Talk:Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) season 30

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021
Dancing with the stars should not be semi-protected there is no reason for it. Some of the couples have been said already by a reporter. People are only adding in the ones we already know. Meganjyrdsb (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A. The information being added was not being sourced- given that the full cast/couples have yet to be officially revealed, a reliable source would be needed to verify the information.
 * B. As far as I've seen, there was only a gossip site (like TMZ or something) that was saying two people were seen walking around the same time, but that's clearly not enough to verify they are paired together. (EDIT: Yes, it was TMZ I was talking about. They even use the wording, "...appears her partner will be...", so they clearly don't 100% know either.)


 * Given that the speculation/rumors are going on again, semi-protection seems to be needed so that people are not going crazy adding speculated/rumored people to the list. Magitroopa (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

One of the reports has confirmed a few of the pairings so can the ones that have been confirmed at least be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganjyrdsb (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link for the source/report? That would especially be helpful. (P.S. some of the generally reliable television-related sources can be viewed at WP:TVRS if you are trying to find good/useful sources.) Magitroopa (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link: https://www.dancedishwithkb.com/post/confirmed-pros-celebrities-season-30-dancing-with-the-stars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganjyrdsb (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it seems like that wouldn't be a source we can use. I don't see them saying their own 'source' for any of this (apart from 'I know it'). However, the bigger issue would be at the bottom of the website: "Proudly created with Wix.com"- this is a website anyone can create themself, and would be considered as user-generated content. Magitroopa (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

She works for Dancing with the stars Meganjyrdsb (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No, she does not... Either way, the cast will be revealed in less than a week from now. If there currently isn't a reliable source available for certain pieces of information, it is okay to wait. Magitroopa (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You've been told multiple times that DailyMail is WP:NOTRS... and DanceDishWithKB falls under WP:USERG. Please discuss the issue here rather than continuing to edit war, thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

See my comment in the photo section below. @Magitroopa CoolDudeAl (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Photographic proof
Here is photographic proof of Christine Chiu and Jimmie Allen. That along with Kristyn Burtt's post, should be more than enough proof to add them to the list. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9956451/Kenya-Moore-Olivia-Jade-Giannulli-serve-looks-head-Dancing-Stars-rehearsal.html 2600:1700:BA90:9580:1D3:2273:1C1B:98B7 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

These are paparazzi photos from the DWTS Studios that show said people. Regardless of where they are posted from, how do they not confirm said celebrities? CoolDudeAl (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "Regardless of where they are posted from..." That's exactly the issue, though. DailyMail is considered to be a not reliable source. Per how it is listed at WP:RSP, "There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles."
 * If there is a reliable source using these photos, go right ahead. However, DailyMail definitely should not be getting used here... Magitroopa (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is likely much better to use... though I would suggest we still leave out the partners/couples until that is officially confirmed via ABC/DWTS. Magitroopa (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The photos have copyrights on them from the photographers (I assume), the Daily Mail is just posting about it. I don't know how to find where the original photos came from, but claiming we can't use them because they are shared in a DailyMail post is silly. They are real photos from the celebrities who are going to be competing. You can't get more concrete proof than photographic evidence. Like if celebrity should be questioned here, it's The Miz. I have not seen photos of him, and notably Kristyn (call her unreliable or whatever, but she has correctly leaked people for multiple seasons now) has not posted about him. So at the very least, he should be removed, if photographic proof of others isn't enough. If you have sources you are comfortable with that list Jimmie Allen and/or Christine Chiu, then why are you removing them? Use those sources then. CoolDudeAl (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Christine Chiu also specifically has an unconcealed shot of her face while leaving the parking lot (again, yes, it is posted from the DailyMail, but they are not the copyright owner of the shot): https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/09/03/22/47486525-9956451-image-a-30_1630705933566.jpg CoolDudeAl (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * We still can't use DailyMail. It has been discussed multiple times (notably here and here) with the same result/consensus. All the celebrities that have been reported by TMZ very specifically says above the table that it was reported by TMZ, mostly due to how the site is listed at WP:RSP.
 * I had originally said 411Mania (site reported The Miz) was not reliable due to this, but seems to be fine to use per its listing at WP:PW/RS.
 * And no, sourcing to just the image itself would not be helpful, as just using the image gives no context how this is them/actually for DWTS. (And for all we know, they could just be asking random celebrities to come dressed up to just try and throw fans off...) Magitroopa (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm also not quite sure why this has to be such a big issue... there's no need to rush to add celebrities just because certain websites (whether reliable or not) are reporting them, the full celebrity roster is literally being revealed this upcoming Wednesday morning, not too far away from now... Magitroopa (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is no rush, I just figure it's strange to exclude certain celebrities when others have the same amount of confirmation (sites like TMZ are getting the info from the photographers, etc., that's how they always work). But whatever, I give up, just expect people to try adding in Mel C (from the Spice Girls), as she was figured out based on a DWTS Instagram post. CoolDudeAl (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Found another article with the pictures. Going to add using that. https://californianewstimes.com/kenya-moore-and-olivia-jade-giannulli-serve-looks-as-they-head-into-dancing-with-the-stars-rehearsal/511033/ Also, Mel C. and Melora Hardin are both being reported, but can't find any sites besides Kristyn's right now for confirmation. Might get them before Wednesday though. CoolDudeAl (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Magitroopa - why don't you read the article you linked to me. It states: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." CoolDudeAl (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Peloton question
I wasn't sure and just linked to the default, which is the "sport", but we should link to the company instead, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloton_(exercise_equipment_company) CoolDudeAl (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If he's related to the company, then yes, that should be the link. If he just an athlete of the sport, then that should be linked (I guess kind of similar to if someone is just a basketball player vs. an NBA player). Magitroopa (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The internet is telling me he works for Peloton: https://www.onepeloton.com/instructors/bike/codyrigsby https://www.gq.com/story/cody-rigsby-peloton https://people.com/sports/what-to-know-about-peloton-superstar-cody-rigsby/ I'll try to fix it, but I'm a little rusty when it comes to things with a shared name and linking, so you may have to tweak it. CoolDudeAl (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I did it right. CoolDudeAl (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, we got the last person, although I think I screwed up the table again. Sorry. CoolDudeAl (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Audience scoring
Can someone please add to the article how the audience scoring works and is counted? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The main show article covers this, as it has been basically the same since the first season. If you are curious, please refer there.

CoolDudeAl (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversies
Is this section truly necessary? It looks like it's being written from a POV of a certain competitor's fan and doesn't seem significant to add-every season there is always someone who gets eliminated before their time/lacking vote support? 161.69.123.10 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this section needs to be reworked, if not removed entirely. Other couples have had their dance style changed for various reasons in various seasons, this is not exclusive to Cody and Cheryl. For Jojo and Jenna, besides several gay and bi men who have danced with female pros, there have been gay or bi women who have danced with male pros. Finally, we are saying Zendaya, Mya, and Mel B were "eliminated" after I removed them originally when it stated they didn't make the finals (so someone changed that but added them back in). They all came in in 2nd place, that isn't being eliminated. Do you say the person who wins Silver in the Olymipics is "eliminated"? This whole section is either making mountains out of molehills, or is written deceptively to make the issues seem bigger than they actually are.

2600:1700:BA90:9580:90CD:734A:D21C:2259 (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Section on bias on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_addressing_bias

CoolDudeAl (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Chiming in here myself now... Just looking at the sourcing alone, controversies 1 & 3 seem to be supported by the sourcing provided/used, but #2 (JoJo/same-sex pairing) just uses sourcing reporting on the news of the pairing, nothing regarding it being controversial from what I'm seeing (doesn't look like either article discusses about the 'gay males paired with opposite sex in show's run' statement). Magitroopa (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As for the other two, they seem to both possibly be notable, but definitely a case of citation overkill. For the supposed Burke/Rigsby controversy, the only citation that seems to cover this being a controversy at all would be this one (from a quick glance through the refs). Magitroopa (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You were so busy undoing the edit, I was fixing that error in the midst of your repeated reverting. Bionic (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Persistent vandalism, constant unconstructive and disruptive editing by unregistered users. The section and topic has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources therefore the removal of the content is WP:VD. You are edit-waring rather than following WP:BRD. As an unregistered user, you need to take the time to read policies and guidelines and understand what Wikipedia is and isn't.
 * The IPs here are continuously and intentionally remove the information. First, it was a vandal user, then their WP:SOCKs and now different IPs who may or may not be related to the blocked user, are purposely disrupting the article. There's this pattern of vandalizing by different IPs every day.
 * There are no users who are making improvements here. Only a WP:SPA whose edits are virtually all DWTS-related. This does not strike me as someone here to help this altruistic free encyclopedia but only to add biased perspective and original research to their fan objects. Bionic (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yet again, all you are doing is reiterating your claims of all the users/IPs being related to justify yourself readding the content, when there is clearly a content dispute. Continuing this rather than address the content within the section is not helpful... Magitroopa (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Stop pinging me on 10 different pages. This is WP:Harassment. You're trying to win the argument by resorting to WP:BLUD. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You sound like a newbie throwing whatever against the wall to see if it sticks.
 * Your false accusation toward me claiming that the purpose of my edit is basically just to 'have my own way' is a WP:AOBF and ad hominem. Bionic (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 'Harassment'?... Yikes. I am not trying to 'win' this in anyway- there are multiple IPs/users who have removed the section and a discussion was started under this topic, but you continued readding the section without coming here at all. I am also not 'falsely accusing' you of anything... the history and your lack of discussion until I pointed this discussion towards you does all the telling by itself.
 * You have still not discussed the content/issue itself, but rather seem to be accusing every single user/IP that has removed the content of edit warring and being sockpuppets. It would likely be wise to try and comment on the content and not the editors at this point... Magitroopa (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have commented on the content and I did respond on the edit summary. The number of credible sources cited for the content is more than sufficient. A basic Google search shows that the 'controversies' surrounding this milestone season have had more than 60% of the show's whole media coverage therefore It's evident that this section is necessary. Bionic (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So what is the intent and reason behind the edit-reversing? I have explained. How much more clarity do we need? I'm not obligated to take part in a Q & A with those IPs. Now that we have discussed your established concern, where's the issue? Bionic (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your claim of sockpuppets is false, I was accidentally not logged in for one of my comments, but I am not the artist user, or the person who originally asked the question on here. I came on here after I noticed that users tried to remove and/or question this, as I myself also had concerns with this, and I stated some of the things stated are not true, for example claiming Zendaya, Mya, and Mel B were eliminated prematurely, when in fact they were not eliminated and in fact were the runner-ups (aka 2nd place) of their respective seasons. The fact they got to 2nd place obviously indicated they had quite a bit of support from both judges and fans. Also, Amber Riley won her season. Trying to turn this into something about black women being underscored or whatever, because Kenya was in the bottom two, is ridiculous. The other "controversies" are similarly not strongly supported by evidence. So as I stated before, this section either needs to be reworked or removed entirely.

CoolDudeAl (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those few errors have been fixed. The other claims mentioned in that section are supported by multiple sources.Bionic (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the latest version that was written. "Snubbed of a win" is not factual or without bias. It implies they should have won over the other person, which implies a black woman should just win every time she makes the finals. That is just as racist as implying they didn't win because they are black. By my count, 14 winners have been POCs of some sort. Yes, only one is a black woman, but sometimes that just how things play out. The fact that basically half of the winners have been POCs show that this is a non-issue. In fact, given that nearly every season has more white celebrities in the cast VS POC celebrities, you'd actually expect the number of POC wins to be lower, statistically speaking. I even checked the reverse, to see who was eliminated first each season, and the majority of seasons it is a white person. Finally, since the point is about how contestants from all seasons have been treated, even if it is added somewhere, it should be on the show's main article, not a specific season's article.

CoolDudeAl (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , Those names were mentioned by the source as 'contestants who surprisingly didn't make it to the next round' these are sources reporting, not me. You're reacting as if this is a WP:OR. You referred to the wording as not being 'impartial and neutral' but this is the magazine editors and media critics responding and reviewing an act on a show. It's not up to me and you to pick and choose which review and response should be put in the article, e.g., the articles of films, songs, books, artworks; sometimes it's panned by critics sometimes it's lauded with wide acclaim the section should reflect all the major feedbacks and reviews whether positive or negative. Bionic (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The section is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Please see WP:CRITS, which is headed Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, and the section as written should not be included. The season 16 article gets, at intervals, additions or edits about Zendaya coming in second to Kellie (alluded to in the section that Bionic is trying to add), and it is always deleted there, just as it should continue to be deleted here. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , Exactly. Articles 'focusing on criticisms/controversies'. This article certainly does not focus on the controversy only a small section is added due to the great extent of media coverage surrounding the topic. Bionic (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Since the beginning of this discussion, several other media outlets and sources have covered this news and reported the controversies. The Google search shows that more than 60% of the media coverage is about these topics and not the typical standard 'episodes recaps'.
 * With that being said, it's completely irrational, absolutely unreasonable, totally nonsensical, and utterly preposterous for this section to be entirely removed.
 * The article is about the 30th season of the show, "Dancing with the Stars" and when the media coverage, feedbacks, reviews, and critical responses all revolve around certain topics and controversies how can we not include that in the article.
 * Avoiding and ignoring this section is a clear example of WP:CENSOR.
 * Yes, there are a few opposing comments here suggesting a paraphrasing for the section but the only ones who repeatedly removed the contented and insistently reverted the edit starting an WP:EW and kept undoing the edit consecutively, in a row without discussing it first, establishing reasons and following WP:BRD were IPs! And I think we can all agree when vandal IPs raid a page to remove a particular content, that alone explains so much and speaks volumes. There are certain 'fans/viewers' who are treating Wikipedia as their blog and editing the page based on their own personal internet which is downright unacceptable. Bionic (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Over 20 credible independent sources are currently cited for the section. Bionic (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Avoid "sections" or articles. This clearly falls under the "section" part of that. Don't be obtuse. Also, sourced or not, these things are not significant. Kenya has been saved twice by the judges now, that hardly shows bias against her. People can think whatever they like, Wikipedia should not be reporting on people getting low scores, because literally every season will have people who think people were under or over-scored. The other things are non-events, and not supported by the articles. Finally, many people have brought up issues with this section, you are the only one who keeps trying to add it. Consensus on this section has not been reached.

CoolDudeAl (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate being called 'obtuse'. Please consider WP:CIV.
 * And no there isn't any consensus here yet. The IPs are not decision makers in WP. They are the one who are opposing, plus you.
 * You are interpreting the sources' report based on your own personal view.
 * There are 11 reliable independent sources backing up the claim and you say it should get removed, Why? Because 'the contestant was saved'?! Bionic (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that their are "controversies" like this every season, and maybe one or two of them are referenced between all 30 Seasons pages. I'm sure they have been discussed on other seasons, and have been decided to not be impartial enough to add (for the most part). The real question here is why do you think this is so important to be on Wikipedia? This isn't commentary on a piece of art, this is biased opinions of people online who are trying to get clicks on articles by using a POC as a point of contention. I think certain couples are underscored or overscored every week. It doesn't mean if I start a blog about it, I should be used as a source on Wikipedia that the judges are scoring unfairly. People's opinions or reasoning on Kenya and her scores are not fact based, they are all opinions. If we feature her, then we should feature reaction to every contestant on every dance.

CoolDudeAl (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bionic, WP:CRITS says "sections and articles"—"sections" was even first, since they are commonly attempted and should be avoided—yet you ignored it. The section very clearly focuses on controversies; that's all it is. Please do not add the section again; there is no WP:CENSOR involved. You are the only one who thinks this section belongs; everyone else here doesn't. I just took a look, and it's registered editors who have as often as not been reverting the addition; not just the IPs. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit regarding first same-sex couple
Magitroopa You keep reverting my edits on the line about this season having the show's first-ever same sex couple. I am attempting to add clarification that that couple is JoJo Siwa and Jenna Johnson. You keep changing it to say that JoJo Siwa is pansexual. Her sexual identity has nothing to do with their being the first same-sex couple on the show. There have been numerous gay/lesbian/queer contestants in the past, but they danced as opposite-sex couples. The relevant part here is that Siwa is dancing with Johnson, not that Siwa identifies as pansexual. Can I get some consensus on making this change? The way the sentence currently reads -- "For the first time in the series' history, a same-sex partnership is featured amongst the competing couples, after celebrity participant Siwa revealed herself as pansexual in April 2021." -- is nonsensical, but Magitroopa keeps reverting my edits when I attempt to change it to "For the first time in the series' history, a same-sex partnership is featured amongst the competing couples, JoJo Siwa and Jenna Johnson." Grn1749 (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Was going to ask regarding the contestants in the past (I'm more familiar with more recent seasons, not all 29 previous) and found this. IMO, given the circumstances, I think it's at least worth still mentioning that she is pansexual, but not in the current way. Not everyone is familiar with everything, so an average person could just see "JoJo Siwa and Jenna Johnson" and believe that Johnson is the one in the pair with the notable sexuality. Leaving it out entirely also may make some believe that some other circumstances occurred leading to this- Siwa's sexuality does still play a factor into why it occurred for her and not some other pairing within the season.


 * What about something like: "For the first time in the series' history, a same-sex partnership is featured amongst the competing couples, between pansexual celebrity participant Siwa and professional dancer Jenna Johnson."? (only JoJo's last name is used her as her full name + link is in the paragraph above in the article. The cast table is also below which gives further clarification as to who 'Siwa' is.) Magitroopa (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that's a fair compromise. And yes, there have been gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and/or sexually fluid people of both sexes, and even a transgender man, but they were always paired with a pro dancer of the opposite sex. Not sure if we should note that this is the first LGBTQ+ contestant that has been paired with a same sex partner, even though a good amount of LGBTQ+ people have competed previously, but it might be good to add for those that aren't as aware of previous seasons.

CoolDudeAl (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I went on vacation and dropped the ball on this. I think this proposed edit makes sense and I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks! Grn1749 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic is determined by coverage
If O. J. Simpson was announced as part of the cast of season 31, and every single news outlet covering the casting announcement mentioned that he was acquitted on two murder charges, would we just list him as "football player and actor"?

Every single article about the casting of season 30 refers to Olivia Jade Giannulli's fraudulent college admission.

Whereas O. J. Simpson was a household name before his former wife and her friend were murdered, Olivia Jade was not. The sole reason she was cast was her unintentional notoriety.

We take our queues from the sources. They determined that her family's fraud was what was most notable about her. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)