Talk:Miley Cyrus

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 April 2006 to December 2006
• Archive 2 January 2007 to March 2007
• Archive 3 April 2007 to October 2007 --NrDg 01:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarian (Part 2)

A few months ago, someone added the American vegetarians category to this article, which touched off a bit of a debate questioning the inclusion, including some IP editors that said that was incorrect.

Anyway, I saw this topic being discussed on the Miley Cyrus board at TV.com where someone responded to a post I left where the editor stated she was. I responded by asking for the magazine in question, so I could look it up before possibly re-adding the category. WAVY 10 Fan 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The person I referenced on TV.com said it was in latest TigerBeat magazine. Would that count under WP:RS? WAVY 10 Fan 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be best if there were a URL that pointed to this factoid. Can't point to images as most are copyright violations unless on the copyright owner's website. A formal {{cite news}} with most fields filled in and a cite quote would make me happy. It would show the person adding the info actually had the magazine in hand when they entered the ref. --NrDg 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also would like an actual quote from her. From stuff I've seen she seems a self proclaimed vegetarian and what she considers herself and what she actually eats may not match the strict definition of what a vegetarian is defined to be. --NrDg 18:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I found a quote: "I'm a vegetarian! My mom makes the best veggie patties! They are so good!"

Here is where I got it from: http://thesnagwire.com/joomla/10-fascinating-miley-cyrus-personal-bra-advice.html.

Stevv (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Birthday?

She is turning 15 today. Why does the article states hat she's 14. - 203.87.129.111 (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has correct information - I verified that her age is stated correctly in the article. --NrDg 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would change it, but I don't have an account. sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.221.166 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be changed. Leave it alone. --NrDg 17:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

More Pregnancy Junk

Someone has apparently tampered with the article concerning the debunking of the pregnancy rumor...again, claiming that she admitted she was pregnant; stating that a copy of the J-14 article that sparked this whole mess was stating that this was the story Miley WANTED the world to hear (why on earth someone who presents herself as a role model would WANT anyone to know she was pregnant is a mystery in and of itself) and even changed the heading to "Pregnancy Rumor No More". Alerting prior to reverting to last good version. WAVY 10 Fan 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No support, blatant violation of WP:BLP so obvious revert. This editor seems a single issue pusher and probably will be blocked if she continues but I hope our last two messages on her page will head this off. Best we can do here on is just be vigilant about detecting and removing unsupported derogatory information as per policy. --NrDg 19:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus

Miley Cyrus's first appearance on television was on a toothpaste commercial when she was seven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.216.123 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting story. Need to see a reference to this before it goes in the article. --NrDg 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On her website she says her 1st television appearance was on a Tv show called Doc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.89.6 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I personally think this talk page should be semi protected because it gets vandalised alot Saturn star (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been semi'd since July. The vandalism is mostly from aged accounts, and it's not even that much. Don't even get me started on the vandalism before protection. bibliomaniac15 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Change the picture

We need to change the picture because it is really quite blurry. We need something clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.110.6 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

fixed - the width was off. [1] --Jack Merridew 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

place of birth

I edited it to say just franklin please do not change it frankin is a town of it's own not a part of nashville, I know this because i am from middle tennessee.

Genre

miley is NOT pop punk o.o; Justicemanlulz (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Then what exactly is she; she is 15, review the music selection again and rethink that statement. Her song "start all over" and her outfit in the music video, it's not exactly pop, so what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.49 (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Boyfriend news should be updated?

Well many few people know about miley having had a boyfriend but its still not updated here so please update it. Her boyfriend was nick jonas of th nicholas brothers. Miley had kissed him on the cheeks on-stage in Europe. And it has been reported that they had a break-up because of her pics circulated on internet being a lesbian(refer to the article on this page compromising pictures). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kush grwl (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just becos she kissed him on the cheek, it doesnt imply that he is her boyfriend. If you have valid sources to back your claim, then u are free to add the info. Gprince007 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As was said before (see archives), the dating history of a 15 year old is not really something that needs to be in an encyclopedia. This is a current event type of thing and changes too fast and too often to be worth being in the article. By the time it is reported, it would be obsolete info. It is also mostly gossip. If she were to get into a long term committed relationship, that might be notable, if it were backed by reliable sources. --NrDg 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromising pictures

I was perusing the internet and I came across these pictures of Miley and a girl in an uncompromising position. They can be found at: [[2]]... Can somebody verify if they're real? Should this be mentioned in the article? It certainly would hurt her reputation...Michael Cook (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this unusual, girls do stuff like this all the time. You should take a look around on places like facebook and myspace, add some girl friends and you will see stuff that is a lot less tame than this is. --Charitwo ^talk 08:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is private pictures that got leaked and reported by gossip magazines and websites. Until some mainstream reliable source talks about it it is not notable. --NrDg 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo has talked about it, I think we should put it in. Pregnancy hoax was a yahoo source, too, right? So I think we should report this. It's entirely about her and it's just like a Britney Spears thing, and we've reported those things!--Alisyn^talk 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Need a better source than Yahoo. That is just gossip. If it gets picked up by a major news source it should probably go in the article as that would show notability. Gossip sources are unreliable and this might not be anything important. --NrDg 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The story got picked up by People magazine, with quotes from Miley Cyrus: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20168604,00.html --Bayshel (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with NrDg. While I think (hope?) these are a sham like the pregnancy thing, I would wait for something to pass WP:RS on this matter before including. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Even the people web article is still gossip mongering and even most gossip articles have concluded that this is not a major issue for her. Even though the pictures are real, the info won't belong in this article unless it gets picked up and commented on by real news sources. The pregnancy rumor hoax was widely reported in major news sources. This latest "scandal" is too trivial to be in the article as it has no indication of effecting her career in any way (so far). --NrDg 16:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, I'll take that into consideration next time. Michael Cook (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since it was, as you say, an "uncompromising" position, then it must be perfectly fine. Find a compromising position and perhaps it would be relevant, huh? 208.111.241.155 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stick with this Picture

It looks so much better than the original picture I would stick with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.89.6 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

We should add that the Jonas Brothers are her family friends and that Nick Jonas was her boyfriend in the summer of 2006 and since her Best of Both Worlds tour had started, they got back together, then broke up around xmas time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.186.96 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

We need a new and updated picture, this one is when she was 13. Anyone else agree?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.14.139 (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC) i definatly agree. OLD PICTURE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!we need a new one. seriosly- we need a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.142.131 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Stevv (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a different picture of her that is better than the current one? I don't have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.14.139 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I switched the pictures because there was a recent picture of her from 2007 further down in the article. Does that work? Elesi (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better, thank you. Stevv (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo Scandal

In her personal life there should be something about her photo scandal. The one with here and a friend messing around on a hotel floor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.60.232 (talk • contribs)

The pictures of her were a controversy, add them, it was on Access Hollywood. I have a quote too. "It was just me and one of my really good friends having fun. It really sucks, and now she has to go home and deal with this crap. It was two girls having fun, and now that's a big deal, what is the world coming to?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.234.235 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Get something in more mainstream publications, not gossip sheets, as a reference. This was spun as a scandal by the gossip magazines themselves. Non-gossip outlets have ignored this other than to comment on the ridiculousness of the "scandal" spin. This type of thing is too trivial to be in an encyclopedia. --NrDg 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section needed

I suggest we create a controversy section in the article and move the pregnancy hoax paragraph into that section. The controversy section could also mention the photo scandal alongwith Miley's comments about it. Also i think the fact that she used a body double should also be put in the section. The body double controversy has been covered by mainstream media such as Fox news and MTV.com. Since there have been quite a few controversies regarding Miley recently, i suggest we create a controversy section and mention these under it. Just wanna know what others think of it. Gprince007 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea as long as the section is neutral and not given undue weight over the rest of the article. Also it would need good mainstream media coverage and be something widely covered by non-gossip sources and those sources should talk to how this effects her or her career. Gossip for the sake of gossip should not be in the article. I would oppose any addition to the article of any gossip from unreliable sources - it needs significant neutral coverage. Some of the latest "controversies" are manufactured as spin on benign occurrences and should be ignored unless and until it becomes notable by major outlets. The pregnancy hoax and its coverage is a good benchmark. --NrDg 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the body double controversy shd be included becos it has been covered by mainstream media (see above). The pregnancy section can be moved in that section too....currently i am busy but i'll attend to this in a day or two....Gprince007 (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about the pictures in the controversy section, because people are still debating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.214.151 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk about the pictures in the controversy section, because people are still debating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.214.151 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another gossip magazine manufactured controversy. Need a reference from some reliable source with a neutral perspective that includes how this is effecting her career or life in some notable way.--NrDg 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at the Wikipedia Controversy page and definition, I don't see how any of these fit into the description of controversy. Neither of these events have affected her life or livelihood in any negative way. I don't see how the false rumors of her non-existent pregnancy can be controversial either since they weren't true. Amldgc 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is probably the wrong section title to summarize what is actually going on. What is notable is that pseudo controversies are being manufactured and they are getting coverage in verifiable, reliable sources that discuss them in a neutral manner. The body double issue is controversial by the definition but the fact it is being attached to Cyrus rather than the show where is really belongs is a manufactured issue. I suggest we move the body double controversy to the tour article. That would be neutral for this article but not lose valid information. Pseudo controversies might be a better section title or return to the Pregnancy rumor hoax as organized before. --NrDg 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all this is necessary as Wikipedia is not TMZ or US Weekly. However if such category shall exist, I propose it named "social media". O1001010 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the body double incident should probably go on a page related to either the show or the concert tour (if there is one for the latter). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But isn't the body double issue related to Miley??? If it was a one off incident at a show, then i agree that it shd be in an article about the show. But the cited source (MTV.com) states that "the body double is actually being used throughout the tour" ie it is being used in many other concert venues in the touring itenary...so i believe that it shd be in Miley's article as well as the concert article. I didnt put the picture controversy in the article becos it sounded like tabloid news but body double controversy was covered in mainstream media...thats why i put it in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is a show design element to allow the performer to change costumes - so yes it does get used on every show of the tour. Neutral articles call this out and say it is not an uncommon way for shows to speed up costume changes. If it is controversial, it should be attached to the tour article as it really has nothing to do with choices made by a performer. The fact that it IS attached to the performer goes along with all the other manufactured pseudo-controversies. It is notable that this type of thing is happening to Cyrus. It is more a popular backlash though as she has done nothing that would count as being controversial without the gossip magazine spin. All mainstream articles I have seen take a neutral position, report the issue, but don't support the spin. We should do the same. --NrDg 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If every celebrity pregnancy rumor was reported on WP - especially internet-only ones like the one reported here - WP pages would be very long indeed. Also it is not a controversy in any shape or form. I say delete the pregancy rumor. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian

I have added Miley into category American Christians, since which subbranch of Christianity is unknown. What we do know is that she is not Taoism, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Shintoism, or Atheist. It is a clear fact that she is Christian, but we do not know if she is catholic, protestant, lutheran, baptist, etc. So I think the general category of Christian is safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O1001010 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

She may or may not be but there is nothing in the article that talks to it so a category can't be supported. --NrDg 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we go through this (or a similar discussion) about this time last year? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really curious what she has done to make people so sure that she isn't Taoist, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, or atheist.Kww (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an interview article in Today's Christian magazine http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/2008/001/1.19.html with Billy Ray and Miley where Billy Ray outright states that his whole family is Christian. I wouldn't have a problem with this being used as a reference to support inclusion in the article some comment on her faith and beliefs. I won't add it as I personally don't think it adds much to the article but that is just a value judgment on my part. I'll go with whatever consensus turns out to be on this issue. --NrDg 14:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The same user has posted similar query on Hilary Duff Talk page. I have made my views clear there. I dont think that adding her religion to the article will add any value to it. Gprince007 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I might look at that one. That could be interesting, but I'd wait for additional stuff to verify (between the article Gprince007 turned up and the Parade and USA Today articles I found last year; we may have enough for a weak case supporting the cat). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't support a category that is not backed up with something referenced in the article. The categories are supposed to categorize the article not the article subject. Subtle distinction but that is the way I like to see things. Unfortunately, in my opinion, a lot of people seem to think that the ethnicity and beliefs of ancestors are important biographical attributes that need to be mentioned in a bio article. Consensus seems to support this but there is always a lot of discussion and debate on how this is defined for a particular person. See discussion on Zac Efron for an example. I would prefer this to be left out unless it impacts the person in some notable way but I think I am a minority in this. (As an aside - a good case could be made for ethnicity Hillbilly, but so what).--NrDg 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me respond to the few comments directly. NrDg: since you are the one who undid my category add and you have found the Today's Christian article, I am going to add that as a source and add the revision to the article if no one objects. As for the reason why please see my response to Gprince007.

Gprince007: yes, clicking on the contrib link isn't hard at all. But since you had to pull why I did the same for Hillary Duff I must open a case for this. (except I didn't add to Duff's article right away because the evidence is not strong, so I left it in discussion first.) Heritage, culture and religion are the core elements who identify a unique human being. How is it possible that you can say that, and I quote "I dont think that adding her religion to the article will add any value to it." end quote. Being a Christian is who Miley is and if you look at any other celebrity's article on Wikipedia, within the very few sentences a celebrity's background, sometimes few generations back, are presented. In such an iconic figure among youth such as Miley, this essential information is not present. Before you even start, no I am not Christian myself. I want this aspect of things in because I am absolutely neutral, the way that Wikipedia suppose to be. Wikipedia is suppose about facts and not about whether you think it is important or not. As long as a fact come from a reputable and creditable source, it should be there as every single factor leads to a better detailed article. In this case, we obviously have a different view on what is significant, someone who does the exact same thing 3+ hours every week.

back to NrDg: I highly respect your opinion. If I had my way, it's either omit all family background in all articles or put them all in. However, take a look at any other articles about a person and that family background, culture and religion issues are always high up on top. So I am just trying to bring this article to that same level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O1001010 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, consensus on other bio articles seems to be for inclusion. For example Jewishness in all its flavors seems to get extremely strong support even if the person in the bio has outright rejected that classification it is still included. I can't make a strong case based on precedence to NOT include "Christian" as long as the support is strong for its inclusion. Just don't give it more weight in the article than is necessary or is done for other religious/ethnic identification in other bio articles. --NrDg 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like consensus would be going back to where it was earlier this week. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well unless Miley says she's a Christian then it should not be put, my mom tells everyone our family is Christian. But I'm not, I don't tell people because my mom would be disapointed, maybe she isn't but doesn't want to disapoint her Dad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.180 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

NrDg, with the approval I have added the content into the article, and also the original category. I can't figure out it is the Christians who are not trying hard enough to get the facts published on Wikipedia or there is a tendency of censorship going on here that makes adding a Christian religion harder than others. However, with myself being non-Christian and a minority, I believe absolute equality with all humans, except there are smart people and there are idiots. In such an icon person such as Miley, this fact must be published and I ask yourhelp to make that stay and free of vendalism. And I think I understand where you come from, the article about Meryl Streep is an example. I think it have something to do with the fact like you can have a jamaican pride parade, dominican pride parade, gay pride parade, but if you have a white pride parade, holy crap you will be labeled a racist all over. Before anyone jump at this, recall what I just wrote, I am a minority and non-Christian myself. O1001010 (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is just that the defaults for the US are generally not interesting or notable. "White" and "Christian" are what is assumed if nothing else is mentioned so in general are not put in articles. Most Americans who are somewhat religious are nominally Christians of some type. It becomes interesting if the subject of the article makes an issue of it and it impacts their life in some noticeable way. I think in this case it meets that standard, but barely. I won't oppose addition but others might. I suggest it stay in the article for now and continue discussion here. --NrDg 16:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree on that. To me when it is not present I assume they are agnostic or atheist. I don't think being a minority make things more exotic and I consider all human beings equal, I just classify them by inteligence. I see no reason why the mentoned should not be a permenant part of this article, unless Miley converts to something else. It's part of who she is and it's a part of her.

O1001010 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

well i still stand by my prev statements. i feel that mention of religion in the article is unnecesaary unless and until it affects her in her career or personal life. If she does or does not do something because of her religion then it may be mentioned.Thats got nothing to do with "minority" or "exotic" crap u mentioned before. Articles on Madonna,George Bush, Barack Obama, Mahatma Gandhi mention their religious beliefs and i am in favour of it because in those instances their belief in their religion and their religious identities shaped their career and ideologies. Also their propagating of their religious identities have been mentioned in various mainstream media. In Miley's case, i dont think her religion has shaped or influenced her thinking in a major way. She's just another teenage popstar who could've been buddhist, hindu, islamic, Taoist or whatever ....also her being a christian has not been widely covered by mainstream media (maybe becos of the same reason i think that it didnt influence her in a notable way). So her being a christian is of no significance in an encyclopaedic article. Miley is a christian but so is 80 percent of US population...Gprince007 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not 100% certain if this will help, but I was buying groceries yesterday and saw the most recent US Weekly where she was on it. I thumbed through it, and saw her mention one of the things she carries around is a (guessing pocket) New Testament she got from her mom as well as something containing favorite Bible verses. I will check for an online version of said article (which would probably be the strongest thing to support the cat). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a web link to add a reference, although that is best. If you have the magazine and can give a complete cite including mag name, date, author of article, pages and a quote that would be sufficient. I saw the article too and don't think it really says anything more than we already have. I think the category is already well supported. It is an editorial judgment call whether or not this is notable enough to be in this article. I see no compelling reason to remove it. Others disagree. --NrDg 16:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I said I'd look for the link because I didn't buy it. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To GPrince: All I can say is WOW, that is easily an offensive statement towards Christians. The funny thing is there was absolute no consequences to you what so ever. Try make the statement towards any other ancient religion and you will be welcomed by a riot. Back to what you said.

Quote "i feel that mention of religion in the article is unnecesaary unless and until it affects her in her career or personal life."

Neither does 90% of the celebrity here are Wikipedia. They simply have their background and generations listed. Start a project of deleting all of them and then come back here and post the same thing. And do a search on "*religion* actor" on the category, see how many celebrities under those category actually ever stated that religion matters to them and so called "shaped their life".

Quote "also her being a christian has not been widely covered by mainstream media (maybe becos of the same reason i think that it didnt influence her in a notable way)."

Have you been reading any of the sources? If not start reading.

Quote: :"If she does or does not do something because of her religion then it may be mentioned.Thats got nothing to do with "minority" or "exotic" crap u mentioned before." and "So her being a christian is of no significance in an encyclopaedic article. Miley is a christian but so is 80 percent of US population..."

You just proved what I said before about how being a MAJORITY doesn't matter any more in this country. So because 80% of the population of this country is Christian therefore we can omit this piece of her identity? Because of that we can assume if nothing is mentioned that she is "defaulted to Christian"? Do remeber that Wikipedia is a global thing. And because of protest from people like you, we have a double stadard in United States where the majority actually value less that the minority. Think in terms the logic of that. You are making minorities like me look bad in this country.O1001010 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) (and I can't get my sign straight)

Well, here's something from a People magazine online article from when she appeared on Oprah back in November:

Cyrus also mentioned church as a source of strength. When asked to name her favorite Bible verse, she quoted Ephesians 6:10-11 from memory: "Finally, my brother, come close to the Lord for if you put on the full armor of God you can stand against the walls of a devil."

Helps somewhat. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - Catholic is not Christian. Baptists and Lutherans ARE protestants. I think you may have meant Presbyterian. As far as I know, Miley is either Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.43.225 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This gets into a somewhat common derogatory area related to the definition of "Christian" and stating someone isn't Christian if they don't belong to a certain denomination. Let's try to avoid this type of argument as it adds nothing. --NrDg 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Near-Death?

Is it true someone tried to bomb a Hannah Montana Concert or something? -Rikara (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does not belong in article. This whole thing is random speculation by a few radio stations and FBI says Cyrus not a target. We don't need to be first with stuff. Let current events age a bit before considering inclusion in article as they might, like in this case, be wrong information. --NrDg 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm holding an OK! Magazine that has a feature on Miley Cyrus, and it says something about this attempt. I'd believe that would be some important piece of information, and a credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.193.225 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If this was true; that would definitely have been front-page news (possibly even bumping Sen. Obama's win in South Carolina yesterday). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been added to the article with a reference to a CNN news report - presumed a reliable source. The problem is that even that report quotes unnamed sources and other, less reliable sources, state the FBI has bluntly declared that the CNN report is wrong. I don't think this belongs in the article due to the point it was speculation from unnamed sources. --NrDg 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I mean there was a lot of talk about whether Super Bowl XXXVI would be a terrorist target as that was the first Super Bowl after the 9/11 attacks and...nothing happened. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

scandal

Hi everyone. I just thought you might like to add something about this: http://oceanup.typepad.com/oceanup/miley_cyrus/index.html Thanks -FendiCatz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.234.172 (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source of information. Unless and ntil some major news outlet reports on this and it gets a lot more coverage outside of gossip web pages and blogs it is not notable. Blogs and gossip sites characterizing something as a "scandal" does not make it one. --NrDg 04:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I protected the page again from edits of anonymous and new users. It was unprotected for 10 hours and the level of anon vandalism seemed to be accelerating as people discovered it was unprotected. I left the time period as indefinite as it was before. --NrDg 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Miley Ray Cyrus

ET is reporting her name has been legally changed to Miley Ray Cyrus http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/01/58023/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.92.58 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I redirected it here. Just saying. --Howard the Duck 12:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

the name change was reverted earlier too....unless it gets proper coverage in prominent media, i suggest that her name shd be "miley cyrus" in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The root source of this "change" is a gossip column, almost the definition of an unreliable source. They could be misunderstanding a stated intention. I'd want to see a direct quote of what she actually said from that source, not a paraphrase. There are other reports but they all reference the one and only report in the ET online report. This is all dubious right now. I would expect this to be verifiable news from lots of other places, if true. --NrDg 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Also refer to WP:BLP for the type of reference we would need to support this type of change. --NrDg 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw on national TV this morning that she is officially changing her name form Destiny hope Cyrus to Miley Ray Cyrus. I don't remember what show it was, but it was on ABC.

Here's a People Magazine citation.--Sli723 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added it in for the moment with a few sources. bibliomaniac15 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Be careful who the other references use as THEIR source. Everything I've seen all goes back to exactly one place, the ET Online report. I've seen nothing, and I've looked real hard too, for anything that shows independent verification of the data other than accurately attributing and reporting what ET Online said. They make no claim of any other inputs. This is still a WP:BLP level issue of getting good references. There is no hurry to make this change. I would like to see an actual quote or a mention on her official site, which should be inevitable if the data is true. People magazine quoting an unreliable source accurately does not turn it into a reliable source. --NrDg 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to an ET mention. [3] It's not very comprehensive though. bibliomaniac15 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the root source of all this and the link the person who added this to the article in the first place originally used as the reference. I don't think this source meets the WP:BLP requirements as a reliable source of contentious bio info. --NrDg 00:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I suppose we'll wait for someone like the AP or Reuters to pick up the story then. bibliomaniac15 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I grew weary of reverting name change issues so protected page for a day to allow us time to find a GOOD reference. If we get a wire service source, that would be sufficient in my opinion. --NrDg 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the same information on tvguide.com [4] --Iroc24 20:55, 29 January 2008 (est)

Adds to the weight of support but they still are using as their source ET and haven't indicated that they have done any independent fact checking. We need something that is independent of the original ET source and not part of the gossip chain. --NrDg 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WGN Fox Chicago, numerous radio shows and NBC News is reporting that she legally changed her name also so I don't think its a false rumor. http://700wlw.com/pages/entertainmentnews.html?feed=104665&article=3204660 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.164.188 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The websites suggested above are all listing ET online as their source. So, technically only ETonline has reported it and others have merely quoted it. I feel we wait for a while till some major networks report it (like CNN or fox or someone else, preferably with Miley's own quotes).Surprisingly a search on the net didnt reveal anything worthwhile....so maybe the best thing as NrDg suggested is wait for a while ...such a major change in the article needs multiple citation and needs to be treaded with caution. Gprince007 (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ABC 24.106.223.2 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune 24.106.223.2 (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-miley-ray-cyrus,1,5881382.story Chicago Tribune is reporting it without attribution to ET. I think there has been sufficient time for a denial to have been issued and enough news sources are vetting ET as being reliable that we can class this info well supported. I will revert the article to the first person who added the info and add the Chicago Tribune reference. --NrDg 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So does the article move to Miley Ray Cyrus or does the title stay as is? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ray is her middle name. Keep it at Miley Cyrus and make Miley Ray Cyrus a redirect. bibliomaniac15 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Common name is Miley Cyrus and that has not changed and that is how bio articles are supposed to be named, by common name. Middle name mentioned exactly once in lede and only in lede. In this case also appropriate to mention the change. Infobox name should also match article title. Redirect from full name. All is well in article right now. --NrDg 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Might put this in the article. This is a video of the actual interview that ET did where you can hear Miley state in her own words what was reported. http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/01/58146/index.html --NrDg 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Body-Double controversy...

It says she is replaced by "another girl" If you look at the pictures of the... thing... you can't really tell if it's a girl or not, perhaps change it to "another person"? Uses Wikipedia Alot (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Have not actually seen the picture of the double, so I can't really comment one way or another. If you had a picture available, that would help us a bit. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You thinking that the body double is a male or female could amount to original research i guess....The cite says that the body double was a "she"....But currently the article puts it in a Gender neutral language. I guess that too is OK as per WP:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language and WP:GENDER. So i guess there's no need to change..... Gprince007 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got your point. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

I got rid of that pregnacy crap, since she's not pregnant. This page should be protected for vandalism in the future. Thanks. 68DANNY2 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Meets notability requirements, has good references to neutral sources that discus the hoax. See archives for discussion on why it is in the article. -NrDg 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is still significant information about her and something that has happened to her, so I agree to keep it on. Stevv (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Basic Grammar

Can someone who has privileges to edit this please do so? I'm extremely bugged by the possessive of Cyrus being misused with only an apostrophe. It should not be Cyrus', it should be Cyrus's. I've already edited the misuse of the apostrophe on Billy Ray Cyrus's page.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with the rule of apostrophes to denote possession...

- If it's singular, add 's (yes, even if it is a name and already ends in "S" such as "Cyrus")

    Example: The lady's luggage.  Cyrus's career.

- Only use a single apostrophe at the end of the word if it is already pluralized and denotes the item in question belongs to multiple people.

    Example: The ladies' luggage.  The Cyruses' careers.

It's actually really simple, but highly abused. Anyway, that's just my little pet peeve. Thank you!

Chesneyyoung (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

I added that she was the Celebrity Guest for the February 10, 2008 episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition under the Filmography -> Television section. I'm not sure if it's good enough so make any changes that you feel are necessary. Amldgc 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)