Talk:Let's Go Brandon

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 Wikipedia: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)

Years later...

@Scope creep: "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)

@Encyclopædius: 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)

For better or for worse, I believe this article's rejection is an example of Wikipedia:Of course it's voting and Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Article needs some serious work

Sorry but as things stand [1], 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 'After the later introduction of "Let's go, Brandon"' without explaining how it was introduced. Finally we get to the Talladega section which says:

"Fuck Joe Biden" was audible to the television audience as NBC reporter Kelli Stavast interviewed NASCAR driver Brandon Brown after winning Talladega Superspeedway’s Sparks 300 in Alabama. Stavast described the chant as "Let's go, Brandon",[10][11] and the resulting footage soon went viral as a family friendly slogan mocking Biden.[citation needed] The slogan was printed on clothing, a billboard, and a banner flown behind a plane over a pro-Trump rally in Iowa.[12]
Since the Federal Communications Commission prohibits broadcasting profanity during daytime hours, a Deadline Hollywood writer described Stavast as "either hard of hearing, or a very, very quick thinker"[11] for her modification of "Let's go, Brandon".[13]

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)

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)

Social media hoax re: Canadian government

@Banana Republic: 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 Elli 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 | 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)

@Elli: 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. @GhostOfDanGurney:, 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)

@Colin M: Elli 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)

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)

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:

  According to The Associated Press, On October 2, 2021, when Brandon Brown was being interviewed by an NBC Sports reporter after he won the Sparks 300, a race in the NASCAR Xfinity Series held at Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama, "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.","

  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, [2], as examples of WP:BLP policy concerns, i.e.

Why are MAGA supporters chanting ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ to mock Democrats? (The Independent, October 14, 2021, "the blip is being used as an example by Trump supporters of how certain outlets bend the truth. “The reporter just lies,” said one user under the viral video."), How 'Let's go Brandon' became an anti-Biden conservative heckle (BBC, October 12, 2021, "Some conservatives view Ms Stavast's attribution of the Biden chant as yet another example of the media covering up for and protecting Biden by downplaying what they view as the depth of the president's unpopularity."). I think a four-sentence article about "a hip-hop mash-up of the chanting crowd" (Tennessee Star, October 18, 2021) helps show the WP:COATRACK, and the lyrics of the recent song appear to support the concern noted above about WP:ATTACK, e.g. "Tried to cover up, but tell the people, go Brandon" (Miami Herald, October 18, 2021, also reporting "The reporter misheard the chants as “Let's Go Brandon,”).

In the pending Let's Go Brandon AfD, I also discussed

e.g. BBC (October 12, 2021): "The perceived media filter has also been a key component for the popularity of the Brandon meme. Some conservatives view Ms Stavast's attribution of the Biden chant as yet another example of the media covering up for and protecting Biden by downplaying what they view as the depth of the president's unpopularity." And e.g. The Washington Post (October 23, 2021), discussing "Let's go Brandon": "Trump supporters instantly saw signs of a coverup, claiming on social media that journalists were deliberately censoring anti-Biden sentiment."

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.

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

which 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)

• Slight oppose We should err on the side of not naming living people in unclear cases. (Summoned by bot) --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 | 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. ―Buster7 ☎ 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)

• 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:
  1. National Public Radio
  2. USA Today (fact check 1, fact check 2)
  3. Intelligencer
  4. Slate
  5. Fox News (via Yahoo! news)
  6. The Washington Post
  7. Deadline
  8. BBC News
  9. The Independent and Indy100
  10. Miami Herald
  11. Snopes
  12. The Times
  13. The Athletic

There are sources that I've seen from a major publication that did not include the Kelli Stavast's name (from the AP, via Chicago Sun-Times, and WaPo); these were mentioned by Beccaynr 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, and this is even mentioned in her article.

I also think that the specific WP:BLP claims made by Beccaynr, more generally, don't lead to the conclusions that the editor advocates for.

1. WP:NOTSCANDAL is fundamentally about promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping and notes that [a]rticles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. This article isn't a gossip piece, and I don't think that the HQRS above can possibly be described as through-the-grapevine or gossip reporting. This article isn't written to purely attack Stavast's reputation, and I don't think her inclusion is being done out of a sort of malice. The remaining part of WP:NOTSCANDAL states that articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. But, naming Stavast in the article doesn't just of this seems to be deriving from poor sourcing; I'd be extremely skeptical of a claim that the above thirteen sources, taken together, could in any way be seen to fail our sourcing standards. I don't think anyone's seriously claiming this, to be clear, though I do think that the absence of such a claim speaks to the fact that WP:NOTSCANDAL doesn't actually suggest that we should omit her name.
2. Regarding WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, I really don't buy that this longtime television reporter is not a public figure and I believe that the attempt to apply it here is misplaced. Her role is public facing, her name is well-known (though it may not before making the "Let's Go Brandon" utterance), and related guidance (such as WP:LPI) points to her being a public figure; she's very clearly someone who is presented as a public-facing expert on stock car racing. Even if Stavast is involuntarily a public figure, she's still a public figure and her role in accidentally spurring the creation the chant is treated as significant by reliable sources.
3. Regarding WP: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.
4. 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)

Status quo

Beccaynr 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)

iTunes

David Gerard removed content [3] citing WP:CHARTS. Boscaswell reverted,[4] 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)

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,

  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."

  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 GhostOfDanGurney 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)