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)

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)