Talk:All-American Halftime Show

Poster

@Fuzheado, could there be any way that a poster could be found and used for this event? shane (talk to me if you want!) 23:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably going to be tough to get any kind of freely licensed art to include with this article. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean if there are any photographs of the event during the event, we can just upload them untill we find a liscenced image of the poster shane (talk to me if you want!) 23:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

True, though it's murky where this event is actually taking place and if any audience members might have an occasion to capture (and release) any free imagery. - Fuzheado | Talk 00:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Actual Location?

It seems to be a concert; there's an audience. Where is (was) the physical location of the show? Drsruli (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It was pre-filmed in Atlanta, Georgia. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 18:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Drsruli (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Strings Interlude

Antonio and Alison https://music.apple.com/us/album/instrumental-moment-live/1872477153?i=1872477154 ~2026-89730-0 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The claimed 6,000,000 attendance figure isn't even close to accurate. Maybe 6,000,000 total viewers, but that's not attendance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-90385-9 (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2026

Blank the attendance field in the infobox as those are viewership figures for the broadcast not attendance figures for the concert and do not belong in the concert section. ~2026-91746-1 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2026

The final line in this article states "On the Fox News program One Nation with Brian Kilmeade, TPUSA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet said that the show received at least 20 million total views across all the social media platforms which carried it." This alone does not provide context to what amounts to misinformation being promoted on Wikipedia. The line should have additional context added that Youtube and Rumble were the only social media sites it was carried on and views on YouTube are a largely meaningless as a stat with the way YouTube counts views, considering they count every time someone watches more than a few seconds of a video as a view. Intimdate38 (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

"The line should have additional context" The line should not be in the article at all if the source is Fox News. We can't use Fox on any politically-related article. See its rating in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards. On the matter of science, and on the matter of pre-November 2020 politics, there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions." Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The source cited is actually Intelligencer, which is reporting, with a lot of skepticism, a claim made on Fox News by the TPUSA spokesperson. I do think we need to discuss the sentence, because, as written, it seems to underplay the preposterousness of the claim. Maybe we should just delete the sentence, but I can also see an argument for presenting what TPUSA has said. Perhaps we could change "Kolvet said" to "Kolvet claimed", although there is WP:CLAIM. We could also change "the show received at least 20 million total views" to something like "the show received vastly more total views". Or maybe we could change the sentence to be about the "rounding up" referenced in the cited source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I made this edit: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Source concerns

After I made the edit described above, another editor changed the content, and I had some concerns about how that revised content had been sourced: . The other editor restored the content, without commenting on the sourcing concerns: . I've added some inline tags to try to make those concerns clearer: , and will explain further here. These concerns apply to four sentences in the current version of the text. I've tagged two of those sentences as needing a better source. One is cited to Fox News, which is deprecated for current US political content. The other is cited to AOL.com, which is also not a reliable source. I've marked the other two sentences as having failed verification. One says that the half time show with Bad Bunny at the Super Bowl was marked by a large decrease in viewership after the football game paused for half time. However, the cited source only talks about how the viewership was very high for the half time show. The other sentence says that TBN (sic) did not comment on ratings. However the cited source does not appear to me to contain anything to that effect. I think these four sentences need to be significantly fixed, or removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

To addess some of these concerns:

- The 20 million YouTube views can be found directly on the YouTube page's view count. That, of course, counts all the views that happened after the event concluded. There's no clean way to source it that way so I chose a news article off Google News that mentioned the figure.

- The fact of 11 million English language viewers lost: that is based on the numbers given in the press release cited. Overall viewership declined from 137.8 to 128.2 million from the second quarter to the halftime show overall, and that factored in the increase on Spanish Telemundo from 3.3 million to 4.8 million. That leaves the English viewership going from 133.5 to 123.4, an 11 million viewer difference. (I will note that this does not establish where those 11 million viewers went and I worded that as carefully as I could have to ensure not to imply causation.) I mentioned it only in the same context of the famous Super Bowl XXVI counterprogram, which likewise coincided with a (larger) negative impact on the Super Bowl halftime ratings. Admittedly it is treading close to original synthesis, but there is nothing there in that cannot be deduced from the numbers already given.

- Fox News Channel is deprecated. Fox Local (which is the local newsrooms of Fox Television Stations and operates separately from FNC) is not. At least as far as I know. The fact that most of the channels that carried the program are not Nielsen-monitored, as mentioned in that article, is not controversial.

- Likewise, although the part about TBN not responding for comment is probably not necessary and doesn't add much, the sourcing (a Gannett Company newspaper) meets standards of reliability.

- I purposely did not include claims TPUSA made about its internal estimates, specifically because of the inability to verify them—only that they considered it successful enough to do it again next year, which they're in the position to make that decision.

J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Taking the tagged sentences one-by-one, in the order they appear on the page:

1. The sentence sourced to Fox TV in Detroit. Following a link in the cited source, to information about the reporter who wrote the source, shows that she is not a local reporter for the TV station, but is a contributor to Fox-owned stations nationwide: . That means that she works for the Fox News corporate parent company, and thus this source is deprecated on Wikipedia. Since you describe the information as not controversial, you should be able to find and cite a source that is not deprecated. If you cannot, the sentence should be deleted.
2. The sentence about the decline from the second quarter of the game of 11 million viewers. It isn't merely treading close to synthesis, but is not to be found in the source cited. That's why it fails verification. It's not mentioned in the cited source. If the source, in turn, cites a press release with that information, then we need to cite the press release instead, rather than expecting our readers to track down the information on their own. And, as written, it's hard for me to see the point of even including the sentence. If the idea is the compare this with the XXVI counterprogram, then find a secondary source that discusses this comparison. But as written, it is original research that comes across as trying to cast a negative implication on the Bad Bunny halftime show.
3. The sentence about 20 million YouTube views. If this information is regarded by sources as important, there should be other, better, news sources that could be cited instead. And based upon the source that you removed from the page (), there are questions about the veracity of this figure, so it needs to be well-sourced if it is to be included, or there should be multiple sources cited, representing both sides.
4. The sentence about not responding to requests for viewership figures. The issue that I tagged is not about the Gannett source being reliable or not, but about once again failing verification. The cited source does not contain this, that I can see. It says that the source "reached out" to them, but does not definitively state that there was never a response. If we don't have a source that actually reports this information, then I think we should leave it out. (Is "TBN" the Trinity Broadcasting Network? If so, that needs to be defined.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Pre-recorded, not an online concert

Kid Rock has confirmed the show was pre-recorded. Candace Owens has related that the needed multiple takes (up to 5) for each song, with only about 180 extras as audience members. The article calls it an "online concert", which implies it's a recording of an actual concert, but it wasn't produced as such, and Wikipedia really ought to mention that. --~2026-10461-56 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The article has had this line for a while now: "The performance was pre-taped in Atlanta, Georgia, in a studio with about 200 people in the audience" - Fuzheado | Talk 17:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

TMZ poll removal issue

My neutrally worded edit that was sourced from Yahoo entertainment was undone by The Green Star Collector with the summary:

"Removing the TMZ poll info as WP:UNDUE; Twitter polls can be easily hijacked by accounts with millions of followers, which I strongly presume to be the case here."

Can you self revert this edit back, the fact you said "which I strongly presume to be the case here" in the edit summary really clarifies this edit was undone on original research basis, if there was any reliably sourced evidence of there being any sort of manipulation with this specific poll maybe we could say it is WP:UNDUE and if that is the case I am all for removing it. It is under the "reception" section, I think this type of edit removal reasoning sets an unhealthy precedence on what we as editors can presume about most of what constitutes the "reception" section. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I will not object to the readdition of this information, though I still question the reliability of Wealth of Geeks, the publication Yahoo Entertainment is pulling from. WOG's claim that the poll "clearly shows who Americans prefer between Bad Bunny and Kid Rock" is considerably misleading. I feel that YouGov's polling makes it much clearer that a plurality of Americans preferred Bad Bunny's halftime show, with most Democrats preferring the NFL's halftime show and most Republicans preferring TPUSA's. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

After the information was first added to this page, I was the editor who added a blue link to open-access poll, because I felt it was necessary to link readers to the kind of poll that it was. This is, indeed, an extremely unreliable kind of polling that is highly vulnerable to what we at Wikipedia would call meatpuppetry if it were to have happened, instead, onsite here. There is no original research involved in making that characterization, and one can find plenty of sourcing at that linked page. I don't feel strongly either, but my preference would be to leave it out. It's such a meaningless kind of poll that I don't think it merits much weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I sat on whether to add the TMZ poll back in, I did finally land on leaning towards inclusion because it seems to give more perspective on the "Viewership""Reception" landscape. It is neutrally worded and I think that with the addition of "Open access" poll descriptor/link, (Thank you @Tryptofish) it is quite clear to the reader what is indicative of an "X" poll. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I don't feel strongly, but I lean towards leaving it out. Even if it is neutrally worded, there is still the issue of due weight for a poll that may have been very misleading. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Why omit “The” in title

It seems most sources including the primary source calls it “The All-American Halftime Show” with The being part of the name. Any reason why we don’t call it that or can I change it? Win090949 (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason either way, so long as the name without "The" is a redirect to this page, but I'd suggest doing a WP:RM instead of making a WP:BOLD edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)