Talk:AmericaFest

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: MSN is a deprecated source and should not be used.

11WB (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@11WB What do you mean? WP:MSNOW under WP:RSP says it's generally reliable. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Please refer to this. 11WB (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Is that... the Chinese Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia work like that, where information is decided based on rules set not in English but in other languages? And if it's depreciated why is it not in the English Wikipedia? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

On the plugins I use on the English Wikipedia, the sources for MSN show up as being deprecated. You should find the original URLs and use those, as these MSN sources appear to be aggregated instead. 11WB (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I asked about this at Wikipedia:Help desk#Other language Wikipedia as an authoritative source?. They said that Wikis from other languages are not authoritative for this one, and that for MSN we should typically look at the sources they're hosting to see whether they themselves are reliable. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

An aggregated source or an archived one should only be used when the original is no longer accessible. This is correct and aligns with what I said above. 11WB (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I checked the sources that MSN hosted, and at least some of them are WP:MREL, which I believe is okay in this case as these sources aren't making exceptional claims. Can the tag be removed? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I still think it would be a good idea to switch the URLs with the originals, rather than using the aggregated versions. You are welcome to remove the banner however. 11WB (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Criticisms section

@Guacpocalypse How's it going with the criticism section? Are you going to add more stuff in it? Because if not, it shouldn't be its own section if its just one sentence. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up! I haven't had time to look into it further. I will spend some time on it today and see if I can improve it. If not, I will remove it as as section and include it as just one sentence. Thanks. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 20:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Infighting section seems long

Props to the editors putting in the work to get this article going. I do think the "Infighting" section seems long, seems to cover quite a bit of trivial commentary, how do we feel about trimming it to just keep the stuff that would pass 10 year test? MaximusEditor (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to expand the criticism section. Do you think there is some content that could go there? I'll look too. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 23:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey Guacpocalypse, seems like the "Infighting" section is just a giant criticism section about the reaction of Ben Shapiro's opening speech. It seems like maybe the bigger parent section should be "criticism" with a sub-section labelled "reaction to Shapiro's opening speech". That would really be way more concise, rather than just "infighting". Just having a section labelled "infighting" at a surface level reads as perhaps the whole convention was just notable conservatives taking jabs at each other, when in reality it was just Shapiro taking jabs in the openeing speech and then others defending their positions. My issue (Which is stated above) is that it doesn't seem to me Shapiro's jabs will be historically relevant 10 years from now, hence the 10 year test policy. I think the following might be good changes:

1)Change the parent section from "Infighting" to "Criticisms".

2)Make a subsection about "reactions to Shapiro's opening speech"

3)Trim some of the superfluous information that nobody will care about in 10 years. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@MaximusEditor I think this infighting has already been ongoing for 10 years; it represents an influential aspect of what happened there and is occurring in general. It is also covered by many sources and passes WP:GNG. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Both of these suggestions seem great. I feel like Criticisms is a common header with Wikipedia so it may follow pattern better than keeping the Infighting section as a whole, so I'm leaning towards @MaximusEditor's suggestion. Thoughts? ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 17:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you both agree it's better that way then you can go ahead and do so. Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 18:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Since the header section is "AmFest 2025" I went ahead and did the following subsections:

Ben Shapiro Confrontation and Reactions

Public Criticism of AmFest 2025

Left everything else the same. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 18:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with trimming down the section. A large part of it seams to violate WP:NOTNEWS. SKAG123 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Guacpocalypse@MaximusEditor@Wikieditor662 I rearranged the article to make it more encyclopedic. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. SKAG123 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, the part where there is text in between two pictures seems kind of awkward. Would help out a lot if more information was added instead. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

we could remove a few of the images or move them to a gallery if they mess with the format of the article. SKAG123 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if more information was added instead? Surely more could be found. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure we could expand the article. SKAG123 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I think that's great, I do agree about the photo spacing but it's not that bad. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey SKAG123, just read your changes and agree it flows much better for an encyclopedia. Photo's seem fine where they are on my screen. As far as adding more content, I don't mind adding more info as long as it seems WP:DUE (as stated in my original post outlining 10 year test as a good way to measure contents relevancy). MaximusEditor (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)