Talk:Miley Cyrus

OCCUPATION

She's not an author. She only wrote 1 book. Writing only 1 book about yourself with someone else doesen't make you an author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.81.4 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

harper lee only wrote one book and she's considered an author —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.197.51 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

yeah, but doesn't mean that Miley is one.

Really? So when you have the book in your hands, who do you refer to as the author? Books are sorted by author. Are you saying she doesn't get listed because she isn't one?

Yes, writing a book makes you an author, since the writer of a published book is refereed to as an author. You don't get to split hairs based on the amount. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, but it's not her OCCUPATION. she's a signer-songwriter, and I don't think she's lookinf forward to write other books.

Ancestry

I saw the long pedigree of Miley Cyrus and her father in this link. Starting from her pedigree, I traced her lineage and she claimed English, Irish, Scottish, and distant Welsh ancestry. Also, she claimed very distant French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Hungarian, Spanish, Flemish (Belgian), Finnish, Swedish, and Danish ancestry through royal lineage. She is direct descendant of Charlemagne of the Holy Roman Empire; Louis the Stammerer; William I of Scotland; Henry of Scotland; Edmund II of England; Thor; Laomedon; and many other royal leaders. She is also the direct descendant of Abraham, Adam, and Eve according to another sources. So far, her oldest ancestor is Godwulf. He was born in Asgard, Asia or East Europe. Here's the link. But, according to another report, his father is Geata and some of them are suggested that the oldest ancestors are Adam and Eve.

I have a request for you to please, add the content about her ancestry also with her father. Thank you! 203.87.176.18 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond. Is this construed as original research? How much of this is actually verifiable as accurate? I don't know enough about the Ancestry.com website. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"I traced her lineage" is a giveaway. Most definitely OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but "tracing the lineage" is simply following through the arrow links on the pedigree. Wouldn't this constitute the same degree of "original research" as clicking through to the next page of a pages-long article, simply to "find" the information for any given Wiki contribution? I went through several lines of the pedigree to where I reached triple digit years (AD 600+) and came across princes and other royalty. It was rather astounding; I simply don't know enough about the site to know how those names are accurately connected and who worked on the pedigree's creation. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The site is user editable, making it not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would be a big problem. Thanks for noticing that, I didn't dig far enough. – 05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am the only one who noticed that the original poster seemed to claim that he had traced Cyrus as a direct descendant of Adam, Eve, and Abraham? How is that possible? I'd like to see that family tree, whether reliable or not. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I noticed that part. But, assuming good faith (one never knows), I visited the site and traced the lineage back to impressive dates. But like AussieLegend said, the site is apparently user-submitted. Besides, the Adam and Eve theory isn't altogether false... just depends who you want Adam and Eve to be, and National Geographic has had several specials on the subject. Still, the site is unreliable. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

Hey everyone,

I've recently attempted to create a new article which is focusing on the controversies surrounding Miley Cyrus, but it was deleted a few hours later. The reason for the creation was basically because many controversies aren't mentioned in her main article (and I can understand why). The article I created was neutral, accurate and had plenty of reliable sources. Some sources even emphasized the 'sustained coverage' - as in - whenever a new controversy shows up, the older ones are mentioned over and over again.

Before I continue, allow me to clarify that I'm aware of the no-longer-relevant vandalism plans currently stated in this page. In no way do I support or encourage any sort of 'raid' or 'attack', I think I'm intelligent enough to understand that obviously, they serve no purpose and whatever it manages to do will be quickly undone. Apparently, said 'plans' didn't even notably take place, which is a good thing. My intention by creating the article wasn't to 'expose' any evil conspiracies or bring hate to the subject. If it's possible to ignore whatever former people attempted to do and treat this as something new that isn't affiliated with (or supports) the proposed-vandalism, that would be greatly appreciated.

Anyway, I honestly believe that a controversies article is useful and is of interest to many people. I understand why not every incident should be noted on the main Miley article, but making a separate controversies article, and possibly linking to that main article in her page under the controversies section, could be considered as good contribution and relevant information for the reader.

I spoke to the admin who deleted my article, and he suggested I'd work with you guys on integrating the content to the existing article. I should also note that two parts of the article I created were taken from the main article (the two currently-listed controversies - Vanity Fair photos and the Teen Choice Awards performance), which is also apparently a part of the reason it was deleted.

Anyway, I have no problem with working on integrating the info to her article, I simply thought making a controversies article would be more beneficial.

I have a copy of what I created but I probably shouldn't post it here. I'll just state that almost all of my sources are sites such as CNN, Fox News, New York Times, ABC News, MTV, Yahoo, Entertainment Weekly, etc. I did my best to provide mostly respectable and reliable sources and avoid tabloids and such.

So if you have any input on the matter, whether it's supporting the creation of a new article, integrating said info to the main article, or neither, I'd love to hear it. Here are some of the sources I used for the now-deleted article: 123456789101112131415 If you want to see any of the paragraphs I created for the article, just let me know.

Thanks in advance for your help, and sorry for making a wall of text for you to read. CShephard (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm... Their plans didn't happen because, being /b/ and thus as intelligent as a deodorant stick, they didn't bother to make sure the article wasn't protected first. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm certainly not the pro on this, but a quick search through the archives, including a discussion directly above, show that notability is the biggest issue. Most of the "controversies" it seems aren't really controversial in any relevant way because "controversy" becomes subjective and intangible. But the difference between notable controversy and overblown media coverage, including sustained coverage, is probably a fine line that I'm not remotely apt at defining. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure who does get to define that difference, certainly not me. I believe my article was well-sourced, but I guess 'media controversy' and 'overblown media coverage' are things that are probably open to interpretation.

Another question is, assuming some/all of the controversies I listed don't meet the standards of an addition to the main article, is there also a reason to disallow the separate controversies article? I mean, it looked like my timing was bad (due to the vandalism plans) and possibly the article needed to be furbished a little, but assuming it's decided that the information will not be integrated into the main article, is the separate article completely off the table?

Again, either option is fine with me, but I believe at least some of the incidents should be noted, somewhere, unless various rules directly forbid the inclusion, and I won't argue with that. I wouldn't have even tried to create the separate article if I didn't know about many other similar ones the exist - there are 'controversies' articles for several high-profile individuals, or even other things that are subject to controversy, such as video games, television shows, etc. Some of them have a summarized info about the 'major' controversies in the main article (such as in Miley's case), and under that section, a link to the main controversies article which provides further information. There are many articles named 'Controversies surrounding X' or 'X controversies' (X being the person, or whatever it is that is subject to controversy).

It should also be noted, that some of the controversies that are currently not included, are mentioned in articles of other people/organizations that were involved in the controversy. For example, there is a mention of the lap dance controversy in the article of the person Miley gave the lap dance to, and a mention of the slant-eyed photo in the article of one organization that criticized her actions, etc. It's only missing from Miley's page. CShephard (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a question of weighting. Many editors (myself included) feel that virtually all of the "Controversies of .." articles should be merged back, as the standalone articles provide a place where negative information can be placed without any regard to balance. Even if the article starts out well, they typically go bad quickly. When a living person is concerned, it's a quagmire with respect to WP:BLP. It's best just not to start.—Kww(talk) 14:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess the whole point is the fact that the negative information isn't added to this specific standalone article, and as of now, it wasn't approved as a separate article as well. In the discussion archive someone said "Although the controversy section should be merged into life/career, as it's basically a repository for negative information and, since its located at the end, leaves the reader with a poor view of Cyrus."

If everyone agreed with that, one could omit crucial information from many articles because the reader will be "left with a bad taste". CShephard (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for the omission of information, just that it shouldn't be concentrated in one section. Since a performer's career is normally detailed chronologically, place the controversies in the appropriate spots in the timeline.—Kww(talk) 18:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. But if that approach is taken, shouldn't the current controversies that appear in the page be moved to the correct spots as well? If I understand you correctly, assuming proper sources are provided with notability, etc, the slant-eyed photo and Radiohead controversies should appear somewhere in the 2008-09 section, while the lap dance controversy should appear under '2010 onwards'. I have no problem with that, but that would make the two-currently-listed controversies seem 'special' as they were given their own section. Both the Vanity Fair controversy and the Teen Choice Awards incident could appear under the 2008-09 section, but then you have a lot in one section, again (only the lap dance would appear in a different section). I guess it's also possible to leave the listed ones where they are, and add the ones that aren't included right now in their proper spots, which is probably what you suggested, but I'm just making sure. CShephard (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be consistent. There should be no "controversies" section whatsoever.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Kww on that. For the record, I salted the controversies article yesterday. I agree that it was neutral and well sourced, but the material belongs in this article. I could probably history merge it in without too much difficulty, but it shouldn't be in its own section. It should be incorporated into the article so we have NPOV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable. I made a quick attempt of completely removing the controversy section and merging its information to the proper spots, while adding the other incidents where they belong chronologically. However, it appears as 3 controversies would appear exactly one after the other, chronologically, in the 2008-09 section. It might need some more work but I think the basis is good enough, maybe it needs to be summarized further, but it's a first draft. I made an attempt on the sandbox so I could link the specific revision here for your comments. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=364528875 CShephard (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks reasonable enough to me. Probably appropriate to wait for someone else to chime in.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks good. There's nothing wrong with being bold- it's easy enough to go through and tweak things as need be later on and I think the article is in need of a bit of an overhaul. It would be nice if we could incorporate that personal life section into the rest of the article while we're at it, thus having it ordered completely chronologically. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I made the change, but I was in the mood to try and follow HJ Mitchell's suggestion to incorporate the personal life section to the article as well, so it's a bit different than the version I linked to. Basically almost everything fits. The only thing I wasn't sure about is her heart condition which isn't really an 'event' that took place at a certain date, and the only section I thought it would fit in is the 'Early life' section, since it's a medical condition which was probably given at birth. However, this required the removal of the line "In her autobiography, Miles to Go, Cyrus writes, "There is never a time onstage when I'm not thinking about my heart". - as the Early life is the first section of the article, before the reader knows about the existence of her autobiography. I think mentioning the heart condition with that source is enough, though. It's possible to add that line in the part of the article that talks about the book, but I didn't think of a way to re-mention the heart condition just to show that quote.

Anyway, as HJ Mitchell said, it can be easily tweaked, and if anyone disagrees with the quote-removal and can find a place to re-add it, or has any other issues with the new version, feel free to fix whatever needs fixing or make suggestions. CShephard (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New image

This is the image.

The current image is very good except for that the side is faded and a different color than the background. So I am proposing to change it to Image:82nd Academy Awards, Miley Cyrus - army mil-66456-2010-03-09-180301.jpg. It's kin of different, but really cool, in my opinion. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The fade in the current image is a body part closer to the camera (like someone's arm or head) that's out of focus. I never really liked that image, the one you're proposing looks good. I'm all for the change until another one comes along (I'm not a fan of her hairstyle in either image). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While the fade may be distracting (I hadn't noticed it until it was mentioned here), in the new image the subject is looking to the right of screen, which forces the reader's attention away from the prose; this is generally undesirable but doesn't exclude use of the image. There is also a lot in the image that is not the subject. Again, this is distracting to readers, especially since the body of the subject is not centred. It might be a useful image for the prose, but it's not a good infobox image without cropping, flipping and rotating. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Derivative

Flipped, cropped, sharpened. Usable? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The microphones are still distracting. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree. She's kind of in an awkward pose and the image is "busy". Btw, (off-topic) sorry about my image edit (on the article), I wasn't aware of the forced sizing issue. I'm on a 17" and have never seen text break around a size-forced image, though maybe I don't know what to look for. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

What would people think of this image? I emailed the photographer about the licensing and she kindly changed it... except she didn't remove the Non-Commercial bit. But before I bother her again, I wanted to see if anyone else was interested in the potential use for this photo. I can't guarantee the licensing will be changed to suit Wikipedia's requirements. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks a bit shaky there, but I'd like to see how it looks downsized and in the Infobox. I'd go for it, I think it's a nice candid photo. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a "deer caught in the headlights" look.—Kww(talk) 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Kww, agreed, but I spent a short while yesterday digging through Flickr and that was one of the better ones I could find. There's an alternate, but the mic is more in her face, if I recall. CIS, I would sharpen the image a bit to help with that. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the mic isn't in her face at all; here it is. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure which I prefer. The first one was a bit shaky, but the placement of the microphone in the second is a bit awkward... it almost looks like it's some sort of neck decoration or something. I'd be fine to have both imported into the Wiki, preview them in the Infobox, and decide then. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless the license is changed both of the images are non-free and can not be used to replace free images. I don't think the angle is appropriate for an infobox image in either. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the images wouldn't be used unless the licensing is changed. I'm awaiting a response from the photographer. If the images can't be used now, it'd still be nice to add them to the Commons. Cropped and cleaned up a bit, they may be usable elsewhere. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no particular opinion on which image or where they go, but it's always good to make the best use of the free content available to us and it's good to change the lead image every now and then. We can always spend a few days chopping and changing, cropping and previewing until we're all happy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa kindly licensed the images appropriately, so here are two derivative choices. They can be flopped if needed, though I'd also recommend a slight curves adjustment to make her face a bit brighter. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I threw the smiling version up and I think it looks fine. If it manages to stay up longer than a day, I'll brighten her up some. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not like this photograph at all. First of all it's old, then it's not of high resolution, and then she looks surprised and did pose right for this. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I much rather prefer the fade-in. Maybe we can just crop out the fade? Is there a way to blur out the fade with the rest of the background? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the old one too. She's far too tan in this one (almost looks like wax). ~DC _{Talk To Me} 04:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously that's fine. I didn't see any objecting consensus to it above, but throwing it up sure got a reaction lol. Regarding the current image, cropping out the out of focus elbow (that's what I think it is, another photographer's), the blur extends over her shoulder and probably slightly into her face. I wouldn't recommend a crop that close, though one can always try. However, excluding cropping, de-noise, brightness/contrast, it is considered unethical to tamper with "real life" information within any media-used photograph. Magazines from National Geographic to Time to news journals have been accused of tampering or combining images for their specific needs. So actually blurring "out the fade" shouldn't be done. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the layout changed?

It looked better and more organized before like this: [[1]]

There is too much text and it looks sloppy now. Thoughts? Is it just me? I don't like it now.--DreadfullyDespised (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason is in the 'Controversy' discussion section above. Long story short, a lot of information was missing in the revision you linked to. The other editors thought that all the controversies shouldn't be concentrated in one section, and instead should be integrated chronologically in their spots, as this is what happens in most articles of performers. While the changes were being made, it was also suggested that the personal life section would also be integrated in the same way, so that was done as well. For comparison, the Britney Spears/Lindsay Lohan articles don't have a special controversy section either, and instead they are listed under their biography section.

Now that I think of it, that should probably work both ways according to WP:BLP, in the sense of the praise/positive information should also appear neutrally. I think that the next step would be possibly merging the 'Entrepreneurship/Charitable causes' sections into her biography as well, if others agree. CShephard (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to differentiate between the main facets of her career (as an actress and a singer) and minor aspects (such as brands and charities she's been involved with). It seems to me including both these aspects together would make the text harder to follow, as it would jump from topic to topic. I'm not convinced that the controversies should be included along with singing and acting, either, although I recognize that this is common practice. I do agree that there are neutrality problems with having a separate "criticisms" section; I wonder if we could have a "public image" section which would include both positive and negative media attention Cyrus has received? Somewhat independently of where we cover these controversies, I think we may be going into them in too much detail (though this was less of a problem when they were in their own section). As it stands, I do think the 2008-09 section is longer than it should be, and summarizing these controversies more concisely would be a good way to get that section down to a manageable size.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul- any significant issues?

With some help from Ipodnano, I've been working on an overhaul of the article in User:Liquidluck/Sandbox. The article isn't brilliant and is lengthy, but its organized and readable and corrects several errors. I'd like to paste it over on to the main article, but since its a major edit I'd like to get a semi-consensus on it. "Semi" because I'm not asking the content be permanent, but considered good enough that it won't attract any major edit wars.
Possessives are all "Cyrus's". I've cut quite a bit of controversy coverage because the article is fairly lengthy, but I think the article still conveys a shift to a risque image. Radiohead and the lap dance aren't included partially because I don't believe they have the sustained coverage necessary for notability and partially because I haven't found a spot to add them in neatly, but I've added the Myspace photo controversy and I'm open to re-additions. I've also cut philanthropy and entrepreneurship considerably because of length issues (actually, I don't remember adding philanthropy at all. I should probably do that). liquidluck✽talk 06:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with VoluntarySlave's point above your post regarding the 2008-09 section being long as it contains a lot of information. My original idea was making a controversies article and then linking to that main article which would make the main article a lot shorter, but most didn't agree. VoluntarySlave's idea is similar - making a section for both the positive/negative media attention. I think that might have potential, but it also has the potential of being too lengthy as well (in the main article).

For the time being, as a possible temporary solution and due to the high amount of info, I separated the 2008-09 section in to two sections of 2008 and 2009 individually and used your summarized version of the Vanity Fair controversy (I hope you don't mind), so now there are different sections for 2008/2009, and the difference in length is considerable. I made the changes because it's not really an 'overhaul' (yet) this way - simply separating two sections and turning two long paragraphs in to one, so I doubt anyone will disagree with this as a temporary solution, though the length-issue is nearly resolved. Maybe the 2009 section could be summarized further (by possibly using your summarized version of the video performance&slant-eyed controversies and the Twitter thing) and then the overall layout should look pretty neat without removing info (though I think it is notably better now, specifically length-wise).

As for sustained notability, I had a few articles that showed it for most controversies, but I chose the 'most reliable' one when I originally added the ref - [2]. If need be, I can find the others. That one covers almost all of the listed controversies by re-mentioning the ones from 2008 and beyond, plus the latest lap dance. They also mention some things that we didn't include, such as her breast tattoo [3], though I don't think that has a major encyclopedic value, as it doesn't look like it sparked major controversies/debates. CShephard (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article is better organized now, but there are still trivia and copy-edit issues. Assuming the readdition of the lap-dance and philanthropy, would you still be adverse to the copy-and-pasting of the version in [[my sandbox? liquidluck✽talk 07:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it could work with the readditions, I also just fixed a few small typos there. By quick reading it might need slight tweaks here and there, for example regarding Hannah Montana's fourth season, I believe they already finished filming the last season and its just awaiting broadcast (as opposed to 'to be shot in 2010') so that might need editing/source. We might also want to reach a consensus regarding Cyrus's vs. Cyrus' to avoid future edit warring if we replace the version. Other than that it should probably be acceptable but I think it would be best to wait for someone else to comment on the matter before going ahead with it. CShephard (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just done some editing to the draft but it has all been minor work. The draft seems generally okay, except for the consensus on Cyrus's vs. Cyrus'. On that, I'll state a pereference for Cyrus'. I believe Cyrus's is preferred in the US but Cyrus' is acceptable. In other parts of the world Cyrus' is preferred but Cyrus's is generally unacceptable, or only begrudgingly accepted. Since Cyrus' is accepeted everywhere, this seems the most logical and least problematic usage. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the missing info and cut-and-pasted the version. I attended (fixed silly typo 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)) US schools and was always taught to use Cyrus', so I'd actually prefer that. Consensus appeared to be in favor of Cyrus's before, but that seems to be changing now. liquidluck✽talk 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

With a last name of "Williams", this is something that has always been a bit more important to me than it is to others. It's "Cyrus's" and "Williams's". Of the three systems documented at WP:APOSTROPHE#Possessives, two of them result in "Cyrus's". The growth of "Cyrus'" is an example of a mistake growing in popularity because people didn't understand the actual rule. I'll grant that sometimes the mistake grows in popularity to the point that it becomes the new right way of doing things, but hopefully we aren't there yet.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a mistake demonstrates a misunderstanding of the rule. The third option at WP:APOSTROPHE#Possessives refers to the way in which the posessive form is pronounced. However, pronunciation of the posessive form varies.[4] Cyrus', Cyruses, Wiliams' and Williamses are all correct.[5][6] The common factor with all of the variations is that they add an apostrophe. It's not so common that an "s" is added after the apostrophe. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that your PDF from umimelb.edu.au indicates that "Rogers's", "Charles's" (and by extension "Cyrus's") is correct, and you've misread the case for "Williams", where the "es" comes up in discussion of pluralization: "I was at Kevin Williams's house" and "I was over at the Williamses' house". The examples in the PDF are "Doctor Rogers's car" and "the Davieses' car". Similarly, "Miley Cyrus's car" and "the Cyruses' car". I'll stand by my description: the rules are sufficiently complex that they are widely misunderstood and misapplied. Languages constantly evolve in a process where what was once a mistake becomes acceptable. I think "Cyrus' " is still a mistake, but I will grant it is clearly becoming more and more acceptable.—Kww(talk) 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought I would chime in. I don't condone the singular Cyrus' at all; I agree it's becoming more and more acceptable, but so is letting girls open their own doors. It's journalistic writing; the removal of the s helps save space and ink and perhaps eases reading a bit. Wikipedia considers it acceptable here, but doesn't say why it's acceptable. That people can't or won't write an encyclopedic article with correct English usage is frightening to me. It's come to the point where, upon seeing English written as it should be, I feel I must applaud it, rather than ignore it as the norm. Miley Cyrus receives something like 30,000 hits a day. This article has the means to help the readers see well-written English at work. (Obviously, this is not the point of the article, or of Wikipedia, but I believe it's an important note.) Where Miley may a questionable role model for kids, this article could actually be a good one.

English 101

1. The Cyruses invited Liam for a game of family golf.
2. Liam was going to borrow Miley Cyrus's golf clubs.
3. Liam played golf at the Cyruses' private course.
4. Liam's golf clubs' handles were broken.

Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia for anyone to edit, but that doesn't mean articles should look or read like anyone's edited it. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Para 2 of the umimelb.edu.au source cites H. W. Fowler's "Modern English Usage" which states that "it was formerly customary, when words ended in an "s" to write its possessive with an apostrophe but no additional "s"". In other words it's becoming more and more acceptable to add "'s", not the other way around. Para 2, citing Murray-Smith, says either method is acceptable. Fowler claims that exclusion of the additional "s" is only valid for reverential contexts and poetry and verse but that causes an inconsistency. What is the sense of saying "Jesus'" but not "Cyrus'" and "Cyrus's" but not "Jesus's"? Murray-Smith's interpretation seems to make far more sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this PDF is being used against the s' case; it actually argues for Cyrus's. Aussie's example is for religious contexts and texts, as explained. In Jesus' name is pronounced "in jesus name", not "in jesus-ses name," and always has been. The PDF explains that clearly and it has nothing to do with the Miley Cyrus article. The PDF also states: Rule 3: When the number of the syllables in the word being made possessive is more than the number of syllables in the subjective case or root form of the word, then use “s’s” "

Again, to use the PDF's (Fowler) example: Achilles' is pronounced Achilles, not Achilles-ses. Charles's is pronounced Charles-ses, not Charles. Cyrus's is pronounced Cyrus-ses, not Cyrus. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The PDF isn't being used against the s' case. I don't see how you came up with that. The PDF is being used to demonstrate that both "s'" and "s's" are valid uses. (Murray-Smith vs Fowler) It has also been used to show that it isn't the case that use of "s'" is "becoming more and more acceptable" but that it was actually the customary method. You are correct that In Jesus' name is pronounced "in jesus name" but my point was, why wouldn't in cyrus' name be equally correct, given that addition of the apostrophe, without the additional "s" is the customary use and is supported by Murray-Smith. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote above, "Since Cyrus' is accepeted everywhere, this seems the most logical and least problematic usage" but I'll counter this as a fallacy. Technically, since Cyrus's is accepted everywhere, it's the most logical usage as well. Unfortunately, it is problematic, because the possessive debate seems to be brought up anytime anyone uses s's. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AussieLegend, do you actually omit the final "z" sound? "Syrus" as opposed to "Syrusez"? Of course, comparing Cyrus to Jesus brings John Lennon to mind, but I will assume we are only discussing spelling.—Kww(talk) 18:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to be a little late to this party, but I think the new version is much better. I'm glad that controversies section has been merged in and I think the whole thing looks a bit more professional now. With some copyediting and referencing and general tweaks and fixes, it could be on its way towards towards GA status in the not-too-distant future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

mistake in text

Marriage date of Miley's parents (dunno the date) but the year is supposed to be 1992 in stead of 2010! --Dino (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I actually noticed this in the draft but got distracted. Thanks for picking it up. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's embarrassing. Thanks to both of you for catching that. liquidluck✽talk 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Metro

See the London edition of the "Metro", of 7/6/2010, on page 39. Miley Cyrus appears, kissing another girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.240 (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC) This is referred to in today's edition of the London Metro, on page 40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.240 (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Musical styles

The article should have a "Musical styles" section that discusses her transitions from teen pop, pop rock, country pop, dance-pop, etc. The section would have two subsections — "Influences" and "Music videos and live performances". The first can discuss how she names Britney Spears as her inspiration on "Party in the U.S.A." and how she has also cited Lady Gaga and different artists as her inspirations. The rock band Poison was her first concert and that can be said. The material is not only limited to people, the film Grease inspired her the music video for "Party in the U.S.A." Many other things inspire Cyrus, such as her roots, religion, etc. The latter subsection would speak of her shift from always performing with as Hannah Montana to ditching the wig and how she now flies on motorcycles. Her music videos have changed as well. From "Start All Over" to "Can't Be Tamed", it's very different. The entire section would help shorten the "Biography" section. Does anyone disagree that this section should exist? Does anyone agree? Please state your thoughts below. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While Cyrus is an actress and singer, she hasn't developed a personal style at either, which she admits- she says she wants acting lessons and to take a hiatus to find 'her own sound'. Up until now, she's done various forms of teen pop because Disney told her to; only with Can't Be Tamed has she significantly changed her sound, but I think the switch is covered in the article. Because of this, I don't think a musical styles is necessary until she at least comes out with an album demonstrating whatever 'her sound' is (which is probably sooner than she says- she's under a four album contract with Hollywood Records) and some more artistic control.

How about pulling personal life out? It could discuss her religion and influences, and would do more for shortening the biography section. liquidluck✽talk 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and it makes sense that she has had the sound she wanted but it still what people recognize her for. And I think there is a significant change from "The Best of Both Worlds" to "The Climb" or a recent song like "When I Look at You". And I'm sorry for not being clear. What I think is that her personal life could be mentioned if it has influenced any of her music. That's cool about the religion and influence, which I think I mentioned. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

REAL Controversy

http://mygloss.com/buzz/2010/06/15/perez-hilton-exposes-miley-cyrus-twitter-upskirt/

I'm new and this page is semi-protected so can someone add this? Pretty major scandal... -- BippetyBoppetyBoop (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not notable enough yet. There are countless articles/blog posts on gossip sites and such about it, but that doesn't usually qualify as a reliable source (same goes for your link). However, reliable sources seem to start showing up: [7] [8]. Probably enough for inclusion in terms of a reliable source but not sure about notability, might have to wait a bit and see what happens with this story. CShephard (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some more info/developments: [9] [10] [11] CShephard (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it'll ever be notable, unless Perez gets arrested- he now says the photo was fake. If nothing comes of it, it won't be notable in a couple weeks. liquidluck✽talk 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also hold off for now. While notable vis-a-vis Perez Hilton, it has yet to earn enough coverage vis-a-vis Cyrus to warrant mention in this article.--PinkBull 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Natravis, 16 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Her birthdate was mistyped to make her 100 years older than she is. The year should be changed from 1892 to 1992.

Natravis (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done - The problem was caused by vandalism that had been incompletely reverted. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Movie

Miley Cyrus is planned to be on a thriller movie called 'Wake!' which is by the producers of Paranormal Activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.89.201 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! In the future, please provide a link to a reliable source backing up your information. liquidluck✽talk 21:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)