Talk:Miley Cyrus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

New pictures under "Controversies"

Is there a reason that there is ZERO mention of pictures of hers "hacked" from her Myspace under "Controversies"? It's quite a stir, considering she's supposed to be a "godly, Christian girl" and "a good role model." I'm not bagging on her, but with the pictures of her out there, it is strange that it's not mentioned, considering Vanessa Hudgens had controversial pictures and that's in her article. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When some reliable major news source talks to it and considers it a "controversy" then we can consider it for inclusion in this article. So far it is from gossip magazines who spin everything as a controversy. We don't make that determination and our inclusion requirements for derogatory info in bio article of living people are fairly strict. See also multiple discussions about this issue already in this discussion page. --NrDg 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Best I've found that counts as reliable is AP with "NEW YORK -- Is that Miley Cyrus flashing some skin? Less-than-wholesome photos of a girl bearing a close resemblance to the 15-year-old superstar are making the rounds on the Internet." They are unwilling to identify the pictures with Cyrus. --NrDg 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The information currently added states that "Cyrus' publicists Jill Fritzo and Meghan Prophet had not responded to requests for statement".....also as pointed out in the above thread that AP is also unwilling to identify pictures with cyrus. AP itself is asking "Is that Miley cyrus"....in such a scenario wherein there is no firm, mainstream reliable source, we shd not add the info..Gprince007 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The question I pose: does a lack of comment from the Cyrus camp mean that the pictures remain ambiguous forever? If there is confidence in a true news source that her pictures /have/ been released (by someone), do we need confirmation from either Cyrus or her people? Wikipedia doesn't require that for a reference or for an event to be considered noteworthy, so the questions if that burden of proof is required by the keepers of this article? I'm willing to wait a day or two for her people to respond; in the mean time I'll seek out other articles that do not refer to it being ambiguous, but reported simply as her (note worthy sources, of course). --LeyteWolfer (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that no news article explicitly mentions that the girl in picture is Miley. They are merely stating that she has "close resemblance" to her. So we need better sources for the info to be validated. Gprince007 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a bit for things to settle out. We are also constrained more in bio articles per WP:BLP for derogatory info and need better sources and better reasons for inclusion. The fact that AP is still waffling on this should also be a caution flag for us for the same reasons. It would be good to have a reliable source that talks to the issue and how it really effects her in some way with more than just conjectures. Most of the sources I've seen have been speculating and reporting opinions posted on blogs. I would like to see better analysis. A response from Cyrus would give a more balanced view of the issue but is not necessary. --NrDg 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure I'm clear on this: a response from the Cyrus camp would be good (as it could expand on whether or not they associate Cyrus with the pictures), but all that is needed is a relevant news source (not a blog or a scandal rag) stating that pictures of her (not pictures that /might/ be her) have made their way to the internet? If that is so, consensus will allow the statement. Correct? (I'm willing to wait the stated period of time, for both to surface.) --LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally would like a bit more than just that, a bit more than just a passing mention, with some reason to be more than just trivia. I would not object to inclusion though if others agree and would go with whatever consensus is formed as long as we meet WP:BLP restrictions on article content. --NrDg 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would concur that -if nothing comes from this and it doesn't become the point (or origin) of a national discussion- that it would not be of merit later down the road...especially if she goes on to do more than she has done now (professionally, personally, whathaveyou), in a way unrelated to this event. That applies to her personal dancing video too, in that light. However, for the pruposes of being encyclopedic and teaching people about who Miley Cyrus is /now/ it is relevant (IMO). To be concise: this is/may be a defining event of Miley Cyrus and encyclopedic. Later on, as she ages, does more things, has an evolved faith develop....thsi section would be updated with the most relevant and defining facts. These photos and videos may not be relevant in the future, but in the here and now, I believe they are. (To be honest, I barely know anything about her; I didn't even know that she and Hannah Montana were the same person until today's headlines.)--LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with NrDg with waiting to see if anything develops as far as there being a confirmation and/or specific coverage in legitimate media sources. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News has picked this up and is stating the underware/bikini pics were in fact her. "In the past, pictures of the 15-year-old singer-actress in her underwear and wearing bikinis have "leaked" online, supposedly hacked from her MySpace page."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351993,00.html Macutty (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. This is definitely stronger than the AP headline, but the use of the word 'purports' does give Fox some leeway. They don't 'out' her; they just say that others are stating its her. As much as I'm loathe to double-source (requiring the referenced source to provide a source), I think that -in this case- that standard may be required, at least for today.

Side note: as this story makes the rounds, it might become problematic to keep deleting well-worded comments regarding this. Very few people are going to state that it is unequivacably (sp?) not her and will wonder why we don't even want to reference it (when any other teen-female celebrity article would have it posted immediately). I'll respect the intent to verify, until the time indicates the issue is about the existence of the photos & Cyrus refusing to comment. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Heading left) Seems to me it's kinda the same thing as the whole "Miley is pregnant" thing that was running rampant on gossip sites back in fall 2007. That's mentioned in the article, and this thing with the pictures seems similar. Makes sense to me to include it. Even if it is a hoax, the fact that's it's gotten the attention of a media source such as Fox News I think makes it just as notable as the pregnancy hoax. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The pregnancy hoax was well covered by major new sources that immediately identified it as a hoax. The hoax itself was notable, not the dubious reports of pregnancy. We did not add the pregnancy reports by themselves at the time because of the lack of reliable sources to back them up. So far no major new source is willing to come right out and say these pictures are of Cyrus. Lots of gossip sites do. We have no hurry on this. Lets see what is reported in a few days and look for neutral reports on major news sources who are willing to talk to the issue. --NrDg 20:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Fox News already say they were Miley? The article I read said they were in fact pictures of Miley. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the MSN headline changed from something more or less saying it was her (forgot the exact wording) to more like "Are those pictures really Miley?" It linked to the same story (not sure if that used the AP or not). I'm just saying this to state that it looks like MSN's source has started twisting in the wind. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we wait out a few days and see if the issue gets picked up and reported by other newspapers/mainstream media. This issue may fizzle out in a day or two or become something big and get widely reported. In the former case, we need not add the info but in case of latter, we may later add it with 2-3 references. We shd wait and watch.....i guess we've faced this hurry in the name change issue before and had to revert it later....so this time lets be patient about it....Gprince007 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point of giving it some time; considering that yesterday (when this "story" apparently broke) was also, among other things, the Pennsylvania primary. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add it in because they even interviewed Joe Jonas and he said that he havent seen the pix but will support her because he loves her so much (as a friend). http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/ENT09/804230398 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliegal (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was watching The Insider on Tuesday. They were talking about this 'scandal'. One of the men that was with Lara Spencer said that he knew Miley and said that she was a sweet girl. That being said, I'm not so sure that that is Miley in the pictures. He even said that he wasn't sure if it's Miley in the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68DANNY2 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but just because Miley is sweet and nice (and I'm sure she it's not all an act), doesn't mean she wouldn't do something like that. Being a good person and acting wild and crazy are different so you can't just assume that it's not Miley just because of her personality. I still think that we should put it into the article about all her photo scandal, like how it is in Vanessa Hudgens's article, where they stayed the photo scandal. We should say something like "it's rumored that Miley Cyrus took some suggestive pictures..." ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Calliegal

When it raises to the point of being reported with a non-waffling identification by reliable news sources, as what happened with Hudgens, then it will go in the article. Still no hurry. A nude picture with acknowledgment and commentary by Hudgens and Disney and the real potential to effect Hudgen's career is a whole lot more notable than some gossip magazine spun scandal where major news sources are still unwilling to directly identify the pictures as Cyrus (even though it is pretty obvious it is). Pull away from the pictures, how is this going to effect Cyrus and her career. The pictures are, in an absolute sense, pretty innocuous - a picture of some underwear and a of bare stomach and a teenage girl getting affectionate with a teenage boy - not a sex tape. Lets wait for the manufactured scandal spin to die down and see if some reliable source gives some good impartial reporting about this issue. The scandal spin in of itself can be notable, much as the hoax of the pregnancy hoax was. --NrDg 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK this is what we have been looking for. "Dawn C. Chmielewski (2008-04-25). "Miley Cyrus photos may tarnish squeaky-clean image". Business. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-04-25.". This is a fairly balanced article that discusses the impact of the photos. It is in the Business section so is as far away from gossip as possible. --NrDg 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I agree. That source is fine. Although I personally still can't figure why these tame photos attract so much attention, I'd say, the whole thing somehow seems to merit being mentioned in the article. --Catgut (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As Catgut said; we've got the reliable source, it's reported in a fairly balanced (no pun intended) manner, I don't see why we shouldn't make at least some mention of this now. I'd say add it and probably keep a watch on it to see what else happens. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I went to Wal-Mart today. As I went through the checkout aisle, I paid close attention to the fromt pages of the magazines; I figured that a controversy like this would be on the front page. Nothing on the covers said anything about the pictures. They actually said good things about her, like that she makes $1,000,000 a week on a tour. (I think that this would be interesting to put in the article.) This doesn't mean that those pictures aren't Miley, I'm just saying that a lot of people are taking this way out of proportion. I think that the photos should be mentioned in the article, but instead of calling it a scandal, I feel that they should be called, 'controversial pictures.' 68DANNY2 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NrDg, you asked what the big deal was about the pics. I see two things. First, just like Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus is associated with Disney, and a hugely popular Disney franchise too. She does have this squeaky clean image that Vanessa Hudgens had before her photos got out. Disney takes pride in the fact that their stars are clean and wholesome for kids. Lindsay Lohan used to be that way for them, but she then disassociated herself from them and after everything she's gone through, I doubt Disney will knock on her door again. Vanessa Hudgens, quite honestly, got a lucky break from Disney over her pictures. I agree, these pictures of Miley, if they really are her, aren't as bad as the pics Vanessa had out, but they are still potentially damaging because it sort of destroys the good girl image that Disney is trying to promote.

Secondly, the fact is, Miley calls herself a born-again Christian. Speaking as a Christian myself, the fact that there's such a positive Christian influence in Hollywood, especially one who is wildly popular and well-known, is encouraging, especially with young girls looking up to her as a role model. Having pictures like that are pretty damning towards that image. It could be considered an embarrassment not just to her and her family, but to other Christians, and having pictures like that would also cause people to go "What's so different about Christians? Miley Cyrus calls herself one and yet she's doing the same things other teenage girls her age are doing, the type of things Christians don't believe in." Pictures like that destroy the positive influence she has, as well as hurt her chances of being a witness for Christians and Christianity, which I believe is what she's trying to be. Taking pictures like that is becoming very commonplace for teenage girls, but it's different when you're a Christian (at least it's supposed to be), and ESPECIALLY when you are in such a high profile spotlight like Miley is. Personally, I hope the pictures aren't her, but I still think they're notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Anyway, hope that helps explain things for you. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I already provided a link to a balanced article that can be used as a reference as long as we don't go beyond what the referenced article says in their analysis. Your statement as expressed above is basically irrelevant to the point of what and why we include stuff in articles. We can't create opinion pieces in wiki articles based on personal opinions, everything must be backed up with a reference, such as the one I provided. Our inclusion standards for wiki are not based on our personal opinions, that is why we must have notability as shown by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that also meet the requirements for biographies of living people. --NrDg 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying what I wrote up there should be put in the article. You simply wondered what the big deal is, why there was controversy, and I explained. We don't need to include a reason for why something is controversial in the article. I was simply trying to help you understand why it might be seen as controversial, because of your question above. Please read the beginning of it, because I clearly said I was answering your question. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we shd wait a while to see whether this info is encyclopedic-worthy....this info might be news-worthy, but there's a difference between news-worthy and encyclopedic-worthy...if the issue is such that it dies down slowly (ie in a week or so) in the media, then it doesn't seem worthy enough of mentioning. But if the issue is taken up by mainstream media in a major way which affects her career, fan-following etc and remains in news for a sufficiently long time, then it may remain. However, the sources shd be reliable and neutral in coverage. Gprince007 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's just as notable as the thing about her and her dad not wearing their seatbelts in a scene of the HM movie. Notable enough to be mentioned and yet didn't really have an impact on fans and people's perceptions of her, and these pictures are a lot more likely to change that then not wearing seatbelts in a movie. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well i too feel that the seatbelt info doesnt need to be there in the article (see this). And i'd be cool with it if we remove it.... i agree that these pictures are more notable ....but we need to put it in a way that it doesnt seem like juicy gossip. A reputed media source mentioning that the girl is indeed Miley would be better. Gprince007 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Memoirs

I picked up the print version of today's USA Today; and it mentioned that Miley was planning to write her memoirs with a Disney-owned publisher that is expected to be out in 2009. _{(Will look for link later)} WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NrDg has already added the info. I'll try to expand on that if and when i get some time....also there are lot of single stand-alone sentences in the article, esp toward the end of "Career" section....maybe someone can expand those or club them together into a single paragraph....i'll try to do it in a day or two...or if possible then someone else can do it !!!..Gprince007 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed as soon as I looked at the page history. Thanks. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vanity Fair photos

"Brooks Barnes (2008-04-28). "A Topless Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise". Media & Advertising. The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-27."

This looks to be pretty major and as NY Times picked it up will meet our notability requirements for inclusion here. It also confirms the other pictures and can be used a reference there is needed. A photo controversy section could probably be created to cover all this along with the other referenced photo stuff. The LATimes also had a business perspective on the previous photos. This issue does have the potential to have a major impact on Cyrus's life and career as noted in the referenced articles. I'm not going to add anything to the article just yet - see what else turns up first - would like more than 1 reference. I won't object if someone want to run with this though. --NrDg 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Lorena Blas (2008-04-27). "Miley Cyrus decides 'Vanity Fair' photos are embarrassing, not 'artsy'". People. USA Today. Retrieved 2008-04-28."

"Stephen M. Silverman (2008-04-27). "Miley Cyrus: I'm Sorry for Photos". News. People. Retrieved 2008-04-28." --NrDg 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other references USA Today and People. 3 major news sources. --NrDg 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is she part Native American?

Can someone prove that's right or not, because I see Native American descent in her father also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.237.217 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't say for certain, and certainly couldn't add this in assuming it was or wasn't true for risk of violating original research policy. Also, I'd probably wait for the whole Vanity Fair picture incident to die down first. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Sentence

Cyrus was twelve years old when she originally auditioned for Disney for the lead role of Miley Stewart/Hannah Montana, as well as the show's "best friend" roles,[17] but Disney Channel executives judged her to be too small. Cyrus was persistent in her desire to be part of Hannah Montana, however, so Disney called her back for further auditions when she turned 12. This is obviously wrong... and I dont know anything about her, sooo... yeah. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed "when she turned 12" from the end of the sentence. I looked at the sources to try to find a specific age for when the callbacks happened, but I couldn't find it. Walkerb4 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Topless?

I saw a bit of a conflict going on about the word "topless". I have to agree that it is a misleading and sensationalistic description that we should avoid. Think: if a bar advertised "topless dancing", but the girls performed covered in bedsheets, do you think they would stay open long?Kww (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We can see the pictures as referenced at Vanity Fair. and don't need to go with the NYT characterization. The connotation of topless implies something not backed up by the real photos. Normal meaning as most people read the word is nude from the waist up which is not what these pictures show. Suggest a more descriptive phrase that accurately describes the picture without misleading the reader. --NrDg 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a sentence which quotes NYtimes as saying that she was not topless but instead was covered in bedsheet. I have added it in the article with proper cite and made necessary changes. Gprince007 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal Name Change (Jan 2008)

Miley "Ray" Cyrus per her Grandpa/Dad. Need more info heard this on XM radio --Obamaspam (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

pls see Miley Ray Cyrus Vs Destiny Hope Cyrus section above for the discussion. Gprince007 (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

She legally changed her name to from "Destiny Hope Cyrus" to "Miley Ray Cyrus" in Jan 2008 and this should be reflected in beg. of article as in "Miley Ray Cyrus" (former legal name "Destiny Hope Cyrus" ) Just one source of many: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20174585,00.html

This is actually mentioned (and sourced) later in the article; only the opening of the article needs to be corrected.

Nothing needs to be corrected. The article is correct as written. Please actually read the opening paragraph and check the referenced before trying to "Correct" things. --NrDg 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Humblest apologies.72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Boyfriends and stuff

There have been rumors on the net of Miley dating Jeremy Shum, Joe Jonas, Michael Musso, etc.. I was wondering whether we should include it, cuz I have noticed people have been reverting these.. saying it's just "rumors"... but it's still like, true and stuff, cuz it's on the net... Smilesfornows (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No it ain't. You don't just see something that some asshole on the internet wrote and assume that it's true. 72.95.139.248 (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect and article

Now, she has changed her name and it's "Miley Ray Cyrus" but when you hit the "Go" button when you search on "Miley Ray Cyrus" you get redirected to "Miley Cyrus" article, shouldn't it be moved to "Miley Ray Cyrus" and let the "Miley Cyrus" page be the redirect to "Miley Ray Cyrus"? Thanks for reading, leave your comments. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet. See [1]: there may not be all it's cracked up to be in this name change. It might just be a middle name. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything needs to stay the way it is now. Most people have middle names that are mentioned in their article ledes but not in the article title. Articles are named after what the person is most commonly known as, what people are most likely to search on. Redirects are placed on the lesser known alternatives. All her credits are still "Miley Cyrus" and unless and until she starts getting better known by her full name, we need to keep using her stage name. --NrDg 14:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they should change "Destiny Hope Cyrus" at the top of the page since she legally changed her name to Miley (something, possibly Ray) Cyrus. --Red XII ftw (Red XII ftw talk) 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of annoying that the answer to the above question is directly in the article as written. And no she HAS NOT changed her name yet. --NrDg 13:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy: the ticket lawsuit

As long as this article has a "Controversy" section, shouldn't there be a mention of the lawsuit against the Miley Cyrus Fan Club over the distribution of concert tickets? (See ABC News for example.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is well covered in the article about the concert. See Best of Both Worlds Tour#Tickets controversy and, since it really has nothing to do with Miley Cyrus, belongs in that article only. --NrDg 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Metro's first comment....I think there should at least be a brief mention of the concert ticket distribution fiasco and lawsuit. Further detail can be left to the article on the BoBW Tour, but at least the existence of the controversy should be mentioned. Readers who then want to know more can go to that page for further info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.66.193 (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Again this has absolutely nothing to do with Cyrus other than she was the headliner on a popular tour that had ticket allocation problems. The issue is adequately covered in the tour article. The most that could be said in this article is that because of her popularity tickets were quickly sold out and hard to come by - if that is backed up with WP:RS analysis. That is not controversial. --NrDg 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the ticket lawsuit is an incident that should be unrelated in a controversy section to the Miley Cyrus page. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Official MySpace

Her official myspace is http://www.myspace.com/mileycyrus 192.43.227.18 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem putting the official one on. Don't know about the unofficial, if it's even genuine - besides which, it appears to be a privacy leak, and has no part on her page per WP:BLP. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Put fan site on http://www.mileycyrusland.com/ ? 130.220.153.164 (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this would be blatantly inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've found her real myspace, yes the music one is www.myspace.com/mileycyrus but i think the personal one is www.myspace.com/_destinyhopecyrus_ it looks very realistic, with pics I've seen no-where else, and a photos of a message from vanessa hudgens saying it's real. Can someone verify this please? Slydogman920 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it is, it looks like she forgot to update after the name change became official (partly as a result of the Vanity Fair fallout). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo "Scandal" part 2

Shouldn't people mention her photo controversy? Never mind-i'll do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.118.141 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No - see above for reasons. --NrDg 22:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

um, its an enclyopedia it should include big events in her life and this was a big thing, i know you have to be selective about what you put, but this is a big deal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curlyb123 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, anyway, you should be following the discussion below regardless. --Charitwo ^talk 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) --NrDg 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad article

The article pretty much says that she's a perfect angel and why is it protected!? People should be allowed to change it if there's something wrong with it!!! I personally think that the article could use a lot of work!!! She's not so important that she needs to have her signature on there!!! I mean what is she the queen or something???!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlynn132 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is only protected against new users registered in last 4 days and anonymous users. Please make any changes you think necessary to improve the article as long as you keep a neutral point of view and add verifiable information derived from reliable sources. See WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. If you have just registered you will have to wait a bit. --NrDg 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And the signature issue was discussed last month and removed, and I should know because I was the one that brought the issue of signatures up. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this guy, to me, it resembles a fan club article more than anything else. Ganon391 (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Ganon391

I was just wondering where the section about her teeth was 129.237.215.146 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Jlynn132. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with User:NrDg – articles on celebrities are particularly vulnerable to vandalism. I also concur with the Start-class assessment as of this post, as cross-check sources are currently lacking; otherwise this article closely approaches Standard. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Miley Ray Cyrus

According to CMT, Miley had already changed her name in February. Tcatron565 (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

see #Miley Ray Cyrus vs. Destiny Hope Cyrus --NrDg 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Hannah Montana?

Should there be a Template:Hannah Montana to separate Miley's carrer and singles from Hannah's?68DANNY2 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since Miley Cyrus is a person, and Hannah Montana is her show and her character, but if you think it's neccessary, you can try to help out and make one! Be bold! ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Calliegal

No Way!!!! You don't see people making a seperate templates for The Rock for Dwanye Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be, there's one for 'Miley Stewart'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zammit123 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another piece of Controversy

Her on-air conversation with Idaho DJ "KeKe Luv" has recently created quite a stir. After hearing about Luv's attempt to stay awake for seven days, Cyrus suggested purchasing illegal eyedrops from Japan that allow the user to stay awake for two days. This sound clip is archived by the local KISS.FM station, and is played quite frequenly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.62.219 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the normal news outlets and even the gossip sites and not one of them has mentioned this. Without some WP:RS reliable source that we can WP:V verify that talks to this, it does not belong in the article. --NrDg 03:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegal eyedrops? Allowing one to stay awake for two days? Are you sure this isn't a joke? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why we have the notability, reliable source and verifiability requirements. --NrDg 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if backed by sources, this news seems too trivial and tabloid type....it is definitely not notable according to me....Gprince007 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.17 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Boise's KISS.FM has the sound clip. Contact them through their website and I'm sure they'd be happy to share it. It hasn't been in tabloids because, frankly, what happens in Idaho stays in Idaho, where nobody cares. But this is completely real; the DJ staying awake was a state-wide frenzy, where he even got awarded by local politicians. And he made sure to use that exact sound byte all the time during this stunt. 72.24.33.99 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need this??

Do we really need info about video of her and Jiroux dancing against Jon Chu and Adam Sevani of Step Up 2??? Infact it sounds like fan-posting and doesnt seem so notable??? I mean who is Jiroux ,Jon chu and Adams Sevani ???? Gprince007 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. And Jiroux is Mandy Jiroux, Miley's friend/dancer and she's in the Miley and Mandy Show. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Calliegal

Merging Miley & Mandy

As you can see, here. Please state your meaning here about a possible merge. I mean this should be deleted, if it isn't very much notable that it needs it own article. I would also say it would need more WP:V and references. Here is one but again the WP:N --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging sounds fine to me....Even i had my doubts about the notability of the show having its own article....anyways while merging the article, we shd take care not to give undue weightage to the show...Afterall the show has only Miley as a celebrity. Other characters from the show are virtually unknown.... Gprince007 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agre, merging sounds about right, I don't think the show should have it's own article, but I don't think it should be ignored completely.slydogman920 (talk) Slydogman920 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this article should be merged into Miley Cyrus. The title for the article is misunderstood, as the creator of it created it as "Miley & Mandy". I believe now this has been changed to "The Miley & Mandy Show", which is what the article discusses. The article has been edited and given more information and more sources/references. This article has no need to be merged as this discusses the youtube show in which Miley Cyrus and Mandy Jiroux created and star in. The information on this page does not need to be listed under Miley Cyrus, as this is not details on her life. The notability on this will grow sooner as the page becomes a stronger article and more information about the subject has been released. Right now, there is no more information which can be added as all information on the subject has been added. The show has become ever popular and many people will be looking it up in search engines, and will come up with this page.--Tiah12345 (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

i think the article should stay as is. its link from miely is only because mandy jiroux is virtually unkowned to the world. this show is become a online phnenomnena and deserves its place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.127.28 (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  10:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to not separate the articles. Especially not with Miley Cyrus. This article is about a show with Miley and Mandy on YouTube. It gives information that, if spruced up and edited correctly, could be useful. It just looks really bad now because there haven't been very good edits on the article. Tcatron565 (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the two articles should stand on their own. The Miley & Mandy show is becoming more notable as time passes by; I've just searched google and found some decent references [2] [3] [4] that may help sourcing this article. Granted, is in poor state for the time being, but the sources show some potential for improvement, and the length of Miley & Mandy article alone suggests it would cause trouble merging it with another article (WP:LENGTH problem here) So, I think we could try improve the show article and keep it separate from this one. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Miley and Mandy Show should be merged because it is of Miley's filmography, technically speaking. Also there should be a page of Mandy's bio, so we can link it to her as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.44.220 (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFD decision was to merge. See WP:Articles for deletion/The Miley and Mandy Show --NrDg 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie

Near the beginning it says the movie will be released in late 2008 or earley 2009. The date has been confirmed of May 1 2009, I would change it but this article is "Semi-protected".--kcin 00:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide your reliable citation. --Yamla (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.variety.com/article/vr1117981211.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 sorry for not posting that origenley.--kcin 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcinnickelodeon (talk • contribs)

New Album

If you go to www.cdvuplus.com, when it says "Coming Soon in 2008" it has her name listed. Do we need to add this information under discography as TBA? MusicBoi94 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) --NrDg 04:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see something that specifies an actual release date. I don't know how reliable that site is. --NrDg 04:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look fan-made, and Hollywood Records' official MySpace gives you the link to it MusicBoi94 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably would save that link and wait for more info before adding that to the article and/or related articles. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are leaks of 3 songs from it, Don't Walk Away, Full Circle, and Four Walls, all over Youtube. All descriptions of all uploads of the song call the album Breakout. Just search "Miley Cyrus Don't Walk Away" or "Miley Cyrus Full Circle" Or "Miley Cyrus Four Walls" you can tell they're her.80.194.167.14 (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)-

Thank you, but those are all remakes of the songs by other artists. Don't Walk Away was originally by Nick Carter, Full Circle and Four Walls were originally by Cheyenne Kimball. Maybe those are just demos or maybe Miley recorded it for fun? I have no idea. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Calliegal

On YouTube, there are 2 clips of new songs believed to be on the new album: 'Fly on the Wall' and 'Breakout'. MusicBoi94 (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

UK/Australia Tour

and and all have news saying that the Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour will be coming to both the UK and Australia, the actual tour, not the 3D movie. They are getting this news from an interview with Miley, should this be included in her page?

New pictures under "Controversies"

Is there a reason that there is ZERO mention of pictures of hers "hacked" from her Myspace under "Controversies"? It's quite a stir, considering she's supposed to be a "godly, Christian girl" and "a good role model." I'm not bagging on her, but with the pictures of her out there, it is strange that it's not mentioned, considering Vanessa Hudgens had controversial pictures and that's in her article. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When some reliable major news source talks to it and considers it a "controversy" then we can consider it for inclusion in this article. So far it is from gossip magazines who spin everything as a controversy. We don't make that determination and our inclusion requirements for derogatory info in bio article of living people are fairly strict. See also multiple discussions about this issue already in this discussion page. --NrDg 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Best I've found that counts as reliable is AP with "NEW YORK -- Is that Miley Cyrus flashing some skin? Less-than-wholesome photos of a girl bearing a close resemblance to the 15-year-old superstar are making the rounds on the Internet." They are unwilling to identify the pictures with Cyrus. --NrDg 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The information currently added states that "Cyrus' publicists Jill Fritzo and Meghan Prophet had not responded to requests for statement".....also as pointed out in the above thread that AP is also unwilling to identify pictures with cyrus. AP itself is asking "Is that Miley cyrus"....in such a scenario wherein there is no firm, mainstream reliable source, we shd not add the info..Gprince007 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The question I pose: does a lack of comment from the Cyrus camp mean that the pictures remain ambiguous forever? If there is confidence in a true news source that her pictures /have/ been released (by someone), do we need confirmation from either Cyrus or her people? Wikipedia doesn't require that for a reference or for an event to be considered noteworthy, so the questions if that burden of proof is required by the keepers of this article? I'm willing to wait a day or two for her people to respond; in the mean time I'll seek out other articles that do not refer to it being ambiguous, but reported simply as her (note worthy sources, of course). --LeyteWolfer (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that no news article explicitly mentions that the girl in picture is Miley. They are merely stating that she has "close resemblance" to her. So we need better sources for the info to be validated. Gprince007 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a bit for things to settle out. We are also constrained more in bio articles per WP:BLP for derogatory info and need better sources and better reasons for inclusion. The fact that AP is still waffling on this should also be a caution flag for us for the same reasons. It would be good to have a reliable source that talks to the issue and how it really effects her in some way with more than just conjectures. Most of the sources I've seen have been speculating and reporting opinions posted on blogs. I would like to see better analysis. A response from Cyrus would give a more balanced view of the issue but is not necessary. --NrDg 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make sure I'm clear on this: a response from the Cyrus camp would be good (as it could expand on whether or not they associate Cyrus with the pictures), but all that is needed is a relevant news source (not a blog or a scandal rag) stating that pictures of her (not pictures that /might/ be her) have made their way to the internet? If that is so, consensus will allow the statement. Correct? (I'm willing to wait the stated period of time, for both to surface.) --LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally would like a bit more than just that, a bit more than just a passing mention, with some reason to be more than just trivia. I would not object to inclusion though if others agree and would go with whatever consensus is formed as long as we meet WP:BLP restrictions on article content. --NrDg 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would concur that -if nothing comes from this and it doesn't become the point (or origin) of a national discussion- that it would not be of merit later down the road...especially if she goes on to do more than she has done now (professionally, personally, whathaveyou), in a way unrelated to this event. That applies to her personal dancing video too, in that light. However, for the pruposes of being encyclopedic and teaching people about who Miley Cyrus is /now/ it is relevant (IMO). To be concise: this is/may be a defining event of Miley Cyrus and encyclopedic. Later on, as she ages, does more things, has an evolved faith develop....thsi section would be updated with the most relevant and defining facts. These photos and videos may not be relevant in the future, but in the here and now, I believe they are. (To be honest, I barely know anything about her; I didn't even know that she and Hannah Montana were the same person until today's headlines.)--LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with NrDg with waiting to see if anything develops as far as there being a confirmation and/or specific coverage in legitimate media sources. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News has picked this up and is stating the underware/bikini pics were in fact her. "In the past, pictures of the 15-year-old singer-actress in her underwear and wearing bikinis have "leaked" online, supposedly hacked from her MySpace page."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351993,00.html Macutty (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. This is definitely stronger than the AP headline, but the use of the word 'purports' does give Fox some leeway. They don't 'out' her; they just say that others are stating its her. As much as I'm loathe to double-source (requiring the referenced source to provide a source), I think that -in this case- that standard may be required, at least for today.

Side note: as this story makes the rounds, it might become problematic to keep deleting well-worded comments regarding this. Very few people are going to state that it is unequivacably (sp?) not her and will wonder why we don't even want to reference it (when any other teen-female celebrity article would have it posted immediately). I'll respect the intent to verify, until the time indicates the issue is about the existence of the photos & Cyrus refusing to comment. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Heading left) Seems to me it's kinda the same thing as the whole "Miley is pregnant" thing that was running rampant on gossip sites back in fall 2007. That's mentioned in the article, and this thing with the pictures seems similar. Makes sense to me to include it. Even if it is a hoax, the fact that's it's gotten the attention of a media source such as Fox News I think makes it just as notable as the pregnancy hoax. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The pregnancy hoax was well covered by major new sources that immediately identified it as a hoax. The hoax itself was notable, not the dubious reports of pregnancy. We did not add the pregnancy reports by themselves at the time because of the lack of reliable sources to back them up. So far no major new source is willing to come right out and say these pictures are of Cyrus. Lots of gossip sites do. We have no hurry on this. Lets see what is reported in a few days and look for neutral reports on major news sources who are willing to talk to the issue. --NrDg 20:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Fox News already say they were Miley? The article I read said they were in fact pictures of Miley. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the MSN headline changed from something more or less saying it was her (forgot the exact wording) to more like "Are those pictures really Miley?" It linked to the same story (not sure if that used the AP or not). I'm just saying this to state that it looks like MSN's source has started twisting in the wind. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we wait out a few days and see if the issue gets picked up and reported by other newspapers/mainstream media. This issue may fizzle out in a day or two or become something big and get widely reported. In the former case, we need not add the info but in case of latter, we may later add it with 2-3 references. We shd wait and watch.....i guess we've faced this hurry in the name change issue before and had to revert it later....so this time lets be patient about it....Gprince007 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point of giving it some time; considering that yesterday (when this "story" apparently broke) was also, among other things, the Pennsylvania primary. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add it in because they even interviewed Joe Jonas and he said that he havent seen the pix but will support her because he loves her so much (as a friend). http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/ENT09/804230398 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliegal (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was watching The Insider on Tuesday. They were talking about this 'scandal'. One of the men that was with Lara Spencer said that he knew Miley and said that she was a sweet girl. That being said, I'm not so sure that that is Miley in the pictures. He even said that he wasn't sure if it's Miley in the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68DANNY2 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but just because Miley is sweet and nice (and I'm sure she it's not all an act), doesn't mean she wouldn't do something like that. Being a good person and acting wild and crazy are different so you can't just assume that it's not Miley just because of her personality. I still think that we should put it into the article about all her photo scandal, like how it is in Vanessa Hudgens's article, where they stayed the photo scandal. We should say something like "it's rumored that Miley Cyrus took some suggestive pictures..." ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Calliegal

When it raises to the point of being reported with a non-waffling identification by reliable news sources, as what happened with Hudgens, then it will go in the article. Still no hurry. A nude picture with acknowledgment and commentary by Hudgens and Disney and the real potential to effect Hudgen's career is a whole lot more notable than some gossip magazine spun scandal where major news sources are still unwilling to directly identify the pictures as Cyrus (even though it is pretty obvious it is). Pull away from the pictures, how is this going to effect Cyrus and her career. The pictures are, in an absolute sense, pretty innocuous - a picture of some underwear and a of bare stomach and a teenage girl getting affectionate with a teenage boy - not a sex tape. Lets wait for the manufactured scandal spin to die down and see if some reliable source gives some good impartial reporting about this issue. The scandal spin in of itself can be notable, much as the hoax of the pregnancy hoax was. --NrDg 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK this is what we have been looking for. "Dawn C. Chmielewski (2008-04-25). "Miley Cyrus photos may tarnish squeaky-clean image". Business. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-04-25.". This is a fairly balanced article that discusses the impact of the photos. It is in the Business section so is as far away from gossip as possible. --NrDg 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I agree. That source is fine. Although I personally still can't figure why these tame photos attract so much attention, I'd say, the whole thing somehow seems to merit being mentioned in the article. --Catgut (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As Catgut said; we've got the reliable source, it's reported in a fairly balanced (no pun intended) manner, I don't see why we shouldn't make at least some mention of this now. I'd say add it and probably keep a watch on it to see what else happens. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I went to Wal-Mart today. As I went through the checkout aisle, I paid close attention to the fromt pages of the magazines; I figured that a controversy like this would be on the front page. Nothing on the covers said anything about the pictures. They actually said good things about her, like that she makes $1,000,000 a week on a tour. (I think that this would be interesting to put in the article.) This doesn't mean that those pictures aren't Miley, I'm just saying that a lot of people are taking this way out of proportion. I think that the photos should be mentioned in the article, but instead of calling it a scandal, I feel that they should be called, 'controversial pictures.' 68DANNY2 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NrDg, you asked what the big deal was about the pics. I see two things. First, just like Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus is associated with Disney, and a hugely popular Disney franchise too. She does have this squeaky clean image that Vanessa Hudgens had before her photos got out. Disney takes pride in the fact that their stars are clean and wholesome for kids. Lindsay Lohan used to be that way for them, but she then disassociated herself from them and after everything she's gone through, I doubt Disney will knock on her door again. Vanessa Hudgens, quite honestly, got a lucky break from Disney over her pictures. I agree, these pictures of Miley, if they really are her, aren't as bad as the pics Vanessa had out, but they are still potentially damaging because it sort of destroys the good girl image that Disney is trying to promote.

Secondly, the fact is, Miley calls herself a born-again Christian. Speaking as a Christian myself, the fact that there's such a positive Christian influence in Hollywood, especially one who is wildly popular and well-known, is encouraging, especially with young girls looking up to her as a role model. Having pictures like that are pretty damning towards that image. It could be considered an embarrassment not just to her and her family, but to other Christians, and having pictures like that would also cause people to go "What's so different about Christians? Miley Cyrus calls herself one and yet she's doing the same things other teenage girls her age are doing, the type of things Christians don't believe in." Pictures like that destroy the positive influence she has, as well as hurt her chances of being a witness for Christians and Christianity, which I believe is what she's trying to be. Taking pictures like that is becoming very commonplace for teenage girls, but it's different when you're a Christian (at least it's supposed to be), and ESPECIALLY when you are in such a high profile spotlight like Miley is. Personally, I hope the pictures aren't her, but I still think they're notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Anyway, hope that helps explain things for you. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I already provided a link to a balanced article that can be used as a reference as long as we don't go beyond what the referenced article says in their analysis. Your statement as expressed above is basically irrelevant to the point of what and why we include stuff in articles. We can't create opinion pieces in wiki articles based on personal opinions, everything must be backed up with a reference, such as the one I provided. Our inclusion standards for wiki are not based on our personal opinions, that is why we must have notability as shown by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that also meet the requirements for biographies of living people. --NrDg 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying what I wrote up there should be put in the article. You simply wondered what the big deal is, why there was controversy, and I explained. We don't need to include a reason for why something is controversial in the article. I was simply trying to help you understand why it might be seen as controversial, because of your question above. Please read the beginning of it, because I clearly said I was answering your question. Anakinjmt (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we shd wait a while to see whether this info is encyclopedic-worthy....this info might be news-worthy, but there's a difference between news-worthy and encyclopedic-worthy...if the issue is such that it dies down slowly (ie in a week or so) in the media, then it doesn't seem worthy enough of mentioning. But if the issue is taken up by mainstream media in a major way which affects her career, fan-following etc and remains in news for a sufficiently long time, then it may remain. However, the sources shd be reliable and neutral in coverage. Gprince007 (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's just as notable as the thing about her and her dad not wearing their seatbelts in a scene of the HM movie. Notable enough to be mentioned and yet didn't really have an impact on fans and people's perceptions of her, and these pictures are a lot more likely to change that then not wearing seatbelts in a movie. Anakinjmt (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well i too feel that the seatbelt info doesnt need to be there in the article (see this). And i'd be cool with it if we remove it.... i agree that these pictures are more notable ....but we need to put it in a way that it doesnt seem like juicy gossip. A reputed media source mentioning that the girl is indeed Miley would be better. Gprince007 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Memoirs

I picked up the print version of today's USA Today; and it mentioned that Miley was planning to write her memoirs with a Disney-owned publisher that is expected to be out in 2009. _{(Will look for link later)} WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NrDg has already added the info. I'll try to expand on that if and when i get some time....also there are lot of single stand-alone sentences in the article, esp toward the end of "Career" section....maybe someone can expand those or club them together into a single paragraph....i'll try to do it in a day or two...or if possible then someone else can do it !!!..Gprince007 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed as soon as I looked at the page history. Thanks. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vanity Fair photos

"Brooks Barnes (2008-04-28). "A Topless Photo Threatens a Major Disney Franchise". Media & Advertising. The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-27."

This looks to be pretty major and as NY Times picked it up will meet our notability requirements for inclusion here. It also confirms the other pictures and can be used a reference there is needed. A photo controversy section could probably be created to cover all this along with the other referenced photo stuff. The LATimes also had a business perspective on the previous photos. This issue does have the potential to have a major impact on Cyrus's life and career as noted in the referenced articles. I'm not going to add anything to the article just yet - see what else turns up first - would like more than 1 reference. I won't object if someone want to run with this though. --NrDg 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Lorena Blas (2008-04-27). "Miley Cyrus decides 'Vanity Fair' photos are embarrassing, not 'artsy'". People. USA Today. Retrieved 2008-04-28."

"Stephen M. Silverman (2008-04-27). "Miley Cyrus: I'm Sorry for Photos". News. People. Retrieved 2008-04-28." --NrDg 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other references USA Today and People. 3 major news sources. --NrDg 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is she part Native American?

Can someone prove that's right or not, because I see Native American descent in her father also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.237.217 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't say for certain, and certainly couldn't add this in assuming it was or wasn't true for risk of violating original research policy. Also, I'd probably wait for the whole Vanity Fair picture incident to die down first. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Sentence

Cyrus was twelve years old when she originally auditioned for Disney for the lead role of Miley Stewart/Hannah Montana, as well as the show's "best friend" roles,[17] but Disney Channel executives judged her to be too small. Cyrus was persistent in her desire to be part of Hannah Montana, however, so Disney called her back for further auditions when she turned 12. This is obviously wrong... and I dont know anything about her, sooo... yeah. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed "when she turned 12" from the end of the sentence. I looked at the sources to try to find a specific age for when the callbacks happened, but I couldn't find it. Walkerb4 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Topless?

I saw a bit of a conflict going on about the word "topless". I have to agree that it is a misleading and sensationalistic description that we should avoid. Think: if a bar advertised "topless dancing", but the girls performed covered in bedsheets, do you think they would stay open long?Kww (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We can see the pictures as referenced at Vanity Fair. and don't need to go with the NYT characterization. The connotation of topless implies something not backed up by the real photos. Normal meaning as most people read the word is nude from the waist up which is not what these pictures show. Suggest a more descriptive phrase that accurately describes the picture without misleading the reader. --NrDg 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a sentence which quotes NYtimes as saying that she was not topless but instead was covered in bedsheet. I have added it in the article with proper cite and made necessary changes. Gprince007 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal Name Change (Jan 2008)

Miley "Ray" Cyrus per her Grandpa/Dad. Need more info heard this on XM radio --Obamaspam (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

pls see Miley Ray Cyrus Vs Destiny Hope Cyrus section above for the discussion. Gprince007 (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

She legally changed her name to from "Destiny Hope Cyrus" to "Miley Ray Cyrus" in Jan 2008 and this should be reflected in beg. of article as in "Miley Ray Cyrus" (former legal name "Destiny Hope Cyrus" ) Just one source of many: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20174585,00.html

This is actually mentioned (and sourced) later in the article; only the opening of the article needs to be corrected.

Nothing needs to be corrected. The article is correct as written. Please actually read the opening paragraph and check the referenced before trying to "Correct" things. --NrDg 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Humblest apologies.72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Playboy offer

Should we include the playboy offer in controversies??? ...i mean it hasnt taken shape of a "controversy" yet.....It's just simple offer made thru an interview ....the offer has not been officially made to miley yet. I read abt this a few days ago but decided not to add it becos it's just a simple remark made by hefner and no formal offer has been made. Even if we add it, i dont think it merits an individual sub-section in "Controversies" becos it is not a controversy. I suggest two alternatives: first is we delete it...the second alternative being, we include it in "Vanity fair" section by writing "Following the publication of pictures in Vanity fair, Hugh Hefner made an offer...."....I want to know what others think of it??? Gprince007 (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly notable. Hefner makes these offers to pretty much any reasonably attractive female celebrity. There were seventeen-year-old Playmates in the early years, so Miley isn't too far off of his age range.Kww (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the Vanity Fair issue - another well known person coming to Cyrus's defense. Hefner just made a passing remark and was being polite, in his own way, to Cyrus. I say remove it as notable only to gossip mags, not mainstream press like the rest of the stuff we have included. We could add stuff to the Vanity Fair section that talks to the reactions to the controversy and how it has effected or is expected to effect Cyrus. --NrDg 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something over the weekend? Because, I don't remember hearing a thing about this at all. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New Single

Her newest single off her coming album, "Breakout" is called "7 Things". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duhhitzxtina (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Guitar

she plays the Guitar she can play it well below is just ONE link showing she can [5] they are many more shouldn't this be added other bio's have things like this added in them maybe if people find good secource's saying it and when she started playing it maybe we could put it in her early life section saying like "the age of...... Cyrus started playing the Guitar" or something like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veggiegirl (talk • contribs) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the guitar info is suitably mentioned in the article....it is also mentioned that she taught Emily how to play the guitar....in the infobox also it is mentioned that she is a guitarist....so i guess it is adequately covered...Gprince007 (talk)

Copyright Problem in "Rock Star"

Miley's Hannah song, "Rock Star" is very similar to "Scotty Doesn’t Know" by Lustra from the movie Eurotrip. Should we mention that? I heard it everywhere that the band, Lustra, are thinking about what to do about it (lawsuit? demanding credit?) ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Calliegal

Stripping out the publicity angle of Cyrus falsely being accused of plagiarism. This is a song she didn't write and her only involvement is as a for hire singer/actress performer. This topic properly belongs in the song article as it objectively has nothing to do with Cyrus. --NrDg 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

2007 Salary??

Miley earned 18.2 million last year, according to Parade magazine's annual "What People Earn" issue. This amount seems much more accurate than the measely 3 million mentioned currently. I suggest this higher figure be used as it seems more correct based on all the facts we have today. Forbes reported in June 2008 that Miley earns $25 million per year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LancerDog (talk • contribs) 04:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the People Edition of World's Richest Kids, it was reported that Miley made $50 MIL per week on tour, so it is impossible that she ONLY made $18.2 MIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.135.5 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

When you are looking at these things, you need to keep track of what's being reported. If Cyrus's tour grossed $50mil/week, she wouldn't personally get a huge percentage of that.Kww (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Miley on track to be a billionaire by age 18

With all of Miley's new business ventures, financial analysts predict she is on track to be a billionaire by age 18. http://www.hollyscoop.com/hannah-montana/hannah-montana-to-be-a-billionaire-by-age-of-18_14622.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by LancerDog (talk • contribs) 05:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

She herself won't be a billionaire, but the Hannah/Miley franchises will be worth about that much (that's my understanding of it at least)

Signature Again

I'm still a little uncertain as to why Miley's article has a signature. Is there some policy that covers this? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My real concern is with authenticity. It is in commons and it is a content decision whether or not to include it in this article. --NrDg 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I searched Google images to try to find examples of her handwriting. While the file we have may not be a typical example of her signature, certain characteristics, particularly the way the tail of the "y" is drawn out, make it fairly certain (at least to my mind) that it is genuine. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

G.N.O.

i am a bit confused, on the meet miley cyrus cd it say Mley co-wrote it, right? well on the Best of Both Worlds Concert cd it says only Matthew Wilder Tamara Dunn wrote it should it be mentined some where? Meliss402 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Miley's Signature.

Why did Wikipedia put Miley's signature on the page. You know, anyone could copy it, put it on a piece of paper, sell it, and get rich! Could someone change that? --Mileyhannahroxsox (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That is extremely unlikely. If someone copied the image, and tried to pass it off as the original, it would be painfully obvious if they tried to print it on something. A laser printer looks very different than a pen. Also, Wikipedia is not the only place that has pictures of Cyrus' signature. If was able to make a printer print something that looks enough like a pen to fool someone into thinking that it is a genuine copy of Cyrus' signature, that person would easily know enough to be able to scrape Cyrus' signature from some other image of her autograph. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a signature for most people articles on Wikipedia. There is a whole infobox syntax devoted to it. If you have a problem, take it to higher-level discussion pages. I have no examples since there is no precedent for something like this. --haha169 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonas Love

Not quite sure which Jonas was involved but should it be mentioned that she had a relationship with (Nick, i think) one of them?! I myself am not totally upto date on the tween scene but I've heard that she has written a song "7 Things" to tell this boy her feelings so seeing as she has written a song which has become a single should there be a mention to the relationship that sparked Cyrus to write this YouTube hit Nisior (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless we have a reliable source, we need not include it. This issue has been discussed b4 also i guess. Gprince007 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read an aol article and it said that Miley was dating him,because of those hacked pics posted.One of them has her and Nick in it.PacManFreak (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Teen Choice Awards

It should be added that Miley will be the host for the 2008 Teen Choice Awards, which airs on Fox on August 4. It is reported on the wikipedia page for Teen Choice awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_Choice_Awards) and www.teenchoiceawards.com that this is true. I don't know why it hasn't been updated on this page already, but it is definitely significant for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam8 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Overnight Sensation

She wasnt an overnight sensation, that would mean everyone loved her the first day. It sounds like an idoit fan wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree..and "instant hit" sounds more appropriate but, Hannah Montana was an instant hit, not Miley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zammit123 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What ethnicity is she???

i know she's white but like what European ancestry is she like Greek, or Irish??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francedesyy (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Show

Tyra Banks has pitched the idea that Miley should have her own talk show. Like a teenage version show of Tyra's. Tyra said she is very talented. I guess after Miley made over 50 million dollars this year somone finally realized she had talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.198.173 (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures allegedly from Cyrus' camera phone

As far as I can tell, all we know about the alleged hacking of Miley Cyrus' camera phone is just speculation. No one has been able to verify whether the images are authentic. Previously, I remove all references to this from the article as they were uncited and undoubtedly violated WP:BLP. In my opinion, the citation used now is not appropriate, since it is speculating as well. I have re-worded the statement in the article to emphasize that nothing has been proven yet, but I think it should just be removed completely until some concrete information comes out. This is dangerous ground to be walking on. Thoughts? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of info...becos it does sound too trivial and tabloidish. This is an encylcopedic article and not gossip news....Gprince007 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was from her fucking email not a camera-phone I dont see where you fucking numbskulls get your information. Quoted from the fucking first page "bro, i got those pics out of her email, and now that i lost access to everything after having access and watching her emails for months... i have nothing to loose for leakin." "A while back I haxed her email... might as well leak these photos" Get a clue wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostcauses (talk • contribs) at 12:51, July 15, 2008

From the AOL News webpage cited in the article:

"On Saturday a Web site called Digital Gangster posted photos that they allege were found by a hacker known as TrainReq in the memory of the singer's cell phone.".

From the Fox News webpage cited in the article:

"The photo was allegedly obtained by a hacker at DigitalGangster.com, who reportedly accessed the actress’s cell phone memory."

In the future, please try to be more polite. There is a strict policy against personal attacks in place on this website. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And the way the FOX News headline was worded would make you think this was something she released. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah your quotes don't mean shit I gave you quotes from THE HACKER HIMSELF saying it not some shitty middle man that has crap information and can't remove watermarks for shit. Trainreq himself has been saying he has got it from the email get a clue. If you even went on DG for 2 seconds you would know better but thats fine keep posting lies on wiki w.e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What is required for inclusion on Wikipedia (at least, SHOULD be) is that the source is considered reliable according to the following. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How isn't the words coming straight from the sources mouth reliable? Really I could care less its a small detail e-five ? \|/_(o.o)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.148.249 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth

On the official court documents from Cyrus's name change, it lists her place of birth as Nashville, Tennessee (PDF (page 4)). The only source for the article's current claim of Franklin, Tennessee, is an article from The San Diego Union-Tribune from Knight Ridder News Service. I would tend to believe an official court document over a lesser-known news service. --Zimbabweed (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, i support the claim of legal document over-riding a news service. I think we should change the info in the article accordingly and use (PDF (page 4) as the cite for it. Gprince007 (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

One word of caution. We need to understand what we mean by "birthplace". Given the size of Franklin and its proximity to Nashville, what probably happened is that her family was living in Franklin but used a hospital in Nashville for the birth. In a situation like that, what are we going to call her "birthplace"?
Kww (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever be the case....i feel that if Miley decides to give Nashville as her place of birth in a legal document (i am assuming that the legal document on the website is genuine), then we shd write Nashville as her birthplace in the article. Your inference may correct Kww, but if Miley herself states her birthplace as Nashville, then why shouldnt we believe it ??? Gprince007 (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kww: That's why it's called birthplace and not place of residence at time of birth. Your residence has nothing to do with your place of birth, unless the two are the same. --Zimbabweed (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem with either way with me. I'm making the assumption that the Franklin birthplace is what she stated when asked in an interview.
Kww (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Boyfriends and stuff

There have been rumors on the net of Miley dating Jeremy Shum,Joe Jonas, Mitchel Musso, etc... But her first ever boyfriend was Jason Staltari, an Australian boy who lived next door to Miley in LA. I was wondering whether we should include it, cuz I have noticed people have been reverting these.. saying it's just "rumors"... but it's still like, true and stuff, cuz it's on the net... Smilesfornows (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No it ain't. You don't just see something that some asshole on the internet wrote and assume that it's true. 72.95.139.248 (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be includedJumper-themovie (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you even listening to a word I'm saying? Miley said that she wasn't dating Nick Jonas, or any of these guys, and since there is no proof that she is lying, it shouldn't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.248 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We do not know what is going on in Miss Cyrus's private life, unless she said she is dating someone with HER OWN MOUTH NOT SOME BLOGGER then maybe we will add it. Mooncrest (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In an article for Seventeen magazine she discusses her reltionship with Nick Jonas, saying that they were in a relationship for two years and it ended in December 2007. This article can be seen on the People magazine website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.185.97 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC) yes SineBot, miley and nick kept it secret then broke up when the pressure got too much (Mini no ipod (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

Magazines aren't really reliable enought to put that kind of information in the article.Mooncrest (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

i also heard Miley say it live on a TV show —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini no ipod (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already there so chill.Mooncrest (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Hannah Montana?

Should there be a Template:Hannah Montana to separate Miley's carrer and singles from Hannah's?68DANNY2 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since Miley Cyrus is a person, and Hannah Montana is her show and her character, but if you think it's neccessary, you can try to help out and make one! Be bold! ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Calliegal

No Way!!!! You don't see people making a seperate templates for The Rock for Dwanye Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be, there's one for 'Miley Stewart'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zammit123 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC) i say do it! (Mini no ipod (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Walt Disney Records

On The page it says Walt Disney Records (2006-2008) but she is still signed to them and I cant edit it! what do I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsadisneyfreak (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC) i will try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mini no ipod (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Good News! - I put on that thing of the Walt Disney label, 2006-present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrovip (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Another piece of Controversy

Her on-air conversation with Idaho DJ "KeKe Luv" has recently created quite a stir. After hearing about Luv's attempt to stay awake for seven days, Cyrus suggested purchasing illegal eyedrops from Japan that allow the user to stay awake for two days. This sound clip is archived by the local KISS.FM station, and is played quite frequenly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.62.219 (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the normal news outlets and even the gossip sites and not one of them has mentioned this. Without some WP:RS reliable source that we can WP:V verify that talks to this, it does not belong in the article. --NrDg 03:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegal eyedrops? Allowing one to stay awake for two days? Are you sure this isn't a joke? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why we have the notability, reliable source and verifiability requirements. --NrDg 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if backed by sources, this news seems too trivial and tabloid type....it is definitely not notable according to me....Gprince007 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.17 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Boise's KISS.FM has the sound clip. Contact them through their website and I'm sure they'd be happy to share it. It hasn't been in tabloids because, frankly, what happens in Idaho stays in Idaho, where nobody cares. But this is completely real; the DJ staying awake was a state-wide frenzy, where he even got awarded by local politicians. And he made sure to use that exact sound byte all the time during this stunt. 72.24.33.99 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That never happened. I looked all over the internet for proof of the "eye drops" scandal, and I found a bunch of random crap that had nothing to do with it. 67.60.62.219 is obviously just another douchebag who thought he/she could post some stupid lie about Miley Cyrus on the internet and get people to believe it. I mean, come on dude. Illegal eye drops? And something like that would definitely make the tabloids. It's amazing that anyone would be stupid enough to believe this crap. 72.95.139.17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.248 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

People, this really happened. All somebody has to do is contact that radio station and they'll provide a soundbyte. Why didn't it hit tabloids? Because it's goddamn IDAHO.

LIES!!!!!!!!!!!! PURE PURE LIES!!!!!!!!!! ANYONE AGREE THAT THIS IS LIES??????????????????????????????????????????(Mini no ipod (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC))