Talk:Miley Cyrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miley Cyrus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

(Rated C-Class)

Biography portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (marked as Mid-priority).

This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-priority).

WikiProject Disney

(Rated C-Class, High-importance)

Disney portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

	• Stephen Foley (2009-02-03). "Is Wikipedia cracking up?". The Independent. http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/is-wikipedia-cracking-up-1625816.html.
	• (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html.

This is not a forum for general discussion of Miley Cyrus. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Miley Cyrus at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

Archives
/Archive01, /Archive02, /Archive03, /Archive04, /Archive05

edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list for Miley Cyrus:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Copyedit: Italicize words that are supposed to be italicized, put words on quotes if they are supposed to, check misspellings and reword sentences if necessary.
Cleanup: Clean-up citations

[edit] 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)

How the hell does a 16 yr old girl get a tatoo?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.216.106 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 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)

[edit] 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:

Dawn C. Chmielewski (August 12, 2009). "Miley Cyrus' 'Teen Choice' performance sparks debate". Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-miley12-2009aug12,0,6761847.story. Retrieved 2009-08-12.

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Done 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)

[edit] 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 [1], [2]? 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)

[edit] Views on same-sex marriage (homosexuality generally)

This passage was deleted:

[edit] 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."^[1] 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."^[2]^[3]

For convenience, a reflist:

^ "Contactmusic". Contact Music. http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/cyrus%20gives%20gay%20marriage%20her%20blessing_1101301. Retrieved 2009-07-29.
^ Cole, Monica (2009-04-30). "Miley Cyrus said what?". American Family Association. http://faq.afa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337&Itemid=35. Retrieved 2009-05-01.
^ Miley Cyrus pro-gay messages set Christian conservatives all a-TwitterPosted by JD Uy on 2009-05-02 - Last Word, Metro Weekly.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

{{editsemiprotected}}

^[1]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [[3]] --DreadfullyDespised (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [4]? 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.—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. [5] -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[6] Is this one okay? (if we crop it) The outfit is a bit raunchy...but it's quite cute, the pose. [7] 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? [[8]] 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 [[9]], 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Miley's Philanthropy

Can we add that Miley has her own organization on eBay called The Pappy Cyrus Family Foundation. More information here: [10]. Plus, recently Miley started a volunteer program called Get UR Good On. [11] I think both are important to include in her Philanthropy section. --LifesWonderful (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Done 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)

[edit] 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#Personal life.

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)

[edit] 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)