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am with the last comment it seems Sikh-History is seeing sikhism just as Amritdhari sikh ,and seeing Sahajdhari as none practising,80-90 percent of sikhs are Sahajdhari why dont you state this on the sikh article that 80-90 percent of sikhs are none practising it is because it is untrue,although as a sikh myself i wouldnt want sunny leone a porn artist portraid as a Sikh but i have to look at it from a neutral point of view as that is essential to wikipedia , hopefully more feedback is given on the subject regards Misterconginialtastical 19:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterconginialtastical (talk • contribs)

Misterconginialtastical I have no problem with Sunny Leone describing herself as a Sikh, but the bit about Sikh does not read well. A colleague of mine at work was reading this and made the comment "She is a pornstar because she is a Sikh right.....Sikhs believe in all that Karma Sutra stuff right?". It's just confusing and reads badly. I understand issues around WO:Original Research, and I see the way I wrote what I did may have been wrong, but I am looking for a way to make the article read better in an Encyclopedic way, rather than a "Fan Site" as it does now.Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The bit about Sikh not reading well is because we're trying to state what's been clearly reported and not inferring anything beyond that. We know she was raised in a Sikh household but we don't have any clear statements from her on record that says "I'm Sikh". There's similar dancing around the subject of religion in the Eliza Dushku article for the exact same reason. Now if you have a better solution about how we should address Sunny Leone's religious situation, be my guest to make a suggestion on how state it. Just remember what we do know for a fact: raised Sikh (from the Eye Weekly article, which is the clearest statement we know of). Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is Misterconginialtastical on new account,But sikh-history i know exactly where you are coming from and ive been trying to find a source to say she's not a practising sikh and the closest ive got is an interview on youtube where she said she doesnt have a religion ,but would a youtube video meet wikipedia standards?

Regards Information-Line (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Youtube can be used as a citation, under certain circumstances. Run it past Tabercil. Cheers --Sikh-history (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Post up the link and I'll take a look... Tabercil (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I think I've spotted another problem that may be contributing here. The contentious passage is actually a minor rewording - or is it verbatim? - of a quote. Why not just add the quote as a quote to avoid making it look like there are separate sources to present this information. You might consider adding an introductory statement that 'one article has claimed that;'

Leone does her best to maintain a link to Sikh traditions, even if more in theory than in practice. But she’s unlikely to disavow her career path due to religion. “Girls will leave the industry claiming that they found God,” she says. “Well, the fact is, God has always been with them the entire time.”

And, if the interview is a reliable source you could then add the counter point quote, something like 'however in an interview Leone states...'.

This removes any ambiguity about this being a Wikipedia statement and signals to the reader that they can view the source/s for themselves. I think this eliminates the need for any clarification about theology since it would then be clearly a cited opinion rather than a statement of fact. Also, I'm sure everyone realises that "doing your best" is not be the same as "doing an excellent job"  :-) Blippy (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Tabercil (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, entirely. Sunny herself mention the Sikh religion (that is the subject) therefore it is legitimate to use quotes from secondary sources on the Sikh religion. The other subject is Pornography and it is in the context of Sunny Leone. It would be legitimate to get secondary sources for Pornography and for Sunny Leone. Sorry, this is not WP:OR. Far from it. The sources are directly from the quotations from repudiated sources.Kaam is a documented aspect of Sikhism religion.

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject (Subject is Sunny Leon, Pornography and Sikhism) and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections.

Please don't change anything until we get some more opinion. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history, I understand your perspective, but as you have correctly cited, the sources need to relate to the "subject". The subject here is "Sunny Leon". If this was a page on "Sunny Leon, Pornography, and Sikhism" then you would be correct in your assertion of what the subject is, but the title of the page _is_ the subject, by definition. In my view the issue is not whether the sources are being quoted correctly, it is the interpretation you are applying to Sunny Leone. If you have a source which does that job then you're all set. Otherwise you are interpreting how a reliable source can be applied to the subject in hand, rather than quoting a reliable source that states how it applies to the subject in hand - the latter is fine, the former is pretty clearly WP:OR.

I have already deleted the entry on the WP:3O page per the instructions there, so maybe you should re-post to get fourth opinion. Sorry if mine hasn't helped. I'll leave you guys to it! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion has helped, but does not what the subject may have published about themselves apply here? She has published information on being a Sikh, surely we can use a relaible secondary source on that subject? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are justifying a means to an end for your own purposes. Being Sikh or what YOU think she should believe is not up for discussion. She is what she is and by you adding your personal beliefs is not going to make her change her ways or make people look at her differently. Your posts qualify as spam and nothing more. Several times in the past, other parties have mentioned her religious faith in your same context but have seen their comments erased without any issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throttlebay (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

HMM. Assume Good Faith. My religion is not the question here. Your tone is very judgemental. Please join the discussion about the content rather than the editors. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history. I think, once again, you have captured the essence of the issue in what you have said... She has published information about herself and you want to _use_ another source on the topic to make a point about what she has said. This is WP:OR. What you need is a source that actually says what you want to say about her, not you being the source that makes the connection. Does that make sense? It's like if I want to say that that butter makes toast taste better in an article on toast, I have to find a source that says "toast tastes better with butter", not a source that says "butter makes things taste better". Both topics have to come from the one source, not two sources on two topics glued together by me. And thanks for being kind enough to say that my opinion has helped. I appreciate it. Oh - and I don't know who posted the 'means to an end' bit - it doesn't seem to be signed...? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Oh - I got stuck in an edit conflict - it seems the other person hadn't finished yet when I posted. Now I see what happened. Blippy (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NO conflict from me. I think that editor is not assuming good faith (but I will deal with that later). Ok Blippy, I will go with what you are saying. Chage the paragraph as you see fit. I may create a page on Sikhism and Pornography at a later stage and add it as a stub. Thanks for everyones comments (even the rude ones), and best wishes to everyone. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I see what's been done in that the main violating content has been moved to its own page under Lust (Kaam). Well, I've moved that content into the existing page for Kam and deleted the new page - no sense in having two pages on the same topic. I've also moved the link in Sunny's page. However, I'm still not sold on the propriety of the link within Sunny's page... simply because we don't have similar links to religious objections for any other porn star. So the link to Kam might yet get turfed on those grounds. Tabercil (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This not a religious objection. I am not bothered whether she is a pornstar or not. That is irrelevant. See my point some posts up, when a guy in the office read this page and commented Sikhism is about Karma-Sutra. My motivation is to give the reader a link to click if they wish to view the Sikh religions views on Pornography. Sikhism specifically talks about Kaam. Could you also rename the page as Kaam (Lust) and the main article links are Kaam (lust). Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your link to pornography and sikism is irrelevant and non informative in this context. This entry on Sunny Leone is meant to be neutral and more of a biography rather than one where a religious context of how Sikkism plays a role in her life is questioned. All the data I have gathered and stored on her while creating this entry was with a neutral point of view- not the case when religion and Sikkism's view is brought in. In that same context, every other adult performer or in this case- Sikhs who are not religious obligated as the rules suggest, should have a stub stating why their role is bad and how each of their religions condone it. Vote to remove the link mentioned above and the data regarding her religious beliefs so as in order to remain neutral and stay in context. -throttlebay (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

His phrasing is mangled, but I do believe Throttlebay is correct in this instance. This article is specifically about Sunny Leone. Information about Sihk views on pornography (which is essentially why you're trying to add the information) is not relevant unless it can be shown to specifically apply to Sunny. Tabercil (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Section break

She cant be a sikh, as it is mentioned in her boigraphy that she was born "Karen Malhotra". Malhotra is a hindu banyiyan caste. Malhotra cant be a sikh. However, she could be a punjaban, but definately not a sik. 115.131.1.34 (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we remove the labels on the page for neutrality as it seems we can put this issue to bed. The discussion on Sikkism and how it affects her life is irrelevant to her biography, and so is her thoughts on religion. If readers are interested for further study about Sikkism, they can click the link where it states her religion.-throttlebay (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with either, but wait a couple of days to see if anyone objects before actually pulling them. Tabercil (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. Throttlebay seems to have a major objection on the fact that she herself has made the staement she is Sikh. I see no problem in quoting and adding what she has stated and adding a link in (as exists) to Sikh views on pornography. It certainly makes the article more clearer and encyclopedic. Remove the tags but keep the part about Sikh. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. As I pointed out, information about Sikh views on pornography in general is not relevant. Tabercil (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement she made has nothing to do with the article as a whole. It was just added by Sikh-History to validate adding his/her section on Sikkism and Pornography and again- really does not add any value. This is a biographical stub taken in a purely neutral context. If you added Sikkism and pornography, its fair to assume someone else will add "Sikkisim and Education" or "Sikkism and Business", all of which are mentioned in the article, but again have no relevance. throttlebay (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just a link to wikipedia, what is the problem? It is Sunny making a statement on Sikhism not me, and for the interested reader they can see the Sikh view on pornography. If Sunny was an astronomer and had said she was interested that she was a Sikh I am sure there would be no objections to Sikhism views on Astronomy. She is a porn worker and ahas mantioned she is Sikh. What is the harm in linking to Sikh views on pornography? Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not just a wikipedia link- its the principle behind it. If that is allowed, almost every point in a biographical stub will be bought up for questioning with counterpoints. The stub would be never ending and readers will not get a synopsis of the biography in a neutral and non-partisan standpoint. She has said lots of things, but none of them are mentioned as the article is written in a third person context and also- what good will it add?.She says she likes world of Warcraft, nobody has edited or added a section saying that Warcraft is a waste of time or the controversy behind it. The article when written by me was done so in an encyclopedia like writing style. Just the facts in brief nothing else. What she says and does is for someone to read in detail, and not for the editors to highlight without a clear intention other than "that's what she said". Apart from that examine the rest of the article written before you edited- Do you see any other wiki links directly mentioned anywhere else saying "please see this article?". --throttlebay (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no principle behind it. The sentence reads

Leone does her best to maintain a link to Sikh traditions, even if more in theory than in practice . But she’s unlikely to disavow her career path due to religion. "Girls will leave the industry claiming that they found God," she says. "Well, the fact is, God has always been with them the entire time."

She has not made any statement to the effect she does her best to maintain her links with the World of Warcraft Tradition if more theory or in practice or she is unlikely disavow her career due to World of Warcraft? The reader reads what she has to say on her religion and then has link to what Sikhism says about her career path. I am sure of World of Warcraft had a view on pornography there would be a link there. Like I said, there is no principle. You have been trying to delete her entire statement for reason I don't know, for which you have been warned 3 times (which is very leniant). It reads well, as the fellow who thought that Karma Sutra was part of Sikhism in my office pointed out. Leave it as it is. --Sikh-history (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Go back to what Bippy has said: "She has published information about herself and you want to _use_ another source on the topic to make a point about what she has said." That makes it original research. It needs to be pulled on those grounds. Tabercil (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No That is NOT original research. All it does (like the Mel Gibson article), is diretthe reader to another article that IS related if he she wishes to do so. It does not analyse Sunny Leones statement of Sikhism. It does not analyse Sunny Leones staement on God, it says see also. That isNOT original research. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very much original research. Like I mentioned earlier- it is leading to your writeup on Pornography and Sikkism, which has no place in this article as a standalone, and knowing that it would be deleted immediately, you felt it necessary to add that statement to make a poor case. Neither has any place in this article, and is just added as a segway to justify an unrelated article on Sikkism and pornography, nothing else.

No it's not. It would be original research if I had added commentary, but I did not. I added a link which is relevant to a Sikh and a Porn maker. Now if I had added she is not "classified as a Sikh" and would be refred to as a "Koothee Kunjeree" in Sikh circles, then that would be WP:Original. Thanks and Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, you keep bringing up the Mel Gibson article as an example of a related article, but I'm not seeing anything there that supports your actions. All links there are to articles which are directly on topic. Tabercil (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tabercil, analyse the Mel Gibson article closely. The are sections where other articles are embedded in the text, purely for clarification. Cheers --Sikh-History 12:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to things like "Main article: Mel Gibson DUI incident", that's because there's a full fledged article specifically about that with detailed discussion of Mel Gibson. You don't have it with regards to the "Sikhism and Pornography" one; what you have is a tangential one which has no mention of Sunny at all on it, nor any relation to Sunny. As it stands, the link you're insisting on should be pulled. Tabercil (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it not link to sites to do with his religion? Cheers--Sikh-History 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not an editor but have, for some inexplicable reason, read through the entire thread of arguments about the "Sunny Leone - Sikh" controversy. Sikh-history, I think I understand your argument: you think that pointing out an obvious violation of Sikhism isn't original research because it is, in your opinion, self evident. The problem is that the act of pointing out this fact is still a matter of original research because you made the decision that this particular violation of Sikhism was noteworthy. You imply that the "more in theory than in practice" quote means she would like to maintain a link, but cannot due to her career. You're making an assumption about what the source was saying -- and this, I believe, constitutes original research. OngoingCivilUnrest (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tags

Do we need these, now? They date from June. I think they were related to her claims of being Sikh, while her lifestyle differs from that expected of/by mainstream Sikhs. Since the RS carry the bit about her being Sikh, I don't see how this would merit a neutrality tag.- Sinneed 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

These can be easily restored, but please explain here if so. I see a religious edit war, but I don't see neutrality issues... just content dispute.- Sinneed 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally wrong facts

1 POINT

She is not from a Sikh family... Her parents are proper Hindus who maybe respect Sikhs like many others do#

Like everything on wikipedia, you need to cite sources to show that. If this article makes claims which aren't referenced, however, you can immediately remove them due to BLP concerns. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

2 Point

Whatever facts may be wrong; one fact is right: She is no better than a prostitute (a whore).

Being born as a Sikh

SIKH MEANS STUDENT OF OUR HOLY BOOK. SO IF YOU DO NOT STUDY THE SIKH SCRIPTURE ND GAIN SPIRITUAL WISDOM U ARE NOT A SIKH

PLEASE CHANGE THAT WRONG FACTS!!!!

Since that is not what the article says, it is not possible to change it.- Sinneed 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It does not say she was born Sikh, rather she was raised Sikh. And the phrasing comes from an article on her done by Eye Weekly, which is owned by the Toronto Star: "She was a nursing student who got into nude modeling, not exactly a common profession for someone raised Sikh." (emphasis mine) Tabercil (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If she calls herself sikh she is. Wether she wants to fully practice the religion or not is up to her. Her parents are sikh, and yes you can be born into sikh family as your parents have that identity. The sikh religion does not judge on ones doings many uneducated hypocrites identity as being knowledgeable.I believe she knows the God more than many of you. Her concept is much more Deeper and advanced,due in part to what she does.Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.127.3 (talk • contribs)

Mike I am afraid you are in error here. Sikhism is very specific about Kaam or sexual obsession. Kaam is seen as a barrier to understanding God or becoming a Gurmukh. It is one of the 5 thieves that steals your senses, along with Krodh, Moh, Lobh and Hankaar. From what I can see about Sunny, because of her Krodh she went against her parents, to persue Moh. The way she thought she would do this is through Kaam. If there is one industry a Sikh is expressly forbidden from working in, it is the sex industry. Maybe she does know God, I am not sure, but it is definitely not God as Sikhs understand it, and 99% of the worlds Sikhs has a reputation for being respectable and not persuing such depraved lifestyles. But hey hum, its a free country, I can call myself a Martian if I wish.

Assuming her job is "sexual obsession" is a leap and original research because it is an intrepretive deduction on your part. Taking your martian example if you wanted to dispute someone's claim to martianhood it would require an article about that person with specicifity disputing that fact.Jgeddis (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think why many Sikhs are getting upset and spamming this article is because, in Sikhism, there are very strong female charachters who display virtues, of kindness like Bebe Nanki, and bravery like Mai Bhago (she fought in battles from the fron), virtue like Rani (Queen) Jindian as well as others who have been Presidents of the Sikh institutions. Sikhs have had women taking religious ceremonies and heading congregations for some 300 years, long before Christianity had women priests. Now to have a figure like Sunny Leone who basically gets paid to be exploited, carry out depraved male fantasies and be "f*cked" is a bit hard for many Sikhs to take. So try and understand it from their point of view.

Thanks--Sikh-History 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And just to point out something I found last night: a recap of a Howard Stern show back in 2002 where she was clear she's not Hindu:

"Howard asked her if cows are like Jesus to her. She said she's not Hindu so she's not into that."

So those who are changing it to Hindu are wrong. Tabercil (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• In reply to Sikh-history above: it's irrelevant whether she follows all of the Sikh teachings or if one or more Sikh communities consider her a Sikh; she has stated that she is a Sikh, and in particular, she was raised a Sikh, so she is a Sikh. Whether or not other Sikhs would consider her a "good" Sikh, or to be following the Sikh beliefs as they see them, is irrelevant to whether or not she considers herself a Sikh, and whether or not she was raised a Sikh. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi GiftigerWunsch [TALK], I do not really care whether she calls herself a Sikh or not. Like I said, I can call myself a Martian if I so wish. Mike said The sikh religion does not judge on ones doings many uneducated hypocrites identity as being knowledgeable.I believe she knows the God more than many of you. Her concept is much more Deeper and advanced,due in part to what she does. I was correcting him on this point. Sikhism does judge on the concept of the 5 thieves. It states one cannot get close to God if one is obsessed with the 5 thieves or one of the 5 thieves. Obsession with the 5 thieves makes one restless and not able to tune into God inside. One of the 5 thieves is Kam i.e. obsession with sex. I pointed out Sunny is in an industry that promotes Kam as well as indulging in what some may say "depraved" acts of Kam. So in terms of Sikh philosophy, she can never be close to God. She maybe close to God in her mind, but it is definitely not the Sikh concept, because she will never be at peace enough to tune into God that dwells inside her (you and me). She will never be a Gurmukh.

Another concept in Sikhism is "Higher than Truth is Truthful living", in other words don't just talk the talk, walk the walk. Mike claims The sikh religion does not judge on ones doings, again he is wrong. I would say ones actions are far more important than talking about actions.

Saying that she can still turn her back on this "sordid" industry, and she will be welcomed by the Sikh fraternity. I am sure she would have no problem finding a Sikh husband either. Daya (Kindness) is also a central tenet of Sikhism. What you probably find is that most of the people actually spamming this article are probably Sikh wome, because they take any demeaning of Sikh womanhood very seriously. From what I can see on the "twittersphere", Sunny Leone is seen a a blot not only on Sikhism, but Sikh womanhood and emancipation. So I would keep the protection for some time to come. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly Tabercil (talk) many Sikhs will not eat beef for respect of their Hindu neighbours, respect for the cow as it ploughs the field, gives milk and fuel. Thanks--Sikh-History 13:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Understandable - there's a lot of Hindu neighbours there you'd be pissing off with your beef meals. <G> If anything I think I lifted from the Howard Stern recap a lil' too late in the paragraph. Backing up a couple of sentences in the recap from it provides better context:

Howard pointed out that Sunny is Indian, but not the woo, woo, woo kind, she's India Indian. Howard spent a short time talking to her about that and how her father is from India and used to wear a turban until he was turned down jobs because of it. Howard asked her if cows are like Jesus to her. She said she's not Hindu so she's not into that.

As for using the recap in the article, I don't see how it would fit in... the turban mentioned is not a Sikh-specific item of clothing, correct? And thanks for the heads-up on the twitter-sphere status. If they ever get pending changes back up and rolling, I'll definitely get this article placed in that category. Tabercil (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No probs, if she is claiming to be a Sikh then that is what should stay in the article regardless of vanadalism, and yes " there's a lot of Hindu neighbours there you'd be pissing off with your beef meals.", lol that would be a a problem! Thanks--Sikh-History 09:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Career

Hi, I just made my first Wikipedia page edit and I saw that it was instantly removed, and I am hoping to learn why so that I will not repeat the same mistake.

In Sunny Leone's Career section, there is the following sentence:

Leone has also built a sizable online presence with her official website, sunnyleone.com, along with affiliate sites sunnysmoney.com and sunnysfriends.com. She has managed to leverage her online popularity by striking deals with firms like PPPcard, AdultPokerParty.com, Brickhouse, Flirt4Free, Totemcash and Imlive to sell and distribute her content over the internet and other media.

The sentence lists a number of websites where Sunny Leone performs online. I included MyFreeCams.com on that list where she made an appearence a few days ago, and cited it as: http://wiki.myfreecams.com/wiki/Celebrities_on_MyFreeCams#Sunny_Leone

Was my citation bad or why was my addition removed?

Albert10109 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the "history" tab of an article, you can see who made edits to the article and when they made them. In this case, you can see that I was the person who removed your edit. I did so for a couple reasons. First, you were using another wiki as your source. It's not what I would consider a reliable source (<-- click on that to read the policy) especially since it's published/posted by the same company. It wasn't reported on by anyone, so it smells a bit too much like advertising. Secondly, I don't feel that the site, MyFreeCams, is notable enough to have an article. So I don't see why we should point it out. For instance, if a model signs with Vivid Entertainment then that would be able to be referenced by a reliable source since something like that would likely show up in AVN or a similar publication and, since Vivid is notable, it's noteworthy to mention in a model's career bio. Basically, we don't list every appearance or else the encyclopedic article starts looking a lot like a resume (see WP:RESUME). Any questions, I'm all ears... Dismas|^(talk) 06:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sunny Leone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, here we go:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some comments: 1. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must touch upon each of the major sections of the article and (briefly) summarize them.

2. Your images should have alt text, per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images

Fixed for the images in the body. Infobox template doesn't support alt text though... Tabercil (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

3. There are links in the article that go to redirects that need to be fixed. In the first section I found Sirmaur, Catholic School, Bisexual, and United States Permanent Resident Card. Please fix these and any others in the article either by using piped links, or reformatting.

Fixed for the links in the body. Dismas|^(talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

4. There's quite a few two-sentence paragraphs here; try to expand or combine them so that they're at least three sentences long, as one or two sentence paragraphs really tend to chop up the flow and make it difficult to read.

5. The captions on the non-infobox images are a little... wanting. Is there any way to make them more interesting/detailed (Leone at event X doing Y in Z in 2009 or whatever) like the one in the infobox?

Fixed. Tabercil (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Per WP:ELPOINTS, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article", so the link to "Naked Ambition: An R-rated Look at an X-rated Industry" should be moved to the external links section and Italicized per MOS:TITLE

Fixed by pointing to the Wiki article for the book. Tabercil (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Per Wikipedia:External links, four "official" sites are probably a bit much. I would suggest at least removing the Facebook page.

Dunno about that, but I can move some of them out of the external links by using the {{Web presence}} infobox. Tabercil (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

8. I couldn't see where the citation for her shoe size mentions that fact. In addition, the "number of films" count is out of date in the infobox for both links.

Both items fixed. Tabercil (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

9. Citations #6 and #8 are identical.

Fixed. Tabercil (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

10. In "Early life", "When she was 15, her family received their green card" doesn't appear to be cited by the reference.

Fixed. Pulled out the green card reference and changed it to state when she moved to the US, using Toronto Star as a cite.

11. "She graduated from high school in 1999 and enrolled in college" in that same section is unreferenced.

12. Moving on to "Career", "She posed for Penthouse magazine, and was named Penthouse Pet of the Month for the March 2001 issue, followed by a feature in the Holiday 2001 edition of Hustler magazine as a Hustler Honey" is uncited (or at least, not cited in the surrounding refs). The sourcing for this section is sporadic overall - there are references for some of the publications, but not others. From there on it gets spotty and, with an article about a porn star, there is very little that can be taken for granted and unsourced.

13. The further I go in this article, the more the prose breaks into little one-or-two sentences factoids, which makes the article difficult to read overall as it lacks a proper flow. These facts should be integrated into some sort of structured paragraphs or removed if they are not important to the overall article.

Unfortunately, the article does not meet the criteria right now and, as it is unlikely to do so without a significant revision of referencing and prose, I am going to fail the article for now, rather than place it on hold, which will also give another editor a chance to look it over if you decide to renominate it. Thank you for your work thus far. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Canadian Paul 02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

SunLust production company films info

The reason I reverted the inclusion of these films is not because I don't believe she was in them. My reasons are:

1. She is in LOTS of films and I see no reason to single these two out. They aren't notable for anything.
2. The "sources" are commercial sites. A much better source would be some sort of industry news talking about these films since that would help support argument #1, their notability.
3. SunLust is a red link and likely a non-notable film production company. I have nothing against red links per se but it doesn't help support the idea of notability.

Any questions? Dismas|^(talk) 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To address each of your concerns:

• I have to agree that more appropriate sources should be found if possible, but as I said before, since there is no advertising in what was added, they're not inappropriately used, and there's no reason to believe they're not reliable. I will try to find some more appropriate sources for this information if I get time.
• I believe the reason that they were singled out is that she is director of these films; I don't know enough about the subject to be able to say whether she has directed more than these two, but the information which was added suggested that these are the first two films of which she has been director. I believe that makes them worthy of mention.
• Since the article isn't about SunLust or these films, I don't think the film production company not being notable means that information and sources potentially beneficial to the article should be ruled out.

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I re-added them, corrected the typo, and found a reference that is a review of the films with details supporting the text. Hopefully that will help. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We have purposefully established a policy on what movies should and should not be mentioned in the articles due to the sheer amount of movies a pornographic actor or director might be involved in. You can see this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies. Individual notabilty is needed for content, and right now WP:STATUSQUO should rule until this is settled. Nymf _hideliho! 23:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. First time anyone has mentioned these standards (that I have seen.) Perhaps that should be more evident somewhere. I'll revert my work and back out slowly... --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that at least the first of the two movies mentioned meets the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Filmographies, as it is the first movie for which Sunny Leone was director; i.e. it passes criterion 1 of this section. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the references I found they felt is was unlikely that Sunny had actually directed the films. If there are better references that prove she did (other than the marketing department of an online porn seller) then the notability might improve. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This link is a review which lists Sunny Leone as the director. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The IMDb page also lists her as director; IMDb is undoubtedly a reliable source. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was for Pussy Eating Club 3. Same goes for 1 and 2 though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally, IMDb also gives evidence that Pussy Eating Club was the first film she directed, which therefore qualifies as notable per the guideline mentioned above. See this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't my intent to try to convince anyone to change their minds in terms of whether or not she actually directed something, or whether or not that's notable. I would humbly suggest two things however:

1. IMDB isn't an ideal source of information. I realize that it's used very often as a source, but considering how frequently they're outright wrong, it's not ideal for controversial proofs. That isn't to say that it's bad; merely that it might be preferable to find supplementary sourcing. (I notice that you also use xcritic. This is good if xcritic is a reliable source. I'll admit that I don't really know anything about them)
2. Nymf, projects (the pornography project, and indeed all projects) have different 'policies' enacted, but they are by no means binding. There is a grave distinction between a 'project policy' and a 'wikipedia policy'. I don't mean to imply that you don't know the difference; but rather than you should recognize and acknowledge that adhering to project policies is really more of a courtesy in the spirit of collaboration than a binding rule. More importantly, WP:STATUSQUO, being an essay, cannot possibly "rule". What you're looking for is to have the "correct" version of the page retained until everyone agrees. This is what everyone always wants (with everyone considering their own version to be that "correct" version). Clearly this is impossible. The inclusion of a couple pieces of work that might not be strictly necessary is hardly damaging. And certainly not as damaging as edit-warring. 209.90.133.213 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree that IMDb alone isn't ideal to ensure reliability in a controversial discussion such as this, but note I did also mention this as another source that she is the director here, and a third is formed by the original references, which are valid sources regardless of whether or not it's a store. A quick google search will most likely yield several more sources of this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Take down her religous background since she is not Sikh, the source that backs the claim is clearly false.

She is not from a Sikh family... Her parents are proper Hindus who maybe respect Sikhs like many others do and further more Malhotra is a HINDU surname, not Sikh. Users are on a dispute as to which background she is from. Active contributors keep claiming their source from a website article that has no proof that she is Sikh. It does not come directly from herself wether she is a Sikh or not. What Sikh on earth Is called Malhotra who's Dad comes from Tibet and mother comes from Himachal Pradesh with the surname Malhotra.

All in all, I feel that users should just take her religious background down, since it is not of any use anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pritsindhar (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, she is not Hindu. The Eye Weekly article is clear in that is says she is Sikh. Additionally, if you look at her YouTube channel (found here), which does seem authentic given that there are clearly videos by her, it says "You know me. I was Penthouse Pet of the Year 2003. I am 100% Sikh, but I went to a Catholic school growing up.". Lastly there is a refutation of the Hindu bit - she did an appearance on the Howard Stern show back in 2002. According the Marks Friggin summary of the show "She said she's not Hindu so she's not into that." Tabercil (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

She definitely claims she is from a Sikh family and is of Sikh origin. Now whether she is a practising Sikh is a different issue (which is outside the scope of this article) Thanks--Sikh-History 14:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. <G> Tabercil (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Debates on whether She is a Sikh or not?

I think any views on whether she is a Sikh or not should be taaken to this forum here which is being debated by Sikhs, and should be kept off here. I think the arguments are rather circular. Maybe we need to add a link to the article of this debate, that Sikh groups are divided as to whether she caan be considered a Sikh or not. That should end this needless vandalism.--82.46.199.25 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's not how Wikipedia works, we seek consensus here among our users, not on some other forum. This issue has been discussed at length here and the consensus here is that she should be described in the article here as Sikh. – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sunny's real name

Wikiporn this week has released the real names of several thousand members in the adult industry including Sunny Leone. The list reveals that her name is not Karen Malhotra as previosuly thought. The site has recieved publicity in the mainstream media as being authentic. The site can be viewed here. This will also put to rest the d discussions to whether or not she is a follower of the Sikh faith.

I wanted to know if the details on wikipedia can now be changed given these new details and if the site can be used as a relevant source. throttlebay (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Most wikis are user-created and their contents are therefore unreliable, so until this is confirmed (as opposed to being merely repeated) by reliable sources, we can't use it, especially as we have a source that appears to confirm the real name currently in the article. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, we aren't here to out anyone. Leone didn't release her name to PornWikiLeaks (which, IMO, seems like a 13-year-old made it), so we should err on the side of privacy. That said, we have a source which is of higher reliability, so let's stick with what we have. Dismas|^(talk) 17:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that that 'pornwikileaks' information is incorrect and there is an article on wiki relating to it, so i wouldn't have any objection - from the pov of providing a references or citations - to the use of PWL but i think its better to wait a while to see how the story develops. I have sympathy with arguments related to privacy; but if its already on the internet in a citable form is it really our job to self censor? As for Sunny Leone's actual name, a quick google of 'Karenjit Vohra' shows a company was registered jointly with 'Eric Matis' whom i understand to be her ex-partner and performer so its certainly possible that is her 'real' name.Zaq12wsx (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. As it stands now, PornWikileaks is NOT a reliable source for names as there is no information given for where they got their information. Tabercil (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a cursory google search of the name in question "K K Vohra" will find some links. Thanks--SH 10:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The legal papers on the copyright holder on her site with the state of California clearly list the principals name as Karenjit Kaur Vohra. If she is not of Sikh descent somehow a Sikh is collecting her income.RichardBond (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Using IMDB as a source for her name is not appropriate. See [2]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am quoting from California state records not IMDB, her self produced films show a corporate ownership. The state shows the corporation belonging to Karenjit Kaur Vohra. If "Sunny Leone" is not getting the revenue from her films a Sikh judging from the name is. She might not be a righteous Sikh but she is not from sopme other community.RichardBond (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you directly cited to IMDB when you had made the edit. As for state records, read WP:BLPPRIMARY over. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I consider the name on the state records to be corroborative of IMDBRichardBond (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Then read WP:USERGENERATED, particularly the third sentence. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A recent interview in The Globe and Mail says:

[Bob Guccione] gave her the name she uses now; she was born Karen Malhotra, or Karenjit Kaur Vohra – her “people” won’t confirm which, for security reasons, they claim.

The Hindustan Times corroborates that her real name is Karenjit Kaur Vohra. IndiaTVNews published a picture of Karenjit's passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.140.155 (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Sunny089, 14 May 2011

This message is from Sam, Canada.

I need to append some info. about Sunny Leone which I gained from Book written by my close friend Richard on Sunny...

kindly grant me permission.

Sunny089 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked for vandalism--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

I ask that the last edits made please be undone. I may also have to ask the assistance of other editors for oversight and dispute resolution as it appears PornstarGlobal.com 5 Star Awards are not being recognized for some reason. I can verify first hand that although relatively new, it is in fact a recognized Online Award. Viewers vote, a Winner is chosen, Prize is awarded. This Online Award has more Sponsors than some of the 'trophy' awards I have seen & been to. Solidcontrib (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, no. Notability has not been established for the award. Tabercil (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I definately don't want to argue with anyone about anything. I did find it odd that the PornstarGlobal 5 Star Awards have been recognized and visible on Sunny Leone's page since December of 2010, but when I added the same info to Kagney's page, both were removed 1 minute apart from eachother, instantly. As shown here: Award "An award may also simply be a public acknowledgment of excellence, without any tangible token or prize." Am I missing something? Solidcontrib (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, pornstarglobal is blacklisted from wikipedia from past spamming issues. See [3][4]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this I did not know, which is why I couldn't just link to their site straight away I'm assuming. At the risk of sounding nip-picky though, I still think we should recognize the Award aspect as it is a valid Award no matter which way you look at it as per: Award. If this is personal, I can understand that as well, but don't think it serves the concept of Wikipedia. Solidcontrib (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's blacklisted, and hence not welcome. I suggest you leave it alone, unless there is a WP:COI going on. Nymf _hideliho! 23:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Now see it's that obvious anger that keeps me thinking this may be a case of personal issue, rather than what's best for Wikipedia. Whether it's welcomed by you or not, it is still an Award no matter how you cut it. I am now somewhat confused about the actual objective here. Is it about accuracy where deserved, or welcome mats? No disrespect. Also, have they vandalized since 2009? Solidcontrib (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not a personal issue for me. What I see is a single-purpose account, trying to push a website that was blacklisted due to spamming issues. There is obviously a conflict of interest here on your part, and possibly socking going on. Prove me wrong. Nymf _hideliho! 00:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No no please don't take it that way. I do not push anything, this just happened to be my first real edit and I did my homework before posting. It also seemed to be the only Award that had not been listed so I thought I was lucky to have added it, because I am interested in making some contributions to the Porn Industry related pages (which is why I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. I'm not sure that I understand socking. When I added the link, I did not know it would turn out to be like this. I hate to keep saying it but according to this: Award I am correct. Again, no disrespect and I will be glad to prove anything you need, just let me know how. Solidcontrib (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Award is an article, not a policy or guideline. Nymf _hideliho! 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment "SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! An announcement that you're promoting a porn performer on your website isn't an award, even when you call it one to hype the promotion. It's just spam" made by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in the Revision history of Sunny Leone, June 1st 13:13. It is an Award according to: Award. I also see that the 5 Star Award link (which looks to be a sub-directory of the domain) was never part of that previous issue. Solidcontrib (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to have caught what was said above. Award is an article about awards. It's not a Wikipedia policy or guideline page. (emphasis simply being used to draw your attention to the differences, not yelling) For instance, many web sites declare some model every month to be their favorite of the month (Twisty's and Freeones are just two off the top of my head that do this). We don't list all those. If we did, each porn star's article would be several pages long. Notable awards only are what are listed.

If you're looking for guidelines about porn stars, start with WP:P* which is the Pornography WikiProject. That page has some helpful links to various guidelines and policies. Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I did catch it, but I was referring to the comment made by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If he is correct, why has the article itself not been edited accordingly? If what he says is true, the Wikipedia Award Article is incorrect. Can I be allowed to edit that Article please? I think it's just once a year Pornstarglobal does the Award and it meets all requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. Solidcontrib (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Danzig

She was recently seen in a few pictures with Glen Danzig advertizing the band's new box set. This can mean she is a fan of theirs but more research would have to take place first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorhindman (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 November 2011

The real name of Sunny Leone is not "Karen Malhotra" but "Karenjit Kaur Vohra". Please correct that. "Karen Malhotra" was a fake name that she said was her in order to prevent her real name to be disclosed but her real name was later leaked by many sites including IMDB.

Soure : http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1293381/bio

       http://beauty-sw.blogspot.com/2011/07/10-sunny-leone.html
       http://annferriday.info/115-1017_Karrenjit-Kaur_01-55-49.html
       http://beautysbank.blogspot.com/2011/10/sunny-leone.html

Raftaar (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDb is user conetent, and none of the others appear reliable. CTJF83 12:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Two of the sources that you have are unreliable blogs and the one in the middle doesn't work (for me at least). See WP:RS. Dismas|^(talk) 12:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

sunny leone appears on BIG BOSS season 5 indian edition

sunny leone appears in big boss season 5,indian edition.is being met with a lot of criticism amongst general indian public and conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariomji (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} sunny leone is a hindu not sikh why you wrote she is sikh she is a hindu from himachal india

Rajalondonukk (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The article says she was raised as a Sikh, with this reference - which seems valid.

Can you please explain why you think anything should be changed, and give a reference. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

SUNNY LEONE IS A HINDU FROM HIMACHAL INDIA WHY WIKIPEDIA GIVING WRONG INFORMATION

SHE IS A HINDU RAISED AS A HINDU HER DAD IS HINDU RAMDAS MALHOTRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajalondonukk (talk • contribs) 07:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As it was stated above, we have a source that clearly states she was raised Sikh. If you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please provide it. Tabercil (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

whatever it may be: but she's a slut, a whore, a prostitute, a loose woman.

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Request to add a link under External Links. The link is to Sunny Leone's AskMen.com profile page: http://www.askmen.com/celebs/women/models_300/336_sunny_leone.html AskMen has updated the profile with her most recent accolades while also publishing an article from Sunny Leone herself: http://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top-5-lessons-women-should-learn-from-sunny-leone.html AskMen is the leading men's entertainment portal online boasting 20 Million readers monthly and Leone's profile has been very popular as of late, it would be great to see it linked on her Wikipedia page. Thanks. JayTest (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Only links to official websites and few others are allowed. See WP:EL for more information. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 21:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011

sunny leone

You765756 (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC) sunny leone

No request--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The picture 'File:Sunny_Leone_at_Exxxotica_2009_Miami_Friday_2_adjusted.jpg' may be changed as it contains pornographic material on the desk in front of Sunny Leone to any other picture, maybe 'File:Sunny Leone at Exxxotica 2009 Miami Friday 4.jpg' which is from the same location, but the books on the table are blurred and not visible... ~ DebashisM^Talk 04:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is the article of a porn star, after all. Technically, if it adds to the content of the article, we would be able to use a completely nude image of Sunny Leone in the article. See WP:NSFW, WP:NOTCENSORED. Nymf _hideliho! 09:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The comment by the above user is completely baseless... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a promotion house as Nymf would want to. Guidelines in WP:NOTCENSORED gives scope for replacement of inappropriate material. ~ DebashisM^Talk 09:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you think I am promoting anything. Why are you trying to censor the article? Nymf _hideliho! 10:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor the article - it's pretty clean. However I just wanted to draw a straw before interchanging the particular image for reasons stated above.(which I could have without giving others an option to speak their mind out).

Moreso, the article has been having greater hits recently and we are not here to provide legally available illicit content. ~ DebashisM^Talk 10:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have commented the {{edit semi-protected}} since you are both confirmed editors, able to edit the article yourselves. FWIW, I don't see any problem with using File:Sunny Leone at Exxxotica 2009 Miami Friday 2 adjusted.jpg here. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2012

Sunny Leone is not a Sikh and please remove the word Sikh from his biography. Or else give the reference of this Princerahi (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We've been over this several times. Why are we going over it again? Dismas|^(talk) 06:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: The statement is sourced, so unless you have a different source that says otherwise, there's no reason to remove content. — Bility (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

'As a young girl, she was very athletic and played street hockey with the boys,[3] enjoyed ice skating on a nearby frozen lake and drinking hot chocolate in front of a fire after playing in the snow all day.[7]'

Is it really important to mention that she enjoyed chocolate and playing in the snow as a child? I'm sure she also liked puppies, ice cream, television, breathing, eating, ... 23.16.22.236 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As disgisting and filthy the Sikh fraternity might find Sunny Leone's behaviour, she nevertheless has described herself as a Sikh. I myself may define a Sikh as that as one who has taken Baptism and wears the 5 K's, but as weird as Sunny's statement some people may find, she still is entitled to define herself as a Sikh. One of the defining qualities of Sikhs is that they may not agree with someones opinions but they'll defend the right of the other person to haev those opinions. I think that case applies here, however distasteful it maybe. Thanks SH 10:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2012

sunny leone has been signed for leading role in Ekta Kapoor horror flick Ragini mms 2 (sequel to ragini mms) source: Times of india 21/04/12

Vijayg65 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2012 (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. Also, the specific article in the Times of India needs to be cited. Many thanks. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Name Change Request Discussion

This is to request and discuss born name of Sunny Leone. Her Born Name as specified on the page of Sunny_Leone is provided as Karen Malhotra. Its totally incorrect, but because of an ongoing rumor it is still there on that page. Attached picture is the passport copy of Sunny Leone where it specifies her actual name as Karenjit Kaur Vohra where Karenjit Kaur is her First Name while Vohra is her Surname/Last Name

The date of birth matches perfectly matches as well which further provides accuracy of the name.

--Herit Shah (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

An image of a passport that you found somewhere is not a reliable secondary source. Dismas|^(talk) 12:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No there's going to be no name change and I have removed the alleged passport per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, there will be a removal of the originally listed name due to this globe and mail article not being able to confirm either name. [5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012

Unprotect this page.

Karenjitkaurvohra (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please do not use the template {{edit semi-protected}} if you're not making a semi-protected edit request. Bmusician 12:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Birth name

Hindustan Times is saying Leone's full name is Karenjit Kaur Vohra (or Karenjit "Slut" Kaur "Whore" Vohra. Shouldn't this be added on her page? http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Tabloid/Sunny-Leone-s-real-name-revealed/Article1-847131.aspx --Trishstar7 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

See the multiple sections already devoted to this very topic. Dismas|^(talk) 00:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Her name has been published widely by several Indian sources, but I can not gauge their reliability or whether they are just celebrity gossip sites. Hindustan Times seems legitimate but when you click on the article, it says "tabloid" as the section header, which gave me pause. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Sunny Leone cannot have Indian citizenship and another citizenship at the same time as it is not allowed under Indian citizenship law. Please correct this.--174.2.8.221 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit re citizenship

I have just reverted this edit. The cited source misreports the tweet, which says that she acquired "residence". In any event, blogs and tweets are not reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

She is a Sikh Punjabi.

Listen you all on her passport her name is karenjit kaur vohra. And I damn sure know the name 'Kaur' is for Sikh ladies. The last name represents a Sikh. Learn your history people. Just google her passport and you'll see her real name and if thst's not enough read her effin' imdb. I have a few friends who have the same last name and they all are Sikh. So all you peole who are saying she's a Hindu punjabi get over yourselfs she's not whatever you are and want her to be. The only thing she has in common with you all is she's a INDIAN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaping (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Real name, redux

Came across a Times of India article which seems to help clarify Sunny's real name, located here. The key part is this pair of sentences: "Preity Zinta's original name is Preetam Zinta Singh, and the current hot Bollywood entrant Sunny Leone's is Karenjit Kaur Vohra. But Sunny changed her name to suit the industry she worked in and Americanised it before she became a Bollywood actress." And the source is listed in the newspaper of record article, so it seems reliable. As a result, I think we can put it as "Karenjit Kaur Vohra[1] (Westernized as Karen Malhotra[2])" with [1] being a cite to the the Times of India article and [2] as the old Eye Weekly one. And it's mentioned as Westernized instead of Americanized as a nod towards the fact that she's Canadian. Thoughts?? Tabercil (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That paragraph is not clear. She clearly "changed" her name to Sunny Leone for the porn industry. No mention of Maholtra... any assumption that is the name being westernised is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Her real/original name is "Karenjit Kaur Vohra" not "Maholtra", this was widely reported in the Indian press (including the link provided in the posting above). Whether "Karen Malhotra" is a westernization of real name or not is just a speculative guess. Afaik the only thing on record is that she was introduced as "Karen Malhotra" to Indian audiences, when she appeared on Big Boss. This can also easily be verified (googling for it yields various publications on that). Whether there is potential WP:BLP issue, I can't really say, but at least at first glance it seem ok to me to mentioned it as it was widely reported in the (Indian) press. However be that as it may, those who have WP:BLP concerns should at least ensure that Sunny Leone is clearly recognizable as pseudonym/not being her birth name, because this part is not a question of WP:BLP but of an accurate encyclopedic description, which and the current version is not, because readers might consider Sunny Leone to be her real name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012

Need to add new websites of sunny leone

Amina007 (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Her official website is still working. So what exactly do you want to have added?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2012 (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. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Real name... again

I realize this topic has been brought up a few times before, but I had some concerns about her real name. I do not know the origin of the name Karen Malhotra (whether it was her birth name or not), but the origin of Karenjit Kaur Vohra seems dubious. I'm aware of it being published in many newspapers, but I've not heard of any sources directly affiliated with her confirming it. Apparently, a Filipino actor-filmmaker (who headed a project starring Sunny Leone) forwarded a photo of her passport to a tabloid newspaper, and the picture consequently spread. If there's one word to describe my take on this, it would be "skeptical." Riffraff913 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should at a qualifier in a footnote describing how the name got published. "Karen Malhotra" was used by some moderator in India when she was on TV show there. I.e. the best might be a detailed footnote indicating that Sunny Leone is a pseudonym and what has been published regarding her real name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, we do not second guess the inclusion process of a reliable source like the Times of India and whether they checked their sources correctly unless there's a latter reliable source that disputes it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

Please change karenjit kaur vohra to Karen malhotra. Whoever edited this information, incorrectly put her Name Karenjit kaur vohra because he is expressing racial discrimination against sikhs. He added her middle name as 'Kaur' on purpose to disgrace the community. You can check past edits on this page. Her name is always been Karen malhotra but someone changed it and karenjit kaur vohra is her wrong name.

Please do the needfull or take kaur out ~~Rupan Bal rupan2004@hotmail.com~~

 Not done The current references in the article support the name Karenjit Kaur Vohra. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

   I 'M Not a poet but lust nıght I m wrıte one poet part about Karenıja kaur Vohra.ExSACtly:
 I DON't know REepet Thıs song ,WHAT  I want saıd .Karenına alıas Suny for me ıs the fantastıc 
 personaLytyçmuch more what she thet have a so ıncredıbele budy.One more ward are very ımportant
 : thıs ıs very hard job and when she succsesfull workıng whıthout error thıs ıs somethıng the 
 best what you can sea ın thıs machıne.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.200.211 (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)