Talk:Kelli Stavast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

suggested correction for box at the top[edit]

Off topic. See WP:NOTFORUM. clpo13(talk) 03:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



The information box at the top's text should be changed from the vague :

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."

to the more accurate :

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's ongoing protection of Joe Biden (and, The Party) and memory-holing anything The Party doesn't want people to know about."

At long last, has the "progressive" community no awareness of how much they are what Orwell warned us about? Seriously? The reporter's Wikipedia entry has been up for how long? And in October 2021 editors are suddenly concerned about "enforcing policy" . . . here?

Yet another item to add to the collection of proof that, for politics, the dominant Wikipedia editors are full of it, in claiming the platform is unbiased. And not dominated by one Party. Right.

108.6.195.129 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t argue with Socialist Royalty. Duh! Dsoconno (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.17.136 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political memes[edit]

If other political memes get a page, so should "Let's go Brandon" and its referent. I mean even Ted Cruz–Zodiac Killer meme gets a page. See Category:Political Internet memes. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least a redirect here: Presidency_of_Joe_Biden#Approval_ratings_and_image. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your example is of a meme getting a page, and I support there being a "Let's Go Brandon" page. Kelli Stavast is not a 'meme' though. The mere fact that a person is responsible for a meme is not rationale for them having an article. For example, we have an article for Pepe the Frog but we don't have an article for it's creator, Matt Furie. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. But here is what I wrote on the deletion page: Keep. If a journalist only needs notability to get an article, this applies. I tried to have an article deleted (Tom Langmyer) for non-notability and the result was keep because obscure journalists meet some obscure notability guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Langmyer and some guidelines called WP:JOURNALIST. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Per WP:RSPDEADLINE, Deadline Hollywood is considered an acceptable source for entertainment articles. Despite the political nature of the ongoing discussion, this article focuses on the subject (Stavast) in the headline and does not make judgement in either direction. I think it would be perfect for a single line in the career section but wanted to bring it up her first due to the controversial nature. https://deadline.com/2021/10/nascar-kelli-stavast-brandon-brown-crowd-chants-reaction-1234848794/ Blocked sock. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also lacks any WP:SIGCOV of the subject whatsoever. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is part of notability for stand-alone article creation, not content. Even if you wanted to apply the principle, Deadline, BBC, Washington Post, Forbes, Business Insider, The Independent, and other sources are available. I also note that the content (which could be a single line or two) was removed until after the AfD. Wouldn't it make more sense to attempt to save the article by adding unbiased coverage from reputable sources? Globgenie (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
GhostOfDanGurney is now edit warring. They asked for coverage and received it. I see no reason not to restore and seek administrator intervention if they continue to revert without engaging in good faith on this page. GhostOfDanGurney is not above the rules just because they act as a lawyer here.Globgenie (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posting links, not bothering to wait for any discussion, and reverting an edit in order to put the contentions material back in is not how you establish consensus. Threatening to take me to ANI while simultaneously launching personal attacks is just grand. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should not be reverting people in the article since you made the deletion request. There are lots of people watching the article, there is no need for you to be involved in reverts. 2600:1700:1111:5940:5092:677C:8E13:A31D (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, as with Brandon Brown, WP:UNDUE, WP:MINORASPECT, WP:10YT, WP:NOTTABLOID and WP:NOTADVOCACY all apply and that is why it should not be included in an encyclopedic article about this person. Not advocacy especially applies here when you consider the fact that these two BLPs have attracted many SPAs who have little edits outside of advocating for articles about this forced meme. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue creating an RfC if needed, unless someone else wants to. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you would, GhostOfDanGurney, because I think it would help organize the discussion while we try to reach a consensus per WP:ONUS. It looks like a full discussion would help us determine whether this recent event should be added to this BLP, per WP:BLPBALANCE and other applicable policies. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go Brandon quote[edit]

Now that the quote "Let's Go Brandon" has been referenced Slate, there should be no objection to inclusion, as Slate is considered reliable. Her quote "Let's go Brandon" has now been uttered by a member of Congress from the Floor of the House, so it's not possible to say that it's not notable. Banana Republic (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate as to the notability of the phrase itself, though. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That would be the subject of whether or not there would be an article on the phrase. This is only for whether or not Stavast's uttering of the phrase is notable within her biography. Banana Republic (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it is ridiculous there is no mention of this on the current article.EagleFan (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree to adding the section on her biography and her page. Because the reporter was well aware of what was being actually said "the chants were very clear, not the first time being chanted in sports event and there is not any rhythm between Fuck Joe Biden and Let's go Brandon" and yet she intentionally decided to draw a wrong narrative. That's unprofessionalism and she has to be responsible for her own actions and decisions. A section of the event and encounter is highly regarded as part of her biography. It has nothing to do with politics, in fact she was the one who made it about politics. Eng. Ethical Hacker 12:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely cannot claim to know her intentions without several high-quality sources to back it up. Doing otherwise is a WP:BLP policy violation. clpo13(talk) 00:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eng. Ethical Hacker:Do you have a reference to site for your claim, or have they been originally researched? I can find a citation that says that she was wearing a headset, which goes against your claim. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: @Clpo13: Fine, I will rephrase my argument, whether it's intentional or a mistake, it is still unprofessionalism, she is still responsible and she should be well researched about what the crowd was chanting before making wrong statements on live TV, which ultimately led to the meme. Eng. Ethical Hacker 12:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: About your citation. She said on live TV "you can hear the crowd chanting let's go Brandon". So tell me how credible is your citation? And how could she say that when she was allegedly wearing a headset and supposedly can't hear anything? Eng. Ethical Hacker 12:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the Let's Go Brandon article:

The chant was "at first difficult to make out", according to The Associated Press[1] and the crowd "appeared to be cheering on the driver Brandon Brown", according to The New York Times. On the live broadcast, while wearing a headset,[2] reporter Stavast stated, "You can hear the chants from the crowd, 'Let's go, Brandon!'"[3][1][4]

Also, how can you possibly say there's no "rhythm" between the two phrases? They both have four syllables, a long "o" in the second syllable, the third syllable begins with a "B" and the last syllable ends with "n". GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: There is no mention in the citations you have cross-referenced whether The New York Times, Associated Press or Washington Post that the reporter was wearing a headset. They were primarily reporting on the pilot who said the phrase over the intercom during a flight. Associated Press cited the origin which you have presented here partially correct since no mention of her wearing a headset anywhere. And lastly, my argument is still not changed. The reporter bears responsibility about the event that took place from professionalism point of view, especially when the phrase now have gained a lot of traction not just in the US but worldwide as Forbes and The Independent reports that Loza Alexander's song "Let's go Brandon!" reached the top iTunes Top Hip-Hop/Rap Songs list [1]. Also a YouTube video uploaded by Sky News Australia titling "'Let's go Brandon': Anti-Biden chants go global" [2]. So I don't see any legitimate reason not to add this section to her bio. Eng. Ethical Hacker 12:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about "Let's go Brandon!"[edit]

Should this BLP include a paragraph about the "Fuck Joe Biden"/"Let's go Brandon" chant? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - this issue is also discussed at an RfC about "Let's go Brandon" at the Brandon Brown (racing driver) article, including how it relates to Stavast and WP:BLP policy. This has also been discussed in the recently-closed Kelli Stavast AfD. In addition to the WP:MINORASPECT and WP:COATRACK concerns raised in these discussions, WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP policy also appear to favor exclusion because this meme is reported to be a disparagement of Stavast, and therefore seems additionally inappropriate to include in her WP:BLP, including due to WP:BLPBALANCE, which includes, Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Given the recent nature of this event, her minor role, the apparent disparagement targeted at Stavast in the resulting meme, as well as its promotion, and at least one of the related songs, it does not appear to be appropriate per Wikipedia policy to include this recent event (which would necessarily include the recent meme) in her BLP at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the one who uttered the phrase, it is false to say that her role was minor. Banana Republic (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This report from the AP today: How ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ became code for insulting Joe Biden:

It started at an Oct. 2 NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Brandon Brown, a 28-year-old driver, had won his first Xfinity Series and was being interviewed by an NBC Sports reporter. The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out. The reporter suggested they were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon” to cheer the driver. But it became increasingly clear they were saying: “F—- Joe Biden.”

seems to add support for describing her role as minor in proportion to the "Let's Go Brandon" meme. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems as sources continue to report on bursts of news related to the meme, Stavast is becoming less relevant, and not being named, e.g. The New York Times reports:[3]

The viral moment began in early October at a NASCAR race in Alabama that was broadcast on NBC. As a crowd appeared to be cheering on the driver Brandon Brown, an NBC reporter interviewing Mr. Brown suggested that people were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon,” but it became clear that they were actually saying a four-letter expletive and then “Joe Biden.”

and this recent article in The Washington Post[4] also does not name Stavast, i.e.

The phrase has been used as a “code” by conservative critics of the president since a chant of “F--- Joe Biden!” broke out among a crowd at Alabama’s Talladega Superspeedway in early October. An NBC Sports reporter, who was interviewing NASCAR driver Brandon Brown live on air at the time, said “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go Brandon!’”

which both seem like additional support for her minor role in the creation and promotion of the meme. Beccaynr (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going by extremely recent coverage, this staff-written Forbes piece from 31 October on the very same incident mentions Stavast's name, as does a 31 October 31 Business Insider piece. And, this 31 October NPR piece also mentions Stavast's name in describing the history of the phrase, just as this 31 October Fox News piece does. Now, I don't think that looking at extremely recent coverage is the best way to do this—we should use all relevant coverage published by reliable sources—but I don't think that this helps the case that Stavast has suddenly become unimportant in this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And no sources on that article describe this subject in any significant detail. That is the entire crux of this debate. We know that x source mentions her name as the person who said it, I have yet be see any decent argument as to how it's more than a WP:MINORASPECT, or how it wouldn't be a WP:COATRACK. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MINORASPECT does not preclude inclusion. Banana Republic (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - while this page was created before her uttering this statement, she is clearly well known for this statement - her page views have increased significantly. Now this might be in part due to the multiple AfD's proposed by GhostOfDanGurney - but as already mentioned this has been picked up by several other sources. As a result, it seems clear that this is something noteworthy, even if there is a degree of WP:RECENT involved. Her notability, which is better addressed in the AfD, is of equal comparable size and content as Dave Burns and Mike Massaro who she is associated with on this article. This might be a WP:MINORASPECT to her, but is certainly a notable part of her bio and something that will likely see run the course of Biden's presidency, if not mutate into alternate versions, although I have no WP:CRYSTALBALL. But to avoid WP:COATRACK and WP:WEIGHT issues, it should probably be limited to a sentence or two, with a link to the main article on the topic. TiggerJay (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An AfD is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon. Beccaynr (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted this AFD closed with overwhelming consensus to keep Frank AnchorTalk 00:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RECENT. It's not a significant life event for a BLP, and in ten years will this addition still appear relevant? Nope. It will not.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)🎃[reply]
  • I don't know if we need a whole paragraph about it, but I think at least some mention is appropriate, given the plethora of RS coverage of the "Let's go Brandon" incident. The general arguments being raised against inclusion here could be just as easily applied to a lot of details currently in the article (e.g. "Stavast asked skier Madison Olsen about the death of her father in an interview."). I did a quick analysis of Google News, and I get around 12 pages of results for her name if I limit the search to the last month, and 23 pages if I limit to before the last month. So, in very rough terms, around 1/3 of news coverage mentioning Stavast ever has been in relation to the "Brandon" incident. It would be a bizarre violation of WP:DUE to not mention it at all. Colin M (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To borrow significantly from my comment in the parallel RfC at talk:Let's Go Brandon, there's a lot going on above, but much of it isn't actually analyzing how reliable sources are covering this. In virtually every single article that I can find that describes the origins of the chant in some way, the reporter's name is given. This includes:
    1. National Public Radio
    2. USA Today (fact check 1, fact check 2)
    3. Intelligencer
    4. Slate
    5. Fox News (via Yahoo! news)
    6. The Washington Post
    7. Deadline
    8. BBC News
    9. The Independent and Indy100
    10. Miami Herald
    11. Snopes
    12. The Times
    13. The Athletic
There are sources that I've seen from a major publication that did not include the Kelli Stavast's name (from the AP, via Chicago Sun-Times, and WaPo); these were mentioned by Beccaynr and others above. But, it seems that omitting mention of "Let's Go Brandon" from coverage of this individual is inconsistent with how the vast majority of reliable sources are providing coverage. At the end of the day, we should be reflecting the coverage of this individual and her work that is available in high quality reliable sources, and that leads me to support the inclusion of "Let's Go Brandon" in the context of her biography. It is, to be frank, the single most-covered utterance that she has made, and it appears that it is the single-most covered item in which she is given a substantial role.
I also think that the specific WP:BLP and other policy claims made by Beccaynr deserves discussion, though I believe they do not preclude the inclusion of the incident in some way.
  1. WP:NOTSCANDAL is fundamentally about promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping and notes that [a]rticles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. This article isn't a gossip piece, and I don't think that the HQRS above can possibly be described as through-the-grapevine or gossip reporting. This article isn't written to purely attack Stavast's reputation, and I don't think her inclusion is being done out of a sort of malice. The remaining part of WP:NOTSCANDAL states that articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. But, naming Stavast in the article doesn't just of this seems to be deriving from poor sourcing; I'd be extremely skeptical of a claim that the above thirteen sources, taken together, could in any way be seen to fail our sourcing standards. I don't think anyone's seriously claiming this, to be clear, though I do think that the absence of such a claim speaks to the fact that WP:NOTSCANDAL doesn't actually suggest that we should omit her name.
  2. Regarding WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, I really don't buy that this longtime television reporter is not a public figure and I believe that the attempt to apply it here is misplaced. Her role is public facing, her name is well-known (though it may not before making the "Let's Go Brandon" utterance), and related guidance (such as WP:LPI) points to her being a public figure; she's very clearly someone who is presented as a public-facing expert on stock car racing. Even if Stavast is involuntarily a public figure, she's still a public figure and her role in accidentally spurring the creation the chant is treated as significant by reliable sources.
  3. Regarding WP:COATRACK, I agree that this article should be primarily focused on Stavast, rather than on the chant. However, WP:COATRACK is not an excuse to wholly omit relevant information to the individual. But, this can be achieved by including the information in the article while not having it overtake the biography as a whole. A short paragraph in the "Career" subsection doesn't appear to actually be detrimental to the article to such an extent that the article gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects, which is what WP:COATRACK defines coatracking as. It seems fully plausible to write two-to-four sentences about her involvement in this that includes the facts and the interpretation of her actions given by RS while maintaining WP:BALANCE.
  4. Regarding WP:MINORASPECT, the policy states that editors should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. My reading of the coverage in this situation (both in the thirteen different agencies I've listed above and in other news sources) is that this aspect is (for better or for worse) one of the most covered things about Stavast in her entire career. Like Colin M, I think it would actually be a major violation of WP:NPOV to omit this wholesale in light of the coverage that I've seen (and noted above).
  5. Regarding the appeal to WP:10YT by Isaidnoway, I don't think we have a crystal ball here, though I do believe that this is something that has attracted enough coverage that it likely will. If such a large portion of the coverage of her over the entirety of her life is in this context, it would take quite a leap of faith to say that this will become wholly irrelevant to her biography in ten years. This seems to have been the single most covered utterance in her life thus far.
  6. And, regarding WP:BLP more generally, editors seem to have not discussed WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which states that [i]n the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say... even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If Stavast is a public figure, which she well appears to be, then I see no reason to omit her name here.
Overall, none of the appeals to WP:BLP or other policies are convincing, while a multitude of reliable sources provide coverage of her in this context. If we are going to make this article reflect the coverage in reliable sources—and we should—her name should be included in the same way that the multitude of reliable sources include her name. The extent to which it should be included should be no more than a paragraph given the current length of the article, but it should be given enough weight to explain her involvement in a way that's compliance with WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Support A quick Google search of WP:RS tells you her notability after last week stems entirely from this meme. This doesn't fall under WP:BLP since it doesn't involve anything contentious, she didn't propagate the meme and she didn't start using it as an insult herself. Loganmac (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A contentious aspect related to how reliable sources indicate Stavast is a target of rumor/speculation that could negatively impact her reputation, and other WP:BLP concerns, are further discussed at the RfC about naming Kelli Stavast in the Let's Go Brandon article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support she is central and associated to this meme, which obviously has wideapread coverage and is notable. I think a simple line or 2 highlighting her involvement should be fine.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A review of sources that do not name Stavast or do not appear to consider her more than a WP:MINORASPECT of the meme are further discussed at the RfC about naming Kelli Stavast in the Let's Go Brandon article, and appear to support not including any content about the meme here. Beccaynr (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is literally the person who first uttered the phrase, I don't know why a simple note or sentence shouldn't be included.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fair reading of that other discussion is that the content is worth including... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support She is clearly the reason this started, plenty of video evidence to confirm this and seems bias to intentionally exclude from bio when it's gained her notoriety as a result. YouTube Evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutchski (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. She is the one who first spoke the incorrect phrase on television and there have been accusations that it is part of liberal media bias. She is entirely relevant to it and that is covered in reliable sources so it deserves mentioning, although it should only be a minor mention and link to the main "Let's Go Brandon" article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:MINORASPECT. The phrase has taken on a life of its own and can be adequately covered in its own article. I have no objection to her being mentioned in Let’s Go Brandon as the originator, but devoting almost half the total bytes of this article to the phrase is absurd. A see also link should be sufficient, if anything. clpo13(talk) 03:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's silly you think this, look at her page view stats since she uttered the phrase [here]. Everything else listed in her career section is more minor than her originating the phrase.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. NCTideFan (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)"Let's go Brandon" and the underlying "F*** Joe Biden" are everywhere now. I think it is absolutely relevant to mention she is the one who started the ball rolling. It is newsworthy and should be mentioned in this article. It should not be excluded simply because some believe it puts her in an unfavorable light. Personally, I don't think it does.. I don't know what Kelli was thinking or heard when she said "Let's Go Brandon!". Whether she was being intentionally misleading is not the issue; that she was the person who coined the phrase, absolutely is.[reply]
  • Support. Kelli Stavast became known to the broader public outside of Nascar/sports because of the Let's go Brandon phrase. This is noteworthy for her career. She will forever be known as the Let's go Brandon interviewer. Newsbuster 404 (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the issue of pageviews, it should probably be noted that there had been a redirect from "Let's Go Brandon" to the Kelli Stavast article until it was moot, and for awhile, her name was removed from the Let's Go Brandon article until it was restored while the RfC about whether to include her name is pending. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support She is the author of the phrase that is now notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Putting an "In popular culture" statement and noting her as the author is not a statement of agreeing or diagreeing with the sentiment of the phrase, it's merely pointing out that she authored it. Sf46 (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is not the creator of the meme and there have been no sources identified to suggest she has done anything to promote it or has any involvement in politics generally or specifically related to this. Many independent and reliable sources do not mention her name, as noted in this and other discussions, which helps demonstrate her minor role in the meme, which is otherwise political and created by others. As noted above by Abbyjjjj96, "there have been accusations that it is part of liberal media bias" and per WP:NOTSCANDAL, Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. The Stavast article is brief due to so few independent and reliable sources finding her career "worthy of notice", which raises more concern about the WP:WEIGHT of a meme that includes an attack on her reputation in her article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning in her bio that she said on the air "Let's go Brandon", and that kicked off a meme, is not an attack on her. Banana Republic (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify, the WP:BLP issue is not the only concern I have about inclusion of a meme she did not create in her article, but based on reporting from e.g. BBC News on October 12, 2021,

In short, it's an insult directed at Democratic President Joe Biden - and a way for conservatives to thumb their noses at what they see as liberal bias in the mainstream media. [...] Some conservatives view Ms Stavast's attribution of the Biden chant as yet another example of the media covering up for and protecting Biden by downplaying what they view as the depth of the president's unpopularity.

and e.g. The Washington Post on October 23, 2021,

Trump supporters instantly saw signs of a coverup, claiming on social media that journalists were deliberately censoring anti-Biden sentiment.

I find it difficult to describe this meme as not including an attack on her reputation. Beccaynr (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. Just because conservatives accuse her of a coverup, why does that preclude her bio from mentioning that a statement she made on the air became a meme? Banana Republic (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One reason is because the introduction of WP:BLP policy includes Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment and the policy further includes WP:BLPBALANCE, which includes, Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times, as well as WP:BLPGOSSIP, which includes, Avoid repeating gossip, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, which includes Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. These principles are further supported by WP:NOTSCANDAL. Stavast has a minor role, which seems confirmed by how many independent and reliable sources do not even name her, which suggests that additional caution is warranted here. There also do not appear to be independent and reliable sources about her career to support a contention that she is a major public figure, despite having a public-facing job, which further seems to support applying WP:BLP protections. Beccaynr (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support adding the section on her biography and her page. Because the reporter was well aware of what was being actually said "the chants were very clear, not the first time being chanted in sports event and there is not any rhythm between Fuck Joe Biden and Let's go Brandon" and yet she intentionally decided to draw a wrong narrative. That's unprofessionalism and she has to be responsible for her own actions decisions and a stain on her career as a sports reporter. A section of the event and encounter is highly regarded as part of her biography. Most of the people who are urging that she didn't invent the meme. Well no one is implying that. The section has to reflect her wrong narrative and unprofessionalism that lead to the meme. But it is important to highlight that part out in her page and bio here. And finally it has nothing to do with politics, in fact she was the one who made it about politics. Eng. Ethical Hacker 12:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support she (inadvertantly) started the lets go Brandon "movement" as is covered in a multitude of sources as shown in this discussion and Talk:Let's Go Brandon. The vast majority of these sources list her name. While the article should primarily focus on her as a sports reporter, "Lets go Brandon" is probably what she is most known for as of November 2021 and a 2-3 sentence mention of her role in this is appropriate Frank AnchorTalk 13:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Let's not mix politics into sportscasting. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? What policy would it violate? While I cannot think of any sportscasters who entered politics, there have been athletes who have entered politics (example Jim Bunning). Although Magic Johnson has not entered politics, his political leanings have been covered in WP:RS, and there is a section about his political positions in his Wikipedia article. Bottom line, I see no policy based reason to "not mix politics into sportscasting". Banana Republic (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My choice & I won't be convinced to change my mind. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, However, User:Banana Republic was pointing out that yours does not align with precedent based on Wikipedia policy, while providing several examples as evidence. Frank AnchorTalk 16:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC closer, will evaluate my position. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I just don’t want other users to be taken in by your attractive, yet baseless, arguments. Frank AnchorTalk 22:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While you, GoodDay, are entitled to hold any opinion you wish, this is not a popular vote. If you make an argument that is not based on policy (and that's what I tried to point out to you), your opinion (or in Wikipedia jargon !vote) will not get counted. So if sharing your opinion made you feel good, I suppose your !vote served its purpose. But if your purpose was to make an argument that would be entered into account, then you failed. Banana Republic (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could phrase it in terms of Wikipedia policies by writing "WP:IAR, don't mix politics with sportscasting", but I cannot even fathom that you'd get a consensus for that. Banana Republic (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion section (below), as I'm not interested in clogging up the survey section. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mention her part in this. Just a short mention. Anything too detailed could go into the meme article. Dream Focus 02:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support some mention; as Mikehawk10 indicated, the vast majority of sources attribute the "Let's Go Brandon" quote to Stavast. I am sympathetic to Clpo13's suggestion that devoting almost half the total bytes of this article to the phrase may be WP:UNDUE, but Let's Go Brandon should at least be mentioned in the article prose given how central the phrase is to Stavast's significance. feminist (+) 14:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is further support for WP:MINORASPECT and WP:BLP concerns from The Washington Post today, i.e.

    The “Let’s go Brandon” chant dates to an Oct. 2 trackside interview, conducted by an NBC Sports reporter with NASCAR driver Brandon Brown after he won a race. The crowd was chanting “F--- Joe Biden,” but the reporter heard the chant as “Let’s go Brandon” and wrongly said on air that the crowd was showing its support for the driver. Some conservatives latched on to the discrepancy, attributing a conspiratorial motive to the mix-up, without evidence, and citing the brief exchange as an attempt by a media outlet to hide dislike for Biden.

    This recent report does not specifically name her, which appears to be further support of WP:MINORASPECT and notes disparagement, without evidence, of Stavast, which is further support of a WP:BLP concern. Beccaynr (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new with your comment. After listing 13 references that do mention her name (with #6 on the list being the Washington Post), Mikehawk10 acknowledged that a different Washington Post article (along with an Associated Press article) do not mention her by name. Time to drop the WP:STICK. Banana Republic (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Lawrence for certain got harmed by the 2014 celebrity nude photo leak - so the featured article on her certainly does not mention the topic, or does it?
After Beccanyr has again totally removed the insertions in Brandon Brown (racing driver) for invalid reasons, I fail to apply WP:AGF anymore and have suggested to interdict him from further participation in this debate. --KnightMove (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support by now the level of notability of the slogan has become obvious, and article views have skyrocketed as much as the mentions of Stavast in national and international media. Any more opposition against mentioning the slogan here has become ridiculous. --KnightMove (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per extensive amount of sourcing that we have on specified phrases; see reply by Mikehawk10 for full details. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

It is truly amazing how many excuses can be found to censor the authorship of a very popular historical statement. Dsoconno (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think a meme basically amounting to "fuck the guy in charge" is a "very popular historical statement"? How? Like it's this generation's "A day that will live in infamy" or what? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are manufacturing false and malicious gossip. Kelli Stavast never said any of that. Her very popular historical statement is, “Let’s go Brandon” and she alone deserves credit for it. Dsoconno (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a meme amounting to "fuck the guy in charge" is significant, particularly in the context of the red wave that occurred in the 2 Nov 2021 elections.174.0.48.147 (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better question. How many people coming to her page are doing so because literally all they know about her is her misquoting the crowd at Brandon's race? (raises hand).174.0.48.147 (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with both Dsoconno and IP poster above. Debate over this inclusion was entirely unnecessary as consensus above clearly demonstrates, and those who utilize such stalling tactics as this should be taken to WP:ANI. It's nonsense, and it is a major reason why WP has lost so many editors. It should not require an act of Congress to add a well-sourced, notorious media event into a relevant article. And it would appear that it is only being done because this entire article was recently nominated for deletion unsuccessfully not just once, but twice! Cancel culture is out of control. - JGabbard (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and those who utilize such stalling tactics as this should be taken to WP:ANI. Please do if you feel there is any actual wrongdoing. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JGabbard: please explain how the term "cancel culture" applies here. Also, if you think the discussion has run its course and should be closed, feel free to request a closure from an uninvolved editor at WP:CR. Ranting about perceived wrongs doesn't accomplish anything. clpo13(talk) 17:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would only serve to delay the process further, because WP:CR is only for discussions with an unclear consensus, which does not apply here. Cancel culture seeks to erase or minimize this cultural phenomenon, or retaliate against its public use, but it's a lost cause. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle. - JGabbard (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IF anyone else wants to question my post at 'survey'? please bring those questions 'here'. That's what the 'discussion' sub-section is for. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Please can you close this one, too, to somehow bring this to an end? --KnightMove (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:RFCL may be your friend. On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure....If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here. What's the rush for, anyway? Is this time sensitive information? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put in a closure request, when the RFC template expires. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Suciu, Peter (November 6, 2021). "'Thanks Brandon' Now Countering 'Let's Go Brandon' On Social Media". Forbes. Retrieved 12 November 2021.
  2. ^ "'Thanks Brandon' Now Countering 'Let's Go Brandon' On Social Media". Sky News Australia. November 5, 2021. Retrieved 12 November 2021.
  3. ^ Delkic, Melina (October 31, 2021). "Why a Pilot Is Under Investigation for Saying 'Let's Go Brandon'". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 November 2021.
  4. ^ Suliman, Adela (October 31, 2021). "Southwest Airlines to investigate pilot's purported anti-Biden chant". The Washington Post. Retrieved 31 October 2021.

Headset[edit]

How isn't the fact that she was wearing a headset relevant again? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning headset in the article represents WP:OR as you are implying that the headset caused her to mishear the chant. We do not know whether the "Let's go Brandon" was intentional or not. She has never commented on it. The article should therefore remain WP:NEUTRAL and not try to guess whether or not she deliberately mischaracterized the crowd's chant. Banana Republic (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of this is related to the 'still open' RFC? GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new edit war created by GhostOfDanGurney and Beccaynr after the consensus at the RfC established that the Let's Go Brandon should be included. If "Let's Go Brandon" was not included, this edit war would be moot. The headphones is now their new WP:BATTLE. Banana Republic (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^^And these comments are why I don't want to work with you and the literal reason we are at ANI right now. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it may feel good to you to personally attack me, it's important to note that you are NOT addressing the WP:OR concerns. Banana Republic (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the New York Times source cited in the article is blocked by a paywall, so my opinion is, admittedly, based on WP:OR. It makes perfect sense that wearing a headset and likely hearing the producer's voice may make it harder for Stavast to decipher the words of the chant. Both are four syllables with the second syllable having a long "O" and the fourth being "din" so it is reasonable to assume she misheard the chant. However, the chant of "Fuck Joe Biden" is clear in the video well before she says they are saying "Lets go Brandon." Any "free" sources would be appreciated to give me more policy-appropriate information. Frank Anchor 16:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for the headset is this AP article, which is not behind a pay-wall. The article says "It was not clear if NBC Sports reporter Kelli Stavast, who was wearing a headset, could hear what the crowd was saying during the interview, and she incorrectly told Brown the fans were cheering “Let’s go, Brandon.”.
Since it's not clear whether or not the mischaracterization of the chant was deliberate, the article should not try to give the false impression that the headset caused her to mis-hear the chant from the crowd. Banana Republic (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until the RFC is closed, which will occur later this month. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT citation that continues to be removed from the article [1] also has a quote added to the citation:

As a crowd appeared to be cheering on the driver Brandon Brown, an NBC reporter interviewing Mr. Brown suggested that people were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon,” but it became clear that they were actually saying a four-letter expletive and then "Joe Biden."

Beccaynr (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the October 30 AP citation in the article includes a quote,

The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out.

so it does not appear to support a sentence that states, "On October 2, 2021, Stavast interviewed Brandon Brown after his victory at the Xfinity Series' Sparks 300, while the crowd was chanting "Fuck Joe Biden" in the background." These sources support why the text was originally written to describe only "chanting" based on this source. I also think that because the November 5 AP source finds it relevant to mention the headset, especially in the context of the reports from other sources, it is appropriate to include in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are trying to give reasons why Stavast mis-characterized the chant (the chant from the crowd was not clear and/or she was wearing a headset). This is WP:OR. You are using all sorts of quotes from various sources in an attempt to build up such a case. That's WP:SYNTH.
The bottom line is that until Stavast comes forward and explains why she mis-characterized the chant, we will never know why Stavast mis-characterized the chant. There is therefore no reason to put speculation into the article until she clarifies why she mis-characterized the chant. WP:NPV requires that we just explain that she mis-characterized the chant and not hypothesize why she did it. Banana Republic (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, my edits do not hypothesize about anything, and instead attempt to avoid original research by sticking to the sources and using neutral language, including as described in MOS:SAID, i.e. avoiding the loaded term "mischaracterized", which as noted in the MOS, is a potential BLP issue, because it seems to inappropriately imply culpability, as further discussed in NPOV policy. I think we should plainly summarize what is known about the circumstances based on reliable sources, stop removing reliable sources that provide context about the circumstances, and avoid potential editorial bias by avoiding loaded terms. This is a BLP article, and it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Beccaynr (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are not in dispute. The crowd chanted "Fuck Joe Biden", and she characterized the chanting as "Let's go Brandon". It is therefore a mis-characterization of the chant. Nothing biased about it. Your attempt to use the headset as an excuse for the mis-characterization is a pushing of a WP:POV not supported by any WP:RS. Furthermore, you are trying to hide your agenda, by citing sources that say that she wore a headset, and using it in the sentence "Wearing a headset, Stavast described the chant as "Let's Go Brandon"." as if the headset was the reason for the mis-characterization. Banana Republic (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances are described in the two AP articles and the NYT article noted above, and the first AP article and NYT article appear to support a summary that avoids implying she said "Let's Go Brandon" while "Fuck Joe Biden" was audible. Your repeated edits appear to imply she said "Let's Go Brandon" while "Fuck Joe Biden" was audible to her, and then "mischaracterized" (a loaded term that seems to imply culpability), which all appears to be contradicted and/or unsupported by reliable sources. The headset is reported by the second AP article and seems pertinent to include, including due to concerns about whether she could hear the chant. Beccaynr (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're trying to explain why she would have mis-characterized the chant. No explanation is necessary. It's completely irrelevant whether or not the chant was audible enough for her to correctly characterize it. It's undisputed that the chant was "Fuck Joe Biden", and she characterized the chant as "Let's go Brandon". She alone can explain why she did it, and until she does, her Wikipedia article should not offer any explanations for it, such as "the chant was inaudible" or "she was wearing a headset".
Additionally, the word "mis-characterization" is absolutely a neutral term, and your characterization of the word as anything other than neutral is yet another sign of what a WP:TEDIOUS editor you are. Banana Republic (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Let's Go Brandon article uses the text that "Kelli Stavast incorrectly described a chant of "Fuck Joe Biden" ". I don't see how there is any difference in neutrality between "incorrectly described" and "mis-characterized". Banana Republic (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Banana Republic, I am not trying to explain why she said what she said, I am trying to summarize reliable sources and apply relevant policies and guidelines. I also don't think this can be a productive discussion unless there is a focus on the content, not the contributor. Please stop creating distractions to the discussion by making accusations about me. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that matters is the content, not what you say that you're trying to do. To write in the article "Wearing a headset, Stavast described the chant as "Let's Go Brandon"." implies that the headset was the reason that she described the chant that way. If that's not the implication, then you can substitute "headset" with anything: a bra, a tampon, lipstic, etc. Obviously, you're not going to put any of those things in the article, which is why I am saying that it is 100% inappropriate for you to insert the phrase "Wearing a headset, Stavast did X". Just report "Stavast did X". Banana Republic (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is the reliable sources, and the applicable policies and guidelines. I have not seen any sources reporting on things like a bra, tampon, or lipstick, and these do not appear relevant to the concern that appears to exist over what was heard by whom and when. We only have the reliable sources, none of which appear to support the edit you have repeatedly attempted to add that also appears to be contentious and raise WP:BLP concerns, but do support inclusion of the fact she was wearing a headset. Beccaynr (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The point is not the existence of a WP:RS saying that she wore a headset. The point is how is it used in the article. You are using it in the article to create the impression that the headset was the reason for her mischaracterization of the chant, and there are no references for that. Banana Republic (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is how the fact of the headset is used by a reliable source, which is how it is used in the article. I am also concerned about your removal of the NYT source and addition of content that appears to be contradicted and unsupported by reliable sources. This may or may not be related, but I think this contentious WP:BLP issue should be addressed. Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not understand what's going on? or are you just being WP:TEDIOUS as usual?
  1. Just because a reference mentions that she wore a headset does not mean that the article needs to mention it, and definitely not in the way that you want to mention it, which gives the impression that the headset is the reason she mis-characterized the chant.
  2. Wikipedia is not a link farm. The paragraph already has 5 references. I don't see what added value is there in a sixth reference.
Banana Republic (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Banana Republic, I asked you to focus on the content, but you have again made a negative personalized comment about me, which I think is disruptive to a productive discussion. I have also already explained why your addition of unsourced contentious content should be removed, and why reliably-sourced content should be included. Beccaynr (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reject your assertion that I added any unsourced contentious content. In fact, you have yet to point as to exactly what is the unsourced contentious content that I supposedly added. You, however, are guilty of adding unsourced contentious content. There is no reference saying or implying that the headset that she was wearing could have been the reason for her mischaracterization of the quote. Banana Republic (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am concerned about your repeated change of the line "On October 2, 2021, Stavast interviewed Brandon Brown after his victory [...] and the crowd was chanting in the background" to "On October 2, 2021, Stavast interviewed Brandon Brown after his victory [...] while the crowd was chanting "Fuck Joe Biden" in the background." [2]. This line is cited to an October 30 AP source that includes in its citation The crowd behind him was chanting something at first difficult to make out. You have repeatedly added your version while also removing the NYT source that includes in its citation As a crowd appeared to be cheering on the driver Brandon Brown, an NBC reporter interviewing Mr. Brown suggested that people were chanting “Let’s go, Brandon,” but it became clear that they were actually saying a four-letter expletive and then "Joe Biden." Both of these sources make your addition appear contentious because it appears to misleadingly imply the entire interview happened while the chant was audible, which appears to be both contradicted and unsupported by reliable sources.
As to the headset, it is a fact reported by the AP on November 5, and it appears to be a relevant detail to include, similar to accurately summarizing other surrounding circumstances reported by reliable sources. I am concerned by the repeated removals of the reliably-sourced mention of the headset, in conjunction with the removals of reliably-sourced information about the chanting, as well as altering the text that does not appear to be supported by the source you did not remove. The continued use of the loaded term "mischaracterize" instead of MOS:SAID, when we are otherwise encouraged to use neutral language, is also a concern. Beccaynr (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC) - copyedit comment Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minced Oath[edit]

An unregistered user twice removed the phrase "minced oath" from the article to describe the phrase Let's go Brandon (first time, and second time). Based on the Wikipedia article of the term "minced oath", it seems to be an accurate description. But if that unregistered user insists, I suppose we could add a {{citation needed}} template, as opposed to removal.
Are there any other editors who would support restoring the "minced oath" term into the article? Banana Republic (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term is accurate. It needs to be restored, and left alone. - JGabbard (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is support in RS, e.g. Politico today

As a slogan, “Let’s go Brandon!” has a schoolboy-esque, getting-away-with-it wryness that just barely cloaks its profane takedown of the sitting president.

which I also think supports returning the wikilink to where the article discusses the phrase Let's Go Brandon, as a way to help readers find relevant context, instead of placing the wikilink in the Stavast quote, which does not offer relevant context. The Let's Go Brandon article is about the slogan, meme, etc, so the wikilink seems most appropriate to add where this article describes it as a slogan, meme, etc. Beccaynr (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made the edit, I thought minced oath is unnecessarily difficult and not the best description. Most reliable sources call it a euphemism, I did not find any of the many really strong sources calling it a minced oath. I would tend to go with sources and the word “euphemism”, basing the decision on the description in the Wikipedia article is bad form. What is the attachment to this “minced oath” term when the VAST majority of reliable sources use the well understood “euphemism? I do think it should be consistent across both articles. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the article minced oath you'll see that it is a type of a euphemism. Therefore, using "minced oath" is more precise than using the word "euphemism". --21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Banana Republic (talk)
It would be best with a reliable source, which you don’t have, and there are a ton of great sources on the topic. Reading the Wikipedia article and deciding on your own that it is a minced oath is exactly what you are not supposed to do. I am not going to challenge it. Thanks for engaging in a productive way. Cheers. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a citation would help, you can add the {{cn}} template. I personally do not think a citation is needed, per WP:BLUE. Banana Republic (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored it & would advise the IP not to remove it again, without a consensus to do so. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the change and it was a accepted by another user. If you don’t understand how locked pages work, you shouldn’t be editing here. I advise you to grab a cup of WP:COMPETENCE. This article is already a battleground with both co-owners replying above. No need to reply, I will edit elsewhere. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OWN, the article is owned by the community, not two editors. Banana Republic (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
if you don’t own it, why can you not walk away when a topic ban is under consideration? You need to just drop it. I told you I would not contest this change even though I think it needs sourcing. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kelli_Stavast&oldid=1192419779"