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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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 of /Comments subpage 2006
• 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)
• Archive 4 November 2007 to mid-February 2008--WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Archive 5-- WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Archive 6-- WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Archive 7-- 23:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Archive 8-- WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Miley death hoax

The online hoax

On November 16th, 2008 a rumor of Miley dying in a car accident was circulated on the internet. Apparently someone hacked into her youtube account and posted a "good bye" video. I think this should be on the page.

everyone knows shes not dead. i only heared about it after the video was taken of. it wasn't that big of a deal. --gdaly7 (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

but the other rummor that she died on set of the hannah montana movie a while ago that could get put in, that was big news.--gdaly7 (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This incident has been noted by Associated Press among others. References exist from at least one reliable source. I don't think it belongs in the article so I won't put it in, but that is just my editorial judgment and I won't remove it if someone adds the info with a reliable source reference. --NrDg 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I will remove such entries on sight, per WP:DENY, and, if you look through the edit history, you will see that Acroterion does so as well. There is no reason to provide support to these people by recognizing their vandalism.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DENY applies to Wikipedia vandalism only but I agree, in general, with the principle for other things which is one of the reasons I don't want to see this in the article. However, when notabilty is shown by reliable sources picking up and reporting this we cannot use WP:DENY as a reason to keep it out of the article. I think this is trivial information that adds nothing to the article and should stay out for that reason. --NrDg 20:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube vandalism and Wikipedia vandalism were essentially simultaneous. It was all one event, so I think WP:DENY covers both the Wikipedia and YouTube aspects.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point I WP:UNDUE would apply. This routine "controversies" here already take up a much of the ToC. But if this is still considered significant in a month (Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS) and can be written to respect Wikipedia:BLP#Basic human dignity, would it be reasonable then? Gimmetrow 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --NrDg 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If something happens to make it genuinely notable (triggers a new YouTube security policy, spawns a mad wave of YouTube vandalism that ultimately cripples the site, etc.), it can be added then. That would bring it past WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:DENY.—Kww(talk) 20:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

-- For the record, I just read about this Hoax on my Nintendo Wii (via the News menu) so I don't think any of Wikipedia's silly DENY rules really apply any more. The Associated Press has picked up on this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.41.154 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I believe we should add it to the article! it would b good, plus we could prevent phycotic fans from getting ticked off(Mini no ipod (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

Per Gimmetrow's comment and WP:NOT#NEWS, if this is still significant in a month, then it may have validity. Otherwise, it's just ephemera. I am unconcerned about the feelings of "psychotic fans. " Acroterion _(talk) 18:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

it was breifly mentioned in Time Magazine, as were the myspace photos.

of course Cyrus has a full time staff of internet reputation purifiers who edit this page constantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.36.94 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Why has this not been placed back on the page?! i agree there are some die hard fans out there who don't want to believe any of this. Biased wikipedia!! I'm certain that facts can be added regardless of wether it has sustained in mainstream media for 2 months. Complete bull. Even the presidents inauguration is not in the media anymore. Are you saying we should edit that off wikipedia as well?!?125.236.154.70 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand... There is the pregnancy hoax on the page but you can't put the death hoax on there? Last time I checked saying someone is dead is a little more serious than saying someone is pregnant. Kgreg10

The pregnancy hoax was believable, got picked up as true in news sources, got a lot of coverage in major news sources, and had an impact on Cyrus that she had to respond to. Death hoaxes are common, every celebrity gets them and nobody really believes them. --NrDg 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah since there has never been a famous actress that has been been called "pregnant" that is quite a big deal and is more important than a death hoax. Kgreg10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgreg10 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... Hello? Her official youtube account was hacked, a fake video posted, major backlash, and news coverage (e.g. Entertainment Tonight, TVNZ News, etc.) resulting in her account being disabled. she also made a press conference explain why this is not relevant? Thankyou biased Miley fans 125.236.154.70 (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

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

Why hasn't there been any mention of the photo controversy where Cyrus and one of her friends were photographed sharing candy? 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. Edgehead5150 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. Edgehead5150 07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually wonder why that Vanity Fair photo is under the header "Controversy" at all. Both artistically and in any frankly sexual sense it is at the same level as a van Gogh. Unless you're a pervert artophile, it doesn't turn you on. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If everyone agreed with you it wouldn't be a controversy. Since they don't, it is. --NrDg 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Isn't the statement the AFA said contradicting what Miley said? She said that she loves everybody, gay or not, in the bible it says to love eveybody even our enemies and homosexuals. Kgreg10

Body double

First hey tweedle20 i agree not a place for gossip. but i feel that we should add in the contrversy section about her use of a body double in the bobw concert tour, it did cause a big stir. also i would like to say that she used partly because she is hypoglycemic which is mentioned in the artice, but we may want to expand on that topic also, because it is a big part of her life and she is dealing with it consently, like in consert we often see her drinking orange juice on stage.

So what you think? --gdaly7 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should her using a body double be added to the controversy section? It wasn't a controversy and wasn't a major event, so it shouldn't be added to the article. Edgehead5150 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It used to be covered in the article about the concert tour but was removed as this is not a real controversy. It is purely a show design issue and has nothing to do with Cyrus. Show was designed by Kenny Ortega and Cyrus just did what she was told to do. --NrDg 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you! Unfortunately, we can't add that. That is considered vandalism. Even though I told everyone this is not a chat forum, I must say this. Do you not find it a little odd she drinks ORANGE JUICE at her concerts? Sorry everyone, but I just had to add that. I didn't know this. Odd... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweedle20 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Man this page is biased... why don't you add the body double bit back to the tour section. It was an important addition and fact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.154.70 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually we work really hard to keep bias out of articles. In what way was this an important addition and fact about Cyrus as opposed to the tour? Show design issues generally are talked about in the article about a show, not the artist. --NrDg 22:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well considering that miley is a executive producer/creative consultant of all of her tours, i would say that she authorized or if not at least had a choice in the matter. So as i was saying... biased miley fans. 125.236.154.70 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

height and weight

someone find out somehow and write it. height is ok if its approx i think. Madmaxxx (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This information is usually not notable for a singer/actor - given it is hard to find indicates no reliable source has "noted" it which is basically what notable means. For occupations where this is important, such as athletes, it is always widely available. --NrDg 15:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hypoglycaemia?

I agree that Miley said it, but as a licensed medical doctor it appears to be a medical nonsense. This bascially means that she is underfeeding herself. If this is the case it is not "hypoglycemia" but a form of anorexia. Now, I'm not saying that she is anorexic, which I don't think she is; but I do question how she could be claming to be a [long term] "hypoglycemic" (she'd have to be clinically diabetic for this to be medically possible). Any info anyone? fr33kman -s- 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I just saw this. Looks like another Hollywood fad tbh. I suggest changing it to "Cyrus claims to suffer from long-term hypoglycaemia[insert the reference]-an unrecognised medical condition."GiollaUidir (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest "an unrecognized condition" rather than "an unrecognized medical condition". The later gives it some credence. fr33kman -s- 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, agreed. :) 86.154.208.198 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, strongly disagree. I have no problem with "Cyrus claims to suffer from long-term hypoglycaemia [insert the reference]." That is if that is what the reference supports. The wikilink to the term gives all the additional info and discussion required for anyone interested. It is not our job to do interpretations if the subject's beliefs are in error as that is prohibited Original research. --NrDg 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We also aren't required to add it to the article if it is foolish. NOR isn't a suicide pact. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article hypoglycaemia discusses the controversy of whether or not it is medical nonsense - a view not uniformly held. We can use editorial judgment in what to include in the article. We can't editorialize. This is an insignificant medical factoid that, in my opinion, does not add anything of value to the article. Also the reference seems to have died. --NrDg 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if the reference has died, then I think that points to it being removed in its entirety. fr33kman -s- 16:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the statement under the WP:BOLD policy. fr33kman -s- 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be diabetic to suffer hypoglycaemia. :/ Some doctor you are.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.20.234 (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Death Hoax again

Again wikipedia says that she died but on bed this time, and the article is locked, so could someone please change it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.12.1 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ok where does it say that cause i can't find it

--gdaly7 (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism already reverted, editor blocked.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In 3.3 2008–Unfortunate Disaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.12.1 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, don't think Miley's dead... Maybe someone would like to remove this section about Miley 'dying peacefully in her sleep.' She's 16, this sort of stuff is just twisted. I can't edit it, but please can someone? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.161.9 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It was only in the article for less than a minute.[1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Explicitly purged the page cache. It probably did nothing, but doesn't hurt to try.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown saying Miley Cyrus is ugly

Ok this youtube video has had like 17,500 views last time i checked so its quite a big thing! anyway, i was wondering whether it should be included in her wikipedia - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Et96sDfZDFc Smileychiley (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because a youtube video has over 17,000 views doesn't make it a big thing. And no it shouldn't be added to her wikipedia page as it is not notable. Edgehead5150 08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not notable? explain. If a big name singer calls another big name singer ugly and it is reported on the news and IS a big thing it should be added on the wikipedia page. Compare this situation to such things as the Christian Bale deal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.154.70 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Which major news source reported this? See WP:N and WP:RS for what we need. Videos are easy to modify so don't trust anything that is put on an anonymous YouTube account. --NrDg 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris brown says Miley Cyrus is ugly on Natioanl Australian Radio

before you jump to conclusions NrDG, here is the news source (http://music.spreadit.org/chris-brown-miley-cyrus-dissmiley-is-ugly/), and the reporting entity is 2dayfm (http://www.2dayfm.com.au/) - which is the BIGGEST radio station in Australia! anyway, chris brown DID say that he "chills back" in the interview and tells it like it is because he hopes no one will hear it, but the reality is, in australia or whereelse, the guy has a point to say, and he said it. And quoting that website Chris Brown Miley Cyrus Diss:”Miley Is Ugly” - Chris Brown did an interview at a radio station in Australia where he talked about the kiss that he shared with Rihanna, and revealed that Miley Cyrus was ugly.You can listen to the interview after the jump. I dont know if NrDg is like the marketing guy for Miley Cyrus or something because of his repeated edits of this page, but the reality is mate, Chris Brown had a point and he made it, even if you think Australia is a small country on the side of the planet! The reality is, he said Miley Cyrus was... ugly! Safmrocknroll (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment saying someone is ugly is too trivial to be included in wikipedia....this is encyclopedia, not a gossip site....so pls lets just focus on her career and life....If his "Ugly" comment had caused some furore or defamation suit or some big news then maybe we could've included it....but frankly speaking i dont think its notable enough....Gprince007 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It would possibly be significant--not that I'm insisting on it--if any person or persons widely recognized as arbiters of the aesthetically-pleasing were to make such a pronouncement. Chris Brown is famous, but I doubt if he's the standard-keeper of the Beautiful. As a corollary, a quick check of Google shows that at present, searching on the phrase 'Miley Cyrus' is ugly' produces over 2 million results: it would take someone with a lot of patience to go through all of them to find anyone whose opinion on the matter is relevant. More to the point--and related to issues of Cyrus's career and life--might be her level of ability. Google for 'Miley Cyrus can't sing,' and once again, over a million results. Are such judgments generally notable? I think not--unless they were made by recognized experts on singing, who put them in writing. JWMcCalvin (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

name change source

I just noticed that the source for the name change from Destiny Hope Cyrus to Miley Ray Cyrus is no longer available due to the sites update. But I did find another reliable source on it. http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/01/58023/ --Ksto9 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Ksto9

Updated. Edgehead5150 07:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Put back original reference with updated url. Jan 2008 source was wrong as it reported the name change has having happened then that actually did not occur until May 2008. --NrDg 16:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mocking people of asian descent

I feel that such an info needs to be backed up by more than one reliable source. TMZ is a tabloid site and we need a more Reliable source to back the fact. Moreover, is the incident just a gossip news or has it been covered by mainstream media??? Unless it's been broadly covered in mainstream media, I personally feel that it is not worth putting in the article. Ofcourse, if its been largely covered and affects her career, then maybe we can mention it in the article....just wanna know others' views on it ...Gprince007 (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reuters, and MTV are reporting about this incident. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could make a weak case for the Reuters link, but probably would be best served waiting this one out for a few days (there may have been more coverage yesterday had it not been for the Michael Phelps fiasco or two Obama appointees having to bow out). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I left the press release link and the reuters reference that reported on the press release. All other news sources I've seen just restate the press release and add nothing. This is only news because a sensitized organization officially complained. When and if there is further fallout from this event we should add that then if it is notable. --NrDg 04:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok before the apology, we need to say she denied it first. 04:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs)

UPDATE: The FOX News site has a new story stating that there's one woman who has filed a class action lawsuit against Cyrus for a total of $4 billion. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be something to put in the article if it actually goes to trial. What is in the article now is more than sufficient for this media created controversy. --NrDg 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone took it off. I think people are being bias here. Or a PR person is editing the article.GagaLoveGame (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty big controversy for Miley Cyrus, it was covered all over the media, by big media companies, more than just TMZ. I've even seen it on Fox News, where they hosted lawyers to explain what sort of case was going to happen. She was forced to apologize, and its a big deal, it was news that was mentioned across the world, even if all the charges are dropped, it should still be listed under the controversy. I think its much serious than not wearing a seatbelt.--Tiah12345 (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Then where's the paragraph about it at? I don't see it being listed under the contro. section at all.206.40.103.133 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

agree article heavily biased, have added section and cited in the guardian, def a reliable source 3tmx (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's here again - http://www.adelaideone.com/index.php?action=show&id=7. I REALLY think this should be included... she is like the world's biggest teen star, and she's being racial against asians! Mileycyruswitch (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Miley has a page on omg! that links to articles, photos, and other resources: http://omg.yahoo.com/celebs/miley-cyrus/223 --Lalaboywp 15:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of similar pages all over the web; we don't add every link that's relevant, just the ones that are actually helpful to the reader. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review our external links guideline. I suggest you don't put that in the article. --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Link

Just wondered it anyone else noticed a wrong link. I know that Miley went to Heritage Middle School and its says that in the article but it has the wrong link, the wikipedia article it links to is a school in Georgia and Miley went to Heritage Middle School in Franklin, Tennesse. That link needs to be removed. MyOwnWorld (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

 Done --NrDg 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting lyrics

She forget lyrics to fly on the wall, and mouthed to her back-ups "I forgot the lyrics".Contrversy page please.http://www.stuff.co.nz/4850532a1860.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance-pop (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does this matter to her career? Is there any purpose of adding this to the article other than to put derogatory information there? In what way is this controversial - in other words, what is the controversy and why does it matter? --NrDg 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This prooves nothing, you can't see her "mouthing, 'I've forgotten the lyrics' to fellow dancers" it's just the critics attacking her, I think that people reckon she's mouthing the words to her songs, so they could tell she was singing live! Jonni Boi 21:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You people are probaly Miley fans(no offence), that is why you sont think its notable. I think it is. Have you even seen the video, you can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GagaLoveGame (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

GagaLoveGame her forgetting the lyrics is not notable. It wasn't talked about on any major sites, and it isn't talked about anymore. If it was notable people would still be talking about it. Frehley^{Space Ace} 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if she forgot the lyric's at least we know she actually preforms live and doesnt lip sync (a104375 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Cyrus was hacked

I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in the article, but I just saw on Inside Edition that Miley Cyrus was hacked by a 19-year old hooligan. Her e-mail account and MySpace accounts were hacked.

Source: http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyID=2702

--Tomballguy (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Chris

Her getting hacked isn't that important to be mentioned in the article. I haven't checked the archives but i believe this was discussed before. --Frehley^{Space Ace} 21:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed With Frehley, Her account being hacked is not a Notable feat to Qualify for WP:NOTE Bharath (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Heart Condition?

I noticed that there was an recentarticle stating that Miley reveals in her memoirs that she has a heart condition called tachycardia which can cause the heart rate to speed up. Should I add this (and is US Magazine a reliable source)? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Without a real medical reference, I would say not. This is the same person that claimed to have hypoglycemia, which isn't actually possible.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Miles To Go - book

The paragraph on the Miles To Go memoir doens't make much sense. It's all wrong as grammar is concerned but it also makes little sense in text. The book is published by now and the assumption that the book was written by Hilary Liftin is waaay to much for an encyclopedia. The book clearly says "Miley Cyrus with Hilary Liftin" and though everyone knows most autobiographies are not really written by the people themselves, an encyclopedia can not assume that much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.69.55 (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing the main Miley page

Earlier today someone edited the page to say some very disrespectful and vulgar things about Ms. Cyrus, and they appear to have since been banned from editing. However the disparaging remarks remain on the page even though another person appears to have attempted to revert the page to the form prior to the remarks being posted.

The remarks are very inappropriate for an encyclopedia based website and should be removed, especially since children can access this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsly4425 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dsly4425 i believe your talking about the edit made by User:JNT724. As you stated above the edit was undone so the remarks were removed from the main article. I also think your talking about removing the edit from the pages edit history so that the revision cannot be viewed again, but those can't be removed. --Frehley^{Space Ace} 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything disparaging on the page at this moment. Vandals generally get reverted very quickly as this is a heavily watched page. About the only thing that gets removed from edit histories is personal info about minors and that requires someone with WP:OVERSIGHT rights. Normal vandalism is not taken too seriously as most vandalism is obvious as to what it is. It is also possible that an old version of the page is in your cache. See WP:PURGE. --NrDg 23:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A surprising technical glitch can cause this: separate caches are maintained for registered and unregistered editors. If something sticks in the unregistered cache, IP editors will see it and registered editors won't. The solution is to log out, purge the cache while logged out, and then log back in again. There's a bug report on it somewhere, but I doubt it will ever get fixed.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead

When Miley, who first claimes that "Radiohead are "the reason I love music", tells "Stinkin' Radiohead! I'm gonna ruin them, I'm going to tell everyone" next year, it is a Controversy. So stop deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowesvisa (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That does not seem like a controversy, it's just her being mad because she didn't get what she wanted. So until this is resolved and some other users have given their thoughts on if the story should be included lets leave it out. --Frehley^{Space Ace} 22:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a serious ethical controversy, IMHO. She is dishonest when she says something good, then attacking people the next day. It should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowesvisa (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Her being dishonest doesn't seem like a valid reason for it to be called a controversy. --Frehley^{Space Ace} 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"A controversy is a dispute, argument, discussion or debate featuring strong disagreements and opposing, contrary, or sharply contrasting opinions about an idea, subject, group or person." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy. It is a 100% controversy. There are 100's "sharply contrasting opinions about an idea" and "strong disagreements" all over Internet about her remarques. "Pregnancy hoax" part is a much less controversy then - just talks with nothing behind it. So far your removal is unfunded, Wiki is the top authority to explain what "controvery" is. Editing will be added back unless you provide a reason. Thanks.Lowesvisa

The references used were from a music news site and a gossip site. There is not even a real controversy here, just Cyrus acting like a brat who didn't get her own way possibly for the purposes of media attention. I fail to see how this would add anything to the article. Even if it were added, it would be undue weight to have more than a sentence in the Personal life section. It is about as interesting as who her friends are. --NrDg 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NrDg. The Radiohead stuff isn't a controversy, it's just Miley acting like a brat because she didn't get what she wanted. --Frehley^{Space Ace} 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pregnancy hoax stuff is also not a controversy. It is marginal as to whether or not it belongs in the article at all, but consensus seems to be for it to stay for now. If it were solely up to me, I'd remove it. The Vanity Fair issue is the only real controversy about Cyrus and it strongly belongs because of the extensive news coverage and real impact it had on her and her career. --NrDg 00:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah Cyrus

I believe that she needs her own page now. She has done some voice work for Ponyo (a movie with Liam Neesom) and others. 208.242.14.183 (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah Cyrus article restored per request and can be edited. Needs work but I judge that assertion of notability independent of Miley Cyrus has been made. --NrDg 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Further Adventures in Babysitting

Cyrus has no involvement in this film. I left mention in the article as there are conflicting references but all mention should be removed soon as this was just a rumor in the first place. For the record the authoritative denial of the rumor is

Carroll, Larry (April 1, 2009). "Miley Cyrus Wants 'Edgy' Roles, Not 'Alvin And The Chipmunks'". MTV. Retrieved April 1, 2009. 'Hannah Montana' star denies being cast in 'Squeakuel' and 'Adventures in Babysitting' remake

Also note she also denies involvement in Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel --NrDg 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait what? 190.213.97.190 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

half brothers and sisters

Brandi, Trace and Christopher Cody are her half brothers and sisters. Noah and Braison are her siblings. You can't discover it in the article.--Sleimson (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed before: all the children you refer to as "half brothers" and "half sisters" have been legally adopted, making them full brothers and sisters. It's not at all uncommon for a biological half-sibling to be a legal full sibling. Happens the other way around sometimes, too.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy hoax section/Miley's celibacy

Shouldn't Miley's response to the hoax be included? She says she's abstaining from sex until marriage, please find it below;

"In a September 2007 interview with Extra!, Cyrus, now 15, defended herself against rumors that she's pregnant, citing her vow to stay celibate until marriage.

"It's given me the street cred to say that would be impossible, because I'm living my life the way I believe is right and that is to stay pure," she said."

Source: http://i.abcnews.com/Entertainment/story?id=4560089&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.66.5 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{editsemiprotected}}

"She has an older half-brother Christopher Cody, her father's son from a previous relationship, an older brother Trace, a vocalist and guitarist of an electronic rock band, Metro Station in California."

should be:

"She has an older half-brother Christopher Cody, her father's son from a previous relationship, and an older brother Trace, a vocalist and guitarist of an electronic rock band, Metro Station in California."

It's missing a conjunction between the brothers. Right now it's basically saying "She has an older half-brother, an older brother.

 Done —Ms2ger (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

M&M show screenshot

I think that the screenshot of her Youtube show that has been added to the page should be removed as it does not represent anything other than her friend and she imitating a person, and also there is no relevant information on the page about it. It happened nearly 1 year ago and also she had apologized to Demi and Selena for it. There is no purpose of it being here, so i suggest that it be removed. Shayanshaukat (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also we generally don't use non-free images for illustration in bio articles. There are plenty of free-use images available. There is nothing in that image that can't adequately be described in text. --NrDg 02:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)