Talk:American Idol controversies

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 6 May 2008, see discussion.
Keep, 18 March 2006, see discussion.

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Idols Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Idols task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Source[edit]

A posting about a contrroversy keeps getting deleted because a user does not like the source (who works for the Howard 100). The source is not Howard Stern but rather Steve Langford a credible "real" news reporter who works for Sirius (On Stern's Channel). The source is listed, it's a real news source, it's up to the reader to decided if they trust the source.

As I said on the anon's talk page, it doesn't really work that way. The whole idea of reliable sources is that the information has gone through internal checks. That's why the more sources report on something, the more likely that we will use it. One source on a radio show is not nearly enough. If we reported stuff like that, we'd become essentially a rumor-mongering message board. I respect Stern. I do. But. I don't think any newsperson involved with him is unbiased. If reliable news outlets report on this, great. Include it. Until then, it's a gloryfied rumor. Besides, as I stated on the user's talk page, next week is "home" week on Idol. Film crews follow the contestants home and film them around town, with family, etc. I have a feeling that the crew was just there to prep that segment. But again, if other sources say otherwise, include it. Otherwise, it's one radio show reporting it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VoteForTheWorst.com and Howard Stern are ruining American Idol[edit]

By telling their audience to vote for Sanjaya Malakar. Somebody post this in the main article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.59.62 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion discussion[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion on March 18, 2006. The discussion can be found here. A number of people thought the article should be merged with American Idol, which could perhaps be discussed below. Flower party■ 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contestants section[edit]

"Not showing up" for whatever reason is not controversial. Its just "not showing up". All very unsourced and trivial actually. Section needs cleaning up. --Eqdoktor 09:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, can there be a all girl finale, or it is always boy girl?

People are voted off the show one at a time. Of course there can be an all-girl, or all-boy finale, if all of the boys or all of the girls are voted off first. In Season 2 there was an all-boy finale, with Clay and Ruben. In Season 3 there was an all-girl finale, with Diana and Fantasia. -- Moondigger 20:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there have been all-male finales the last two years. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in Ruben Studdard/Clay Aiken vote[edit]

Section on Ruben Studdard/Clay Aiken vote controversy says that 230 million of 24 million votes were potentially dropped - this cannot be true - does anyone know the correct number? --Thomasdelbert 03:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 million votes were counted. More than 230 million calls were dropped, which are potential votes. I've changed the wording in that section from "votes" to "calls" to make this more clear. -- Moondigger 04:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive edits[edit]

I have removed a large chunk of this article. The statements removed included:

1. Opinion statements such as "The show's voting procedures sometimes cause better singers to be voted off, while poorer singers remain."

2. Unsourced statements such as "Many fans are discouraged from trying to vote because of the busy phone lines immediately following the end of the show, but the effect on the results is not clear, and in recent seasons more phone lines have been added to reduce this effect."

3. Several dubious claims that read like original research, where a non-notable website called VoteFair was the only source and added by an editor who appears to be affiliated with the site.

I recognize that several of these removals may be controversial, so to speak, so if any of my edits are in dispute let's discuss them here. -- MisterHand 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information about voting unfairnesses, especially regarding vote-splitting, is supported by many sources, including many academic publications, although I had only referenced my published book, "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections". Later I'll insert an explanation of the vote-splitting issue and I'll add more references, especially to Wikipedia voting articles (which are moderated by voting-method experts). The VoteFair.org website is relevant as an explanation that focuses on the unfairness principles as they apply to specific American Idol results, but notice that it was not the only reference. The important point is that the constestant/candidate/choice with the most (first-choice) votes is not necessarily the most popular, and the constestant/candidate/choice with the fewest (first-choice) votes is not necessarily the least popular. This fact is well-known by countless voting-method experts. (As for removing the unsourced statement about "busy phone lines", that's an historical issue, and I had left it in when I edited that section because it affected results in earlier seasons, but that issue now can be mentioned in the results it affected.) As for the use of "plural" voting, that's an issue that confuses lots of people and it makes sense to explain it here, but it's not terribly controversial. VoteFair 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't link back to your own books and websites as sources. That violates WP:NOR. -- MisterHand 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost removed all the stuff about vote splitting myself a few weeks ago, but didn't have the time to mess with it then. I agree that the reference does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, there isn't any evidence linking the results on American Idol with vote splitting in the first place. The votes are always split between contestants. Any claim that two particular contestants are 'similar' enough to "split votes" is original research. -- Moondigger 02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your massive deletions have removed some content that I too am happy to see disappear. However voting issues such as vote splitting, wasted votes, and tactical voting are very relevant to AI voting. Are these not valid references?

Do you watch the show? If so you know which contestants have similar singing styles, and you can't help but see similarities in gender, appearance, and personality. Splitting votes is clearly understood among voting-method experts, but apparently the AI voting issues are too mundane for other such experts to comment on.

My purpose in contributing to this page is to educate AI fans about the basics of voting and to point out that "surprise" eliminations are not a surprise to anyone who understands voting methods, watches the show, and occassionally votes to determine the busy-signal issues. For even fuller information the poll results at VoteFair.org reveal "surprise" results in advance. Yes, the website is one of mine, but notice that even there my purpose is to educate. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia? VoteFair 06:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the content -- it's about Wikipedia's guidelines surrounding original research and reliable sources. I think the deleted material violated both. -- MisterHand 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with your assertions is that you are claiming something you can't provide evidence for through accepted references. Evidence for vote splitting in political elections can be gathered through exit polling and other data gathering methods that actually collect the thoughts and/or reasoning of a representative sample of voters. You would have to cite statistically valid polling data of Idol voters to determine whether vote splitting is actually occurring. Theorizing that Idol voters are doing the same thing qualifies as speculation. That doesn't even rise to the level of original research. But even if it did, it would still be unacceptable on Wikipedia, as all original research is deemed unacceptable here. -- Moondigger 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that you regard the well-established (and Wikipedia-documented) principles of vote splitting and strategic voting as too controversial for the "American Idol controversies" page. Yet a newspaper article quoting people saying they got lots of busy signals when they tried to vote is regarded as evidence of overloaded phone lines (without even mentioning the important capacity difference between cell-phone connections and land lines).

Yes it is necessary to collect data to prove that vote splitting has occurred. That's what I've done, and what I referenced. Specifically the polls at www.VoteFair.org/americanidol.html (with details accessed via the table-heading links) establish -- with numerical evidence -- that vote splitting has been a contributing factor in the early eliminations of Melinda Doolittle, Elliott Yamin, Chris Daughtry, and Jennifer Hudson. (In the case of Jennifer Hudson, strategic voting was also involved, and this was expressed by Ryan Seacrest as "you have to vote for your favorites.")

In my other areas of expertise (including having written a how-to book on creative problem solving, which has been published in nine languages) my expertise is appreciated. Yet here where I see unsubstantiated opinions backed up with news articles in which the evidence is a few quotations from a few fans, my expertise seems to be unappreciated.

How many more soldiers need to die in Iraq before the unfair voting method used within the Iraqi Parliament (where Shiites easily outvote the Sunnis and Kurds) is recognized as adding fuel to the conflict in Iraq? That's the kind of voting issue that is indeed controversial. Pardon me if I'm anxious to move beyond the primitive "single-mark ballots" we currently use in political elections -- and in American Idol polls -- and start using "order-of-preference" (a.k.a. "preferential" or "ordinal") ballots so that people don't have to die unnecessarily. Only when we've advanced beyond primitive voting methods (that are vulnerable to vote splitting and strategic voting) can we be ready to truly solve bigger problems like terrorism and the Middle East conflict.

If there are any newspaper editors out there, I'll be happy to do interviews about American Idol voting issues so that the resulting articles posted on the Internet can be referenced here by other posters who will then be able to convey the importance of vote splitting for predicting the eliminations that are a surprise to everyone who doesn't understand how American Idol's voting method works (and doesn't work). My phone number is posted at the bottom of www.solutionscreative.com/cpst.html. VoteFair 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're just not following what we're saying. Please consider this carefully before you reply again.

First and foremost, we're not striking the information about vote splitting because it's "too controversial." We're striking it because Wikipedia has policies against original research. Please read that article... the link is there for a purpose. Surely you can understand that referencing your own books, website articles, and polling data counts as original research. Wikipedia is not a place to establish or promote your theories, however well-supported you believe they are. Furthermore, you've set up a "snake eating its tail" situation between Wikipedia and your own website by putting links to your website on Wikipedia articles and links to Wikipedia articles on your website. You're trying to lend authority to your site that it does not have by linking to articles on Wikipedia that you had a hand in editing. That kind of support is artificial, not real.

Second, I have spent some time reading your website and quite frankly, all the American Idol stuff comes across as a lot of unsupported speculation. For example, your contention that Elliot Yamin was eliminated due to vote splitting is unsupported by any credible data -- it's an opinion dressed up and presented as fact. There is always some way to spin the data such that you can say vote splitting played a role in the results. Somebody could say Sanjaya was eliminated because he was splitting votes with other brown-haired contestants, other long-haired contestants, other contestants that smile a lot, etc. That's not evidence.

Third, I'll point out that the polling data you collect on your own website is statistically flawed. It is not a random sample of voters, but a sample of people who are interested enough in your website and/or the theories you present to participate in a poll. You can't even verify which of them actually voted on a given voting night and which didn't. When the polling data is flawed, the conclusions drawn from analysis of that data are flawed.

Note here that it is possible that vote splitting is playing a role in some American Idol eliminations. But the policies on original research and reliable sources clearly make such speculation taboo in Wikipedia articles.

One last comment. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that vote splitting does account for many of the eliminations on American Idol. That in and of itself would be acceptable information to be included in a Wikipedia article, if hypothetically speaking, it didn't violate the original research and reliable sources policies. However it seems there's a consistent undercurrent on your website (and in your various comments here) that this is unfair, and that American Idol's voting procedures should be somehow modified to eliminate this 'unfairness.' That's not dispassionate research -- it's an opinion, and a campaign. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct a campaign. -- Moondigger 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do understand what you are saying about original research. I thought I made that clear by saying I'll leave it to others to identify vote-splitting as a contributing factor in many of the "surprise" eliminations.

I don't think you understand what I've been saying so I'll try again using different words. In addition to Wikipedia not allowing original research, the rules also don't allow POV (point-of-view) content. Yet when I added the vote-splitting comments there was lots(!) of POV content in this controveries page. You removed most of it, yet some POV remains. As an example, citing a few people saying that when they voted they heard the wrong contestant's voice is not an indication of a widespread and long-duration mistake in counting votes, yet that opinion is presented here as if it might account for Chris Daughtry's early elimination.

In a broader perspective, there have been discussions about whether this page even should exist. That's because it often contains lots of POV. That's the nature of controversies.

You claim that the VoteFair.org poll results are flawed. My claim is that they are less flawed than lots of POV explanations about "surprise" eliminations that have appeared, and continue to appear, on this page. VoteFair 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That some people heard the wrong contestant's voice thanking them for voting is a fact. It need not be "an indication of a widespread and long-duration mistake in counting votes" to be included in a Wikipedia article about AI controversies. It simply needs to be accurate and verifiable, which it is. The statement is not, as you seem to indicate, an "opinion." It is a fact that some people heard the wrong voice, and it is documented as such. Nowhere does it say that this was the cause of Chris's elimination. In fact, the point is made in the article that people attempting to vote for other contestants also heard the wrong thank-you messages, and that hearing the wrong thank-you message is not necessarily an indication that votes were cast for the wrong contestant.

The VoteFair.org poll results are flawed for the very reason I outlined in my previous reply -- they are based on a non-random sample of poll respondents. This is a common problem with non-scientifically administered polls.

Finally, it is clear that you have a cause you're trying to promote, which is vote reform. It may well be a worthwhile cause as applied to political institutions, but I have doubts about its value w/r/t American Idol. Either way, Wikipedia isn't the place to further the cause. -- Moondigger 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4 Top 11 Voting Controversy[edit]

I might have accidentally skipped over it, but on the Top 11 night of season 4, the voting numbers were put up incorrectly for three of the contestants, causing them to have to reshow the episode the Wednesday night with the correct numbers, and show the new results on the Thursday. I'll try to find a source, but I definately remember this happening.

Lack of in-line citations[edit]

The section on career control gives no in-line citations for any information given. This should either be tagged in the article or corrected by citing the sources. TennysonXII (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Grace Voting "Controversy"?[edit]

Alexis Grace wasn't actually voted out in the week which she was assigned the IDOLS-36 number, and was in fact voted out a week later in the Top 11 round. I'm not sure how to clean this up, because although there were concerns were placed around the fact that she was assigned an unusual number for the Top 13 week, it didn't actually affect her in the competition. The source cited was actually written the week before Alexis was voted out of the show. Astharis (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire section titled "Season 8 Phone Numbers" should be deleted because there was no true controversy and the paragraph only talks about "fears" of a problem. Jmac1962 (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sentence for real ?[edit]

"signing the contract is optional but a requirement if they want to participate in the competition."

It is part of a sentence in the Career Control section, and is one of the most contradictory statements I think I've ever read. Signing the contract to enter the competition is optional but to enter the competition you have to sign it ???? -__- Dylan (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season 10 Pia Toscano Vote-off[edit]

This should be mentioned because Ms. Toscano's elimination is very similar to the Season 9 Siobhan Magnus. Many say that they will never watch the show again. There are reliable sources. I've heard reports that a voting glitch (online) may have been discovered. Aeverine Frathleen Nieves (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been added a couple of times, without any reliable sources to show how it is a controversy. The only similar situations listed in this article are Chris Daughtry's elimination and Siobhan Magnus's elimination, although in both of those cases they are listed because it was not just a shocking elimination and that there were irregularities in recorded messages or a wrong number posted on an official site. This is the first I have heard of a voting glitch for Pia and I have read quite a bit about it on fan message boards. And looking now through google, the voting glitch is sourced to Radar Online, not a reliable source, with the title "EXCLUSIVE: Could Voting Glitch Have Caused 'American Idol' Pia Toscano's Early Demise?", so they are not even claiming anything definitive, just speculation from one person who more than likely did not type in the right code for the vote to be accepted. Aspects (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As explained at VoteFair.org, here is the reason for Pia's surprise elimination:

American Idol uses runoff voting which makes the mistaken assumption that the person with the fewest votes is least popular. (This unfairness is well known by voting-method experts and "game-theory" mathematicians.) This unfairness arose two weeks earlier when Casey Abrams was unexpectedly eliminated early because voters focused on their first choice and neglected to vote for secondary choices. To compensate for this unfairness, which is a limitation of runoff voting, voters recently used strategic voting to focus on secondary choices to protect the singers who are not the most popular, nor the least popular. Unfortunately voters also reduced their votes for Pia Toscano because she had not been in the bottom three and voters assumed that her popularity in online polls [1] meant that other voters were giving her plenty of votes. This situation is similar to what happened in week 7 of Season 3 when Fantasia Barrino (the eventual winner), LaToya London, and Jennifer Hudson (who was eliminated that night) ended up in the bottom three in spite of commonly being regarded as that season's three best singers.

Quotations from the judges can be used to support the fact that, at the very least, this result was very surprising. As for proof of the reason, that might be difficult because the show does not share results above the bottom three, and Wikipedia's academic-publication-oriented source-requirement criteria may not give credibility to online polls.

I am the person who conducts the VoteFair American Idol polls, so I cannot write this section myself, but someone else can. The elimination chart at VoteFair.org clearly shows how much of a surprise this was. VoteFair (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I think you could make the case of the voting system being unfair, it would have to be in general instead of discussing one specific contestant being eliminated, since they were all eliminated under the same conditions. You make a lot of assumptions of voting behavior with nothing to back up these claims, making this original research. VoteFair.org is not a reliable, third party source and you have a conflict of interest in trying to add a section based on it. Aspects (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American Idol controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Idol controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110530032522/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/8301-31749_162-20066796-10391698.html to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20066796-10391698.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American Idol controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on American Idol controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American Idol controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Idol controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120731062943/http://tvwatch.people.com/2008/01/31/former-britney-flame-headed-to-hollywood-on-american-idol/ to http://tvwatch.people.com/2008/01/31/former-britney-flame-headed-to-hollywood-on-american-idol/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]