Talk:Let's Go Brandon/Archive 1

Another draft
It still needs a copy edit and some sourcing touch up, but this is my initial go at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Globgenie/sandbox.

Some will claim some of the sources are mentioned at Reliable sources/Perennial sources (like Newsweek), but that is not a policy or guideline, nor is consensus clear since none of the sources are depreciated. Also, they are often backed by video and other sources. Other sources include BBC, Business Insider, The Independent, and more.

I went away from the structure initially shown on the draft page, but it can be edited to conform or used instead. Regardless, I think it gives a good start.

At this time I do not see any violations of BLP or neutrality, while there are enough local, national, and even international sources detailing the chant to give it notability (even if it has only been two months).Globgenie (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Accepting?
I am extremely inclined to accept this draft as an article; and in fact will do so unilaterally in the next 36 hours unless somebody beats me to it or makes a compelling policy objection. Regarding the objections: the Articles for deletion/Fuck Joe Biden discussion closed in September, and the "Let's go Brandon" video is from October 2. There is substantial coverage of the slogan since then; BBC and Slate are just two of the sources from the article, and are enough on their own to meet GNG. And the "it's too new" arguments are not based in policy; we don't wait a month to have coverage of coups, sports events, or memes about a dress. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion at Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast, I have immediately accepted the draft. I doubt an AFD of this article will get anywhere, but I can't stop people from nominating the article. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 19:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No comma
I moved the page from "Let's go, Brandon" to "Let's Go Brandon because the best RS don't use the comma. See Reuters AP AFP  starship .paint  (exalt) 12:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the lack of an exclamation point, my choice of initial mainspace title should be considered arbitrary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 15:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing cleanup
Newsweek post-2013 is not an RS per WP:NEWSWEEK; TMZ is not one at all; iTunes chart entries should not be noted per WP:CHARTS and WP:SINGLEVENDOR; the Washington Examiner is a questionable source per WP:RSP, and any claims should be attributed; but basically we need better sources than the W.E. Snopes source may be reusable, though it was only answering a wrong claim from the Washington Examiner - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Social media hoax re: Canadian government
Per the source you're trying to use, Reuters, "Social media users are sharing a letter allegedly sent by Shared Services Canada banning employees from using the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon”. The agency confirmed the letter is fabricated and is playing on an anti-Biden slogan that has gained popularity on social media. Examples can be seen here and here . The text in one post reads: “Canadian government bans employees from saying “Let’s Go Brandon.” Can you believe this? Should everyone just go back to F**k Joe Biden?”"

The first "here" is a Facebook post that says "Canada just banned government correspondence from using the phrase "Let's Go Brandon!" 🤣🤣" (two "crying laughing emojis")

The second "here" is the quoted Twitter post.

Absolutely nothing about that implies that "the image enraged social media users for the supposed censorship by the Canadian government." Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE; "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * pinging who removed the paragraph initially as trivia. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not seeing why something which was quickly debunked as a hoax warrants inclusion here, which is why I removed it. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that without context it does not appear relevant, and therefore your removal was proper. Banana Republic (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you agree it should stay removed? You haven't even shown how your additional blurb does this. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC
 * No, I think the additional sentence gives context and relevance. Banana Republic (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that a single reported tweet of Can you believe this? showing that a few people on the internet fell for the hoax before it was debunked does that. Rather, I think it shows bias against the Canadian government, making it seem like the response was much more aggressive than it actually was. Especially with the other reported example including the crying laugh emojis. It seems at least some of the response was much more light-hearted than that. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference only shows one tweet, and that's all that it needs to show. The references also say that it was widely circulated. Had it not been widely circulated, it would not have been debunked. The fake memo would not have been widely circulated had it not produced outrage. Banana Republic (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While this general issue has been in the news recently, e.g. Five points for anger, one for a ‘like’: How Facebook’s formula fostered rage and misinformation (WaPo/MSN), it appears to be original research to conclude that here, without a reliable source directly saying so about this hoax. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * this was widely reported on in RS (e.g. Reuters, the National Post, USA Today, the AP, various fact-checking websites, and - prior to being debunked - a number of high-profile conservative outlets) and is directly related to the article's topic. WP:DUE is a function of RS coverage, not of our subjective judgements of importance. I think it merits a sentence or two. Colin M (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think the text "Can you believe this?" in the image of the tweet means? It's an expression for outrage. Banana Republic (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per who, precisely? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say per WP:BLUE. I think it's pretty obvious and need not be referenced. Banana Republic (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To use one example post stating "Can you believe this?" as the source for the statement "While it was circulating, the image enraged social media users" in WP:WIKIVOICE seems like a variation of MOS:WEASEL, but also a form of WP:SYNTH, because it seems to combine the Reuters report about the hoax being shared on social media with the Reuters report of a reaction of one user to create a broader statement about "users" that is not supported, even if one user's reaction, which might be surprise, could be appropriately summarized as outrage. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For reference, I think content about this has been added and removed at least twice, first here, then here. The latter paragraph was added by me - I wasn't aware that similar content had previously been removed., your comments at the top of the thread seem to be objecting to some wording in the first version, but that doesn't explain the problem you had with the second version. Colin M (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * removed the paragraph as trivia and I agree with that. There's no significance to it and the only context you can possibly come up with for it is that Daily Wire is incredibly gullible and unreliable. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Several right-wing outlets reported on it prior to the National Post's debunking, not just the Daily Wire. It was also widely circulated on social media. And most importantly (from a WP:DUE point of view) the whole affair was widely reported on in RS. Colin M (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A conspiracy theory that is debunked does not belong in an encyclopedia unless one of two things happens. Either (1) it was not debunked for years, or (2) if it provoked or instigated something prior to being debunked.
 * In my opinion, condition (2) has been satisfied, with WP:RS showing that the image of the fake memo was circulated with along with the question "Can you believe this?" I think the question shows that the hoax evoked outrage [at supposed censorship by the Canadian government]. Although I did not put into the article what the outrage was about, as that would constitute WP:OR, the consensus so far is that the question "Can you believe this?" is not necessarily evidence of outrage. If we can establish a consensus that the fake memo evoked outrage, we could include it in the article.  Banana Republic (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If we can establish a consensus that the fake memo evoked outrage, we could include it in the article. - That I can agree with. Personally I'd be satisfied if a reliable source specifically said so. At present, I don't believe one exists. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-free video clip?
This addition of a quote box with a larger quote from the NASCAR interview made me think that maybe what we really need for this section is the video clip itself. I think it would definitely satisfy the non-free content criteria. Something that we've been sort of fussing on for a while is how to describe the audio of the clip - was the content of the chant clearly audible to viewers? Did it start out indistinct but then become clear? Did this happen before or after Stavast misstated the chant? The clip itself would communicate this clearly to readers in a way that would be impossible via text, and would clearly enhance readers' understanding of the topic. Thoughts? Colin M (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure that it's in line with WP:NFCC. Would a description (such as that at this link) be sufficient to describe it? I can see arguments on each side; even a transcript is going to be difficult given the fact that multiple people are talking at once, but I feel like there might be a creative way to communicate the necessary details to the reader without missing something substantial. I'd also be a bit cautious with respect to the length of the clip; I don't think the full interview is needed, though I'm not 100% sure as to where it should be cut.
 * Alternatively, is there an external link we could insert to an actual clip? Template:External_media might be useful to link readers to a source video without having to worry about NFCC. We would have to be careful about WP:COPYLINK, though. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update, I think this Breaking Points video has the original clip in it. It appears that there's an implicit fair use claim there (the video is a criticism), and I don't see any issues with WP:COPYLINK as a result. It might be possible to link to the video via the external media template beginning at 0:31, though I'd strongly prefer to find a video where there isn't commentary after the relevant portion. I'll continue to pour through YouTube to see if I can find a news station with the clip in a video where we don't get commentary afterwards. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, the official NASCAR video of the interview doesn't include the meme-inspiring moment. Will continue to look. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the full interview would be excessive, but I think a clip of around 30 seconds with a bit of context before and after the "Let's go Brandon" statement would suffice. I think an inline clip would be much more useful than an EL (it not only saves the reader a click, but we don't have to worry about the link going dead, we don't have to worry about whether the linked video is a copyvio, we're not forcing the reader to sit through ads to watch the video, etc.), though if NFCC isn't satisfied then an EL is probably better than nothing. Colin M (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that it's strongly preferable to have an embedded video than to have people click out to an external one, though I just don't think that it's clear to pass NFCC#1. I think that it probably passes NFCC#8; the clip is definitely helpful in increasing understanding of the article topic (via its origins), but I'm having trouble seeing how it's of irreplaceable value when most (not all; there are some exemptions) news reports I see do not include the clip in any video form. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's an interesting way to look at it. When you're talking about its replaceability, do you mean by text? Because I think it's pretty routinely accepted to just say something like "this is an inherently visual/aural phenomenon and hence a text description can't serve the same encyclopedic purpose to convey its content" Colin M (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this article is primarily about the promotion of the meme, not the video, and there is reporting, as noted above, from the NYT and the AP, that describe what happened, so 8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding seems difficult to justify. Beccaynr (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've boldly uploaded File:Let's Go Brandon.webm with a non-free use rationale which I hope sufficiently addresses criteria 1 and 8 (though edits/suggestions are welcome). Colin M (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I introduced the quote box seeing as the phrase (in its context) is the catalyst and most important aspect of the article. The transcript was sourced by The Independent which provided the full exchange as to not fall in WP:OR. I also like the video option. Seeing as it's been memed to death it would fall under fair use imo too.Loganmac (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

iTunes
removed content citing WP:CHARTS. reverted, citing WP:IAR and WP:NOPV. Personally, I do not understand how the question of whether or not to include these charts is a NPOV issue and agree with David's interpretation of WP:CHARTS. Per WP:BRD I am beginning this discussion rather than reverting Boscaswell (which I could technically do under WP:IAR ~_^). GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained in some depth in my very long Edit summary to the reinstatement why WP:CHARTS should be WP:IGNOREd in this instance, but I’ll explain further here. Songs  entitled Lets Go Brandon were at numbers 1,2,4 and 8 on the iTunes downloads chart on 27 October.  This was not a one off occurrence, for that day only. If you were to check that chart again now, several days later, you’d find a not dissimilar situation.  I am fully in agreement that iTunes Charts should not be used in straightforward infoboxes in song articles.  However, in thus instance, the cumulative chart appearances of songs of that title is more than merely exceptional.  It’s more like phenomenal.  Adele’s first single for 4 or 5 years was kept from the top by two of the Let’s Go Brandon songs.  Much of my working life was in the music industry and I know a phenomenon when I see one. This is that.  Wikipedia is all about presenting a balanced view. Some may not like the phenomenon, but it exists.  Hence my citation of WP:NPOV. Have a good day, mate.   Boscaswell   talk  00:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We should remove it. If reliable, secondary sources start to highlight the songs' chart performance, we can too. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * this is just to note that I came across an RS for #’s 1 & 2. Also, I have reduced the prominence of the info by merging it into another paragraph and trimming.  Boscaswell   talk  09:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple songs titled the same thing on iTunes really isn't a big deal. As I'm sure everybody is aware, sales are not the predominant form of music consumption in most of the world at this point. Streaming is. Streaming entirely dwarfs purchases of music at this point. OK, so there's a few songs titled "Let's Go Brandon" because it's a viral phenomenon at the moment and they all sold the meagre amount it takes to scrape into the iTunes charts (not the Apple Music streaming charts). Big deal. If anything, we should take out the PopVortex and iTunesCharts websites, they're not secondary sources and if you can't find news sources stating the importance of those statistics, WP:RS and WP:SINGLEVENDOR undoubtedly apply. The information was added, it was removed, and should have been kept out per WP:BRD, not restored. iTunes statistics mean especially less in 2021 when you're talking about downloads and when two songs of the name have now entered the US Hot 100, and we have sources for those. That should tell anybody we don't need the iTunes stats anymore, and we didn't in the first place. This looks to me like 4+ editors for removing it against 1 saying we should keep it in. Funny how whenever somebody wants to keep something in, they always cite WP:Ignore all rules....and what's with citing WP:NPOV at other editors? This isn't some bias issue, it's a simple case of "we should not cite iTunes statistics in any instance on Wikipedia".  Ss  112   00:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple tunes all titled the same thing on iTunes may not be a big thing, but having them charting at numbers 1,2,4 & 8 simultaneously is. I have read the comment above and whilst I fully appreciate that iTunes sales are not *the* driving factor in the music industry, they are a factor. I don’t understand why there should be a problem with inclusion of what is, frankly, notable information, particularly when we already have an RS about the top two positions knocking Adele down to number three (which came up after an admin added ‘better reference needed’ late last week.) There’s an archive of the ref for the day they were 1,2,4 & 8, the PopVortex one. I’ll kill the other. Boscaswell  talk  03:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because two "Let's Go Brandon"s have already charted on the US Hot 100, which takes music consumption data from all sources, not just iTunes. Multi-metric data is what's important, not a single vendor's statistics. Besides, it's not particularly notable for any song to knock Adele down to number three when she's broken countless records in the time her song's been up on Spotify, which is the primary platform her song is being listened to on, not downloads. Nobody here has tried to deny the importance of the overall "Let's Go Brandon" topic or the fact that the songs have appeared on the US Hot 100 now, but the amount of songs that have gone to number one on iTunes but made little impact on the Hot 100 by the week's end is too numerous for this to be some important factor to even worth noting. Knocking Adele off number one and staying at number one on iTunes for over a week has gotten Bryson Gray's "Let's Go Brandon" to number 28, while Adele is number one on the Hot 100 for a second week. I'll concede maybe four versions being on the iTunes chart is a bit of a quirk we could note, but to note the songs' iTunes chart positions and appearing to give them equal weight to the songs' actual overall multi-metric chart performance is misleading and giving undue weight to limited stats.  Ss  112   05:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Article needs some serious work
Sorry but as things stand [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Let%27s_go,_Brandon&oldid=1052048330], this article is terrible at explaining the origins of the term. The lead which is supposed to summarise the article just says it's euphemism or non explicit version although surely that's actually one of they key questions about the term. (Someone brought up Covfefe at AN, imagine if the Covfefe article didn't say anything about the Tweet in the lead.) The body has an origin sections which doesn't actually discuss the origin. Instead it talks about Fuck Joe Biden and says '' without explaining how it was introduced. Finally we get to the Talladega section which says: If you read this carefully maybe you'll realise what this is trying to say is that's how the term came about. I think many readers are going to miss this though like me, especially since the origin section already talked about the later origin of the term, and will leave scratching the heads about how on earth "Let's go Brandon" became an non explicit version of "Fuck Joe Biden". It was only when I read the RfD I finally realised. I'm not going to WP:SOFIXIT since some US political stuff is too dumb for me to care about, still if this article is going to stick around someone should. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this should have been taken out of Draftspace. Too many deprecated sources were used that our submitter-acceptor missed and now the article is full of holes. Also find it quite interesting that 36 hours turned into <90 minutes. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

When I assessed that the Kelli Stavast AfD had consensus to create this and nothing else, my plans changed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I was aware that my AfD had turned into a formal !vote on this draft, I'd have opposed. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone decides on the rewrite, it should be noted that the reason for all the spike in "Fuck Joe Biden" chants were due to his withdrawal from Afghanistan leading to the Fall of Kabul. -User:DanTD (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Buck Fush"
Can someone add reference to this bumper sticker which was popular in the 2000s? It's notable enough to be on the Fuck page, and is a roughly similar "PG-ified" explicit political insult. Or perhaps add this "Brandon" epithet to the aforementioned section on the "Fuck" page? IDK, f*** it. 2600:1012:B066:CF5C:1883:5375:5500:C179 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Sadly, the only reference I can see which compares the two is The Onion, so I've not added it here. Have added this page to the "Fuck" article. —AFreshStart (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we use the Onion in this instance? Or no source? I'm serious. Journalists aren't really known for their sense of humor (this was a notable exception that I've fondly remembered over the years: https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSTRE6982CY20101009) so why must we rely on secondary sourcing for it? These are memes and meme culture. If you've ever seen someone drive around with a giant flag that has the uncensored version (I have), it's maybe a welcome respite? WP:CSIOR comes to mind...bad words are impolite, so sneakily disguise it so you can say it in more places. "Let's go Brandon" isn't anything new, even if some people think it deserves to be treated like Nazi paraphernalia is in modern day Germany, it seems to be in line with (the more obscene strains) of American political tradition. 2600:1012:B066:CF5C:1883:5375:5500:C179 (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * With such a contentious topic, anything which is not 100% solidly sourced has absolutely no chance of remaining in the article. Using the Onion, or no source at all, for additions here is a non-starter. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we add to "See also" at the bottom:
 * Uses of the word "fuck" in politics

If you did that you might as well add a see also for the stuff like F*** (film) and F*** It I Love You (Lana Del Rey song).

Years later...
"Epstein Didn't Kill Himself" was created only three months after his death and is now a big article. I'm not saying this is a strong article or ready for the mainspace or anything but if this continues to get coverage and be used over the next few months I think it's valid and not necessary to wait for years. ₪ Encyclopædius  12:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Resubmit it and see what happens. Using another article exists approach ins't a particularly good way or perhaps profitable way of approaching an argument for promoting it. Neo's don't have much in the way of historical depth which a lot of editor's don't like and they tend to get a lot of push back, when they are mainspace. They of an immediate type of event, of the moment, in this particular instance are only visible at scale because of Biden. If he wasn't mentioned, would it still be notable? Likely not, otherwise it would have been fans mouthing off. Epstein Didn't Kill Himself is already meaningless pap, that everybody has already forgotten about. It was off the moment and now gone. It is meaningless. I meant wait a few months, to see if they historical weight on it, not years.     scope_creep Talk  14:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY (*Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.*) I plan on updating the draft with additional information from todays WaPo article to bolster that it meets sourcing requirements. Neutrality and other policies don't seem to be in question.
 * Additionally, "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted..." per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". That reasoning is not relevant since the draft includes multiple sources and discusses the meme in detail.Globgenie (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Curbon7 declined plublishing since there was previous consensus to remove. I have added yet another three sources (this is like a dozen since that AfD) and resubmitted. This is why Trump Jr cries about supposed censorship. The article is well sourced, properly structured, and clearly meets GNG. This is starting to look a lot like IDONTLIKEIT. Again, "neologisms" does not apply since this draft details the orgin, use, and reception of the term over two months (and again, notability is not temporary with BBC, AP, The Independent, and many more showing significant international coverage). Globgenie (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, I believe this article's rejection is an example of Of course it's voting and Ignore all rules. I see very little chance of anyone succeeding in making this article in current political climate. The best chance would be a painstaking systematic analysis of the notability of articles like I can't breathe in comparison to this one, but is the work worth it? MarshallKe (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_go,_Brandon is now live. If people wanted to work in good faith then they can continue to do so there.Globgenie (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Globgenie. The phrase is making headlines here in Australia, and I’d be astonished if it isn’t or hasn’t in many other countries. Judging from the music downloads……see article edits.   The Beatles managed every one of the top five of the best selling singles 47 years ago.  Let’s Go Brandon has managed numbers 1,2,4 and 8. Not quite so good, obviously, but. The use of the phrase is a phenomenon that is not going away anytime soon. Boscaswell   talk  04:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Including a statement about the (unknown) intention of interviewer
I added the following to the section about the origins of the phrase: "It is unclear whether the reporter misheard the crowd or deliberately modified their message." It was reverted as "speculation/rumor, also appears redundant".

I cited the statement to three high-quality sources (I'm sure more could be found):


 * BBC: Whether by mistake or as an intentional attempt to deflect from the swearing on live television, Ms Stavast told Mr Brown that the crowd was cheering him on with chants of "Let's go, Brandon".
 * Slate: It’s unclear whether Stavast misheard or was, as some outlets reported, attempting “damage control,” and Stavast has not commented on the matter.
 * NPR: It remains unclear if Stavast misheard what the crowd was saying or if she purposely tried to change the message.

I think this is a very salient piece of information, and I think its inclusion in high-quality RS coverage makes that clear. If we don't include this, I think there's a risk that some readers will jump to one conclusion or another (i.e. they'll assume there's consensus she misheard the crowd, or they'll assume there's consensus that she deliberately invented a different chant). Colin M (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted in the RfC above, the AP recently reported, and the article currently includes the statement, It has also been reported as a protest against a perceived liberal bias in mainstream media, based on speculation that the reporter's description of the crowd's chant was intended to conceal anti-Biden sentiment. (and inclusion of this has been questioned in the RfC above), so it also currently appears redundant to repeat speculation, especially due to the recent report from the AP. Beccaynr (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of the AP quote - it doesn't affirm either narrative (that she misheard, or that she deliberately misstated). As for the second quote, that speaks to one very specific theory (that she misstated the chant as a result of her pro-Biden bias), but that's obviously not the only reason she might have deliberately changed the message (as other sources have said - including the BBC quote above - it could have been to direct attention away from an obscenity being broadcast on live TV, which could offend viewers or embarrass the network). Colin M (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the AP report offers some basic reporting on the circumstances, and reflects encyclopedic writing. I also think makes a good point in the RfC above about the need to first resolve the RfC about whether to name Stavast, because a consensus on that issue may help determine how much information to then include about her. Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, The New York Times reports: Beccaynr (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Until someone asks her, we will never know what was her intention. Several sources make that clear. Some add their own interpretations (from video broadcast on television, her perception would have been completely different in the track). We need to make clear we still don't know (as per WP:RS) if she meant to intentionally change the meaning of the chant or misheard it. Loganmac (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3. We should probably state how the various RS vary in how they describe this—some describe it as a good-faith mistake, while others say it's unclear as to whether it was a mistake or if it was damage control. I'm actually seeing some sources affirmatively report that she misheard [ it], some that say that it remains unclear, though I can't find a wholehearted endorsement from more than one report that it was on purpose. Slate in particular seems to give more weight to damage control narrative, and references that some outlets said it was "damage control", but it doesn't provide links of it outright in its own voice; this possibly refers to this Newsweek report's headline (but WP:HEADLINE governs there) or to this Washington Free Beacon report (which calls it an apparent attempt at damage control). I wouldn't give the WFB report tremendous weight if it's the only source reporting a specific characterization for this in light over the purely massive amounts of coverage it's gotten. I'd float something along the lines of:
 * I'm not too tied to the phrasing, but I think that might better convey the current state of coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk)
 * Good point, that sounds reasonable (modulo maybe some tweaks to the phrasing - e.g. the phrase "damage control" is maybe a bit too informal/unclear). Colin M (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine to modify "damage control" to something more precise. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too, Mikehawk. Although “lying” might possibly not be acceptable to some here. ;) Reading the recently revised 'Euphemised chant' subsection it looks like one or two editors here might have launched themselves full-on into damage control, employing quotes from media organisations which have launched themselves full-on into damage control. New York Times anyone?  Now there’s a fine, upstanding and totally reliable pillar of truth lol.  Boscaswell   talk  19:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I think MOS:WEASEL suggests a concern about the 'some people say' style of writing, and with the recent reporting on the circumstances (as noted above and currently in the article), as well as the recent addition of the video, there does not seem to be much encylcopedic value added by trying to summarize some past speculation of her unknown intent by some early news reports, especially when it seems like a WP:MINORASPECT related to the topic of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This information is key to the article. BBC summarized it perfectly: We don't know if she intentionally misrepresented the chant or not. The accusation is part of the reason the subject has notability. Wikipedia can still be neutral while discussing controversial claims from noteworthy individuals. I suggest that its removal (along with a few other items over the last several days) unnecessarily harms the article when we could be focused on "rescuing" it. The claim it was intentional does not need to be in Wikipedia's voice, a counterpoint could be added, and sources are available. Protecting the living persons from harm does not need to be as complicated as some are making it out to be. We are--or at least should be--able to present controversial information while staying neutral, right?Globgenie (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I originally looked for this Wikipedia article because I heard commentators indicate that Stavast was trying to protect President Biden.  I thought information would be accurate and forthcoming.  I do not mean to suggest that Wikipedia is immune from political bias; nevertheless, I did believe I could learn about the origins of this phrase of which I had only recently become aware. After reading the article, I still did not know the reporter's intent.  Intent is important to clarify. The AP story does not indicate the reporter's intent--it states at first difficult to make out  and appeared to be cheering.  This is, at best, vague.  We do not know the reporter's intent, and should only insert it when she makes such a statement. Otherwise, that intent was unclear is entirely accurate and the article should read so. The citations are solid.  Kind regards to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Warning for explicit language
There should be a warning for this page (and other pages) saying that it includes explicit language. And I mean a warning on the front page, not just a warning on the talk page, because there are probably millions who just want to get the information and not go to an entire talk page. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to direct you to WP:NODISCLAIMERS ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Naming Kelli Stavast
Should Kelli Stavast be explicitly given the credit for coining the phase Let's Go Brandon? Banana Republic (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Her name is widely reported with the incident. Banana Republic (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted in the recent AP article, recently added to this article: she does not appear to be reported as a major figure. Also, per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarize the most important points, and her involvement does not appear to be one of the most important points in this article about the development and promotion of the meme. Beccaynr (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Also, In the Kelli Stavast RfC about "Let's Go Brandon" and the Brandon Brown RfC about "Let's Go Brandon" I have discussed my concern about sources including a focus on how Stavast is accused, without any apparent evidence, of being involved in a 'cover up' etc., so I think there are some WP:BLP policy concerns with including a focus on Stavast. Beccaynr (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * She already has an article so it's not like we're naming a private person; and this whole thing wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for her. HumanHistory1 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no indication that she created the meme, or has been involved with promoting it or profiting from it. Instead, sources indicate the meme is reported to include a disparagement of her, which seems to create WP:BLP policy concerns. Beccaynr (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What sources indicate that the meme is disparagement of her? Or is this your WP:OR? Banana Republic (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the Brandon Brown RfC about "Let's Go Brandon", I pointed to sources I reviewed in the first Kelli Stavast AfD,, as examples of WP:BLP policy concerns, i.e. In the pending Let's Go Brandon AfD, I also discussed  The WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE section of WP:BLP policy includes, Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. [...] Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care [...] so I raise these sources as part of this discussion, due to allegations made against Stavast. Per WP:NOTSCANDAL, 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, and per WP:BLP policy generally, 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, so the sources cited above appear to support care and caution in the determination of whether and how to add information related to Stavast. Beccaynr (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Literally all I meant was that since she said "Let's Go Brandon", the meme started because of that. Did she purposefully change it? I don't know, I'm not Kelli Stavast. All I know is that she did start the meme by saying "Let's Go Brandon". I think we should name her. HumanHistory1 (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This recent article in The Washington Post also does not name Stavast, i.e. which seems like additional support for her minor role in the creation and promotion of the meme, as well as not specifically identifying her in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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: Beccaynr (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

As I stated in the parallel RfC: 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. 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 looking at the very recent situation actually helps the case that Stavast has suddenly become unimportant in this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In a New York Daily News article, published on October 31, it states, which seems like further support for Stavast not being considered relevant in the news coverage about this meme, as it is re-told when explaining in the recent burst of news about the Southwest flight. Also, per WP:RSP, Business Insider is described at WP:BI as There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider and beneath the entry at WP:FOXNEWS, it is noted, There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims, so I think these sources should be accorded less weight in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And from SkyNews Australia/MSN, October 31: and even the Washington Examiner (per WP:RSP, There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims) on October 23 does not name her:  Beccaynr (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And The Guardian, November 1: And Penn Live, November 1, also does not identify Stavast. There appears to be substantial support for not including Stavast, because these sources do not appear to find her 'worthy of notice' with regard to this meme. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And CNN, on November 1, in 'Let's go Brandon,' explained, does not name Stavast, Beccaynr (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you were to look at the sources you've just presented carefully, you'd realize that the PennLive source, the article in The Guardian, and the source from The New York Daily News are not independent from the AP report. They all explicitly state that either the AP contributed to their reporting or that "wire agencies" did. Per WP:NEWSORG, Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source (emphasis added).
 * Additionally, I'm unconvinced that the particular Sky News source you're presenting carries weight; it appears to be from a talk show hosted by Rita Panahi, and we generally don't give much weight to talk shows. The CNN piece is also an opinion ("analysis") piece, so it doesn't carry much weight on its own, though CNN's Business reporting seems to have done similarly.
 * To the contrary, I'd like to present additional sources published on 1 November succinctly, so as to not take up the entirety of the screen by inserting large multi-line quotes chunks where links will suffice. These include NBC News(!), The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Cox Media (via WHIO-TV), yet another Fox News piece, a piece from Fox Business, a piece in The Independent, and there's some commentary pieces that use it, such as The Spectator (UK) (though commentary matters a lot less than news reporting in this context, as noted above). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * With regard to the concern about sources giving credit to the AP for contributions, these are not reprints of the AP article (which is what WP:NEWSORG appears to warn against with Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article), and instead are independent outlets that each decided to not name Stavast as they reported on the origin of the meme. It seems the trend of not naming Stavast is increasing in the WP:BESTSOURCES and should be considered as evidence for her role as a WP:MINORASPECT in the article and not naming her. Even when she is named in recent sources, it is appears to be minor and in passing, because she has not been reported to have had any further role. Beccaynr (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Slight oppose We should err on the side of not naming living people in unclear cases. --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Isn't it her voice the one used in Loza Alexander's and others' songs? Rsarlls (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The lyrics of the Loza Alexander song appear to include disparagement of Stavast: e.g. "Tried to cover up, but tell the people, go Brandon" (Miami Herald, October 18, 2021, while also reporting "The reporter misheard the chants as “Let's Go Brandon,”). Beccaynr (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it appears at most that she misunderstood what she was hearing, and that others took that, ran with it, and made it into some kind of meme. Stating that she "originated" it, in the form of use the article describes it as, would be quite misleading and therefore contrary to WP:BLP. The individuals who made it into a meme "originated" it in the form it is described here, and as with many memes, I cannot find that there is any one individual who is credited as particularly responsible for that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support naming her in the article body, as reliable sources often include her name and it's undisputed that she said this. No opinion on whether it should be in the lead or not. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wording such as "It has also been reported as a protest against a perceived liberal bias in mainstream media, based on the allegation that the reporter's description of the crowd's chant was intended to conceal anti-Biden sentiment." indicates that it is impossible to fully divest the meme's consequences in regards to disparagement of Stavast. Per I dream of horses, we should be erring on the side of doing no harm. Any mention of Stavast at all should be limited to a basic stating of the facts and should have zero implication of her intentions. Phrases like the above quote should be omitted if the consensus is to name her. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Support since its clear that she is the originator of the phrase, even if she didn't actively participated in turning in it into a meme. At the same time, the article really needs to be careful with unverified implications of Stevast saying the sentence as a way to "coverup" criticism of the president. My personal opinion is that she was more worried about the word "fuck" making in it on television than anything else. Regardless, it's probably better to only mention her name in the body of the article rather than in the lede, so as not to appear as if the article is pointing her out. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Sorry I did not pay attention to your discussion. I am the translator of the Chinese version of this entry. I think Kelli Stavast is the creator of this meme. It is no problem to record her name as a statement of fact.--Iflwlou (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - She heard what she heard. It was not what the audience was chanting. WE are not free to make assumptions as to why she heard what she heard. I wear earbuds. Without them I hear a "semblance" of what was actually said. To infer that she was attempting to conceal anti-Biden sentiment is contrary to BLP. Kelli didn't create the meme any more than Brandon did. Mention of the interview time and place makes sense since it seems to be the genesis of the meme...more than that is guesswork. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   15:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, NASCAR pit reporters always wear protective headsets so that they can both hear their producers/co-workers and not go deaf from the engines. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Her name should definitely be included in the article, as she's named in much of the RS coverage of the topic. There are a few other related questions that have arisen in this discussion: 1) Should she be named in the lead? This is a WP:DUE weight question - based on the sourcing, I think it's a close call, and I could see it going either way. 2) Should we specifically describe her as having "coined" the phrase? No, I don't think that word choice is apt, since it implies a certain intentionality. Though "originated" might be more appropriate. 3) Should we mention speculation as to her motivations for employing the phrase? Yes, this is absolutely key to understanding the topic, and is discussed widely in RS coverage of the topic. WP:BLP doesn't say never to include any information that might reflect poorly on a living person - it insists that such information be supported by high-quality sources, which is easily done in this case. Colin M (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support mentioning Stavast's name. I don't think she ought to be overemphasized nor described as the creator of the meme, but she did originate the phrase that the meme is based on, by mentioning it as part of an interview in a national television broadcast. Incidentally, we should not assume that her use of the phrase "Let's go Brandon" was an attempt to protect Joe Biden's reputation; she might have been improvising in an effort to protect NBC stations from being fined for allowing the word "fuck" to be used on air (which, in some circumstances, could have led to the FCC imposing fines). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Her name should be here 97.127.26.7 (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — 97.127.26.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. is missing a username and/or IP.}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. 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:
 * National Public Radio
 * USA Today (fact check 1, fact check 2)
 * Intelligencer
 * Slate
 * Fox News (via Yahoo! news)
 * The Washington Post
 * Deadline
 * BBC News
 * The Independent and Indy100
 * Miami Herald
 * Snopes
 * The Times
 * 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 above. But, it seems that omitting her name is inconsistent with how the vast majority of reliable sources are covering this. At the end of the day, we should be reflecting the usage available in high quality reliable sources, and that leads me to support the inclusion of her name. The most recent AfD on Kelli Stavast was a Snow Keep to such an extent that the nominator withdrew it.
 * I also think that the specific WP:BLP claims made by, more generally, don't lead to the conclusions that the editor advocates for.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Regarding WP:DONOHARM, the proposal was actually rejected by the community, according to the lead paragraph of the very essay cited. The essay articulates a much more broad protection for living people than one would expect and seems to be contrary to WP:NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. WP:BLP requires us to handle negative information about living persons with special care, but if there's significant information on a topic that's widely covered by high-quality reliable sources, and that information isn't pleasant for a particularly living individual, we should not omit it except under exceptionally narrow circumstances. And, even if we were to accept DONOHARM, the essay itself says that The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person, provided that it's reliably sourced. It's a self-defeating appeal.
 * 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 by other editors are convincing, while the inclusion of her name seems to be performed by a multitude of reliable sources. 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. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This person is notable enough to have her own article (Kelli Stavast), she works for a mainstream outlet. She's been named by virtually every WP:RS, it's not a contentious claim (she didn't necessarily do anything wrong). Sources listed here --Loganmac (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Support including her name per above - nearly all RS about the meme mention her, and it isn't contentious. The absence is jarring ("an NBC Sports reporter" - hard to imagine a reader's immediate question wouldn't be "which one???"), particularly because so many other people are directly named.  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 19:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - as recent WP:BESTSOURCES report and re-analyze this event without naming Stavast (as noted above), it appears she is a WP:MINORASPECT of this article topic, and per this section of NPOV, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Beccaynr (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support She’s a public figure and she spoke the words on a public broadcast. Boscaswell  talk  22:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Profanities during live broadcasts (often by the drivers) have been a problem for NBC in their NASCAR coverage lately. It wasn't some "liberal media cover up", it was just a slightly embarrassed reporter trying to laugh it off. There shouldn't be any BLP issues - she was just trying to act professionally in a difficult situation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support she uttered the phrase, of course she should be mentioned at least in passing.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Slogan and meme articles list their creators if there is one. Kelli Stavast has her own article, and her originating the slogan is reliably sourced and noteworthy. Some1 (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per RS crediting her as such. LondonIP (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I can't believe this is even being questioned. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, per the overwhelming consensus of concurring comments above. To not do so would be tantamount to withholding 'credit' from Hillary Clinton for coining the phrase "Basket of deplorables". The only reason I can see to hold up this very pertinent addition to the article is to avoid fanning the flames of public attention for as long as possible, in order to allow the bulk of its media-generated exposure to abate. This tactic of obstructionist quibbling on politically-charged articles is a standard leftist M.O. Notice that very similar things have been done or are currently still being attempted at the other closely related articles. - JGabbard (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the concept of WP:AGF fly over your head? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I always do so unless and until an editor demonstrates ample reason to believe otherwise. But my observations above are general in nature, pertaining to a class of articles, and describe a pattern of tendentious editing in the wake of media coverage that is larger than any single editor. So if that shoe doesn't fit you, then please don't put it on. - JGabbard (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @JGabbard Re: "This tactic of obstructionist quibbling on politically-charged articles is a standard leftist M.O.":
 * I was summoned by Yapperbot, and had some BLP concerns. I guess people who watch and frequent this article more frequently don't have those concerns, for the most part. This wasn't a political tactic for me. My concerns were policy based and erring on the side of caution and privacy. I think this is where @GhostOfDanGurney has concerns over WP:AGF. Unfortunately, I'm assuming they legitimately didn't have the time/ability to type out a message such as this one.
 * Even when it's a political tactic, it's used by both sides of the aisle, hypothetically neutral government agencies, and by private corporations and charities. It's hardly political, but instead an example of public relations. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not surprising at all, and I don't doubt that it is true. However, the most notable examples of it that I have seen on WP have typically arisen as what appears to be a 'circle the wagons' technique on issues negatively impacting the political Left, or conversely, positively affecting the political Right. I was reacting to comments above such as Jauerback's, "I can't believe this is even being questioned", and "The absence is jarring" by DoubleCross.
 * The tactic or practice probably should have a better name than "obstructionist quibbling" or "stalling tactics," but I'm glad you clearly understand the concept I'm talking about.  It's the type of thing children do when they don't want to go to bed. - JGabbard (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @JGabbard: This isn't the place to talk about how contentious topics on Wikipedia get obstructed by left wing editors. Regardless of intent/faith, you're derailing the conversation. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Status quo
removed Stavast's name in this edit, which prompted this RfC a few minutes later. However, for most of the article's existence (i.e. between 10-26 when it was moved out of draftspace and the beginning of the RfC), the article included the name. My understanding is that, during an RfC about some content change, the article should remain under the previous status quo until consensus is reached. Hence, I don't think the existence of this ongoing RfC should be used as a reason to keep Stavast's name out of the article for now. (Unless there is a credible WP:BLP issue, which I haven't seen raised, given that Stavast is a public figure.) Does anyone disagree with this? Colin M (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the "opposes" have good-faith concerns that some previous versions of the article have had BLP issues. And for an article this new, the status quo ante is to not include anything; a month ago the topic didn't even exist. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 19:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was in there from very early on, I'd imagine that status quo is with inclusion of the name in some WP:BLP-compliant form. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to close this discussion yet, and I don't want to throw in my own opinion. However, my current sense of the discussion is that Stavast's name alone is probably not a BLP issue, and some coverage of speculation of why Stavast said the crowd said "Let's go Brandon" is probably not a BLP issue.  However, explicitly tying Stavast's name to speculation about why she said the crowd said "Let's go Brandon" has sufficient BLP concerns that it should not be done before consensus is clear.  If you see a consensus above to include Stavast's name and not coverage of speculation (or can obtain it in a new discussion), there shouldn't be a BLP issue in adding her name. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 04:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The Responding to an RfC section of WP:RFC includes Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved, and WP:ONUS includes, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, so it appears that this disputed content should not continue to be re-added while the RfC is pending. Beccaynr (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOCON, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. I'd suggest waiting on the RfC to conclude before making claims of consensus, so I imagine that this would govern for now. In my experience, we typically don't remove information, put up an RfC about it, and then presume that the content should be removed until our RfC concludes. The name was mentioned in the very first version of the article, and it would appear to be the case that it was boldly removed at some point, though multiple editors have re-added it. Until the RfC is concluded, the name should remain in the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCON also states for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it, and without a concluded RfC, it appears that there is no consensus at this point for this disputed content, which relates to a living person, and for which WP:BLP policy concerns have been raised in the discussion, and therefore seems able to be considered "contentious". There is also clearly a dispute about including this content, and as noted above, WP:ONUS describes a need for consensus before inclusion, which is what the RfC is designed to help facilitate. I think policy supports removal of the disputed content of Kelli Stavast's name from this article while the RfC is pending, per the WP:RFC guidance and WP:ONUS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no reasonable way that one could construe the fact that Kelli Stavast said "Let's Go Brandon" as contentious. Nothing within the relevant portion of the manual of style (or WP:BLPSTYLE) would indicate contentious tone, while the information is extraordinarily widely reported regarding a public figure. Just because somebody is contesting that the sky is blue on doesn't make the factual statement contentious, just as the challenges here to extraordinarily widely and well-sourced material don't make the Wikivoice claim that she indeed uttered "Let's Go Brandon" to be contentious. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this could possibly be a BLP issue. She's not a political pundit, and as far I know she has never publicly expressed any political opinions or denigrated any US President. The most obvious and reasonable interpretation is that she was embarrassed about the crowd behavior going out live on air (potential fines for the network) and made a little joke about it with her interviewee. You'd have to be pretty far down the rabbit hole to construe it as "lying" or "gaslighting" or a "liberal media coverup" or whatever. So just mention her name in passing while giving a sourced factual description of how the phrase/meme originated. It's no slur on her. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From my view, it appears to be contrary to the applicable policies and guidance to continue to add the disputed content while the RfC is pending. There appears to clearly be a dispute about how to interpret the application of WP:BLP and WP:MINORASPECT, etc., and the RfC is an attempt to reach consensus about whether or not to include the disputed content, for which WP:ONUS appears to state is needed for a dispute like this. Beccaynr (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD
I attempted to revise the lead of the article per MOS:LEAD, e.g. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph, but it was reverted. I invite comment and collaboration as to how to develop the lead as a summary of the most important contents of the article, including per the WP:WEIGHT in independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you added the cleanup template. Could you elaborate on what you see as the NPOV issue with the current wording of the intro? Both versions seem pretty neutral to me. Colin M (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for a neutral and clear lead to this and all other articles, but like the editor above, please give an example of what can be improved to make the POV more in the middle.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I provided an example with my revision with the diff above, which attempted to summarize the contents of the article, and avoid a 'news-style "lede" paragraph. As noted in the RfC discussion above, this is related to WP:DUE (or as I refer to it above, WP:WEIGHT). As an initial matter, several comments in the RfC discussion that support inclusion of Stavast's name appear to include a caveat, e.g. Regardless, it's probably better to only mention her name in the body of the article rather than in the lede, so as not to appear as if the article is pointing her out., and e.g. I don't think she ought to be overemphasized, and e.g. she should be mentioned at least in passing, so one issue appears to be whether to include Stavast in the lead. As I discussed above and in related discussions, there are a variety of independent and reliable sources that do not mention Stavast at all, and I think this should be considered to help determine whether to name her in the lead. This article and its sources appear to primarily focus on the creation and promotion of the meme, which she did not create and does not promote, so emphasizing her in the lead appears to be WP:UNDUE per MOS:LEAD, which states, As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and I think the lead should be revised to reflect a more neutral summary of its most important contents, according to reliable, published sources. Beccaynr (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. As I said in the previous RfC, I'm pretty neutral on whether to include Stavast's name in the lead - based on the RS coverage, I think it's a close call. Pinging who did the revert, in case they want to chime in. (Also, as a sidenote, if we're trimming excess detail from the lead, I think the more obvious low-hanging fruit is replacing "NASCAR Xfinity Series race" with "NASCAR race".) Colin M (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead is perfectly acceptable as it was written prior to User:Beccaynr’s edits and there are no WP:POV issues.  Stavast “started” the Let’s Go Brandon “movement” (even though clearly not her intent) and therefore should be included in the lead, for many of the reasons given in the overwhelming consensus to include her name in the body of the article.  Her name is included in the majority of reliable sources and not including her name in the lead would do the readers a disservice and potentially be censorship Unfortunately, Beccaynr is still dissatisfied that all of his/her attempts to impose his/her will on this page (and Kelli Stavast's page) and misuse policy to censor and remove very notable, albeit controversial, content, are being opposed by a very large consensus every step of the way (including the recent second AFD and deletion review).  Frank Anchor Talk 03:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * and not including her name in the lead would do the readers a disservice and potentially be censorship. How, precisely? I feel they bring up strong points here and past discussions are irrelevant. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Past discussions on this and similar topics are very relevant. It is common for the origin of an event, phrase, movement, etc. to be briefly included in the lead of the article. In this case, the origin is Stavast’s mishearing of FJB. As Stavast is named in the vast majority of references, it only makes sense to name her on this article, including the lead, as well.  Frank Anchor Talk 04:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me,. It is pretty clear that are acting as a WP:TEDIOUS editor. They tried to delete the article, then they took the AfD to a DelRev when the AfD did not go their way. Since they did not get their way in the above RfC about not naming Kelly Stavast, they are now moving the fight to the article lead. They are acting in tandem with to eliminate all mention of Kelly Stavast and Let's Go Brandon on Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Their use of the template is yet another tool they are using in their WP:TEDIOUS behavior to disrupt Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yay, more WP:ASPERSIONS to save the diff of! GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't revert template removal again please. The issue discussed here is not such that it would merit this template. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored it because it was removed by a user not assuming good faith. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, and I understand, but one user not assuming good faith does not negate another user adding a cleanup template that should not have been added. Two wrongs don't make one right. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment Tendentious editing includes, You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts". This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. I encourage all of us to keep the fundamental principle of assuming good faith in mind, and to [c]onsider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.
 * Based on my contributions history, it looks like I first participated in the first Kelli Stavast AfD on October 18, 2021, with a delete !vote, and then added a source assessment table . I then voted !delete on the Marty Snider AfD . On October 19, I began to participate in the Brandon Brown RfC about "Let's Go Brandon" , and added a comment to the Kelli Stavast AfD  related to BLP and COATRACK concerns. On October 20, I !voted weak keep in the Dave Burns AfD, based on my research , and I participated in the Redirects for Discussion about Let's Go Brandon that had started on October 14 , and expressed a concern about the application of WP:NOTNEWS.
 * On October 21, in the first Kelli Stavast AfD discussion, I began to offer support to User:GlobGenie with regard to creating an article, because at the time, they appeared to be new, and I left a Welcome message on their Talk page . I also added a concern about the apparent WP:CANVASS of Whoisjohngalt to the Kelli Stavast AfD . On October 26, I replied to a comment from Wmh1978 on my Talk page, which included questions about who I voted for and where I went to law school . I also edited the Kelli Stavast article and encouraged discussion on the Talk page, , and added a 3RR warning to Banana Republic's Talk Page . On October 27, after the Let's Go Brandon article was published, I began editing it, including to remove unreliable sources, e.g. WP:FORBESCON , and e.g. WP:NYPOST . I also began to comment in the second Kelli Stavast AfD, after the first was closed with no prejudice against a speedy renomination . I also continued to edit the Let's Go Brandon article, eventually adding a Notability (events) tag  that was removed by Banana Republic . I then created the Let's Go Brandon AfD . I also worked on the Let's Go Brandon (song) article, including to remove WP:THESUN.
 * On October 30, I requested page protection for the Kelli Stavast article, and noted off-wiki activity related to the article that appeared to start on October 18, 2021. I also removed Stavast's name from the lead of the Let's Go Brandon article and requested Talk page discussion, and my edit summary included "Stavast is not a major part of this article."
 * I am not trying to post an exhaustive history of my contributions here, but I have participated in discussions on the Kelli Stavast, Brandon Brown and Let's Go Brandon article Talk pages, and my editing history reflects this, as well as my attempts to improve the Let's Go Brandon article while the AfD was pending, which I considered part of my WP:BEFORE obligation as the nominator. After the NAC close of the Let's Go Brandon AfD, I followed up with Superastig about their close . After their reply,, I posted a deletion review request on November 3 , essentially because a NAC close had seemed inappropriate under the circumstances, I believed a closing statement from an admin was important to help clarify the applicable policies due to the controversial nature of the topic and discussions, and because Wikipedia is WP:NOTANARCHY.
 * On November 5, 2021, User:GlobGenie, who was a major contributor to the Let's Go Brandon article, pinged me from their Talk page, with an edit summary "Sticks out tongue and shows two middle fingers." They were later blocked as a sockpuppet created to violate Wikipedia policy.
 * I offer these details here to provide some context to the broad statements about me above, although I am concerned it is a distraction from the discussion about the article content and have hatted it accordingly.
 * I offer these details here to provide some context to the broad statements about me above, although I am concerned it is a distraction from the discussion about the article content and have hatted it accordingly.


 * From my view, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. From my view, a discussion of the lead in this article is a natural next step in this ongoing discussion, and reasonable based on the previous RfC discussion as well as the article content and the MOS:LEAD guideline, and I think if a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality could be set aside, we could work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints. I appreciate all of the editors who have engaged in these discussions with civility, because I think this is helpful for developing consensus. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is the POV template up, and what should happen for it to be removed? — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify my explanations above, I added the POV template after my revision that attempted to more completely summarize the important contents of the article was reverted by Banana Republic . From my view, the lead resembles a 'news-style lead' and does not provide the reader with an overview of the important contents of article about the development and promotion of the meme. As noted above, a mention of Stavast in the lead does not appear warranted based on the contents of the article and the sources in the article, and there further appears to be some support for this perspective in the previous RfC discussion. The recent addition about international use to the lead, based on one source that appears to describe one person at one protest in one country outside of the US also seems contrary to MOS:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Please let me know if additional explanation is necessary. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The dispute is around a single point of content that can be discussed without the template. Template is for serious problems. Including the journalist's name or not is not a serious problem. It's not even clear that it's a POV issue. I don't see it as a POV issue at all, but as a stylistic issue. I'm against the template. There is not enough support for keeping it up. It isn't so clear what should be done for it to be removed aside from your proposal being accepted. This is not very legitimate in a running content dispute. I reverted your undo which removed the template. Thanks for the reply! — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry if my repeated attempts to explain have not been clear, but I am raising three concerns about the lead: 1) it does not summarize the most important contents of the article, per MOS:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT, 2) Stavast does not belong in the lead, per MOS:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT, and 3) the recent addition makes the lead worse, per MOS:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. I therefore hope you will restore the tag so the discussion can be encouraged to continue. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. 1 is not NPOV related, but is a purely stylistic matter. #2 and #3 -- also stylistic matter, and everything seems to revolve around keeping her name or not in the lead (after it was already decided in the RfC to keep it in the article as such), so this is really a one-point issue as it relates to content as opposed to style. Based on this i will not restore the tag. The discussion can continue without the tag. Actually it will continue much better when the issue of having the tag or not is superseded, since now we're not even talking about the article but about about adding the tag or not. This tag needs more support to be kept. It's not the case that a proposer of a change in a normal BRD process gets to put this tag up whenever opposition is encountered. Let's forget about the tag. Thanks! — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Good grief! I don’t look at the article for just a short while, and … what the? I’ve read through most of this talk thread, and frankly, I’m totally in agreement with and  on this. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is the way it’s gone: (1) puts up a CfD, that fails, (2) the same editor does his or her utmost to avoid naming Kelly Savast in the article (unbelievable in itself - she is the one who first spoke the words!) Again, the support that Beccaynr demands in seemingly interminable posts is just not there. And now, after that fails, (3) we have a "discussion" about a NPOV tag. Oh and look, I forgot the appeal against the CfD failure. Looking at this litany of attempts to prevent the article standing as is, the conclusion is to me fairly clear: there is disruption, an inability to accept consensus, and so on. Beccaynr, can I point out that at least 2 admins have worked on the article and not seen fit to raise the concerns that you have. Two other admins have chimed in on the talk pages, and again, I don’t believe that they reflected the thrust of your contributions. Please, just call a day on what amounts to disruptive time wasting. There’s a lot to be said for just graciously accepting what is. Thank you. Boscaswell  talk  20:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Would be nice to have the two proposed leads, shown in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not needed. The only point of contention is whether the lead should name Kelli Stavast. Basically and  did not get their way in the RfC above about whether or not to name Kelli Stavast in the article, so they are creating a new controversy surrounding the lead. This is why they are being accused of being WP:TEDIOUS editors.
 * They filed a complaint against me, accusing me of not being WP:CIVIL by accusing them of being tedious editors, so I'll throw them a WP:CIVIL bone right here, right now. I do not suspect that the two users are socks of each other. Banana Republic (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I consider Beccaynr's efforts to be clearly tendentious and obstructionist. She should stop editing like a dog having just spotted a squirrel, and would gently but firmly appeal to her to WP:DROPTHESTICK. She doesn't have to like it, but consensus has spoken and the game is over. - JGabbard (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, 's lead version is best. We shouldn't be starting off an intro with virtually a 1-sentence lead. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s a very informative single sentence, and is one that is not exactly short. If the term 'minced oath' wasn’t used, then it could be longer, but clearly it’s better with that term in it. There’s nothing wrong with a fully informative single sentence lede, surely?  Boscaswell   talk  21:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Brandon
I had to revert this addition for the reasons stated in the summary (see diff). I'd like us to write a different paragraph that doesn't have these problems, since the source is fine, as an opinion piece. A paragraph with this citation should really primarily be about Democrats trying to subvert the phrase by changing it to Thank You Brandon. Possibly more sources would be needed to establish that as a fact as opinion pieces are seldom used for statements of fact. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead and re-write the paragraph with an emphasis on "Thank You Brandon", but this would lose some of the points Tiffany was making. It was a bit difficult to discern if the material was coming from Schradie or Tiffany.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ve deleted it, after put a re-write of it back in, for the reasons set out in the edit summary, which are: "It’s not notable. How so? The source says so. It says it did not become a meme in the same way that Lets Go Brandon has. And further, even the source lays it out as being rather ridiculous. There is nothing to say that Thank You Brandon has gained any traction at all. There is therefore no justification for its inclusion."  If it’s to be slipped back in, then as  says, it should be made clear that Democrats tried to subvert the phrase by changing it to Thank You Brandon.  But failed. I don’t think that the edit I deleted achieved that, and in any case, I think the only whole thing is not notable. It’s not much more than a spurious bit of nothing much at all, really, let’s face it.  Boscaswell   talk  09:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your logic. Nobody is saying that an article should be created for "Thank you Brandon". The notability of "Thank you Brandon" is not relevant. Kaitlyn Tiffany explained why [in her opinion] Lets go Brandon became popular, and she used "Thank you Brandon" for comparison.
 * Why would that analysis not be notable for inclusion in the article? Banana Republic (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is just waffle. The whole thing is not notable. We’re only supposed to be including notable stuff in Wikipedia, right?  I’m sorry, but it’s just waffle. We don’t include something that a journalist spieled about the article’s topic just because.  That’s where article trimming comes in. We already have why the phrase became important, that Brandon is used as an alternative word to Biden, that it’s a euphemism, etc. Her analysis is nothing new.  Boscaswell   talk  21:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "waffle". I think Tiffany does add value by explaining the allure of the slogan to Conservatives who are critics of Biden. By using Brandon instead of Biden Conservatives get to avoid using the name of the person they don't like. Tiffany says it by comparing with "Thank You Brandon". Just because "Thank you Brandon" is not notable to have its own article, does not mean that it is forbidden from appearing in any context within Wikipedia. Banana Republic (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Heck, I'm amazed that this article survived being deleted. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Biden's response (provided by Jen Psaki)
I do not think that adding the name and organization of the reporter who asked the question and the full quote of the question (as done in this edit) adds value to the article. Banana Republic (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't get what fuller context is gained from that either, which is why I had originally removed it. The important part is Biden's—and in absence of that Psaki's—comment on the situation. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I support removal again. Too much detail. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to question because the answer is just a brush off. The whole point is that the question was asked, not the answer. We need to have balance by having both the question and the answer, otherwise the reader is left in the dark. We need to identify the news organization because it is not Fox News asking the question. It's not Peter Doocy, it's Peter Alexander from NBC News. We need to have context and the question gives this.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems reliable (and reliable-ish) sources don't feel the need to quote Alexander's question. The Washington Post (generally reliable) quotes just Psaki's response. Business Insider (no consensus on reliability) mentions Alexander's name but only quotes Psaki's answer. CNET (generally reliable for tech news) just quotes Psaki. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The While House displays the question and the answer, White House Press Briefing.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how displaying the question in its entirety brings any more context. I'm also not sure that it makes a difference whether the reporter was from Fox News or NBC. The question was asked, and the answer was given. The answer basically says that Biden doesn't care about the slogan. I don't think the answer was a "brush-off". Banana Republic (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news and there is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Consensus is that we use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics and it should be noted to the reader that this question came from a generally reliable source.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While I still don't see how explicitly adding that the question was asked by a reporter employed by NBC adds value to the article, are you at least now OK with removing the full quoted question? Banana Republic (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like a two hour discussion took are of the issue.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoisjohngalt ~ you invited a discussion, if people disagreed with you. They did. I do. In passing, I’ll just add that these comments above are really funny, juxtaposed next to one another. "Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics…" "There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news…" and "The Washington Post] (generally reliable)…" and finally, "it's Peter Alexander from NBC News" !!!!!  Er, NBC, hmmm, is that the same reliable NBC whose reporter described “Fuck Joe Biden” as “Lets Go Brandon”?  It is!?!?  They must be the most reliable source of all, then. Bwaahaha.  Boscaswell   talk  03:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong take
She hadn’t, “incorrectly described a chant.” She covered for the loud chant while she was reporting LIVE/ON AIR. Peter Ruffner (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has very stringent rules for biographies of living people that require statements about them to be backed up by strong sources, and the current sources describe it that way. If you have a reliable source that says differently, then feel free to present it. Keep in mind, though, that Wikipedia doesn't include original research or personal opinions in articles. clpo13(talk) 23:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Her description of the chant was not correct, therefore she incorrectly described the chant. There is no implication of whether she did it on purpose or not. Kotterdale99 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

POV established by quotable sources

 * "The chant was "at first difficult to make out", according to The Associated Press and the crowd "appeared to be cheering on the driver Brandon Brown", according to The New York Times."

Fuller quotes of those reports:
 * AP: "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.”"
 * NYT: "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.""

Video footage of the broadcast is still available online, and the chant has been clearly audible to the TV audience BEFORE Stavast made her statement. This does NOT mean that Stavast has deliberately misquoted the chant. We can't really judge how well she has heard it. But still the implication that the chant was not clearly audible before Stavast's statement (or even appeared to match her interpretation), and only after it became clear, is obviously wrong. There are also quotable sources not buying this spin, like a comment in The Atlantic: "...I still got the chance to see the October 2 clip of the reporter Kelli Stavast attempting to interview the race-car driver Brandon Brown after an unexpected victory while the crowd behind them chanted “Fuck Joe Biden.” “And you can hear the chants from the crowd,” Stavast narrated for the camera, before repeating what she seemed to think she was hearing: “Let’s go, Brandon.” As I would say after texting this link to someone in the middle of the workday: “LOL!”"

While I do not doubt that APnews and NYT are quotable sources, their interpretation here can hardly be called factual or neutral - and citing them in the current wording of the article, and as the only sources is hardly compatible with WP:NPOV. As those sources are used to establish harsher POV interpretations like in this version of the Kelli Stavast article, this is a serious problem. --KnightMove (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. While the two quotes above from the AP and NYT say that Stavast may not have correctly heard the chant, I don't think Wikipedia should speculate why she characterized the "Fuck Joe Biden" chant as "Let's go Brandon" until and unless she gives her version of the story. Banana Republic (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

How Kelli Stavast Interpreted The "Fuck Joe Biden" Chants
This "article" has some poorly worded information in the second paragraph of the top/main section. It should not say ".....reporter Kelli Stavast INCORRECTLY described a chant of "Fuck Joe Biden" by spectators at a NASCAR race as..." It should say "....Kelli Stavast JOKINGLY described a chant....." Look at the video that is posted on the article. She (Kelli) is kind of laughing when she says "Let's Go Brandon." She knew the crowd was chanting FJB but did not want to say that obscenity on television. And while "incorrectly" is technically correct, it makes the reader think Kelli was stupid or couldn't hear the chants. "Jokingly" is a better word to use. Because she DID understand the chants and used some quick wit to make it a pleasant interview. If you quote a source with a liberal slant, you will get a biased representation of the facts.

And to the person below who argued against my change: 1.-"....she had no qualms saying obscenity...." She sure as shit would have would have qualms about saying an obscenity live on air. She could possibly be fired for it. At the least, it would damage her reputation as a reporter. 2."...she just had qualms....." How do YOU know what she was thinking??!!! I am telling YOU not to speculate on people's intentions!! 3. Sources can be wrong.

Signed,

2602:306:CD8B:68F0:8551:4E1F:C19F:5356 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No, she had no qualms with saying obscenity; she just had qualms acknowledging that there are people who are very upset with Joe Biden. It does not fit the narrative. Also even if it was a joke it is still incorrect. Nerguy (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't speculate on people's intentions; stick to what the sources say per WP:BLP (which applies even on talk pages). clpo13(talk) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend ignoring the mobile editors posts. See (now reverted) posts at the talkpages of Donald Trump & Joe Biden articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021
Text should add...."begining" in September as the chants are still common. 2600:387:F:4412:0:0:0:5 (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume this is referring to the lead? ✅ the changes, thank you! —AFreshStart (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
The video of Congressman Bill Posey should be on the right. There is no reason to force things to the left (havoc on readability), and in the thumbnail he is facing away from the text.

Also, publications should be in italics.

It is like editors don't even care anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:602:EC00:D431:4B82:9E3E:B434 (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

False claims
There are no rap songs including "let's go Brandon" charting highly. Most black ppl, especially hip hop artists, know nothing about this chant. 2600:1004:B203:7179:C517:8D07:279D:5B1C (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * These claims are referenced. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Extremely poorly and misleading, but referenced nontheless. Anything to push an agenda, I suppose. 2A02:908:108D:EA60:DD59:B8D9:374:ECE4 (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
The article currently states "It is unclear whether Stavast misunderstood the chant or whether she intentionally misquoted it as "Let's Go Brandon"." However it is preposterous to suggest that she misunderstood it. It is as clear as can be. I suggest either deleting this line or rewriting it as "It is highly unlikely that Stavast misunderstood the chant." Any thoughts? Nerguy (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be original research, so no. The statement that the situation is unclear is supported by the sources. It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to say that it was very likely to be intentional without reliable sources to back that claim up. clpo13(talk) 18:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems offensive that this article exists in Wikipedia
Why this joke should be as is in an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia, a tertiary source willing to keep a neutral point of view? Where is the reliable sources that prove this is a commonly used expression that deserve mention in a dictionary or an encyclopedia? --82.61.191.160 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Look in the section titled "References" to see what makes this notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking the guidelines. I know and contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 and I think I remember what should be considered be worth a dedicated article and what isn't. And if the latest rules permit that (and I don't think so), would be the rules to be wrong. This is not the Urban Dictionary, you haven't to describe all the trivial and temporary social expression in use in a small group of people, but the most meaningful ones, the timeless ones. Including "Let's Go Brandon", Wikipedia is saying this is a meaningful or timeless expression and so this is offensive and against the neutral point of view. Sources included aren't enough to explain a separated article, I think. --82.61.191.160 (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User 82.61.191.160 The President of the United States has said the phrase himself, that's pretty notable. 75.118.80.232 (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't, if it were true. --82.61.191.160 (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETmlD0l4T3Y that he did say it himself.Nerguy (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The inclusion on this topic was recently discussed at Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon and there was overwhelming consensus to keep the article. Please refer to the deletion discussion for more specifics  Frank   Anchor  19:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021
Add in dec24 call. Jared Schmeck Used phrase on live televised call with president amd First Lady. Given Biden’s response we can infer he doesn’t know what it means. Significant because of the exposure it has received and context, if this doesn’t warrant inclusion as “other” I don’t think section should exist. 71.11.73.18 (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2021
The picture caption “ An automobile with the slogan written on the rear glass, parked in Florida on November 3, 2021” should be changed to read “An automobile with the slogan written on the rear glass, parked in The Villages, Florida on November 3, 2021”.

The location was obtained from the image’s metadata and the change would improve the educational opportunity represented by the page because Florida is a large and varied state, the third biggest by population, and it’s likely not something that you’d ever see in a blue city like Hollywood or Miami Beach. The Villages is one of the reddest parts of Florida and the original caption could be misleading or confusing to readers who could see it and mistakenly assume that the slogan is suddenly popular in Miami Beach. The image at the top of the page also doesn’t just mention “Nevada” as its location. Thank you Cmads617 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ GenQuest  "scribble" 08:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

1,000,000 page views in December 2021!
And this article ranked #91. Boscaswell  talk  08:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, by why did Cleopatra have over 4 million views? Did she win a grammy?-- JOJ Hutton  12:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank everyone involved in creating this article. The number of viewers show a balanced and informative article is needed and people are looking for answers.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2021
A majority of reliable sources describe this chant as a euphemism, not a "minced oath". This includes Business Insider, NBC News, CBS News, and National Post. The lede should stick to the sources. Alternative Ultimate Dragon (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * : A minced oath is a form of euphemism specifically intended to avoid "bad" words. Most reliable sources don't have the benefit of providing wikilinks to unfamiliar terms, so they stick with the more well-known "euphemism", but since Wikipedia can provide the wikilink to the unfamiliar (but more accurate) term, it is preferable. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * [EC] Minced oath is a euphemism formed by deliberately misspelling, mispronouncing, or replacing a part of a profane, blasphemous, or taboo word or phrase to reduce the original term's objectionable characteristics. In WP:NEWSSTYLE, the outlets will very often, actually almost always, use more generalized language to make their content digestible by as wide a possible audience. I support keeping "minced oath". — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiDan61, that sounds like original research to suggest what you're suggesting and goes against the WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy. Alternative Ultimate Dragon (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * we don't need to use the exact words used by our sources. If a source says "'Let's Go Brandon' is a euphemism people use to say 'Fuck Joe Biden' to avoid swearing", we can call it a minced oath. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should "euphemism" be used instead? Even if it is a "minced oath", that term just isn't common enough to not link to another page, disrupting the reader.


 * And while we are on links, is "slogan" in the first sentence too much linkong? Who needs a link to slogan?2600:8800:B85:B800:C8A9:A951:639A:B07D (talk)

"promoting the baseless claim that the 2020 presidential election "was 100 percent stolen"
Why would Wikipedia side with the exact word on the other media channel mentioning (baseless claim)?

We know that 147 members voted not to certify the elections (we know the political bias)

Of course (Dominionizing the vote) is a propaganda

But nowhere in the world they mail 100 000 ballots per each city (where the liberal votes are concentrated), except 2020 USA, they allowed the mailing only to enable changing the result.

I received ballots in my mail for someone else lived 4-5 years ago at my unit before I rented it out, and this is clearly happening only in the cities where people work temporarily, rent and leave. Moreover the elections outcome stalled a week only where those cities are.

So there are some hints of bases - it's absolutely not baseless.

When I lived in Europe 2021, there were elections, show ID, scratch name from list and vote, we get the result on the same day.

I would ask Wiki not to run hastily after the media and be (fair) at least in a common language (like English)

Thanks for showing some respect to ((neutrality)) I am not going to respond to any of your responses, I hope that your responses are neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.227.174 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's baseless. You may have received a ballot-by-mail for someone else. That's not fraud or any other kind of irregularity. Voting rolls are not always 100% up to date. What would be fraud is if you sent the ballot back in. There is no evidence of fraud beyond some cases that are not enough to have changed anything. Specifically, an Associated Press examination found fewer than 475 cases of fraudulent ballots in the six key swing states, out of 311,257 votes cast, or 0.15% of Biden's margin of victory. And we know that at least some of them were people voting for Trump twice. You won't respond to this response, but this is my neutral presentation of information to show you that the calls of a stolen election are completely baseless. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022
Under the "Usage" section it may be relevant to add a reference to a recent podcaster who set the World Record for the number of times / duration of time repeating the phrase "Let's Go Brandon". This was done on January 6th in protest of Biden and the general response to the events of January 6th 2021. The stream had over 60,000 views on twitter and over 5,000 views on YouTube but hasn't had mainstream media coverage, just fringe rightwing political platforms...

The podcast is called "One American Podcast" and the host is Chase Geiser

Here's a link to the YouTube stream which is about 7.5 hours in length: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGTMT_shxU4&t=22645s

Here's a link to the original twitter stream: https://twitter.com/realchasegeiser/status/1479104633293328390?s=20

Here's a link to a small piece of coverage: https://thedcpatriot.com/lets-go-brandon-january-6-world-record-attempt-political-analyst-and-podcaster-chase-geiser-live-and-6-hours-in-setting-the-world-record-of-saying-lets-go-brandon/?utm_source=rss& WhoIsJohnGalt1776 (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This will need significant coverage in secondary sources to be WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022
It states that the slogan “let’s go Brandon” has been used in rap songs but I could not find a top charting rap  artist who had this in any of their songs. Therefore this statement is false and should be removed as I was unable to find ANY sources to back up this claim of high topping rap songs containing this slogan. 2600:1012:B026:D4E8:B966:A03E:3642:8A30 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is well sourced in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

“Let’s go Brandon” featured among top charting rap songs
There’s a claim in the first paragraph that states “… with rap songs using the phrase placing high on record charts”. The statement is used in conjunction with a separate statement about the phrases popularly in pop culture.

There’s a few problems: 1.) Why is that relevant? Are mentions in rap songs somehow indicative of a phrases popularity in all of pop culture? If so, state it. 2.) There’s no citation. Why should I believe that statement in the first place? 3.) Which rap songs are you referring to? And again, how is that relevant to the subject? 2600:1700:4AC0:6CE0:785E:8DC0:5B85:9CB3 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See LEDE. [1] As a summary paragraph of the article, all sections should be represented; also, [2] the Lede doesn't really need the citations/references, they are already below, in the article body (in the sub-section entitled "Music"), as are [3] the minutia and details, which aren't lede-worthy.  GenQuest  "scribble" 07:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Link to video
Shouldn’t we add a link to the actual interview video? It’s on YouTube. 98.128.229.54 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to go to youtube. The video is already on the page.Nerguy (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s great, didn’t see that! But it doesn’t work on mobile and I guess most people today access wikipedia on their phones. Can this be fixed somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.128.229.54 (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

“Let’s go Brandon” featured among top charting rap songs
There’s a claim in the first paragraph that states “… with rap songs using the phrase placing high on record charts”. The statement is used in conjunction with a separate statement about the phrases popularly in pop culture.

There’s a few problems: 1.) Why is that relevant? Are mentions in rap songs somehow indicative of a phrases popularity in all of pop culture? If so, state it. 2.) There’s no citation. Why should I believe that statement in the first place? 3.) Which rap songs are you referring to? And again, how is that relevant to the subject? 2600:1700:4AC0:6CE0:785E:8DC0:5B85:9CB3 (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See LEDE. [1] As a summary paragraph of the article, all sections should be represented; also, [2] the Lede doesn't really need the citations/references, they are already below, in the article body (in the sub-section entitled "Music"), as are [3] the minutia and details, which aren't lede-worthy.  GenQuest  "scribble" 07:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Link to video
Shouldn’t we add a link to the actual interview video? It’s on YouTube. 98.128.229.54 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to go to youtube. The video is already on the page.Nerguy (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s great, didn’t see that! But it doesn’t work on mobile and I guess most people today access wikipedia on their phones. Can this be fixed somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.128.229.54 (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)