Talk:Miley Cyrus/Archive 6

Four Billion Dollar Lawsuit
Does this need a mention in the article? This seems more like a stunt than anything else and has little relevance. I can't even find evidence it was widely reported. It also may be giving undue weight to the Asian-face controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. Please discuss before re-adding such nonsense. Recognizance (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing why it should not be included, or why it is nonsense. It should not be removed before more discussion about its inclusion has taken place. See the Racism section above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, JoshuaZ was speaking of the 4 billion dollar lawsuit mention, while referring to the "Asian-face" controversy as a controversy. No where did JoshuaZ state that the whole section should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging of acting and music career
I am suggesting to merge the sections two and three, "Acting career" and "Music career" into a section called "Career." FA and GA articles like of actresses and singers have the section together, like in Hilary Duff and Mariah Carey (who's made some acting moves). I am proposing it on the talk page before adding it to the article because it might cause an edit war. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's good like it is. She's had significant works and accomplishments in both the music and acting fields, which provides enough information to provide two good, different sections. It's also easier for people to navigate around if people are looking for information on a certain piece of information about her music or acting career. While this format is used in the articles you listed, this format is used and works in other articles about entertainer's in the same field, music and acting together, like Cyrus. I think it's good as is and there is really no need to combine the two in my opinion.--Rockin56 (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I see Ipodnano05's point, I have to agree with Rockin56 on this. I mean, some actors/singers have not done either enough acting or singing to have their sections separate. Mariah Carey has certainly not done enough acting, and is more of a singer anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what about Hilary Duff or Ashley Tisdale, they both have done enough acting. Hilary Duff has even done more than Miley Cyrus, I think it should be merged into a career section because in that way readers may see anything about her career in chronological order. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Good points, Ipodnano05. What do other editors think about this? Flyer22 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Directed at Flyer22: O.K. I'm sorry, what exactly do you mean by that? Other editirs can freely disagree or agree with me. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ipodnano05, what are you offended for? I meant exactly what I stated: "Good points" and "What do other editors think about this?" I am never intentionally rude, jeez, unless provoked after someone has been very rude to me, and am not seeing why you took it that I was being rude to you just now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Directed at Flyer22: I'm sorry, I wasn't offended, it's just that I've seen some very rude people in Wiki. As for the editors thinking about this, I don't know... let's see what other people say. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, Ipodnano05. I have definitely seen the same, as I recently stated on my talk page. If it helps, just know that I am not hugely against your proposed changes on this matter. I am really not that against them at all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's already in chronological order, just in two different sections, being acting and music. The two different sections, like I said, make information easier to read and find. In my opinion, if I came to Hilary Duff's page to get information out of her career section, I wouldn't. I wouldn't sit there for however long and sit there and read and read that forever lengthy thing to find some small detail I may need. With it separated into music and acting, if I need to find a certain thing pertaining to one or the other I can look to one section and be done with it. It's much easier and it has nothing to do with being in chronological order since they both are in chronological order.--Rockin56 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think it should be combined for the simple reason her acting and singing careers are essentially the same. By that, I mean, her show is about singing - both sides of her career evolved at the same time BECAUSE of the same medium (the TV show).  Whereas, you could make an argument that, for some articles, the sections should be split since one is not really related to the other (think Russell Crowe - he sings, badly, but one could make a separate section about it).  Ccrashh (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With these points and currently 3/4 agree with the split. I believe that it can now be made. Feel free to edit and help with this. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Party in the USA
Miley is the youngest recording artists to claim four # 1 albums on the Billboard Top 200 in less than three years.

Miley's "Party In The USA" is the highest debut by a female solo artist since Carrie Underwood's "Inside Your Heaven" (in July of 2005.) This also marks Miley's highest single-week download total, and is the fastest breaking single in Hollywood Records' history. "Party In The USA" was produced and co-written by Dr. Luke.

There is going to be a hannah montana the movie 2 it is filming in georgia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolinahurricanesEr (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, you guys could find those here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Miley-Cyrus-Catapults-to-2-prnews-1074822380.html?x=0&.v=1

zHel (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added the information to the Party in the U.S.A. article, and I'll put a mention about being the highest debut by a female solo artist in this article as well. Liquidluck (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Cody
The source for Christopher Cody is the Daily Mirror, a UK Tabloid famous for publishing fraudulent pictures, notably of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. I also couldn't find a better source; the closest I found was an OceanUP! page that linked to a "Forbidden" page. All the other websites appear to source this article. I'm not saying that Cody doesn't exist, I just want to point this out so that others will keep an eye out for better sources. Liquidluck (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good looking out, Liquidluck. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Forbes List
Miley Cyrus is ranked #29. Not #35. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/53/celebrity-09_Miley-Cyrus_EB0C.html zHel (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Her rank was 35 in 2008, but improved in 2009. I added the info- thanks! Liquidluck (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus World Tour 2009/2010
Miley Cyrus World Tour 2009/2010 is the first ever tour with paperless tickets. Because of the scalping issues in her first tour, Cyrus decided to go paperless by using credit cards. zHel (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we mention
Shouldn't we mention that Miley Cyrus has stated that she will stop playing hannah montanna after its 4th seanson? --Willowandfeb (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-Philanthropy
The first two sentences of the Philanthropy section are mostly about non-philanthropic items. These sentences should be removed or moved to another section. -- ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I created an entrepreneurship section. I think there was one before, and I'm not sure why it was deleted, but no matter. I weeded out the business part and Ipodnano helped add substance to the philanthropy. Thanks for pointing that out! Liquidluck (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
we have to put in wiki about her feud with radiohead.....it is big.lot of people have criticised her for this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman9 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That caused a huge internet shockwave, and yet it hasn't been added. I expected Wikipedia to have that info like a year ago when it first happened. But there was no mention of it...Moocowsrule (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
 * It hasn't been added because it doesn't meet Wikipedias notability guidelines. Edgehead  5150  21:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There were at least a few pages on some notable and reliable new pages... Moocowsrule (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
 * The info might have been on some reliable sites, but it still isn't notible. Edgehead  5150  07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually wonder why that Vanity Fair photo is under the header "Controversy" at all. Both artistically and in any frankly sexual sense it is at the same level as a van Gogh. Unless you're a pervert artophile, it doesn't turn you on. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If everyone agreed with you it wouldn't be a controversy. Since they don't, it is. --NrDg 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is The AFA thing really a controversy? that's like Hitler attacking you for a pro Jew position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.134.239 (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the statement the AFA said contradicting what Miley said? She said that she loves everybody, gay or not, in the bible it says to love eveybody even our enemies and homosexuals. Kgreg10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgreg10 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If every biographical article contained every piece of criticism that each person received from every wingnut organization looking to push its views -- conservative or otherwise -- it would be ridiculous and frivolous. I don't think the AFA thing is notable enough to warrant its own heading in this article, or even to be mentioned. 67.246.112.242 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm taking it out. Dlabtot (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The only controversy that should be mentioned is Vanity Fair. Nothing else is notable enough. 71.182.229.193 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that everything except the Vanity Fair matter is the only thing that should be mentioned and the only thing notable enough for inclusion in the Controversies section, but Dlabtot has since taken care of the American Family Association (AFA) part...and the pole dancing controversy has emerged since your statement, which is clearly a controversy and notable enough to be mentioned. Right now, the article is down to three controversies in the Controversies section, which is good, since they are all the most notable. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of these controversies are fairly minor snipes at something that Cyrus allegedly did or said, but the passage about same-sex marriage represents her deliberate venture into a larger ("real-world") controversy. That's why it's notable.  I didn't notice this deletion until now, so I'll start a separate thread downpage. JamesMLane t c 08:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The pole dancing controversy
The pole dancing controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.42.105 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to elaborate on this: the August 12th edition of the Los Angeles times, Dawn C. Chmielewski wrote an article about her suggestive pole dance routine that "set of a firestorm on the internet over whether the act was appropriate for a 16-year-old entertainer in front of a youthful audience". I did not see it the program myself but the photo to the article does make a legitimate claim.--Kencaesi (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cite:
 * Basically everything Cyrus does that is deemed inappropriate for her 8 year fans is controversial. This wasn't broadcast, just stills taken at the event. I don't think this needs to be in the article unless it gets more coverage than just a columnist commenting on anonymous web reactions. --NrDg 20:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the title of the section to "2009 Teen Choice Awards performance", because "pole dancing performance" makes it sound as though she was criticized for her performance at pole dancing, when she was criticized for performing in front of a teenage audience when she herself was 16. The "2009" addition just differentiates from her performance as host in 2008. Liquidluck (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the title of the section to "2009 Teen Choice Awards performance", because "pole dancing performance" makes it sound as though she was criticized for her performance at pole dancing, when she was criticized for performing in front of a teenage audience when she herself was 16. The "2009" addition just differentiates from her performance as host in 2008. Liquidluck (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

She wasn't performing in front of a teen audience. She was performing in front of celebrities most of them in their late teens. The Teen Choice Awards did air on TV with a PG warning so parents with 8-year olds shouldn't have let their kids watch it. No one mentions the gay talk on the Teen Choice Awards when they gave an award to a gay transgender who gave shoutouts to gays and lesbians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmaec (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Seat Belt controversy
whatever happened to the mention of the controversy that ensued from her 2008 film Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert? I recall there was significant criticism for a scene in the movie when she did not wear a seat belt when she was driving a golf cart.--Kencaesi (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would better fit in the Best of Both Worlds Concert article, since it was a scene in the movie that caused the issue. Since Miley hasn't repeatedly been caught without a seatbelt, both she and her father were criticized, and Billy Ray said they forgot because of the excitement in filming the movie, putting it here would be WP:UNDUE in my opinion. Liquidluck (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There was controversy for this; that she wasn't wearing her seatbelt in one of the scenes. She later said that she was "sorry the entire incident happened", and that "she was too into what she was doing than aware of safety". I truly think Miley's haters just wanted a reason to trash her; it was very hard to notice she wasn't wearing her seatbelt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.218.0 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
From reading and responding in the Racism section above, I realized that this article has no archives. Archives are very important to Wikipedia article talk pages (and user talk pages, to me), because it makes it easy to go back and check past discussions. I say that we should start archiving this talk page. And when one of us has enough time and is patient enough to archive those past discussions that are no longer on this talk page, do that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The archives should have still been there. I'm not sure if they were accidentally deleted or not. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ kind of. I have added an archive box but it still needs numerical sorting. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  15:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Freakmighty (FM). Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I think this page needs a criticism section....A lot of people don't like Miley because her entire life has been handed to her by a corporation, and her music is manufactured. 71.48.76.59 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)MotherFerginPrincess


 * Plenty of popular musical artists have manufactured music, as we know. A Criticism section in this article would help to place the information that some editors here have disagreed on when it comes to labeling that information as a controversy or not. That section could be titled Criticism and controversy. But, really, we do not typically have Criticism sections here on celebrities or other real-life famous figures, unless you count Controversy sections as practically the same thing (since, yes, that is also criticism). We typically incorporate criticism into the article without putting it all into one section, as to avoid WP:UNDUE and because the criticism usually goes along better with whatever topic, other than the subject of the Wikipedia article, it is related to. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, a Criticism section would grow too long, seeing as plenty of celebrities are criticized quite often. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I second what Flyer said, and also think that a section on such criticism would be unnecessary and fringe information. No actor can become famous without being backed by a company. That's why actors need representation, writers need publishing houses, and musicians need labels- once the artist lands a deal, the company takes care of finding auditions, creating publicity and book tours, creating music videos and concerts- whatever the artist needs to make it big. Disney stars are lucky they get a major corporation behind them which can propell them to success- the only difference is that they start young instead of building a "struggling artist" image first. Some misinformed critics believe that Miley is famous because of her father, but the article makes Miley's own determination pretty clear. Hope that helps. Liquidluck (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

MotherFerginPrincess is completely, and I will say, obviously, right. If there are cited, well-reasoned comments from respected sources...they should be included in the article, even if they are not positive.

I have a advantage in this discussion. I have never seen Cyrus on TV, or to my knowledge ever heard her sing. What I'm interested in is the facts. I come to read and rely on Wikipedia for those. I was shocked to find that Britney Spears mimed her songs in her latest concert tours. Where did I learn it? Wikipedia. Editors must be free to express the truth here. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given what I and Liquidluck stated above in this section, I am not seeing how MotherFerginPrincess is "completely" and "obviously, right." You stated above in the Racism section that "Wikipedia is not the place to mention, nor to make hay of every unguarded comment by a notable." Well, I point out that it is certainly not the place to mention, nor to make hay of all criticism or just about all criticism of a real-life famous figure in a section titled Criticism. A Criticism section in this article would grow to include any and just about all criticism Cyrus has received by a reliable source. If editors must be free to express the truth here, then reporting the Cyrus "Asian-face" controversy, which is more well-known than any criticism of her music or clothing (other than the Vanity Fair wardrobe) should be no problem at all. Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between candy-coating musical criticism about a musician, made by a respected source for musical reviews, and quoting snotty comments about her hair on YouTube. If Cyrus is miming onstage, if her voice is dubbed on TV, if she's not singing the lead on her CDs, that should appear in the article. (There doesn't need to be a criticism section, as such.)


 * It appears that 71.48.76.59/MotherFerginPrincess is new to Wikipedia, and she may not have expressed herself well, saying "her music is manufactured" instead of a more "Wiki", verifiable phrase such as "she has never written a song without professional help".


 * The article already has one sentence -- with reference -- of the type which needs amplification, and its own section: "Critics of the performance complained that she danced provocatively, performed along on a dance pole that was on top of an ice-cream pushcart and that one theme seemed to be her poking fun at American culture."


 * If there is are "Critical Receptions" sections for her songs, ? Yes, it obvious that summaries of those sections should appear here. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I already stated above in this section that we typically incorporate criticism into articles without putting it all into one section, as to avoid WP:UNDUE. I was/still am clearly against a section titled Criticism in this article, for the reasons I stated above. And I still argue that if Cyrus miming onstage, her voice being dubbed on TV, her not singing the lead on her CDs should appear in this article, then so should the "Asian-face" controversy (which is more well-known). Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an article about Cyrus herself, not about her work- we have many articles pertaining to her individual albums, singles, family, etc. Criticism about Cyrus belongs here- hence the pregnancy scandal, racism, and vanity fair sections that used to be here. I would argue the Party in the USA performance does not merit more than a sentence and a wikilink to the Party in the USA article. Criticism of her work (if properly cited) belongs in sections about the work in question. Hence, the ticket problems and body double information belongs in the Best of Both Worlds tour article, not here. Liquidluck (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That said, a section about her musical or acting skills would be useful- but only from notable critics.Liquidluck (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Liquidluck, when you mentioned the Vanity Fair section as having "used to be here," I was like, "Oh, no...don't tell me that someone removed another controversy section from this article." And I had to check, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Sorry, I should have worded that better- and I know what you mean =]. Liquidluck (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether there is a section called "Criticism" is a red herring. Drop it. The issue is whether widespread tabloid media popularity is a serious subject for an encyclopedia. That is: whatever a marketing department decides to spend $100,000 on publicity, it automatically becomes encyclopedic. I can hardly think of anything that panders to base, stupid, greedy commercialism than that.


 * If she was a racist, if she was using the thing that makes her notable to promote her racism? Then yes, discussion of her racism should be in an article. But there's nothing to demonstrate she's a racist. Nothing to demonstrate that her comment means anything. By repeating it, Wikipedia is propagating a lie. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to drop whether there is a section called "Criticism." It was never going to happen in the first place. And widespread tabloid media attention is a serious subject for an encyclopedia when it gets reported in mainstream, non-tabloid reliable sources. Weighing whatever is being reported is the issue. It is not propagating a lie to report an incident in which she was accused of racism, which received enough media attention, which she felt she had to respond to and did. We often include stuff in Wikipedia biographies in which the subject of the article was accused of something, but says that the accusations are incorrect. It depends on the notability of the accusation or accusations and whether consensus is for it being in the article. But this has been settled, anyway. Already dropped...until it is brought up again one day by someone else. Flyer22 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, you do not own this article, you are not in a position to dictate what is going to happen to it. Other articles about rock stars have criticism sections, why in the world shouldn't this one? Nor is is up to you to decide what is "settled".
 * Apparently you wish to include in Wikipedia any sensational story that gets enough media attention. This is specifically addressed in WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not "3. Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard."
 * Going on endlessly about media coverage of one single event that was an innocent joke is...an especially low standard. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said I owned this article, and I sure am not acting like it. I am in a position to express Wikipedia policy and standards, and there was not going to be a Criticism section here in this article due to those policies and standards. I simply told it like it is. If you believe that most editors here would agree to a section titled "Criticism" for this article, you are sadly mistaken. You even stated, "Whether there is a section called 'Criticism' is a red herring." And told me to "Drop it" as if I was the one backing it. What articles here about rock and pop stars have sections titled Criticism? If they do, those articles clearly are not of high standard. Not even the Britney Spears article has one. As for my saying "this has been settled," you must not pay enough attention when reading comments. You put words into people's mouths and accuse people of stuff they were not doing or trying to do. I was obviously referring to the matter about the "Asian-face" controversy (when I stated "this has been settled"), which, yes, has been settled above (though consensus can later change). You say that I apparently wish to include in Wikipedia any sensational story that gets enough media attention? No, I wish to include notable stories. A story that has gotten enough media attention and response from the subject is notable enough for inclusion in my opinion. Apparently, you and some others wish to exclude material that you do not like. This is not about WP:SOAP. But since you are citing WP:SOAP, you should know that is precisely the reason we ideally do not have Criticism sections in articles about celebrities. Wikipedia is not gossip. "Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard." Exactly. This is also exactly what WP:UNDUE is about. Putting in all that mess any notable critic has to say about Cyrus into one section is not what Wikipedia is about. If the Criticism is about her music only, then it goes into sections about that music or articles dealing with that music, not into one big section titled Criticism. And even then, we, of course, do not include everything any notable critic has commented on regarding Cyrus. This is what I stated to the person who started this section, then you came in acting like Criticism sections in cases such as these are perfectly fine and that Liquidluck and I were/are completely wrong in what we stated. I have not gone on endlessly about media coverage of one single event that was an "innocent joke." The only especially low standard recently in regards to these discussions is how you treat editors and "debate" here. You are the one who came at me with an attitude, not the other way around. Very unprofessional. And it is good to know that you consider an action highly regarded as offensive and which upset enough people to be an "innocent joke." I doubt any comedian would even agree that it was that "innocent," regardless of not having been meant to poke fun at or harm. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Views on same-sex marriage (homosexuality generally)
This passage was deleted:

Religion and same-sex marriage
In April 2009, Cyrus was criticized by the conservative American Family Association (AFA) for a comment she made in a Twitter communication to Perez Hilton. In response to a question from Hilton regarding same-sex marriage, Cyrus wrote: "I am a Christian and I love you - gay or not - because you are no different than anyone else! We are all God's children and everyone should be happy." The AFA said: "Clearly she is confused and does not understand the Bible. Please pray for the Lord to open her eyes to the truth."

For convenience, a reflist:

The discussion about "Controversies" above concerned things like whether Miley Cyrus made a slanty-eye face or showed a little too much skin. In this incident, however, she chose to get involved in a much bigger issue. The point isn't so much the controversy as that she's stepping out of her inoffensive teen-star image; she deliberately took a stand that she knew would tick off a lot of people. This information should be restored, although not necessarily to a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section. JamesMLane t c 08:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I stated above (in the Removal of the pregnancy hoax information from the article section) that some information may not be a fit for one section...but may be a fit for another section. This is one of the reasons that I feel that some of the information that has been removed from this article due to "not being a notable enough controversy" should be in the article due to generally being notable. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Some of these matters are notable primarily in terms of how the media reported them and how people perceived Miley Cyrus as a result.  What about starting a section on "Public image" that would include them in that context?  She has had a "wholesome" Disney child-star image, but is now receiving publicity for what some people saw as sexy dancing and for beginning to speak out on public issues.  There seems to be agreement above that the pregnancy hoax should not be included, regardless of the section heading. JamesMLane t c 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because one is stating their opinion certainly does not mean that they are delibretly trying to be offensive and/or tick off a lot of people and it is an opinion to say that that is what she was intending to do when she said that. However it is notable (as a responce to the whole perez hilton thing) and I agree with you on the basis that it should be kept. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not be against a Public image section; it is different enough than simply a Criticism section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

2006 Teens Choice Awards
During the 2006 Teens Choice awards, Miley was nominated for breakoutstar female butshe lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Montana zHel (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Last Song (film)
I've listed the article on Cyrus' upcoming movie, The Last Song (film) for peer review. It is unreleased, but has around 50KB of info, and I've put enough work into it that I'd like to see it as a good article someday. So, I welcome anyone who isn't me to comment on it- I appreciate any and all comments from anyone! The peer review can be found HERE.

Also, if anyone here is a member of Wikiproject Disney, would you please assess the article for the Disney rating? Thanks! Liquidluck (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The movie "The Last Song" Miley the name Ronnie came from the novel "The Last Song" by Nicholas Sparks. The character in the novel called Ronnie which is short for Veronica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.154.33 (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What Controversey?????????????
What pole dance? She didn't wrap her self around the pole, and she wasn't being provacative. The only real controversey was Vanity Fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.183.132 (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a controversy, and every reliable source reports it as one. We have removed enough controversies from this article, based on personal opinion that they were not controversial enough or controversial at all. Well, the pole-dancing matter was a "real controversy" and certainly controversial enough. There is a reason that Disney tried to keep their distance from the matter and spoke out about the matter by further distancing themselves from it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Walt Disney company had a reason to stay away from that performance. Miley was performing Party In The U.S.A. a song licensed to Hollywood Records which the Walt Disney Company has nothing to do with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmaec (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Hollywood Records is owned by Disney Music Group, so Disney was involved in this performance to some extent (I don't know how much these performances are planned by MTV, how much by the label, the artist's management, etc.)VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus pole dance, comparison to Britney Spears
I notice the Wiki entry for Miley Cyrus mentions her Teen Choice Awards pole dance, and how it drew negative similarities to Britney Spears. However, there is no citation for this reference.

Here is one blogger's reaction. The blogger is a single dad with a teen daughter Miley's age. He has blogged about Miley Cyrus on multiple occasions (her Vanity Fair pics, Back to school gear, Slant eye photos, boyfriend Justin Gaston).

Perhaps the pole dance post negatively comparing Miley Cyrus to Britney Spears could be added as a reference in the 2009 Teen Choice Awards performance section, after the phrase "Some drew negative similarities to Britney Spears;", like this:

Bica12 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for contributing. I'm afraid blogs are not considered reliable sources. Celestra (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Some drew negative similarities to Britney Spears" is sourced. Read through the sources. As for blogs, per WP:BLOGS, the only times blogs are accepted as sources here at Wikipedia is when they are from a person's official blog and being used in their article, such as Perez Hilton having blogged about something at his site, or from reputable sources. For example, some TV Guide editors report news or do interviews from their blogs these days. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I understand blogs are typically not reliable sources. In this case, though, the blogger David Mott who authors DadsHouseBlog.com has been interviewed and quoted by CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/04/jon.kate.new.show/index.html (in that case for his opinion about Jon and Kate Gosselin)

Also, the "Some drew negative similarities to Britney Spears" doesn't have a source directly after it. The sources at the end of the sentence don't address the negative similarity. Hence my suggestion. My two cents. Thanks for consideration.

Bica12 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Bica12, no problem. I am almost always up for assisting other editors here at Wikipedia. You are new here, and I understand you are learning how things work at this site. But I must ask...why do you feel that the sources need to be directly after the "Some drew negative similarities to Britney Spears" part? It is right after the "meanwhile Cyrus welcomed them" part, which is connected to the sentence. It is overkill to reference it in both spots, which, yes, unfortunately some editors here at Wikipedia do insist on over-referencing. The sources do address the negative similarities. The first source says, "...for anyone who saw the subdued Spears on her recent 'Circus' tour, it was hardly 'teen' oriented ... 95 percent of show consisted of pole dancing, pelvic thrusts, spread eagles and sexually suggestive movements, not to mention her banned 'If You Seek Amy' music video.... And it seems Miss Cyrus may have just spent a little too much time admiring the work of Spears as her own performance 'Party in the USA' revealed quite the racy side complete with micro short shorts, black boots, bra showing and even the aforementioned action on a pole." The second source is from Cyrus herself, sort of like the official blogging I mentioned above, where she says, "For all the people calling me the 'next Britney' THANK U. I couldn't ask for a better compliment :)"


 * That said, if you feel that more sources are needed to source the "Some drew negative similarities to Britney Spears" part, which it is apparent that you do, there are editors here who are likely to be of some assistance. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Line Dance
There are several hints around in the world that Miley had noticeable impact on Line Dance awareness and acceptance for at least younger people all around the world. Here is one quote:
 * Boot scooting or line dancing has become the latest rage in Aussie clubs, all thanks to Miley Cyrus. In what people are calling "the Miley Cyrus effect”, members are boot scooting in huge numbers, what with more than 900 NSW clubs offering classes. (Source: entertainmentandshowbiz.com, 9th Sept. 2009)

Beyond this she took part in a few Line Dance choreographys (sometimes attributed to Miley Cyrus, other times referred as Hannah Montanah), written side to side with a set of star dancers from the WCDF championship series. These dance choreogrphys get teached every now and then on events like national championships in our present times. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tour Section
We should add a tour section. Miley is already on her second tour.
 * There's actually have an article on just that, here: Miley Cyrus tours, and on her current Wonder World Tour. There are links to these articles in this article, but if you'd like to add more information please do so. Also, Wikipedia encourages members to sign their posts, so that people can talk to you if they need to. You can do this by typing four ~ or by pressing the signature button on the tool bar (next to the hidden note button). Cheers, Liquidluck (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the Miley Cyrus tours article to List of Miley Cyrus concert tours (with contents similar to List of Celine Dion concert tours, List of Madonna concert tours, List of U2 concert tours, etc.) and created a "Tours" section to point to it. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the "July 2008–present: Breakout and film career" section, why does it still say "2009 North American Tour"? Her tour name has already been announced. Why not just put the actual tour name, Wonder World Tour? Also must we have "Eventually, additional dates were announced for the United Kingdom making the tour change names to the "2009/2010 World Tour." " That seems pointless, not to mention that's not even the tour's name. Besides, Miley had announced she was touring in Europe before she even announced it in North America, so it was already a world tour. Here's the proof at 1:20 [] --DreadfullyDespised (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Miley illegally parking in disabled
What? I can't add that she parked in a disabled spot in March of this year and it's on video? I am paralyzed, drive my van, need these spots to open my ramp. What an example she is: http://www.entertainmentwise.com/article.asp?id=47505&page=0
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing such issues. You may raise these issues at web forums if you like. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and though my sympathies are with you, such issues need not be included in an encyclopedic article abt her. Pls read WP:NOT....Gprince007 (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cassisun, you are allowed to approach Wikipedia talk pages about what may and may not be included. In this case, however, inclusion of this piece is mainly what Gprince007 stated. Why? Because this is just some random act in this celebrity's life; if it were some big controversy, that would be a different matter.


 * Also, Cassisun, you need to always sign your comments when "talking" on Wikipedia talk pages. To sign your comments, all you have to do is type four tildes beside them. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

infobox
Would anyone care if I changed the infobox to Template:Infobox person? We currently use infobox musician, but she isn't notable just for her music (or just for her acting). Liquidluck (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Infobox person does not describe Miley Cyrus at all. That infobox is for the type of celebrities that are just known for being famous. Some examples are: Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Khloé Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian and Rob Kardashian. Another use for the template are business people. Ex: Bill Gates, Ingvar Kamprad and Oprah Winfrey. Besides the infobox actor and musician do not appear any different in the actual page. Plus, the actor infobox does not add any more details to the infobox. GA pages like Hilary Duff have the musician one and it works just as well. I reverted it, no hard feelings. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

New picture
I think that the current picture of Miley on the infobox is a little obsolete and old. The picture is also used on song pages like Fly on the Wall (song). There are many pictures of her performing on the Wonder World Tour in Wikicommons. Please nominate some and that way we could all pick one based on votes. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What about this picture: ? I think she looks pretty in this picture. I don't want a performance picture, because we can have those on her tour pages or performance pages. It's better for her actual page to have a photoshoot picture. We can update it later when her next album photoshoot arrives. There wasn't one for The Time of our Lives. --LifesWonderful (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't include photoshoot shots, because they are invariably copyrighted. That's how the photographer that shoots it makes his living.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that Kww is completely, 100% right. That is not a free image and therefore cannot be included in here. I'm sorry, but there are many to pick from in the link for Wonder World in commons, you can see which one you like the best. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, my error! I'm sorry. I'm still new to this. Oh okay then. It's fine. Just make sure it's a nice photo of her then. --LifesWonderful (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I thought the same when I first got in Wikipedia. And about the picture I am waiting a few days for a reply from a user on Flickr. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. I the picture to the right this picture should be it. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no one has posted anything I'll put it up and see what people think. If you don't like it you are free to express your opinion here. Thank you!! -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * S'okay... wish you'd uploaded the higher quality version that's available thru Flickr though which I've fixed. Seems to be a fair bit of noise in the background of the image though... might take a stab at it with Photoshop to see if I can clear that up. Tabercil (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay.... I've taken a swipe at it with my limited Photoshop skills and used the result as the new image. Tabercil (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I gotta say...I prefer the previous lead image (this one: Image:Miley Cyrus at Kids' Inaugural 2-recropped.jpg). This new one (pictured above) is certainly not of her looking her best; she looks sleepy and "off." Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not her best. She does look tired and worn out. If you do find another picture, please make sure she's not wearing anything too risky. Some of her outfits on her tour are quite mature and I don't want to see that as her main picture. --DreadfullyDespised (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. Liquidluck has reverted it and I think that you guys should go to her commons category and check out which ones you like. That's what I proposed initially. There are over 90 pictures to chose from. Here's the link. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this one okay? (if we crop it) The outfit is a bit raunchy...but it's quite cute, the pose. Or this one, it is very cute in my opinion.-- I don't have an account -- 72.223.120.46 (talk) 1:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the second one you suggested, but I still currently prefer the one I mentioned preferring above.
 * Also, IP, you need to always sign your comments when "talking" on Wikipedia talk pages. To sign your comments, all you have to do is type four tildes beside them. I went ahead and signed your above comment for you. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What if we use this picture? [] I like that one. Thoughts? --75.62.154.152 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I received permission for a new image and have added it to the infobox. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was very nice of whoever took the pic to give permission for its use here, but I don't a head shot should be used in the main infobox, as it isn't as informative/encyclopedic as a 3/4 to full body shot, and we have so many available body shots. I like the second one the ones IP 72.x suggested, since they look fun and are taken well. I wouldn't mind [], but Cyrus really hasn't changed much since January. I say keep the old infobox pic from the inaugural, or if we change it, pick one that shows how her clothing style has changed. For example, 7 things, the one IP suggested, or Party in the U.S.A. (cropped to just below her shorts and without the back-up dancers at the sides). Liquidluck (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Her fashion du jour or how much of her legs are on Wikipedia is unimportant to the article. People read biographies and should have an image that shows the person's face.  The image that's on the article is just fine.  I usually feel DGAFism about things like this, but so much effort is wasted on what picture should be shown that I thought I'd step in.  As long as the image doesn't "present a person in false light," (WP:BLP), and the person is recognizable by the main feature, their face, then stop rotating the image every ten days.  People who want to know how short her shorts are or see her chest can go to Google so very easily.  Those are my thoughts. – Kerαunoςcopia  15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Liquidluck about a face and body image being better than just a face image for the lead image of biographical articles...as long as the face is clearly shown. I still prefer the one I mentioned preferring above, and do not get why some people are so insistent on her image being updated every time there are more recent images of her available. Her face is not so drastically different from month to month or a few months later that she needs a new image to represent her current self. I could see if we were using images of her at age 13 to represent her now almost 17-year-old self, since a 13-year-old's body goes through significant changes before they are 16/17, but we are not doing that.


 * All that said, I am not too against the current image by Nehrams2020. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Kerαunoςcopia that fashion is not important, but I feel that if we're changing an image no one has objected to for the last year, it should at least show how she's changed, and she's only changed stylewise. Otherwise, I still support keeping the old image of Cyrus at the inaugural (Image:Miley Cyrus at Kids' Inaugural 2-recropped.jpg), which was changed yesterday. I'm not super opposed to the current one, but if no one cares too much, I would like to switch back. That said, by the length of this discussion I'd say numerous people do care. Liquidluck (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "she's only changed stylewise" That got a good chuckle out of me lol. I'm neither for or against reverting to a former picture; I do think a rotation through a few select images keeps the article "healthy."  I'm just not a fan of changes taking place *too* often.  I leave it in your capable hands! –  Kerαunoςcopia  02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really care which image is used in the infobox, I just find celebrity images and add them to articles for the main editors to decide. I would say that of the hundreds of celebrity images I've had permission for, only a small percentage actually have them facing the camera with a quality expression (not blinking, half-smiling, looking away) on their face. The majority of celebrity pages I've seen try to include a headshot (as some people come to Wikipedia just to see who someone is), and the fact we have a large high-quality image as the first thing the reader sees is probably beneficial. I'd figure that full-body images of her performing in concert/events are better used to illustrate the related sections within the prose of the article. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me, it's up to you guys. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Themes and musical style
There should be a section describing her as a musical artist. The section would refer to the musical genres she has explored throughout time and her status as a singer (soprano, mezzo-soprano, contralto). Another things that would be discussed are her live performances, particularly during tour. The Best of Both Worlds Tour was very standard, not having as much props or flamboyancy of the Wonder World Tour. Take for example the FA or GA articles: Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Janet Jackson, Beyoncé Knowles, Madonna (entertainer), Britney Spears and many more. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Voice credit in short film Super Rhino
The short film Super Rhino (spin-off of Bolt) has Miley Cyrus voicing Penny again. Does someone want to add this to her Filmography (I don't know if you want to put short films in with the feature films or in a different section). Just running this past the regular contributors. SWatsi (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should include shorts or small cameo roles like High School Musical 2. I want Miley's filmography to display her actual acting roles. Those would be pretty pointless to include. The only film roles I think we should have are: Big Fish, Bolt, Hannah Montana: The Movie, and The Last Song. Wings or Sex and the City 2 haven't been confirmed or no filming has started so it's not sure whether she will be apart of those projects. If you don't agree, I guess we can leave it. I just want Miley's page to be more cleaned up. LifesWonderful (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I do not know about these Super Rhino shorts. Have they aired on television? About the High School Musical credit, I think it should be said because in the ending credits of the film it stated her name. However, I completely agree with LifesWonderful about the two "upcoming movies". In both of them, it says she is "expected to star" and that is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the page for Super Rhino. It is a one off 4 minute short released on the Bolt DVD and Blu-Ray. This is why I brought it up here instead of adding. Would like the regular editors to decide, since I know nothing of this page. May I suggest if you are being selective with her works (i.e. removing cameos) then that could do with being said somewhere maybe?? Food for thought perhaps? SWatsi (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat against listing of "Salary" in the info box
First off, there's no reason to list it; it's not a common info box fact that's included for all celebrities. Secondly, salary is the wrong word as salary specifically implies a fixed amount regularly paid at specific intervals from a single source, whereas Miley Cyrus' income comes from varying sources, at varying times (no fixed intervals) depending on which projects she's currently doing or recently completed. Thirdly, $25 was simply an estimate of how much she made THAT year, it's neither the exact amount, nor what she will probably earn next year. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Miley's Philanthropy
Can we add that Miley has her own organization on eBay called The Pappy Cyrus Family Foundation. More information here:. Plus, recently Miley started a volunteer program called Get UR Good On. I think both are important to include in her Philanthropy section. --LifesWonderful (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

MILEY CYRUS FILMOGRAPHY
Um, in Miley's filmography, you should add SEX AND THE CITY 2. She appeared there as a cameo.zHel (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Liquidluck (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Under TV, why should we include the "DC games 2007" or "Studio DC: Almost Live"? TV specials seem irrelevant. Might as well include all her TV special events then: FNMTV Presents: A Miley Sized Surprise, the other DC Games she appeared on, Miley Cyrus E! Special, etc. All those aren't necessary and just make the section sloppy. In my opinion, it's better to just include her actual TV guest roles. That's what that section is for, not every single appearance she's had on TV. Also, what if we put a cameo section since she's had two: High School Musical 2 and Sex and the City 2? Just a suggestion. --DreadfullyDespised (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Article reads like marketing material for Miley Cyrus
I think some of the topics that were not addressed by the article:

(1) Conflict between her and her dad over various issues over the years (2) Controversies over various of her dance routines (3) Love life

Why are none of her controversies listed? This is ridiculous and up to neutral wikipedia standards. If promoters of Miley Cyrus are the ones writing the article, it has to be removed for lack of neutrality, like various other articles in Wikipedia have been removed... Or are only certain types of entries that are targeted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.242.188 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll respond in order: (1) There has been no significant conflict between Miley and her father- at least, not that I've heard. She repeatedly quotes his advice (positively) in interviews, and she defended their relationship in her autobiography. Billy Ray defended his daughter's TCA performance. If you have evidence of significant, atypical disagreemets, leave another comment. (2) We have an extended piece on her TCA performance HERE, and a paragraph long summary on the Miley Cyrus page beneath "controversies". I feel it is sufficient. (3) Love life is discussed in Miley Cyrus. We have an entire section on controversies, so I'm not sure what you mean. Please leave a more detailed comment, and hopefully someone can address it. Liquidluck (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I added line breaks to your comment, because I saw in edit mode that you intended it to appear in a list format.

she is 17 years old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.155.110 (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, she's still 16. She'll be 17 in a month. Thanks though! Liquidluck (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fashion Label Plagiarism
Miley Cyrus has a fashion line at WaloMart that obviously and blatantly plagiarizes Avril Lavigne's Abbylania Dawn styles and markets them 4-5 months later, often made suckier. This deserves some mention. 76.1.48.210 (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We mention in entrepeneurship that she has a Wal-Mart line with Max Azria, and that critics called it boring but admitted that it's the generic that sells and predicted it would be a high seller. I personally don't see the similarity; Lavigne's line is more black and pink with ruffles and other trims, while Cyrus uses more bright colors and tight clothing. If you see a critic say the lines are similar, leave a link. Liquidluck (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw she is 17 ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.134.238 (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, she's still 16. She'll be 17 in a month. Thanks though! Liquidluck (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tattoo
Why no mention of Cyrus's new tat? See this and this. ★ Dasani ★ 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting a tattoo isn't something major and doesn't need to be mentioned. Fre  h  ley  04:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If she had various tattoos that were the subject of a lot of talk (as in part of her appeal, for example), we likely would mention it...like we do for Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. The NY Daily News mentions that it might be in honor of a friend of hers who died and that her brother will (may?) be getting an identical one, so with that context it's worth a mention in personal life - but we should probably wait until she/brother/her reps says something. It could be temporary. Liqudluck ✽ talk  05:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is in fact permamnent...Wouldn't this be classified under Controversy? Since tattooing is only for those 18 and older in the United States...

I'll stay tuned... BlueChainsawMan (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is legal with parental permission in several states including california, and considering that her dad has some, her brother has a lot, and her mom is getting one, I doubt Miley getting a tattoo in memory of someone would be a problem with her parents. Liqudluck ✽ talk  23:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra s or no extra s for the name Cyrus?
Should we go for the extra s at the end of the name Cyrus or not? What do I mean? Well, for example, when we say, "Cyrus's performance." Should we leave it at that? Or word it without the extra s, as "Cyrus' performance" instead?

For some reason, most American people see it as bad grammar when there is an extra s in these type of cases...most likely due to what we were taught in school; this was seen and discussed countless times at the Britney Spears article. The extra s continues to win out with that article, however, and serves as an example for that type of formatting.

For more of what I mean, see Talk:Zombieland and what some other editors think of this type of thing.

Right now, this Miley Cyrus article is inconsistent on this matter. It used to not include the extra s, and so I left it at that. But now that it is a mix of both, I feel that it is time to bring this up. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Cyrus" is not a plural, so the possessive is "Cyrus's". If the article is inconsistent, it should be corrected. However, some of the references use "Cyrus'", and the title of the reference shouldn't be corrected.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also feel that it should be "Cyrus's". But, as you can see from the Zombieland link above, an editor fought against the extra s on a similar matter. This type of thing has also constantly been an issue with the Britney Spears article, which is why I felt it was best to get consensus about the extra s route here as well. There are always going to be editors who feel that the extra s should not be there, especially when they see professional journalists/reporters of the articles you just mentioned above not using it either. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See Apostrophe, which claims the CMoS says an apostrophe only is an acceptable alternative. Gimmetrow 22:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So we are using the extra s for this article, right? Again, I know that an extra s is the route we should go. But I brought this up for the reasons I stated above. Once I or someone else puts in the extra s consistently throughout this article, I would rather it stay that way. I do not want it to constantly be changed back and forth, with edit wars on this matter, as has happened with the Britney Spears article. I would also like it to remain consistent; one style, not both. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see that Kww has already taken care of it -- the extra s. Hopefully, this article stays consistent in that. I will help, when I am at this article, to keep it that way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The change to "Cyrus's" is entirely correct. The "acceptable alternative" is only acceptable because journalists have reduced much of the English language into a lazy man's art (using "saves on printing costs" as an excuse).  Miley Cyrus's car is parked at the Cyruses' family house.  The Cyrus house is where the Cyruses live. For last names ending in s, the suffix -es should be added, and any possessive added to that.  –  Kerαunoςcopia  01:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything on this, but let's say two unrelated Cyruses were to meet up, Miley and Jack, to write a song. Then you would say the Cyrus' song.  I'm iffy on this point because I can't find online proof just yet. –  Kerαunoςcopia  01:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

--JJMJJ (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Miley cyrus album sales inaccurate/unverified
It it claimed that Miley Cyrus has sold 14 million albums, but if you read about the two albums she has released her first sold 4 million copies and the second says over 1 million and those numbers have sources, not sure where this number of 14 million albums came from, there's no proof or references/sources. I would like this matter looked into. There is no source for this information it should be taken down until someone can verify it until then it's just speculation/exaggeration and should be removed. Just because it says 14 million listed in her book, doesn't make it reliable because where did they get those numbers? I hope this gets removed or referenced because it's not fair to other artists who have certified sales records to back up their claims but she does not have any to back up the 14 million claim and her two album sales combined certified add up to over 5 million albums and this should be her worldwide total not 14 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJMJJ (talk • contribs) 01:23, December 10, 2009 (UTC) --JJMJJ (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing her total number of albums sold includes her solo & Hannah Montana albums. So I searched the RIAA website and came up with about 8 million albums sold.

The following is the albums sold listed on the RIAA website:


 * Hannah Montana: 3 Million albums sold


 * Breakout: 1 Million albums sold


 * HM2: Meet Miley Cyrus: 3 Million albums sold


 * HM: The Movie: 1 Million albums sold

If the sales from her single "The Climb" are added to the total her sales would be 10 million. Her new EP & sales for her other singles weren't listed on RIAA.com, so i can't add those numbers to the total. I'll add them if i find them. Fre h  ley  01:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Your right the total should be 8 million albums, not including singles sales. --JJMJJ (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So this was the person that was deleting what I was saying. >.<;; It says in her tour book that she has sold more than fourteen million albums worldwide. I didn't just pull out of my butt. The RIAA is not as accurate either because she still selling albums and it is not updated to show the actual total. If you go to Global Track Chart and add up ALL of her albums you will get over fourteen million.(Abc890 (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

I see. You do not count all of the other little Hannah Montana albums and her other albums. Well Miley is still credited so those should also be included. Not some limited corporation. (Abc890 (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Miley cyrus, comedian?
Shouldn't she be considered a comedian since her show is a sitcom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.124.0 (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No. A sitcom simply means the comedy is situational, not the actual actors.  Nearly every show has comedic relief, but that does not make the actor presenting the witty one-liner or awkward facial expression a comedian. –  Kerαunoςcopia  22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comedians are the ones that do stand-up like George Lopez. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Best Known For...
"Cyrus is best known for starring as the title character in the Disney Channel series Hannah Montana." Not only does this phrase contain weasel words, is it even valid anymore? Miley is currently working very hard to break her Disney mold. For all I know, though, the majority of her fans may, in fact, be through the Hannah Montana show. Ideas? I won't tag the weasel words yet. – Kerαunoςcopia  22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree- while I think it is true for her acting career (except for Bolt, everything else she's appeared in so far is related to Hannah), I'd say she's also well known for her music. How about changing it to "...rose to popularity/fame/? while starring as the title character on the Disney Channel series Hannah Montana." Which words do you think are weasel words? Liqudluck ✽ talk  23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion! A think simply altering it to "Cyrus rose to fame starring as the title..." will work fine.  The weasel words are "best known for" since that is vague opinion. –  Kerαunoςcopia  02:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New Pictures
I realy think that the page needs a new picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is that? And do you mean that one picture should be replaced with another, or that an additional picture should be added? In either case, the available pictures are here, but it might be good to explain a bit more before actually changing anything. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like a picture where miley is at an award show or just walking down the street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well we have some shots of her at the Academy Awards: Image:Miley Cyrus at the 2009 Academy Awards 03.jpg and Image:Miley Cyrus at the 2009 Academy Awards 04.jpg. Tabercil (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Um,I realy strongly think the page needs a new picture of miley but have no clue how to do it if someone could do it for me or tell me how it would be epresiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd suggest reading this essay and also this tutorial. Tabercil (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But first, please read the discussion here: Talk:Miley_Cyrus. Liqudluck ✽ talk  05:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Her Brother
Her brother is in the band Metro Station, so i think they should be put in the associate acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.245.144 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Please read Template:Infobox_musical_artist/doc. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 15:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Death?
Whoever added the "death" section - gotta be vandalism unless no news agencies are reporting it. Can someone remove it or provide a source if true? Bulshoy (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

News haven't covered it yet, but she has been confirmed dead. She was driving to her studio when she was hit side-on by another car. RIP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plosky (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's vandalism. -- Neil N   talk to me  17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL that's what I thought Neil. Figures. 69.60.237.4 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture please
I looked at the gallery and found a picture that i like better but how do i put it in as the main picture? P.S sorry about bugging about the new pic but i realy think we need one[pret] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Type the link here so that other people can look at the picture and decide whether they like it too. If no one has any concerns, we'll add it to the article. Thanks for looking! Liqudluck ✽ talk  18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'ts the on Miley Cyrus at the 2009 Acadamy Awards 04.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this one? Personally, I think we should use one that shows her from the front though. Regards  So Why  19:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE
O.K. the picture i think should be the main picture is when Miley cyrus is at the 2009 Academey Awards,please look at it and put it in.

Pretty Girl 101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.211.119 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I like that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I really like that picture. The one thing is that the current picture is a close-up, while that one is not. I don't know. Unfortunately, I do not know how to change the picture. 8:47, 19 January 2010--Mackenziealice (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi guys... What you need to change the picture are

——————— Finally THANK YOU SO MUCH!--Pretty Girl 101 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The picture file location (all images are located at the Commons)
 * 2) A caption for the image.
 * At the very bottom of the Miley Cyrus article, in the external links section, you will find a couple of boxes related to the external sites of the Wikimedia Foundation. In the box that reads "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Miley Cyrus," click on Miley's name—you will be taken to a page full of pictures and links to more pictures.  Explore!
 * The file name for each picture is at the top of each image's own page (and part of the URL). So if you want the image already posted above, simply click on it, and you will see File:Miley_Cyrus_at_the_2009_Academy_Awards_04.jpg at the top of the screen.  Copy the file name (but not "File:").
 * In a new browser window (it's easier to edit this way), open up the Miley Cyrus article, and click the "Edit this Page" tab at the top. You will see a lot of confusing code, but if you take your time, it will eventually make sense.  Just look at the very top for the phrase "Infobox musical artist"—this is the summarizing box on the top right of every musical artist's article!  Near the top will be a line that says "img =".
 * Replace the current file name (MileyCyrusApr09.jpg) with the new one (Miley_Cyrus_at_the_2009_Academy_Awards_04.jpg).
 * Beneath that line is "Img_capt =", so replace any content in there with a new caption. Back on the Commons page, beneath the image, is a description, in this case: "Miley Cyrus at the 81st Academy Awards."  I would also add the date, so you can make the caption read "Miley Cyrus at the 81st Academy Awards in 2009."
 * When you're done editing, beneath the edit window is an edit summary that you should always fill out (so editors know what you've changed; so simply write "Replaced image and caption"), and then click on the preview button to preview your changes. If you're happy, scroll all the way to the bottom of the preview page and click on "Save"! You cannot "hurt" Wikipedia, so BE BOLD!
 * Click on the Help button in the left column of your screen at any time to see what else you can do! – Ker αun oςc op ia◁ talk  17:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have both cropped and added the pic to the Infobox as per the requests here. I agree that it is better suited for the Infobox than the previous picture. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 17:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one has added the picture I would like for the main one and I'm really getting frustrated about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've never provided a link to the picture so other people can decide. On a side note, have you ever considered that this is an extremely unimportant issue?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well fine don't care but you should know I'm cutting myself because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your constant hassling for new pictures on several boards could be constituted as a form of vandalism and trolling. I'll ask that you start acting a little more professional before your account is reported.  The images on these articles are always being rotated.  If you really want an image on the page to be changed, it's easy enough to learn, if you put a little more effort into asking for help rather than making threats.  Also, please sign every comment with four tildes. –  Kerαunoςcopia  22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

O.k how do I do it and I don't understand about the tildes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Girl 101 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

American Hi-Fi
Since the band shares 3/4 of the same people as her band, shouldn't there be a link somewhere here? Cousin Kevin (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that her band changed for each performance, but yes, if you have a source that says they share a band, it should be added. Liqudluck ✽ talk  03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"I don't understand about the tildes" - signing your comments
The tilde looks like this: ~

On my keyboard you press SHIFT + #, but it might be somewhere else on yours.

If you write four of them together like this: ~ wiki will replace them with the time, date and your username like this: "Timberframe (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)".

You should always do this when you write on the "discussion" pages (but never when you edit the article pages!)

If we always remember to do it, SineBot can go back to doing something more interesting :)

Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Image of Signature
Friends007 added an image of Miley's signature to the infobox. The infobox for musical artists template does not include a signature "section." Should the image be moved elsewhere or should it remain as is? – Kerαunoςcopia  23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be appropriate anywhere else, and it doesn't seem harmful. I say we keep it. Liqudluck ✽ talk  22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Many articles about companies and brands depict the logo in the main info box, so why not. But per WP:V we need a reference to allow readers to verify that this is indeed her signature; the states that it "contains no original authorship" and we have only the word of the person who uploaded the image that it is what it claims to be. Timberframe (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

personal life
Cyrus is currently dating Australian actor Liam Hemsworth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.219.131 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we can add it, though, since she hasn't confirmed it herself. Anyone else have an opinion? Liqudluck ✽ talk  22:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Liquidluck, the test is "can it be verified by reference to reliable sources?", not "does the subject confirm it?" Wiki policy is very clear when it comes to biographies of living people: ""Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:


 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability
 * No original research""

Note that this policy applies to "any page", including this one. So unless you cite a reliable source to back up your claim you shouldn't even mention it here, let alone consider adding it to the article. -- Timberframe (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Timberframe! The front page of the U.S. Yahoo! homepage currently links to this article, and although that isn't the most reliable, google news or yahoo news searches turn up numerous other trustworthy sources linking Hemsworth and Cyrus (examples- 1, 2) and have for the last few months- at least since October according to FOX news.
 * If we go by reliable sources, the fact the two are dating should have been added weeks ago- but Cyrus and Hemsworth have both denied being in a relationship ([Daily Telegraph, MTV News). Because of the BLP policy, I feel we should value their public statements over the sources despite paparazzi pictures of them.
 * But obviously, reliable sources feel secure in saying they're dating. Which is why I feel we should discuss on the talk page before it is added. Liqudluck ✽ talk  01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dating gossip is not usually reliable, and even sources that are usually reliable are often quite relaxed on the fact checking when it comes to these things, since no one actually takes it too seriously. Also: Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. -Duribald (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining the context, Liquidluck; it makes more sense of the discussion. That there is a public argument between the couple and the press may be notable, but beware the tendancy of both the press and some individuals' PR managers to create public hullaballoos about non-notable (even non-existent) issues simply to generate some publicity. On balance, I stand alongside Duribald.
 * Agreed. It looks like consensus is not to include the relationship. Thanks to both of you! Liqudluck ✽ talk  23:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

About the heart condition: tachycardia is a symptom of a heart problem and not a condition in itself. -- Teh Cheezor Speak 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)