Talk:Miley Cyrus/Archive 5

Chris brown says Miley Cyrus is ugly on Natioanl Australian Radio
before you jump to conclusions NrDG, here is the news source (http://music.spreadit.org/chris-brown-miley-cyrus-dissmiley-is-ugly/), and the reporting entity is 2dayfm (http://www.2dayfm.com.au/) - which is the BIGGEST radio station in Australia! anyway, chris brown DID say that he "chills back" in the interview and tells it like it is because he hopes no one will hear it, but the reality is, in australia or whereelse, the guy has a point to say, and he said it. And quoting that website Chris Brown Miley Cyrus Diss:”Miley Is Ugly” - Chris Brown did an interview at a radio station in Australia where he talked about the kiss that he shared with Rihanna, and revealed that Miley Cyrus was ugly.You can listen to the interview after the jump. I dont know if NrDg is like the marketing guy for Miley Cyrus or something because of his repeated edits of this page, but the reality is mate, Chris Brown had a point and he made it, even if you think Australia is a small country on the side of the planet! The reality is, he said Miley Cyrus was... ugly! Safmrocknroll (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a comment saying someone is ugly is too trivial to be included in wikipedia....this is encyclopedia, not a gossip site....so pls lets just focus on her career and life....If his "Ugly" comment had caused some furore or defamation suit or some big news then maybe we could've included it....but frankly speaking i dont think its notable enough....Gprince007 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would possibly be significant--not that I'm insisting on it--if any person or persons widely recognized as arbiters of the aesthetically-pleasing were to make such a pronouncement. Chris Brown is famous, but I doubt if he's the standard-keeper of the Beautiful. As a corollary, a quick check of Google shows that at present, searching on the phrase 'Miley Cyrus' is ugly' produces over 2 million results: it would take someone with a lot of patience to go through all of them to find anyone whose opinion on the matter is relevant. More to the point--and related to issues of Cyrus's career and life--might be her level of ability. Google for 'Miley Cyrus can't sing,' and once again, over a million results. Are such judgments generally notable? I think not--unless they were made by recognized experts on singing, who put them in writing. JWMcCalvin (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, NOT significant. If Wikipedia listed all minor scuffles or rude comments shared between notable people, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia, it'd be a tabloid. Frankly, I hadn't even heard of this until looking here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperxcrip (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

name change source
I just noticed that the source for the name change from Destiny Hope Cyrus to Miley Ray Cyrus is no longer available due to the sites update. But I did find another reliable source on it. http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/01/58023/ --Ksto9 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Ksto9
 * Updated. Edgehead  5150  07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Put back original reference with updated url. Jan 2008 source was wrong as it reported the name change has having happened then that actually did not occur until May 2008. --NrDg 16:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mocking people of asian descent
I feel that such an info needs to be backed up by more than one reliable source. TMZ is a tabloid site and we need a more Reliable source to back the fact. Moreover, is the incident just a gossip news or has it been covered by mainstream media??? Unless it's been broadly covered in mainstream media, I personally feel that it is not worth putting in the article. Ofcourse, if its been largely covered and affects her career, then maybe we can mention it in the article....just wanna know others' views on it ...Gprince007 (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reuters, and MTV are reporting about this incident. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could make a weak case for the Reuters link, but probably would be best served waiting this one out for a few days (there may have been more coverage yesterday had it not been for the Michael Phelps fiasco or two Obama appointees having to bow out). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I left the press release link and the reuters reference that reported on the press release. All other news sources I've seen just restate the press release and add nothing. This is only news because a sensitized organization officially complained. When and if there is further fallout from this event we should add that then if it is notable. --NrDg 04:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok before the apology, we need to say she denied it first. 04:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs)
 * UPDATE: The FOX News site has a new story stating that there's one woman who has filed a class action lawsuit against Cyrus for a total of $4 billion. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be something to put in the article if it actually goes to trial. What is in the article now is more than sufficient for this media created controversy. --NrDg 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone took it off. I think people are being bias here. Or a PR person is editing the article.GagaLoveGame (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty big controversy for Miley Cyrus, it was covered all over the media, by big media companies, more than just TMZ. I've even seen it on Fox News, where they hosted lawyers to explain what sort of case was going to happen. She was forced to apologize, and its a big deal, it was news that was mentioned across the world, even if all the charges are dropped, it should still be listed under the controversy. I think its much serious than not wearing a seatbelt.--Tiah12345 (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then where's the paragraph about it at? I don't see it being listed under the contro. section at all.206.40.103.133 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

agree article heavily biased, have added section and cited in the guardian, def a reliable source 3tmx (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's here again - http://www.adelaideone.com/index.php?action=show&id=7. I REALLY think this should be included... she is like the world's biggest teen star, and she's being racial against asians! Mileycyruswitch (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your name is "MileyCyrusWitch", so forgive me for questioning your objectivity. This user has been blocked from Wikipedia, I don't think they get a vote anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoak (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A 16 year old girl stretches her face and it deserves a section on wikipedia? Please, this is a wikipedia article, not a gossip column. Leave that to the tabloids. This does NOT deserve a Wikipedia article. If we start putting sections on stupid stuff like this, soon the page will be flooded with junk like "she once made fun of a bunny", "she once gave someone a mean face". Fight to merge it with another section, but it certainly does not constitute a one line sub-section. TheJoak (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with TheJoak. The object of Wikipedia is not to document any event that is reported by the media. The media is interested in mindshare and ad revenue. Wikipedia has other goals. There's a difference between casual, humorous parody and satire, and a deliberate attempt to slur. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Being in wiki is not an honor or something that is deserved. The only tests are is this verifiable, notable and significant to her life as a notable entertainer. If something gets significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources (not gossip sites) then we can presume notable and are justified for inclusion in a bio article. Whether or not it stays in an article is editorial judgment but removal based on a point of view of what an editor thinks is important is not a good reason for removal. It is a manufactured controversy but it did get significant, non gossip rag, coverage and it did impact her life. There is no wiki policy reason for removal. --NrDg 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a ton of things that 'the media reported on' that is not solely notable enough based on the fact that some news media outlets reported on it. If we put every allegation against Barack Obama the media reported on the page would have a ton of sections. Can you really justify an entire subsection because a couple of a media-generated 'mini-controversy'. Another point is, because the girl is sixteen (atm), the media will be reporting stuff like this again, and again, and again, and if can't let the page fill up with subsections for every little thing. This could possibly constitute a one line mention somewhere else in the article, but not an entire sub section. The Vanity Fair stuff was mass reported on and notable enough. A couple of news networks trying desperate to fill their airtime airing the 'stretched face' is not notable enough for Wikipedia. TheJoak (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Link
Just wondered it anyone else noticed a wrong link. I know that Miley went to Heritage Middle School and its says that in the article but it has the wrong link, the wikipedia article it links to is a school in Georgia and Miley went to Heritage Middle School in Franklin, Tennesse. That link needs to be removed. MyOwnWorld (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
 * ✅ --NrDg 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting lyrics
She forget lyrics to fly on the wall, and mouthed to her back-ups "I forgot the lyrics".Contrversy page please.http://www.stuff.co.nz/4850532a1860.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does this matter to her career? Is there any purpose of adding this to the article other than to put derogatory information there? In what way is this controversial - in other words, what is the controversy and why does it matter? --NrDg 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This prooves nothing, you can't see her "mouthing, 'I've forgotten the lyrics' to fellow dancers" it's just the critics attacking her, I think that people reckon she's mouthing the words to her songs, so they could tell she was singing live! Jonni Boi 21:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You people are probaly Miley fans(no offence), that is why you sont think its notable. I think it is. Have you even seen the video, you can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLoveGame (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * GagaLoveGame her forgetting the lyrics is not notable. It wasn't talked about on any major sites, and it isn't talked about anymore. If it was notable people would still be talking about it.  Frehley  Space Ace 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if she forgot the lyric's at least we know she actually preforms live and doesnt lip sync (a104375 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Cyrus was hacked
I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in the article, but I just saw on Inside Edition that Miley Cyrus was hacked by a 19-year old hooligan. Her e-mail account and MySpace accounts were hacked.

Source: http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyID=2702

--Tomballguy (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Chris
 * Her getting hacked isn't that important to be mentioned in the article. I haven't checked the archives but i believe this was discussed before. -- Frehley Space Ace 21:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed With Frehley, Her account being hacked is not a Notable feat to Qualify for WP:NOTE Bharath (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Heart Condition?
I noticed that there was an recentarticle stating that Miley reveals in her memoirs that she has a heart condition called tachycardia which can cause the heart rate to speed up. Should I add this (and is US Magazine a reliable source)? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a real medical reference, I would say not. This is the same person that claimed to have hypoglycemia, which isn't actually possible.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Miles To Go - book
The paragraph on the Miles To Go memoir doens't make much sense. It's all wrong as grammar is concerned but it also makes little sense in text. The book is published by now and the assumption that the book was written by Hilary Liftin is waaay to much for an encyclopedia. The book clearly says "Miley Cyrus with Hilary Liftin" and though everyone knows most autobiographies are not really written by the people themselves, an encyclopedia can not assume that much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.69.55 (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing the main Miley page
Earlier today someone edited the page to say some very disrespectful and vulgar things about Ms. Cyrus, and they appear to have since been banned from editing. However the disparaging remarks remain on the page even though another person appears to have attempted to revert the page to the form prior to the remarks being posted.

The remarks are very inappropriate for an encyclopedia based website and should be removed, especially since children can access this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsly4425 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dsly4425 i believe your talking about the edit made by User:JNT724. As you stated above the edit was undone so the remarks were removed from the main article. I also think your talking about removing the edit from the pages edit history so that the revision cannot be viewed again, but those can't be removed. -- Frehley Space Ace 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything disparaging on the page at this moment. Vandals generally get reverted very quickly as this is a heavily watched page. About the only thing that gets removed from edit histories is personal info about minors and that requires someone with WP:OVERSIGHT rights. Normal vandalism is not taken too seriously as most vandalism is obvious as to what it is. It is also possible that an old version of the page is in your cache. See WP:PURGE. --NrDg 23:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A surprising technical glitch can cause this: separate caches are maintained for registered and unregistered editors. If something sticks in the unregistered cache, IP editors will see it and registered editors won't. The solution is to log out, purge the cache while logged out, and then log back in again. There's a bug report on it somewhere, but I doubt it will ever get fixed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead
When Miley, who first claimes that "Radiohead are "the reason I love music", tells "Stinkin' Radiohead! I'm gonna ruin them, I'm going to tell everyone" next year, it is a Controversy. So stop deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowesvisa (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not seem like a controversy, it's just her being mad because she didn't get what she wanted. So until this is resolved and some other users have given their thoughts on if the story should be included lets leave it out. -- Frehley Space Ace 22:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a serious ethical controversy, IMHO. She is dishonest when she says something good, then attacking people the next day. It should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowesvisa (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Her being dishonest doesn't seem like a valid reason for it to be called a controversy. -- Frehley Space Ace 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"A controversy is a dispute, argument, discussion or debate featuring strong disagreements and opposing, contrary, or sharply contrasting opinions about an idea, subject, group or person." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy. It is a 100% controversy. There are 100's "sharply contrasting opinions about an idea" and "strong disagreements" all over Internet about her remarques. "Pregnancy hoax" part is a much less controversy then - just talks with nothing behind it. So far your removal is unfunded, Wiki is the top authority to explain what "controvery" is. Editing will be added back unless you provide a reason. Thanks.Lowesvisa


 * The references used were from a music news site and a gossip site. There is not even a real controversy here, just Cyrus acting like a brat who didn't get her own way possibly for the purposes of media attention. I fail to see how this would add anything to the article. Even if it were added, it would be undue weight to have more than a sentence in the Personal life section. It is about as interesting as who her friends are. --NrDg 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with NrDg. The Radiohead stuff isn't a controversy, it's just Miley acting like a brat because she didn't get what she wanted. -- Frehley Space Ace 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Pregnancy hoax stuff is also not a controversy. It is marginal as to whether or not it belongs in the article at all, but consensus seems to be for it to stay for now. If it were solely up to me, I'd remove it. The Vanity Fair issue is the only real controversy about Cyrus and it strongly belongs because of the extensive news coverage and real impact it had on her and her career. --NrDg 00:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah Cyrus
I believe that she needs her own page now. She has done some voice work for Ponyo (a movie with Liam Neesom) and others. 208.242.14.183 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Noah Cyrus article restored per request and can be edited. Needs work but I judge that assertion of notability independent of Miley Cyrus has been made. --NrDg 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Adventures in Babysitting
Cyrus has no involvement in this film. I left mention in the article as there are conflicting references but all mention should be removed soon as this was just a rumor in the first place. For the record the authoritative denial of the rumor is

Also note she also denies involvement in Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel --NrDg 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait what? 190.213.97.190 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

half brothers and sisters
Brandi, Trace and Christopher Cody are her half brothers and sisters. Noah and Braison are her siblings. You can't discover it in the article.--Sleimson (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before: all the children you refer to as "half brothers" and "half sisters" have been legally adopted, making them full brothers and sisters. It's not at all uncommon for a biological half-sibling to be a legal full sibling. Happens the other way around sometimes, too.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe they should be noted as biologically half, and legally full. Paperxcrip (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article accurately describes the situation and labels the relationships as Miley Cyrus and her family do. People can make their own conclusions based on the referenced facts as presented. Also, this article is about Miley Cyrus, not her parents or her older siblings. The article on her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, appropriately goes into more detail. --NrDg 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy hoax section/Miley's celibacy
Shouldn't Miley's response to the hoax be included? She says she's abstaining from sex until marriage, please find it below;

"In a September 2007 interview with Extra!, Cyrus, now 15, defended herself against rumors that she's pregnant, citing her vow to stay celibate until marriage.

"It's given me the street cred to say that would be impossible, because I'm living my life the way I believe is right and that is to stay pure," she said."

Source: http://i.abcnews.com/Entertainment/story?id=4560089&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.66.5 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected "She has an older half-brother Christopher Cody, her father's son from a previous relationship, an older brother Trace, a vocalist and guitarist of an electronic rock band, Metro Station in California."

should be:

"She has an older half-brother Christopher Cody, her father's son from a previous relationship, and an older brother Trace, a vocalist and guitarist of an electronic rock band, Metro Station in California."

It's missing a conjunction between the brothers. Right now it's basically saying "She has an older half-brother, an older brother.
 * Yes check.svg Done —Ms2ger (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

M&M show screenshot
I think that the screenshot of her Youtube show that has been added to the page should be removed as it does not represent anything other than her friend and she imitating a person, and also there is no relevant information on the page about it. It happened nearly 1 year ago and also she had apologized to Demi and Selena for it. There is no purpose of it being here, so i suggest that it be removed. Shayanshaukat (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also we generally don't use non-free images for illustration in bio articles. There are plenty of free-use images available. There is nothing in that image that can't adequately be described in text. --NrDg 02:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

bullying
it should say miley cyrus got bullie. i know because she says it in her book miles to go and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ELvZaxkAQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily513 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does she say it in that video? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

stylistic change
I can't do this because it's protected, so an admin should:

"Also, she has completed filming on the movie spin-off of Hannah Montana"

ought to be something like

"She has recently completed filming of the movie spin-off of Hannah Montana"

Lesath2 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fre  h  ley  21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Forbes
Can the Admin please add this:

As of 2009, Forbes has ranked Miley Cyrus at #29 on the Forbes 100 with earnings of $25 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.111.97 (talk • contribs)
 * I would add, but I think the text should be revised: the #29 celebrity according to their "power ranking"? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Ancestry

 * Is Miley Cyrus only of Cherokee descent as the article seems to imply?
 * She clearly looks Caucasian as does her father so she's probably only part Cherokee while the rest is some European descent?


 * Zec (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter what she looks like. Wikipedia relies on Reliable sources for verifyin fact. If u come across a source which states her descent as somethin else, then feel free to make the necessary changes...!! Gprince007 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading the source, I have changed the text. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Miley vows to "ruin" Radiohead
Miley Cyrus wanted to meet her favorite band, Radiohead, backstage, according to Rollingstone. They refused and she has said that she vows to "ruin them." (her words, not mine.)

Source: (Rollingstone Magazine)

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/03/05/miley-cyrus-snubbed-by-radiohead-vows-to-ruin-them/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevpark (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossip (in re Justin Gaston)
Folks, once again celebrity gossip sites are not acceptable sources for use in a BLP article. This includes but is not limited to sources like OceanUP, OMG, EW, and JustJared. Until you can produce a VERIFIABLE quote from Miley Cyrus (something that does not involve hearsay or an "inside source") stating that she was involved in a relationship with Justin Gaston, then per WP:BLP and WP:VER it has no business in this article.

-Damicatz (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy Hoax

 * I am getting rid of the Racism Allegations and Pregnancy Hoax as the racism allegations are merely allegations and the pregnancy hoax is just that, a hoax, and not a real controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevpark (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can still write about hoaxes though; see WP:HOAX. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropy
According to MTV, Miley has been doing a lot of positive things for charity. One of these things is listed below. I feel, IMHO, that presenting her charity efforts, and not just her controversies, will present a more balanced view for this wikientry. Just my humble thoughts though. :)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1608455/20090403/cyrus__miley.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachgreen8326 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

x rated pictures hoax
Expect some edits regarding this soon:

http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/miley-cyrus/news/126667-miley-cyrus-bj-blow-job-pics http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/06/16/2009-06-16_miley_cyrus_in_another_photo_scandal_real_or_fake.html

--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The New York Daily News article seems to be implying the pictures may be faked, so I think it's best to wait this one out for now. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The MTV UK article linked to has been deleted. The nydailynews article basically states outright that this is a hoax. "As for the teen star’s latest photo scandal, several websites have debunked the authenticity of the photos by proving how an original image could have been altered." This might belong in the article if it reaches the level of a notable hoax such as the pregnancy hoax did. This one seems to be being debunked too quickly to have taken hold and is unlikely to become notable. WP:HOAX --NrDg 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it doesn't belong in the article as of now. There are various other links to news stories about this, but all of them are saying the same thing.  Rumors, no one knows if the picture is her or a photoshop, etc.  However, no one has debunked anything, what you have are bloggers saying, "OMG photoshop", and others saying, "Obviously real!", this is not debunking.  There's some confusion as there is a photo montage being posted around which was created to show that the picture was real, but bloggers didn't understand what they were seeing and posted it around as evidence that it was a photoshop. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The alleged photo of Miley Cyrus circulating the internet is completely fabricated," the singer's rep tells the Daily News. Is a statement we must believe as true. Unless and until there is real proof the rep was not truthful, adding this to the article counts as defamation and that is prohibited by policy per WP:libel. We might be justified adding it as a hoax if and only if it becomes notable. --NrDg 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, this hasn't been debunked. Some analyzes have found it likely to have been taken from the same camera most of her other "leaked" pictures were taken with.  It's a stretch to say any credible source has truly "debunked" it.  It probably doesn't warrant a mention overall since none of it is concrete.  98.168.204.179 (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If the culprit photoshopped a picture taken from her camera, then it would appear as though it came from her camera. This nonsense has no business on wikipedia. - Damicatz (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My Space Link in External link section
I have added her myspace link based on this source .I guess this cite is reliable and we may use it in the article...Gprince007 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the link becos of this. I thought that ppl removed the link becos due to lack of a reliable source to prove that this was her myspace link. But now i know abt WP:ELNO, so i have removed it. Gprince007 (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nose Piercing & Twitter account link
Is her getting a nose piercing worthy enough to be in the article.

And I think there should be a link to her twitter account www.twitter.com/mileycyrus —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyChalk1234 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting her nose pierced is a minor thing and shouldn't be added to the article. As for the Twitter link please see #10 on this list. Fre  h  ley  17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The nose piercing is a minor thing but is still part of her personal life. And there is a myspace link so why not twitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyChalk1234 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The nose ring may be part of her personal life, but it's not important. I think the MySpace link has been removed a few times before, but its been re-added each time. Fre  h  ley  22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It might me small but the fans have a right to know and the fans need to find the official twitter account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.25.218 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Her fans can find out about her nose ring and twitter account on one of her fansites. Wikipedia is not a place to list every minor detail of her life, i personally don't think people come to her wikipedia article just to find official links to her social networking sites, and there is no need to list every official page she has. Fre  h  ley  21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

AFA Quote on Same-Sex Marriage?
Why is this necessary to be said at all? She stated an opinion. That isn't controversy. Under no other celebrity to opposed Proposition 8 has that been put under a "controversy" section, either. It might bear a small mention in her personal life since it's a personal opinion, but I think its handling on here is mildly appalling. And, really, the AFA? You could not find a less noteworthy response. Plus it's not like they ordered a boycott. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm probably one of the few regular AFA listeners on Wikipedia, and while I remember hearing about Miley's comment, I can't recall ANY comment from AFA whatsoever. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

and anyway, i thought the bble says love EVERYONE. even your enemies. so she is just restating it in another way. honostly, i believ that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.255.57 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick Jonas
Could someone please add that Miley and Nick are back together. it was confirmed by Joe Jonas http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20286353,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.129.18 (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown saying Miley Cyrus is ugly
Ok this youtube video has had like 17,500 views last time i checked so its quite a big thing! anyway, i was wondering whether it should be included in her wikipedia - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Et96sDfZDFc Smileychiley (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a youtube video has over 17,000 views doesn't make it a big thing. And no it shouldn't be added to her wikipedia page as it is not notable. Edgehead  5150  08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not notable? explain. If a big name singer calls another big name singer ugly and it is reported on the news and IS a big thing it should be added on the wikipedia page. Compare this situation to such things as the Christian Bale deal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.154.70 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which major news source reported this? See WP:N and WP:RS for what we need. Videos are easy to modify so don't trust anything that is put on an anonymous YouTube account. --NrDg 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris brown says Miley Cyrus is ugly on Natioanl Australian Radio
before you jump to conclusions NrDG, here is the news source (http://music.spreadit.org/chris-brown-miley-cyrus-dissmiley-is-ugly/), and the reporting entity is 2dayfm (http://www.2dayfm.com.au/) - which is the BIGGEST radio station in Australia! anyway, chris brown DID say that he "chills back" in the interview and tells it like it is because he hopes no one will hear it, but the reality is, in australia or whereelse, the guy has a point to say, and he said it. And quoting that website Chris Brown Miley Cyrus Diss:”Miley Is Ugly” - Chris Brown did an interview at a radio station in Australia where he talked about the kiss that he shared with Rihanna, and revealed that Miley Cyrus was ugly.You can listen to the interview after the jump. I dont know if NrDg is like the marketing guy for Miley Cyrus or something because of his repeated edits of this page, but the reality is mate, Chris Brown had a point and he made it, even if you think Australia is a small country on the side of the planet! The reality is, he said Miley Cyrus was... ugly! Safmrocknroll (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a comment saying someone is ugly is too trivial to be included in wikipedia....this is encyclopedia, not a gossip site....so pls lets just focus on her career and life....If his "Ugly" comment had caused some furore or defamation suit or some big news then maybe we could've included it....but frankly speaking i dont think its notable enough....Gprince007 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would possibly be significant--not that I'm insisting on it--if any person or persons widely recognized as arbiters of the aesthetically-pleasing were to make such a pronouncement. Chris Brown is famous, but I doubt if he's the standard-keeper of the Beautiful. As a corollary, a quick check of Google shows that at present, searching on the phrase 'Miley Cyrus' is ugly' produces over 2 million results: it would take someone with a lot of patience to go through all of them to find anyone whose opinion on the matter is relevant. More to the point--and related to issues of Cyrus's career and life--might be her level of ability. Google for 'Miley Cyrus can't sing,' and once again, over a million results. Are such judgments generally notable? I think not--unless they were made by recognized experts on singing, who put them in writing. JWMcCalvin (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, NOT significant. If Wikipedia listed all minor scuffles or rude comments shared between notable people, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia, it'd be a tabloid. Frankly, I hadn't even heard of this until looking here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperxcrip (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Mocking people of asian descent
I feel that such an info needs to be backed up by more than one reliable source. TMZ is a tabloid site and we need a more Reliable source to back the fact. Moreover, is the incident just a gossip news or has it been covered by mainstream media??? Unless it's been broadly covered in mainstream media, I personally feel that it is not worth putting in the article. Ofcourse, if its been largely covered and affects her career, then maybe we can mention it in the article....just wanna know others' views on it ...Gprince007 (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reuters, and MTV are reporting about this incident. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could make a weak case for the Reuters link, but probably would be best served waiting this one out for a few days (there may have been more coverage yesterday had it not been for the Michael Phelps fiasco or two Obama appointees having to bow out). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I left the press release link and the reuters reference that reported on the press release. All other news sources I've seen just restate the press release and add nothing. This is only news because a sensitized organization officially complained. When and if there is further fallout from this event we should add that then if it is notable. --NrDg 04:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok before the apology, we need to say she denied it first. 04:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs)
 * UPDATE: The FOX News site has a new story stating that there's one woman who has filed a class action lawsuit against Cyrus for a total of $4 billion. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be something to put in the article if it actually goes to trial. What is in the article now is more than sufficient for this media created controversy. --NrDg 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone took it off. I think people are being bias here. Or a PR person is editing the article.GagaLoveGame (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty big controversy for Miley Cyrus, it was covered all over the media, by big media companies, more than just TMZ. I've even seen it on Fox News, where they hosted lawyers to explain what sort of case was going to happen. She was forced to apologize, and its a big deal, it was news that was mentioned across the world, even if all the charges are dropped, it should still be listed under the controversy. I think its much serious than not wearing a seatbelt.--Tiah12345 (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then where's the paragraph about it at? I don't see it being listed under the contro. section at all.206.40.103.133 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

agree article heavily biased, have added section and cited in the guardian, def a reliable source 3tmx (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's here again - http://www.adelaideone.com/index.php?action=show&id=7. I REALLY think this should be included... she is like the world's biggest teen star, and she's being racial against asians! Mileycyruswitch (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your name is "MileyCyrusWitch", so forgive me for questioning your objectivity. This user has been blocked from Wikipedia, I don't think they get a vote anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoak (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A 16-year old girl stretches her face and it deserves a section on wikipedia? Please, this is a wikipedia article, not a gossip column. Leave that to the tabloids. This does NOT deserve a Wikipedia article. If we start putting sections on stupid stuff like this, soon the page will be flooded with junk like "she once made fun of a bunny", "she once gave someone a mean face". Fight to merge it with another section, but it certainly does not constitute a one line sub-section. TheJoak (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with TheJoak. The object of Wikipedia is not to document any event that is reported by the media. The media is interested in mindshare and ad revenue. Wikipedia has other goals. There's a difference between casual, humorous parody and satire, and a deliberate attempt to slur. Piano non troppo (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Being in wiki is not an honor or something that is deserved. The only tests are is this verifiable, notable and significant to her life as a notable entertainer. If something gets significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources (not gossip sites) then we can presume notable and are justified for inclusion in a bio article. Whether or not it stays in an article is editorial judgment but removal based on a point of view of what an editor thinks is important is not a good reason for removal. It is a manufactured controversy but it did get significant, non gossip rag, coverage and it did impact her life. There is no wiki policy reason for removal. --NrDg 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a ton of things that 'the media reported on' that is not solely notable enough based on the fact that some news media outlets reported on it. If we put every allegation against Barack Obama the media reported on the page would have a ton of sections. Can you really justify an entire subsection because a couple of a media-generated 'mini-controversy'. Another point is, because the girl is sixteen (atm), the media will be reporting stuff like this again, and again, and again, and if can't let the page fill up with subsections for every little thing. This could possibly constitute a one line mention somewhere else in the article, but not an entire sub section. The Vanity Fair stuff was mass reported on and notable enough. A couple of news networks trying desperate to fill their airtime airing the 'stretched face' is not notable enough for Wikipedia. TheJoak (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

half brothers and sisters
Brandi, Trace and Christopher Cody are her half brothers and sisters. Noah and Braison are her siblings. You can't discover it in the article.--Sleimson (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before: all the children you refer to as "half brothers" and "half sisters" have been legally adopted, making them full brothers and sisters. It's not at all uncommon for a biological half-sibling to be a legal full sibling. Happens the other way around sometimes, too.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe they should be noted as biologically half, and legally full. Paperxcrip (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article accurately describes the situation and labels the relationships as Miley Cyrus and her family do. People can make their own conclusions based on the referenced facts as presented. Also, this article is about Miley Cyrus, not her parents or her older siblings. The article on her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, appropriately goes into more detail. --NrDg 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

bullying
it should say miley cyrus got bullie. i know because she says it in her book miles to go and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ELvZaxkAQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily513 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does she say it in that video? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

stylistic change
I can't do this because it's protected, so an admin should:

"Also, she has completed filming on the movie spin-off of Hannah Montana"

ought to be something like

"She has recently completed filming of the movie spin-off of Hannah Montana"

Lesath2 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Fre  h  ley  21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Forbes
Can the Admin please add this:

As of 2009, Forbes has ranked Miley Cyrus at #29 on the Forbes 100 with earnings of $25 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.111.97 (talk • contribs)
 * I would add, but I think the text should be revised: the #29 celebrity according to their "power ranking"? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Ancestry

 * Is Miley Cyrus only of Cherokee descent as the article seems to imply?
 * She clearly looks Caucasian as does her father so she's probably only part Cherokee while the rest is some European descent?


 * Zec (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesnt matter what she looks like. Wikipedia relies on Reliable sources for verifyin fact. If u come across a source which states her descent as somethin else, then feel free to make the necessary changes...!! Gprince007 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading the source, I have changed the text. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Miley vows to "ruin" Radiohead
Miley Cyrus wanted to meet her favorite band, Radiohead, backstage, according to Rollingstone. They refused and she has said that she vows to "ruin them." (her words, not mine.)

Source: (Rollingstone Magazine)

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/03/05/miley-cyrus-snubbed-by-radiohead-vows-to-ruin-them/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevpark (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossip (in re Justin Gaston)
Folks, once again celebrity gossip sites are not acceptable sources for use in a BLP article. This includes but is not limited to sources like OceanUP, OMG, EW, and JustJared. Until you can produce a VERIFIABLE quote from Miley Cyrus (something that does not involve hearsay or an "inside source") stating that she was involved in a relationship with Justin Gaston, then per WP:BLP and WP:VER it has no business in this article.

-Damicatz (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy Hoax

 * I am getting rid of the Racism Allegations and Pregnancy Hoax as the racism allegations are merely allegations and the pregnancy hoax is just that, a hoax, and not a real controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevpark (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can still write about hoaxes though; see WP:HOAX. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropy
According to MTV, Miley has been doing a lot of positive things for charity. One of these things is listed below. I feel, IMHO, that presenting her charity efforts, and not just her controversies, will present a more balanced view for this wikientry. Just my humble thoughts though. :)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1608455/20090403/cyrus__miley.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachgreen8326 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

x rated pictures hoax
Expect some edits regarding this soon:

http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/miley-cyrus/news/126667-miley-cyrus-bj-blow-job-pics http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/06/16/2009-06-16_miley_cyrus_in_another_photo_scandal_real_or_fake.html

--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The New York Daily News article seems to be implying the pictures may be faked, so I think it's best to wait this one out for now. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The MTV UK article linked to has been deleted. The nydailynews article basically states outright that this is a hoax. "As for the teen star’s latest photo scandal, several websites have debunked the authenticity of the photos by proving how an original image could have been altered." This might belong in the article if it reaches the level of a notable hoax such as the pregnancy hoax did. This one seems to be being debunked too quickly to have taken hold and is unlikely to become notable. WP:HOAX --NrDg 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it doesn't belong in the article as of now. There are various other links to news stories about this, but all of them are saying the same thing.  Rumors, no one knows if the picture is her or a photoshop, etc.  However, no one has debunked anything, what you have are bloggers saying, "OMG photoshop", and others saying, "Obviously real!", this is not debunking.  There's some confusion as there is a photo montage being posted around which was created to show that the picture was real, but bloggers didn't understand what they were seeing and posted it around as evidence that it was a photoshop. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The alleged photo of Miley Cyrus circulating the internet is completely fabricated," the singer's rep tells the Daily News. Is a statement we must believe as true. Unless and until there is real proof the rep was not truthful, adding this to the article counts as defamation and that is prohibited by policy per WP:libel. We might be justified adding it as a hoax if and only if it becomes notable. --NrDg 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, this hasn't been debunked. Some analyzes have found it likely to have been taken from the same camera most of her other "leaked" pictures were taken with.  It's a stretch to say any credible source has truly "debunked" it.  It probably doesn't warrant a mention overall since none of it is concrete.  98.168.204.179 (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If the culprit photoshopped a picture taken from her camera, then it would appear as though it came from her camera. This nonsense has no business on wikipedia. - Damicatz (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My Space Link in External link section
I have added her myspace link based on this source .I guess this cite is reliable and we may use it in the article...Gprince007 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the link becos of this. I thought that ppl removed the link becos due to lack of a reliable source to prove that this was her myspace link. But now i know abt WP:ELNO, so i have removed it. Gprince007 (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nose Piercing & Twitter account link
Is her getting a nose piercing worthy enough to be in the article.

And I think there should be a link to her twitter account www.twitter.com/mileycyrus —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyChalk1234 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting her nose pierced is a minor thing and shouldn't be added to the article. As for the Twitter link please see #10 on this list. Fre  h  ley  17:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The nose piercing is a minor thing but is still part of her personal life. And there is a myspace link so why not twitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyChalk1234 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The nose ring may be part of her personal life, but it's not important. I think the MySpace link has been removed a few times before, but its been re-added each time. Fre  h  ley  22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It might me small but the fans have a right to know and the fans need to find the official twitter account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.25.218 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Her fans can find out about her nose ring and twitter account on one of her fansites. Wikipedia is not a place to list every minor detail of her life, i personally don't think people come to her wikipedia article just to find official links to her social networking sites, and there is no need to list every official page she has. Fre  h  ley  21:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

AFA Quote on Same-Sex Marriage?
Why is this necessary to be said at all? She stated an opinion. That isn't controversy. Under no other celebrity to opposed Proposition 8 has that been put under a "controversy" section, either. It might bear a small mention in her personal life since it's a personal opinion, but I think its handling on here is mildly appalling. And, really, the AFA? You could not find a less noteworthy response. Plus it's not like they ordered a boycott. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm probably one of the few regular AFA listeners on Wikipedia, and while I remember hearing about Miley's comment, I can't recall ANY comment from AFA whatsoever. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

and anyway, i thought the bble says love EVERYONE. even your enemies. so she is just restating it in another way. honostly, i believ that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.255.57 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vocal Classification
Anybody know what Miley's voice type is? I suspect she is either an alto or a mezzo-soprano, possibly with some soprano range! But she is definately either of those.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.253.193 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Associated acts
I have purged the list to contain only Billy Ray Cyrus and Jonas Brothers as they both meet the requirements set out in Template:Infobox_musical_artist. Single collaborations are not significant. Personal relationships are not significant - only professional ones matter. Metro Station is in a planned tour but there has been no collaboration with the band yet and may not ever be unless they perform together on the tour. Other individual musical acts have been occasional. A shared performance at an awards show does not make an association. --NrDg 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Should The "Mature" Pictures She Modeled In On Elle Be Mentioned
Miley Modeled In Elle Magazine In Provocative Clothing Recently And Some People Are Reacting Saying It Is Not A Good Role Model Thing To Do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.73.182 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some people are reacting" is not a reliable source and general lack of coverage and interest in mainstream media (which does not include scandal/gossip media) indicates a lack of notability that is the threshold for inclusion in an article. --NrDg 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a paragraph on all of her photo "scandals" combined is noteworthy, though, and there are enough sources to back the facts up. I'll see if I can write one. Liquidluck (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This controversy isn't nearly big enough to be mentioned, so don't bother. 71.182.229.193 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted comments
Huge sections of comments have been deleted off of this discussion page (eg Body Double and online hoaxs) Please justify?! 125.236.185.34 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All are in Archive 9. Fre  h  ley  06:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

copyedit
I'm currently working on copyediting the article. I'm doing it a section at a time and it may take me a few days but I'll post back when I'm done. This is good, though. All the essential information is here, it just lacks detail- for example, her life in Canada is mentioned very abruptly in "early life" but doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else and this mention has no date. There are others, which I'll highlight at a later date. If these were fixed and with a little more work, there's no reason this couldn't be a GA in the not too distant future. HJMitchell   You rang?   11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Vocal Chord Nodule
There's a lot of sites on the internet saying that Miley has a vocal chord nodule and that it could make her lose her voice, shouldn't that be added in the article? Pikiwyn (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have to be well sourced, not just reports that state the rumours, in other words. There would have to be some kind of official word from Cyrus herself. Sky83 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

where miley was born
In the article, it says Miley was born in Nashville, Tennessee. That is not true. She was born in Franklin, Tennessee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileyfan5624 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See reference 8 in the article. That is an official court document filled out by her parents that explicitly states Nashville, Tennessee. We presume her parents are familiar with her birth location and will be truthful on an official court document. --NrDg 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Family Tree
thumb|family tree Why don't you use the family tree of Miley? --62.224.249.20 (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the details in the image are sufficiently described in the text of the appropriate bio articles and the image adds nothing to understanding. Also the image is incorrect in that the bio father of Brandi and Trace is shown to be the same person and the legal adoption of Brandi and Trace by Billy Ray is not depicted. --NrDg 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrest of Stalker?
http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/The-Shortlist-for-July-30galler-3579.gallery?GT1=28135 (Sorry, this and a PopEater link I decided not to take a chance on using are the only sources mentioning an investigation into a possible stalker so far) WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also at http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_disney_warns_lapd_about_crazed_miley_cyrus_fan_mark_mcleod.html which is using as their source http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/29/disney-warns-lapd-about-obsessed-miley-fan/ TMZ.com looks to be the root source but there are lots of ghits re-reporting TMZ. TMZ is usually pretty good on the investigation front but I like it better when they provide the actual links to the court documents. --NrDg 18:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was waiting for (and/or a major news source like the N.Y. Daily News) before considering adding it to the article. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If TMZ is all we've got for now, I'd wait to put this in the article. -- Kanonkas : Talk  00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) (utc)
 * USA Today has an article with a confirmation by the Associated Press. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject
I am proposing a WikiProject for any article pertaining to the actress, singer and songwriter Miley Cyrus, as well as for the franchise, Hannah Montana. A majority of these articles (ex: "Who Said", Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus and Miles to Go) are lacking sources, images, description and more. They can and should be expanded. I am proposing this WikiProject so that any collaborators may work on the articles pertaining to the singer/franchise, the goal being to bring them up to a FA and GA status on Wikipedia. To sign up, go to WikiProject Council/Proposals/Miley Cyrus & Hannah Montana --Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Awards table be deleted?
I'm confused about why the article has an awards table in the external links when it already has an awards section. Why shouldn't the table be deleted/merged into the awards section? It seems redundant to list awards twice. Liquidluck (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the list of awards at the bottom of the article is for navigation purposes, to allow a user to navigate between previous and subsequent winners of any particular award; on the other hand, the table in the awards section lists only Cyrus's awards, and also lists her nominations. So they do perform a different purpose, although I can see it's also kind of confusing. We could presumably merge the succession information in to the main awards list but I think it might both clutter the awards list, and confuse those readers who are used to using the navigation boxes on the pages of other award winners. I did change the navigation box to be collapsible, which will make it less prominent and hopefully reduce the confusion (while still having it in the expected place for those users who expect a succession navigation box). VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply! I can see how it would be useful to those used to navigating through them. Liquidluck (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

External Links Additions
I think it would be useful to add the link to Miley Cyrus' official twitter account to the External links section; it is updated almost daily by the artist herself. Thoughts about this inquiry? Thank You. Blackbrier1 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:External links#Should links to Twitter be allowed. Personally, I don't buy the arguments against Twitter in EL, but I appear to be in the minority. Dlabtot (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Teen Choice Awards
Miley Cyrus was also nominated for Teen Choice Celebrity Dancer. But she lost to Selena Gomez. Her work with Nick Jonas, Before the Storm, won in the Teen Choice Summer Song.

zHel (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks! Liquidluck (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Racism
"According to Fox News and various other reliable sources, Miley was accused of racism for a picture of her slanting her eyes by pulling them down, a gesture offensive to Asian-Americans. She denied racism." For one thing, I'm not entirely sure this is notable. Secondly, it's badly written. Third... huh??? Anyways, I'd change it but I'd get a slap from some random Wikipedian or something, so you guys discuss. 67.77.70.21 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New version of the text that is being debated below in this section:

"In February 2009, Cyrus was accused of racism towards those of the Asian race, when a photo circulated around the internet, featuring her and several others - including then-boyfriend Justin Gaston - pulling their eyes into a slanted position. Cyrus has denied the allegations, saying: 'In NO way was I making fun of any ethnicity! I was simply making a goofy face. When did that become newsworthy? [...] It seems someone is trying to make something out of nothing to me. If that would of [sic] been anyone else, it would of [sic] been overlooked! I definitely feel like the press is trying to make me out as the new 'BAD GIRL'! [...] I feel like now that Britney [Spears] is back on top of her game again, they need someone to pick on! Lucky me![86][87][88] Cyrus was sued by a Los Angeles woman named Lucie J. Kim, on behalf of the entire city's Asian American and Pacific Islander population, for four billion dollars.[89]" Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that section is rather notable, since it sparked a good deal of media attention and Cyrus was sued over the matter. I have expanded the section with more details, quotes, and references. POKERdance talk/ contribs 03:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This was already widely discussed and the consensus ruled that it was not notable to get a mention in the article. I have no idea why it wiped out of the discussion page but I'll see about getting the discussion back. The incident was only given attention by tabloids that had nothing else to write about, and wikipedia cannot publish every, single alleged controversy on a celebrity. If we did every celebrity would need its own page of alleged controversies. Things as small as a little girl making a strange face can be passed over. Things that are significant like the vanity fair are fair game. There's probably a list of garbage lawsuits like $4bil for making a face like the one reported on any given celebrity so it isn't notable. TheJoak (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I simply am not seeing how the accusations of racism incident is not notable enough for inclusion. But then again, I would not call a 16-year-old a little girl.


 * In addition to tabloid attention, the incident received mainstream media attention from television news outlets and was reported as having upset a lot of people. Such a public accusation of racism due to enough people being upset about it is not a controversy? Are we actually deciding on what controversies should be included based on what we think should and should not be controversial? One person above even feels that the Vanity Fair incident should not be considered controversial. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Flyer. Consensus Can Change, so I think we should hold a new discussion, especially if the old discussion cannot change. And while we're at it, we should discuss all Miley's "controversies". As NrDg said earlier, everything Cyrus does that is deemed inappropriate for young fans becomes a controversy, so we should discuss which ones are notable enough for inclusion. In my opinion, it should be any scandal with an official response from Disney or Miley, but I'd like to know what others think. Maybe we should open a talk page subpage to discuss and archive responses.Liquidluck (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is cable news and gossip tosh that has no place on a BLP article. Please do NOT re-insert it until whatever relevant discussions have concluded. The burden of proof in BLP cases is very much on those wishing to add material, so while the matter is being debated, it should not be included. Recognizance (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This so-called "cable news and gossip tosh" was reporting of a controversy. The other controversies are "cable news and gossip tosh" as well. If this information truly had no place on a BLP Wikipedia article, then the Tom Cruise article (which is heavily watched by experienced Wikipedia editors) would not include the things it does in its Controversy section. What burden of proof needs to be made in this Miley Cyrus case? That it was a controversy? It was reported as a controversy by non-gossip news sites. The burden of proof, in my opinion, is on the people wanting this information out of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came off harshly there. I simply meant that, while there is a discussion underway about the merits of its inclusion, it should be removed temporarily rather than allowing it to be spread across Google et al. Recognizance (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. You did not offend me. I will oblige your request, as I have not reverted you a second time. I just hope that this discussion does not become inactive and actually achieves WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability. Do a sanity check. The tabloids regularly writing about something does not make it encyclopedic. The National Enquirer, Star Magazine and the Sun ("Tits on page three") could write articles about a one-off Cyrus comment for 100 years, and it STILL would not be encyclopedic.


 * Next. Wikipedia is not the place to mention, nor to make hay of every unguarded comment by a notable. If Cyrus published a song with the line "I hate group X!"? Then yes, she made a deliberate, considered public slur. That might be worth mentioning. Briefly. Such things are not an opportunity for some special interest group to make a case about how oppressed they are.


 * "Media attention" is not encyclopedic. A casual remark in fun is not a calculated political statement. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I stated above: "...the incident received mainstream media attention from television news outlets and was reported as having upset a lot of people. Such a public accusation of racism due to enough people being upset about it is not a controversy?"


 * This is not about the tabloids "regularly writing about something" and whether that makes it encyclopedic. This is about the fact that this was reported by reliable sources as having upset a lot of people, as being a controversy. It was something Cyrus herself felt she needed to respond to. If it was no big deal, I hardly feel that she would have responded at all. We also present this section in an encyclopedic manner. We do not make it seem as though Cyrus is a racist, and it passes WP:BLP. I am not seeing any good argument for excluding this information from this article. Editors here not liking it, and somehow feeling that it is trivia are not good reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't pass WP:BLP at all! What are you talking about?


 * "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist"


 * and


 * "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."


 * This is tabloid media hype. Noted by the tabloids, sustained by the tabloids to earn sales. It doesn't matter that a million people gossiped about it on Twitter, it's not encyclopedic. And no, it doesn't matter that 3 out of 5 of those million Twitter people were upset. Not at all. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It does pass WP:BLP. What are you talking about? This not just some tabloid fodder or non-notable instance that slandered Cyrus. I asked myself whether the sources are reliable; they are, seeing as reliable news outlets reported the matter, and Cyrus herself felt she had to respond to the accusations. The material being presented is true; she was accused of racism due to a face she made, and considering this was a controversy that affected her life enough to upset a lot of people and is something she felt she had to respond to, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about this subject. Quite frankly, I see nothing as convincing me that this part of this subject's life should be excluded from this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will bring in a neutral editor on this matter, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. Bookkeeperoftheoccult is someone I consider an expert on BLP issues here at Wikipedia, and has dealt with many Wikipedia BLP issues. What Bookkeeperoftheoccult says on BLP matters, I am more inclined to go along with. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability..." Is this relevant to her notability? Will anyone even care in a year or two? I don't think so. Also: "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." BLP I don't think the racist allegations have any place in the article. It's a media hype around a few chronically "offended" attention seekers. The law suit must have been laughed out of court. -Duribald (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts on this, Duribald. Whether anyone will care about this in a year or two, I do not feel that we can predict. But there are plenty of things that the public forgets about or hardly cares about anymore after some time, but are still presented as having been notable at the time. Some of the things in the Tom Cruise Controversy section are things I am sure people have forgotten about...until they read about them there or elsewhere online. We document notable matters here at Wikipedia. Excluding them based on our personal opinions of what we view as notable enough is not the best route to take in my opinion. My thing is that I am not seeing how this is not notable enough for inclusion. Whether it upset a minority number or not, we will never know. It was not reported as having upset a minority number. Calling it "hype" is a personal opinion. And the lawsuit, whether laughed out of court or not, also received enough mainstream media attention. Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Having earlier read one of the references about this and seeing that it was reported by that source as having upset a particular Asian group, and after reading what Duribald has just presented about minority numbers, I could lean toward feeling that this should not be included. I need to go carefully read through all the sources right now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After having just read the sources more carefully, nope, I still cannot see why this information should be excluded from this article. It was reported as a controversy (as I have stated before), and OCA, an Asian Pacific American organization, were not the only ones reported as having been upset about the image. That organization combined with other critics and very possibly other Asian Americans is not something I feel we can simply brush off as a minority number. Cyrus felt the need to respond to these racism accusations for a reason. Whether this information is included or not will not hugely affect my life in any way, but I will continue to feel that it should be included no matter the argument. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)From what I remember personally, there was limited coverage of this particular event. WP:HARM states : Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it.
 * There is also the problem of WP:UNDUE. If the information is to be included, is it overwhelming article by drawing attention away from the subject's notability via WP:STRUCTURE; in this case her music and acting career?
 * This - in relation to the overall BLP policy seems to violate the entire "controversies" section. Miley Cyrus - of all pop stars - is not well known for being a "controversial figure." Most of these incidents had temporary coverage (with the notable exception of the Vanity Fair photos), and if they are to be included, should not require extensive detail from every source that mentioned it. This is part of the reason I discourage person life sections or anything related to it - they attract tabloid coverage rather than accurate representation of a subject's life as a whole. My position would be to leave this information out, unless there was a legitimate lawsuit (and that lawsuit was widely reported on), and restructure the rest of the article. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you a lot for weighing in on this matter, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. You know that I consider you an expert on BLP matters here at Wikipedia. My reasoning for feeling that this information should be included is due to it not simply being reported by tabloid press and being significant enough to get a detailed response from Cyrus, in addition to the other stuff I stated above about it (of course). But since you feel that it should not be included, I am more willing to step aside and abide (LOL). As for the other controversies, I would definitely say that the Vanity Fair and pole-dancing controversies should remain. They also have a good amount of coverage. And Cyrus as a controversial figure? It seems that these days she is partly known as one. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless she starts mimicking Britney Spears, I can't consider her controversial. And I fully realize you aren't trying to report tabloid journalism, but with BLPs its hard not to give undue weight to such incidents without seeming tabloid-ish - even when they get an official response. Janet Jackson officially denied rumors she had a daughter with her first husband, but you wouldn't find too many news reports on it now unless you were REALLY digging for it. There's a similar argument at Talk:Lady Gaga over the intersex rumors. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are those saying that she is somewhat mimicking Britney Spears, as we know (as seen in reporting of the pole-dancing controversy), but I certainly get your point. Interesting, about the Jackson and Lady Gaga examples you mention. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do point out, though, that while whether or not Cyrus may be a racist is rumored (which I find silly, considering that a lot of people act in certain "harmless" ways/say certain "harmless" things at times that can be thought of or correctly said to be racist, such as certain comedians within their comedic acts, but are not truly racists), the Cyrus "Asian-face" controversy was not a rumor. Either way, as I stated before, I am now less insistent on this information being in this article (but still not against it). Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Forbes List
She came 29th not 35th see --X Gui (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC) ✅ thanks! Liquidluck (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the pregnancy hoax information from the article (Controversies section)
Randolph3 removed the pregnancy hoax information from the Controversies section on the basis that it receiving significant media attention does not make it controversial. I ask how was the matter not controversial, considering the uproar it caused, especially from parents? Many people thought then-15-year-old Cyrus was pregnant, which was a controversial matter.

I feel that changes like this to long-standing parts of the article should be discussed on the talk page first, which is why I brought it here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it's really controversial or significant enough for inclusion in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it controversial or not? And was it not significant enough to upset a lot of people? Both happened, which is why I am not exactly seeing why it should be excluded from this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already said that I don't think so. A publication making up a false rumor is not a controversy, it's libel. If the material belongs anywhere, it is in the J-14_magazine article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what you said, and I obviously disagree. A publication making up a false rumor is often controversial...depending on the rumor (see Tom Cruise). This particular matter was, in fact, controversial for the reasons I stated above, and was labeled as such by television news outlets. The fact that this section was in this article for as long as it was, with plenty of well-respected editors seeing it and not at all attempting to remove it, suggests that they do not see it as exactly trivial either. (For the record, let us remember that J-14 says they did not make up that story; someone altered their real cover about Cyrus.)


 * Any other thoughts on this subject? Do weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I cannot find any reliable sources on the Internet labeling this as a controversy, though I know it was reported by television news outlets as a controversy. And as I already knew, it clearly is not as big a controversy as the other things in the Controversies section, considering that this was mainly an Internet matter. But even so, I am not seeing why it should be excluded from this article altogether. It was significant enough to get significant mainstream media coverage, and was, as Dlabtot says, libel. But oh well.


 * In the future, I feel that long-standing pieces of information in this article should be discussed first before being removed, unless the removal really is not likely to be contested or really is not an important removal. For example, I do not view this removal from the Controversies section by Dlabtot as that big a deal (I noticed it the day it was removed, but there are not any reliable sources on the Internet right now labeling that as a controversy either). I am not saying others would not see it as a controversy, though. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, you feel that way. However I'll continue to follow standard Wikipedia practice rather than your dictates. Dlabtot (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not my "dictates." It is standard Wikipedia practice to discuss significant changes on the talk pages of articles first...unless those changes are significant cleanup/improvement changes that are not likely to be contested. Simply reverting people when the removals are contested is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Discussing the matter first is; no one has to agree with you or me, and when there are people against your removal, you should listen and take their objections into consideration. That is what WP:Consensus is all about. Besides, I did not state that the type of removal you made should necessarily be discussed first. Yours was not as big a change and clear enough from the edit summary that it may not be viewed as a controversy by some people; however, that does not mean that all or most other editors working on this article would agree with you. In addition, of course, there is sometimes information in a Wikipedia article that may not be a good fit in one section, but may be a good fit in another section. Either way, what you removed was at least discussed first above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just think you are completely, 100% wrong. I suggest you review WP:BRD. Dlabtot (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not completely, 100% wrong. You go try and "be bold" on any very well-watched and well-sourced article here at Wikipedia and remove sourced material you do not like or feel should not be in the article, and you will more than likely be reverted. Why? Because there will very likely be editors who disagree with you, and because you did not take the time to take it to the talk page and try and gain consensus for its removal first. I do not need to read WP:BRD. Perhaps...you should read WP:Consensus, and experience more of what I mean about discussion before very drastic actions that are likely to be contested are made. Most editors here would confirm what I have stated. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On a side note, I have read WP:BRD before. And now that I have glanced at it again, I can see why talking before making drastic actions likely to be contested is used way more than WP:BRD. WP:BRD suggests doing this in well-watched articles. It also expects you to be reverted when doing so, just like I stated will likely happen. As WP:BRD says, "...Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge... BRD is best used by experienced wiki-editors. It requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure." You seem to go on BRD's logic that likely to be contested changes should be made only to be reverted in order to incite discussion. Or rather hope for no discussion at all, considering that some editors here are "bold" on articles without even thinking about having a discussion about their changes. To make it short, what I have seen while on Wikipedia regarding a variety of article types is that editors are more likely to be ticked off by somewhat significant removals or other such drastic, contested changes and less likely to agree to the changes proposed by the person who ticked them off with the removal or other such drastic, contested changes, especially if consensus is for that removal or whatever else being in the article and this lone person shows up acting as though the other editors must be silly not to see why the change or changes "should be" made. Every very experienced editor I have come across here at Wikipedia has advised discussion of likely to be contested changes on the talk pages of articles first. If I am wrong to follow such a procedure, then I suppose most very experienced editors on Wikipedia are as well. If BRD works for you because you are "so skilled" with it that discussion does not have to take place first, then oh well. But it is certainly not something that should be used often or advised to newbie and other less-experienced editors. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, you seem to be under a delusion that Wiki material that is "long-standing" must be right, and must get community approval (i.e., your approval) before being changed. If that was true, Wiki would grind to a halt. Recently, I caught an editor who has been in Wikipedia for eight months has been systematically altering sales figures in music articles in dozens of articles. I had them blocked. Their "long-standing" contributions were nothing but long-standing wrong changes. I regularly find errors that have been in articles for months, sometimes years. The community does not need your approval to change them. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not under any delusion. But you certainly are rude. I did not state that any Wikipedia material that is long-standing is correct. I stated that such material should ideally be discussed before being significantly changed or removed when the significant changes or complete removal are likely to be contested (as in "controversial"). I did not state that it must get my approval. Wikipedia has been working this way, discussing likely to be contested changes before they are made, for the longest now, and it has not caused Wikipedia to come to a grind halt. If you or any other editor wants to act as though I am wrong about this, when most other experienced Wikipedian editors follow this same procedure, then go right ahead. This is not the same thing as your catching an editor wrongly and systematically altering sales figures in dozens of music articles for 8 months. I highly doubt changes to that editor's revisions would have been that contested (other than by that editor his or herself). This community often works on approval, WP:Consensus, before likely to be contested changes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)