Jump to content

Talk:Brandon Brown (racing driver)

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


"Let's go Brandon"

[edit]

Let's recap the situation: starting in September 2021 or so, crowds at various sports games in the US began to chant "Fuck Joe Biden". That's what some in the crowd were chanting when Brandon Brown did his post-victory interview at the Sparks 300 race in Alabama on October 2. The NBC interviewer, probably just in an attempt to keep things classy, claimed that what they were yelling was actually "Let's go, Brandon". "Let's go Brandon" was then quickly picked up as a way to express the phrase "Fuck Joe Biden" without having to swear, i.e. a minced oath; or maybe, for some, just an in-joke. So now Brandon Brown has become, at least for a brief period of time, unwittingly involved in a political epithet. (Though he doesn't seem too bothered by it.) All of this has been covered by reliable sources, but at least one editor has been trying to keep this information out of this article, for no obvious reason. Can anyone explain why this shouldn't be here? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging involved users for courtesy: @Korny O'Near, Cable10291, Mrschimpf, and Materialscientist:
Firstly, let's look at the recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Joe Biden and the arguments made there (spoiler, it closed as a SNOW delete). A few people chanted something and a reporter misheard them. Big deal. What is the long-term significance of that? What is the encyclopedic value? Is it relevant to his notability? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of providing the proper sources is on whoever adds them, and right now, we have a 1-to-4 ratio of good sourcing in that paragraph; I usually don't keep Business Insider because it's a poor (and misnamed) publication with questionable quality control, HuffPost is in the tank for a certain side, and only in emergency situations before the news media writes something (an earthquake or other natural disaster) will I ever allow self-sourcing of someone's statement per WP:TWITTER. This leaves only the BBC source as proper...but they don't have any comments from Brown, Stavast, NASCAR, or NBC Sports, and just use the Twitter statement, along with generic commentary about memes from a professor not even in the US. Thus, it needs much better WP:SOURCING overall to stick out in this article, especially as the comment in no way affected Brown's career or driving at all, and all the coverage is periphery of the chant outside the subject of the article. If he or Brandon Jones didn't win that race...we'd just be saying the same thing at Justin Allgaier or Daniel Hemric, and it would be either of their first names as the chant instead. Nate • (chatter) 04:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid of your use of 'I' up above. This list of sources has been discussed thoroughly and summarizes consensus. BBC News has been green-lit as reliable. There seems to be no bias in the HuffPost article; and even if there was, it would still be okay, as there are facts about what happened in the article. No consensus on B.I., but it looks fine to me. Those sources alone are a good mix. Not sure how many you need. If more are needed, I also found one from The Independent, which is also another consensus-cleared reliable source. Cable10291 (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{@Cable10291: You're missing the point entirely. Can you answer any of the questions I asked earlier? It is an insignificant, unencyclopedic occurrence that so far has had no effect on his career and, as Mrschimpf points out, could have happened to anyone in that field. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If Fuck Joe Biden isn't worthy of an article, then this article has no business including it. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to affect him for it to be acceptable. He was involved in it, which grew into a larger set of political protests. It's a lot closer to "In Popular Culture" sections on Wikipedia than a soapbox. Cable10291 (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing any answers to my questions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cause your questions are irrelevant to the discussion, and I won't be answering them. Cable10291 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of meaningless arguments being made here. The outcome of the "Fuck Joe Biden" article is indeed irrelevant here, for several reasons, most notably WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, the use of Twitter as a citation is fine for showing that someone posted that thing on Twitter, per WP:TWITTER. And "if he hadn't won the race, this wouldn't have happened, thus we shouldn't write about it" is absurd, if taken to its logical conclusion.
The only valid argument I see here against including the paragraph is just that it's insignificant information. I don't think so, though - and I think the widespread coverage the phrase has already gotten is good evidence that it has notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only argument you guys have presented lies somewhere between WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been covered by a variety of reliable sources - doesn't that count for something? There's also the argument that this is a political epithet for the President of the United States, generally acknowledged to be the most important elected official in the world. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources cover trivial happenings all the time; if they didn't they'd be soon out of business. That doesn't make them encyclopedic, and doesn't mean that everyone named in the covering of it played a significant part. This content belongs on an article titled Fuck Joe Biden; If you feel that Fuck Joe Biden is worthy of an article in the time passed since the AfD, please feel free to be BOLD and recreate it. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not there's an article called "Fuck Joe Biden" (or "Let's go Brandon", for that matter) has no real bearing on whether there should be a paragraph explaining the issue on this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear this is going nowhere, so I have opened a RfC below. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One user continues to remove this content under pretenses that it’s not from a reliable source or that it’s contentious material about a living person. There’s enough evidence that this situation happened to convince a jury of it, if necessary which, is well beyond Wikipedia’s standards. There’s no reason we can’t cite the fact of what happened. Wikipedia should be a place where people come to find out what happened and then they can form their own opinion as to whether what happened was good or bad. There’s no legitimate contention about whether this happened. Bagofscrews (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some reliable sources such as BBC which have covered the story. Haris920 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BBC article entitle, "How Let's go Brandon became an anti-Biden conservative heckle" [1] Jd1schroeder (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Korny O'Near: Thank you for making the blurb more concise without removing the sources. :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Other people should feel free to modify it as well - even though various people expressed an opinion in the RFC about what the length and contents of that information should be, I don't think any of that is binding. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58878473

RfC about "Let's go Brandon"

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I interpret this discussion to mean there is a consensus to include this. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article about NASCAR driver Brandon Brown include a paragraph about the "Let's go Brandon"/"Fuck Joe Biden" meme such as this? [1] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"1) If it is a minor aspect, why do you seem to be commenting on multiple locations about it. Obviously there is something here, even if you don;t like it. 2) Please stop misrepresenting policies and guidelines on talk pages (maybe stop edit warring, too). "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject", not "It can't be mentioned at all because I don't like it." Unintentionally or not, you are harming the project. This is about the reader, not your political beliefs. It may go away on its own, but it is not your job to facilitate that... or is it?Globgenie (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're a single-purpose account using Wikipedia as your personal soapbox to promote a forced meme, in multiple places. That's not a hard question at all, and if you think I'm edit warring, please feel free to go to the proper channels to report it. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak include (invited by the bot) It seems to be a promine'nt and widely covered element of the story of this person. I added "weak" because the degree of WP:Relevance is arguably only medium, and being a nasty profane political statement to me raises the bar for inclusion. I also have a non-policy-compliant argument against inclusion which is that coverage in media in many cases is not a good arbiter for inclusion in an encyclopedia. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Even though this phrase has certainly made the rounds and is notable (as phrases go), it seems not terribly impactful for Brown's career or life. This seems like it would be most appropriate an a Criticism of Joe Biden article, but somehow that doesn't exist yet. Fun side fact: I had seen this phrase a handful of times on Reddit, but was clueless about what it meant or referred to until I happened upon this discussion. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - whether or not it belongs in any other article (I agree that it probably does), it belongs here as well, because this is a notable fact about Brandon Brown: his name has become part of a minced oath that has gained significant currency both online and in real life. The fact that he really had nothing to do with it is irrelevant: you could say the same about every "In popular culture" section of a Wikipedia article, for example. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I believe that the chants are notable, because it brought about a relatively high amount news coverage in reliable sources. I assume that most people outside of the specialized NASCAR audience (including me) have never heard of Mr. Brown until the chants began. Also, a song about the chants is relatively high on the iTunes charts (see the comment by Korny O'Near below). However, this information is already present in the Public image of Joe Biden article. The chants are not very closely related to Brown's career or life, and it would be better for the information to be in the public image article. Bwmdjeff (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to choose, of course. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is gaining Notoriety by the day and really up to be on the page. user: bagofscrews

This situation is gaining Notoriety by the day and really up to be on the page. Bagofscrews (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose In the WP:NPOV policy, the WP:MINORASPECT section states, 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. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. This appears to support excluding this minor recent event from this BLP at this time. In addition, the WP:BLP policy includes, 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. This minor event only appears to be tangentially related to the subject of the article, and seems more related to the apparent behavior of the crowd and the resulting internet reaction to it, and thus appears sensationalist in the context of this article. In addition, the inclusion seems to risk creating a WP:COATRACK article, i.e. that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. If sufficient independent and reliable sources exist, it may be possible to create encyclopedic content elsewhere on Wikipedia, but our policies do not appear to support inclusion here. Beccaynr (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My comments were moved by another participant to the discussion section below, but please consider my additional comments as part of my oppose reasoning. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per statement already above. Per Beccanyr, the issue is about something that the anonymous crowd did, and which didn't affect the subject or the reporter in any manner outside a 'welp, that happened' moment and will not affect his actual driving or career. Nate • (chatter) 05:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. It's possible this will get sustained coverage and end up being an important part of Brown's biography. Currently, the reliable sourcing isn't there to demonstrate that this material is due for an article about a living person. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) - striking vote 13:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my !vote to support a brief mention. In deciding how much weight to give this phenomenon, we should be looking at sources that give in-depth treatment to Brown himself. So far, there has not been a showing that such sources frequently mention the chant. Some of the sources about the chant give Brown more than just a passing mention, e.g. USA Today, enough I think to justify something short (about a sentence) with a wikilink to Let's Go Brandon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes This event has brought Brandon to attention and brought him to the public spotlight more than any other racing driver in recent memory. Most of us wouldnt have heard the name Brandon Brown if it wasnt for this to happen. I think that it is best to add it to a personal life section. Haris920 (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it was going to be added, that seems like the least logical place for it. This phrase has nothing whatsoever to do with his personal life. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I just run into this meme trending and can't find any mention in Wikipedia. I had to dig outside sources to get an idea what is this about.[2] --Mikko Paananen (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - it is exhausting seeing all the left-leaning phenomena being reported as if they are facts, while stuff like "Get Woke, Go Broke" which has entered common vernacular is scrubbed from WP because it doesn't match the prevailing ideology. WP should be neutral. If FJB is being reported by reliable sources, it should be at least mentioned. If it is "recentist", that can be adjusted in future.174.0.48.147 (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLPBALANCE, The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Beccaynr (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - apart from NASCAR enthusiasts, nobody would know who Brandon Brown even is, if not for "Let's Go Brandon", especially outside of the USA (like me, as I am from Europe). Wiki pageviews reflect this: [3] , as well as Google trends: [4] (let's not kid ouselves, it is not because of his victory in the race :) ,as this comparison with Jeb Burton, who also won his first race this season, shows: [5]). From what I get, NASCAR Xfinity is a sort of a minor league in NASCAR racing and Mr. Brown is sort of a "solid, but not among the leaders" driver in that "league", and certainly wouldn't be as famous if "Let's go Brandon" didn't happen. I think it is logical to include the "incident" that contributd most to his popularity in his biography. StjepanHR (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well, at least a line. A whole section may be warranted but weight should be kept in mind. Simply removing any mention is a disservice to the sources available and the reader.Globgenie (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but just a short mention, at most two sentences (e.g. The anti-Joe Biden phrase "Let's Go Brandon" spawned from a 2021 interview of Brown whereby the interviewer said "Fuck Joe Biden" chants by NASCAR spectators were "Let's Go Brandon" chants.) Brandon Brown himself contributed nothing much to the phrase, which was said by the interviewer, and then spread by people who oppose Biden. The chant is not support for Brandon Brown, it's a mockery of the media and Biden. As such it has little to do with Brown himself, and deserves small weight. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the idea that weight doesn't have reciprocity. Brown and his win are clearly a significant part of the story of the meme but what does this meme tell us about Brown? This isn't about Brown, rather Brown just happened to be there. Consider a hypothetical, Brown is a big Biden supporter and is horrified he was somehow involved with this. Would this be something Brown would want in his BLP? Certainly Brown is part of the story of the meme but it's not, so far, part of Brown's story thus this doesn't need to be included and could be viewed as an anti-Biden COATRACK. Springee (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the rule, that we only allow information in the articles about living people that they want to have there? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I think DONOHARM does apply. The idea isn't that he does or doesn't want it. Rather, he was basically an innocent bystander in the situation. Absent some strong actions on his part to involve himself with the meme it's really not about him. It's about sports casters trying to cover for a situation. Anyway, in the spirit of do no harm, unless he has tried to get himself involved in what is likely to turn into a highly political story about a meme, it's probably best to err on the side of no including it. Springee (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this information satisfies all the criteria for inclusion laid out in WP:DONOHARM. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: - To all the other Brandon’s out there, You’re welcome! Let’s go us - Brandon Brown. He's acknowledged it in a positive way. starship.paint (exalt) 09:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If, hypothetically, Brown were a big Biden supporter and came out to condemn the slogan, Wikipedia would mention both the slogan and Brown's condemnation. feminist (+) 14:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be acceptable also. At this point , it does have to be linked or explained somewhere. It would help the BLP problem if there were a reliable source we could use that actually says that he personally is apolitical. DGG Oct 28
If you now think that "Let's Go Brandon" should be included in this article, maybe you should change your "Oppose" vote? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Since this is literally, by far, the most notable thing that has ever happened to Brandon, it should definitely be included. Nate Hooper (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It wasn't he that said it. It therefore should not be associated with him. I haven't seen any evidence presented he's notable as a Trump supporter or even a political conservative (am I wrong there? -- I'm not an expert), and putting it in the article implies he is . The basic rule is do no harm. It could be included it an article about anti-Biden slurs, where it would be in context., and there could be a redirect to that DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: I have often respected your positions and your well thought out statement is causing me to question my own opinion on this matter. I think you are correct in your assessment that he is apolitical, and there is no sign that he supports any specific party or platform. He is mostly just a bystander where something happened adjacent to him. While this issue has made him significantly more famous or infamous for the moment, unless he does something to provoke his involvement moving forward, the world will go on with the meme, chant, song, etc., and leave Mr. Brown (the individual) in the wake of it. The challenging bit is that it is his "name" being used in the euphemism. Which is the natural reason to support inclusion. Resulting in my belief that while a mention should be included in this article, it should be a far shorter mention of the issue, perhaps as some articles do "in popular culture" with a link, or perhaps just "see also". Thoughts? TiggerJay (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment From the AP today: How ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ became code for insulting Joe Biden

    And as for the real Brandon, things haven’t been so great. He drives for a short-staffed, underfunded team owned by his father. And while that win — his first career victory — was huge for him, the team has long struggled for sponsorship and existing partners have not been marketing the driver since the slogan.

    I think this adds support for not including this content in his article, including per WP:BLPBALANCE, and how it states, Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this add a lot of support for including the content. There is a nationally-known slogan/epithet that is not only named after Brandon Brown but has now begun to affect his career as well. Keeping this information out of his article feels ridiculous. And no, there's nothing "unfair" about including it. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's a silly meme, but it does seem to have achieved notability (there was an article in my local paper's website today about it) and thus became part of this guy's "claim to fame" in these bizarrely stupid times. Thus there should be a mention. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support -- There should be not even be any debate about this! "Let's Go Brandon" is beyond notable, has quickly become a cultural artifact, and absolutely should be at least briefly mentioned here, as well as on Kelli Stavast's article. - JGabbard (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a BLP policy that supports this position? That is the reason for the debate that you think should be suppressed. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obviously he is central to this notable meme, and the meme is asking to his own notability. Don't understand how this is even a question.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - The LGB phenomenon is quite notable, and has brought lots of attention to Brandon Brown that he woudln't have gotten otherwise. As StjepanHR and TiggerJay noted above, the page views for his article exponentially exploded following the incident and the meme achieving fame. Brown wasn't even particularly famous outside the core Nascar fanbase before this happened - he certainly wasn't a household name, like Dale Earnhardt (Sr. or Jr.). Frankly, most of the objections strike me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT....I get that people might not like it for various reasons - maybe they like Joe Biden, or just don't like that spots has gotten so mixed up with politics, or whatever. It ultimately doesn't matter though, as it objectively IS now a big part of why he's notable, whether one likes that or not, similar to Colin Kaepernick. Of course unlike with Kaepernick, it wasn't Brandons own activism which led to this notability, but simply a reporter's misrepresentation of an FJB chant, followed by people turning it into a meme. But it's centered around him, so he's notably associated with it, wittingly or not. Omission at this point would really be doing the readers a disservice, and probably cause a fair bit of confusion, as a lot of people are gonna be looking up his article *specifically because of* the LGB meme, and when it's not discussed at all in the article, they're gonna be wondering if it's the same Brandon Brown, or if there's another Nascar driver with that name! -2003:CA:8729:C30:DC1B:ED67:936B:EEC (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I am in total misbelief that this is even discussed in any way. After his win, article views skyrocketed by a factor of ~100. While in the very first days after his win this is certainly mainly attributed to the win as such, this does not explain a further strong increase in views a month later. Those many readers (like me) who just wanted to have a look who this Brandon guy from the meme even is are left in confusion "Did I get an article about the wrong person?" This is one of the worst examples I have ever seen for withholding information from the interested audience just for pharisaical interpretation of rules. --KnightMove (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum (and being more mildly than yesterday): By the mid of October, it may not have been that obvious where the phrase would go. In the meantime, virtually all relevant media have added explanations in the last days, CNN, ABC, USA Today, Dallas News... there really shouldn't be any more doubt. --KnightMove (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the arguments made above. His Racing career section isn't that long to begin with and this Let's Go Brandon slogan/meme is the most notable thing that has happened to him thus far in his career; he has also acknowledged it. Some1 (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is an important aspect to his article notability. Swordman97 talk to me 23:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is sourced and notable. There is a way to do it without being undue weight. Just include passing mention to it, like a sentence or two with the proper reliable sources.JMM12345 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345[reply]
  • Support Brandon Brown being the source of the phrase that continues to grow adds to his notability and celebrity. The phrase has gained enough notability to now have its own Wikipedia article. Whether anyone supports or agrees with the political viewpoint of the phrase doesn't matter. The point is that the phrase has become notable on its own right, and Brandon being the source of it should be at least mentioned in an article about him. Perhaps a section of "In popular culture" could be added to his article that could include a snippet of it with a link to the main article of the phrase. Sf46 (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brown did not create the meme, the meme is not about him, and as noted above, the AP indicates the association is harming his career. While the meme currently has its own Wikipedia article, the AfD closing statement specifically invites revisiting whether a standalone article is warranted in the future, and that seems to be an indication of questionable ongoing notability and that we should at minimum wait to determine whether to include the meme in Brown's WP:BLP, which must be written conservatively. Beccaynr (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So has "support" won yet? Nate Hooper (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope an admin comes by soon to put this RFC out of its misery... the tide has clearly turned on this one. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Comment - an anti-Biden rap song called "Let's Go Brandon" is now the #2 song on iTunes in the U.S. Clearly the phrase has substantial, and possibly still growing, currency. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We don't usually source anything to iTunes as it's a bad chart easily vulnerable to gaming from outside forces (and the artist doesn't have an article here either); it's very easy to buy 'sales' of a $1.29 single in bulk and make the chart (and in this age of 'all you can play' streaming, nobody really buys singles to begin with anymore; a quick check doesn't find it on any of iTunes' streaming lists). Unless this hits a major Billboard chart or has major radio airplay, it's completely meaningless to anything. Nate • (chatter) 01:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, what does a song that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article have to do with this discussion? Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't have absolutely nothing to do with Brandon Brown; after all, it's named after him, in a sense. And the more press and notability the phrase "Let's go Brandon" gets, the stranger its omission from this article becomes. One somewhat close analogy I can think of is the candy bar Baby Ruth, which is ostensibly named after Ruth Cleveland but is most likely actually named after Babe Ruth. Ruth Cleveland had no involvement with the candy bar (she had died 20 years earlier), and it's really only named after her because her nickname sounds a lot like "Babe Ruth", but nonetheless her Wikipedia article mentions the candy bar, because it's a notable fact about her. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources that appear to be currently available about this recent event, including as discussed in the Kelli Stavast AfD, e.g. my comment reviewing sources, including for BLP policy concerns [6], it also seems WP:BLPBALANCE should be considered, e.g. the broad warning to Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content, including because the sources indicate this is not similar to a candy bar; in my later review of sources in the Stavast AfD discussion [7], this appears related to "Fuck Joe Biden" chants, also previously discussed in the Fuck Joe Biden AfD that closed as a snow delete on September 27, 2021. Due to this context, I am also concerned about how WP:AVOIDVICTIM may be implicated if this article becomes a WP:COATRACK for tangential and contentious recent content, as well as the care we need to take for people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article, because WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE states, In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. [...] Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care [...], which may apply particularly to Kelli Stavast. Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kelli Stavast's name could always be replaced with "an NBC reporter" or some such, if it's decided that she's not enough of a public figure to warrant mention; that's not really an argument against including the paragraph. I'm not sure I understood the rest. Where's the guilt by association - an implication that Brown is anti-Biden? I think the facts make clear that he was a bystander to the whole thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The facts making it clear that he was a bystander to the whole thing seems like support for exclusion per the WP:MINORASPECT and WP:COATRACK discussions above. To clarify how I think WP:BLPBALANCE applies, the sources presented across multiple discussions currently pending, including at Redirects for discussion, seem to indicate a form of 'malice', e.g. "Fuck Joe Biden" chants, and 'promotional content', e.g. the recent meme/minced oath and song, with which Brandon Brown is only associated with as a bystander, not as an active or voluntary participant in "Fuck Joe Biden" chants nor as an active promoter of the political meme, the song, or the POV about Stavast's role in the event. I think this would be a different discussion if he was more than a bystander to the tangentially-related content, but as a bystander, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE also seems to apply to him, if his BLP becomes a hook for WP:SOAPBOX political and commercial activity he has not actively or voluntarily engaged with or accepted. Overall, because this is a BLP, my view is informed by how WP:BLP policy states, Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) And more specifically, the related statement in WP:BLPBALANCE that includes Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Beccaynr (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All this listing of guidelines isn't really making your point any clearer, I don't think. Someone can be a bystander to something but still have that thing be a notable part of their biography: as I noted before, just about every "In popular culture" section fits that description, since people rarely have any say in cultural depictions and references to them. This meme/slogan is essentially the same thing. And no, I don't think a short paragraph, laying out the facts, violates WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP, or any of the other guidelines you listed. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mr. O'Near was trying to establish the notability of the chants themselves, which I agree with. However, I believe the information about this should be housed on an article abotu the perception of joe biden (see my comment above) Bwmdjeff (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


And now a U.S. Representative, Bill Posey, has used the phrase "Let's go Brandon" in a speech on the house floor, which has led to coverage in Mediaite, which remarked that Brandon Brown "has unwittingly become one of the most well-known athletes in the country". Leaving this information out of this article looks increasingly untenable. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:RSP, Mediaite is currently described: There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement. But per the discussion at the Let’s Go Brandon redirect, after WP:COPYVIO was removed [8], information has been added to Public image of Joe Biden. To be clear, my concern here is focused on Wikipedia policy, including how the WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS policies apply to this article for a recent contentious event, and the general design of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing contentious about the event (I assume you mean the October 2 interview) per se; of course, it relates to highly contentious political matters, but the facts specifically about the origin and use of the phrase "Let's go Brandon" are not really in dispute. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think based on multiple independent and reliable sources, discussed in the Kelli Stavast AfD and recently The Washington Post, there is a contentious aspect, e.g. "Trump supporters instantly saw signs of a coverup, claiming on social media that journalists were deliberately censoring anti-Biden sentiment", because it appears to implicate WP:BLP and how we write about living people, as well as related policies, such as WP:NOTSCANDAL. I think Wikipedia policy urges caution for biographies of living people, especially those who are not major public figures, and this supports exclusion of the content. Beccaynr (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are contentious aspects to the overall topic of "Let's go Brandon", but I don't think there are contentious aspects to the part of the story that involves Brandon Brown. You're widely overinterpreting WP:BLP, I think; by your logic, we probably shouldn't mention that Brandon Brown drives for NASCAR, either, since there are politically contentious aspects to NASCAR as well. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, what is contentious and relevant to WP:BLP are the allegations that Stavast is engaged in a 'cover up', and how WP:NOTSCANDAL includes Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous. My concern, as I have also discussed in the Kelli Stavast AfD, is that "Let's Go Brandon" isn't simply about Biden, it is also making allegations that disparage Stavast, who is entitled to protection by WP:BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misunderstood what you were saying before - I didn't realize that Stavast was the "living person" you were talking about. Still, there's nothing libelous about saying that Stavast misstated the crowd's chant; no one disputes that. The contentious part is what her motivation was, but there's no reason for this article to get into that. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - my concern, in addition to the WP:MINORASPECT and WP:COATRACK issues discussed above, is that the contentious context cannot really be separated, and this supports exclusion from this article. The chant and its context also does not appear to be something that Brown has encouraged or endorsed, so attaching it to his BLP under these circumstances seems problematic per WP:BLPBALANCE, which includes, Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. His BLP is focused on his racing career, with no sourcing I have seen about political activity - I think decisions like this are case-by-case, and in this context, policy does not seem to support adding the content here. Beccaynr (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"And the more press and notability the phrase "Let's go Brandon" gets, the stranger its omission from this article becomes." Well said Korney. Well said! Nate Hooper (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the volume of media coverage that has been added in the last days after this your statement (see my vote above), I think nobody should have any more doubt about adding it in the article. --KnightMove (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to force anyone to scroll up, I repeat the list CNN, ABC, USA Today, Dallas News and add the New York Times as just one more example.
@Firefangledfeathers: Do you think that the coverage is sufficient now - also regarding that Brown himself has commented on it, as already pointed out earlier? --KnightMove (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat. I changed my !vote above. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL I just popped by to see a paragraph on Let's Go Brandon. I'm shocked to see it still hasn't been hashed out lmao... this thing is viral... and I'm from CANADA! lol 174.93.121.140 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney: @Beccaynr: Given the vastly increased reception, the page views remaining in a totally different dimension and the 100% "Support" quote in the last 10 days, do you still uphold your opposition? --KnightMove (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is much more than a simple "yes" or "no". There are arguments of WP:WEIGHT that need to be hashed out and closing this discussion before then will only cause further edit wars. I don't understand this challenge by you, unless you're actually saying you don't care about WEIGHT and don't care if the article becomes a pure COATRACK, especially when this subject was a victim of circumstance. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this limited to tagging us two, when there are other oppose votes? Seriously, what is your point, other than to reiterate that you think discussion should be quashed?? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you could have just said "yes", then - I don't know why you had to give this long response. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: The vote does boil down to a simple "yes" and "no" by the way you have posed the question "Should the article about NASCAR driver Brandon Brown include a paragraph...". Any nuanced solution like one single sentence is not part of the vote, and is further blocked by you. A constructive discussion about the volume of the mention is not possible as long as any mention is blocked. By this approach, you are the crucial person in this debate, alongside Beccanyr, weighing his contributions in the discussion.
Anyway it has become obvious by now that a clear majority of users supports mentioning it in the article, and that a minority will keep blocking it from being added to the article. A formal end of the RfC is not in sight. So what now? --KnightMove (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the obstructing minority has now lost the argument, the way to proceed is to simply end it here, restore the mention, and charge whoever may again remove it with disruptive editing against consensus. - JGabbard (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I asked about a paragraph, and several editors have said it should be "no more than a sentence or two, or do those not count as your "majority"? Clearly, there is consensus to include at least a sentence or two, and no consensus has been made for the lead. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: Sorry, so what is your excuse now to still remove a short mention? Your summary does not make sense. --KnightMove (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hit f5 on your history page, friend. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry for missing the other edit. But this is still strange. What is "attribution from Let's Go Brandon" supposed to mean? You have c+p'd text from there with little modification, which is, if it has not been written by you, hardly compatible with the GNU FDL. Although you wanted a short text, now you have one describing the scene much longer than necessary here, and causing redundancies in the article. On the other hand, no mention is made why the scene is even included. So... why? --KnightMove (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is better than using NEWSWEEK and HuffPo as sources on a BLP that became infested with politics basically overnight. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no problem with better sources. But may I ask what's the importance of the The chant was "at first difficult to make out"... details in this article? This is relevant for the articles about the slogan as such, and about Stavast. But what Stavast was hearing and thinking when she made the statement is totally irrelevant for Brown. --KnightMove (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I still maintain that this whole situation is not relevant to Brown, either. But to answer the question, the fact that reliable sources have stated that the chant was at first difficult to make out is highly relevant to the origination of the phrase. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Communications

[edit]

Was going to suggest a change that his degree be shown as in "Communication Studies" a more specific academic discipline that "Communication"...but I get that there's a lot of attention being given to the "LGB" thing, so I understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.83.250.169 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@137.83.250.169: Is there a source that says this? I took a quick look and could only find the subject's own LinkedIn which says "Communication, Marketing". The cited source (also primary) is a currently dead link. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war 2.0

[edit]

@Frank Anchor, Korny O'Near, Alternative Ultimate Dragon, and HeroicSSD: Stop edit warring and collaborate.

Didn't one of you call for me to receive a topic ban here?

-"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to tag HeroicSSD - they're not involved in this. Also, I don't know what the deal is with Alternative Ultimate Dragon, but it seems suspicious that someone would create a Wikipedia account just for the purpose of reverting others' edits on a single article. Finally, I don't know why you just got involved in this edit war yourself, after scolding others not to do it. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a dog in this fight. I saw the war brewing, decided to put an end to it before it got out of hand again. Then I saw that a WP:NEWSWEEK source was added, so I removed it. This is as far as I'm engaging in this topic again. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do have a dog in this fight, given that you have an (incorrect) view of Newsweek as a source. Korny O'Near (talk)
Based on significant contributions User:GhostOfDanGurney has made to this article in the past, it is difficult to believe this user don't have a dog in this fight, even despite voluntarily disengaging from edits related to the topic of "Let's Go Brandon." Frank Anchor 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is very odd, I believe I remember User:GhostOfDanGurney voluntarily disengaging from edits related to the topic of "Let's Go Brandon." I guess that only works when its convenient for him/her. I will see if this is Ghost's last edit on the topic, but after acting in tandem with another user to impose their collective will on this and related articles despite overwhelming consensus going against them, I am right to have my doubts. it does not appear you don't have a dog in the fight as you claimFrank Anchor 16:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC) (note: slightly modified for clarity F. A. 16:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]
If you're going to tag me (Personal attack removed) in the comment, then yes I will edit here again to tell you then you're wrong and should strike the personal attack. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stating true and obvious facts is the exact opposite of a personal attack. Frank Anchor 16:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely your topic ban request would have gone through if they were so "true and obvious". Go to ANI or strike. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never requested a topic ban of you, I only said that if the topic ban of another user that either you either proposed or supported went through, that the two of you should also receive topic bans for your similar bad-faith behavior. It also appears that we have gone way off-topic of the intent of this discussion (inclusion of a Newsweek reference on Mr. Brown's article), so it is best to agree to disagree and move on before either of us continues to make comments that the other considers un-WP:CIVIL Frank Anchor 16:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content that was recently added is neutral and informative, so I believe it should stay and I am right to revert edits made by a single-purpose account whose edit summaries amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, particularly involving Newsweek, a magazine which has had very occasional facual errors, but is still widely reliable, particularly with no other source refuting it in this case. Frank Anchor 16:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that Korny O'Near decided upon himself to add irrelevant and minor information in his edit when HeroicSSD's version said the same things, but more concisely and without disclosing Brown's affiliations. I disagree that Korny O'Near's version is from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternative Ultimate Dragon (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear - what point of view do you think my edit takes? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to celebrate the party affiliation disclosure. Why other reason did it have to be added? It was a very very minor aspect of the article. Irrelevant. Previous version before you touch it more concise. Alternative Ultimate Dragon (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting - all the more so, now that he's said he plans to speak out on political issues. But you could remove that part if you think giving his party affiliation is a problem - you don't need to revert the whole thing. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I struggle to see what relevance any of this political stuff has to do with a section entitled "NASCAR" to begin with. Alternative Ultimate Dragon (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political activism is a very common topic on wiki pages for celebrities and athletes. While the LGB “movement” certainly is not activism on the part of Mr. Brown, his stated intentions to speak out on political issues are notable. Frank Anchor 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient lead

[edit]

Potential COI: I just recently made the connection that I was a childhood friend of Brandon.

Humblebrag aside, before I realized I knew him, the lead seemed to me not to suffice as a summary of the article. It is clear that Let's Go Brandon makes a reasonable fraction of his notability and has its own section. Omitting it from the lead seems outright misleading. Although it was not his intention to be associated with a political chant, it should at least be mentioned with something like "An interview after his 2021 Sparks 300 win gave rise to the political slogan Let's Go Brandon", maybe with more context. 93 (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC) edited for spelling 15:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I point out the numerous votes from the above RfC which stated that the mention should be less than it is, and that was before people took it upon themselves to ignore it and expand. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it should be lessened perhaps you could argue for the section to be a subsection instead of a main one. But as per MOS:LEADREL, emphasizing content more in the body than in the lede is a discrepancy that should be resolved by at the very least a short sentence to describe something that is covered at length in the body. 93 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Let's Go Brandon" should be added to the intro. For better or worse, it's now the most notable thing about him, and (no offense to your friend's racing abilities) probably will be for a long time. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there was any doubt in October about his increase in popularity and the cause of it (his first victory vs Let's Go Brandon), I think there isn't any now. The popularity of his page ([9]) is directly correlated with Let's Go Brandon page ([10]). Furthermore, his page, as 16th driver this season, has 38704 views during the last three weeks and the page of Daniel Hemric, the champion, has 1799, more than 20 times less and the page of Michael Annett, the 15th driver, has about 500, almost 100 times less. He even beats Kyle Larson, the reigning NASCAR Cup Series champion, by about three times in the terms of pageviews. All that means that 95+% of visitors on this page came because of "Let's Go Brandon". StjepanHR (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, it is clear that the LGB phenomenon is still going strong, and has picked up steam since the RFC took place in November, justifying expansion of content in the body of the article. A 1-2 sentence explanation in the lead explaining he is the Brandon who “inspired” the LGB chants is appropriate to go along with the section in the body Frank Anchor 13:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StjepanHR: What exactly does that have to do with determining whether or not the content is encyclopedic? All the pageviews mean is that the meme happened. That is it, that is all. Nobody in the RfC who argued this bothered to demonstrate the relevance pageviews has to this, either. Perhaps there is a policy I am missing. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, speaking of encyclopedic, I feel I need to point out that on Wikipedia, we have "lead" paragraphs, not "lede" paragraphs (WP:NOTLEDE). Use that info how you please. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a clear an well-written policy on that (MOS:LS): "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." and "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." As much as I would like Mr. Brown to be famous primarily for his own achievements, the fact is that he is most famous and notable for "Let's Go Brandon". In fact, the slogan is currently so popular that omitting the mention on it in the lead might result in readers thinking it is some other Brandon and not the one in question. There was much talk about Let's Go Brandon should be omitted because it happened TO Mr. Brown and not BY Mr. Brown. However, it is a well-established practice to include such things in the lead (as Christmas was recently, Saint Nicholas never gave his name to Santa himself, yet it is in his lead).StjepanHR (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just added a sentence about "Let's Go Brandon" to the intro - hopefully it's short and neutral enough for everyone's tastes. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StjepanHR: Thank you. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of LGBCoin

[edit]

News is still moving fast on the whole topic and I'm sure it'll need to settle down before there's a long term consensus, but I had some thoughts on things to keep an eye on. The big one is the timing of the NYT/Newsweek pieces relative to when the LGBCoin deal was done, and whether those were meant to provide cover for the upcoming announcement of the deal. The coincidence of the use of "Let's Go America" by both Brandon in these articles, and the LGBCoin website (which changed to remove a number of political references around the time the sponsorship deal was announces) could be easily interpreted as a smoking gun. Not a lot of reliable sources making this connection yet (we can't and shouldn't go WP:OR with this), but Nick Bromberg touched on it in this article. As is this note that BMS has retained the services of LEVICK crisis management PR (also worth pointing out, this article quotes Koutoulas as the timing being the opposite direction, reaching back out after the NYT piece). I think there's going to be something worth mentioning about all of this to make the article complete and neutral (which also means not solely written from Brandon's perspective, WP:NOTPR), but I tend to be cautious where WP:BLP is concerned and wanted to solicit some other thoughts to build consensus for what (if anything) is notable and neutral for addition. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what the conspiracy, or at least deception, that you're alleging is? I read the Yahoo! News and USA Today articles you linked to, and I'm still not sure I understand what you're getting at. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, it's a question of the timing and order of things. Did Brandon make a deal with LGBCoin before the NYT/Newsweek pieces were published, or did the deal come together as a result of them? Did LGBCoin remove the references to politics from their website and use the term "Let's Go America" to satisfy Brandon's need to appear apolitical, or was "Let's Go America" pitched by LGBCoin to Brandon to include in his crisis PR campaign? There are unreliable sources that suggest the deal with Brandon was done prior to the NYT piece, plus disagreement whether the formal sponsor approval process was followed or not, and the details of the November meeting and what NASCAR told BMS was actually prohibited (the full phrase only, or the acronym as well). Not alleging anything (I've got my personal opinion on the matter, but I wouldn't suggest it's appropriate for article space by a long shot), just bringing attention to this story having a lot more details that will need to be added once reliable sources cover them. Really, asking if other people have sources on the topic, and getting them here on Talk instead of straight into article space given the clearly contentious nature of everything. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are somewhat interesting questions, but where's the nefarious part? The way you bring up BLP and so forth makes it sound like there's some combination of answers to these questions that would look bad for him. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything was nefarious, only that there are a lot of details the article doesn't yet cover and will deserve neutral coverage. The simplest being, did NASCAR approve the sponsor and reneg on that approval, or did BMS not complete the standard process to gain approval? This diff of mine removing the phrase Brown’s extensive search for a willing sponsor concluded (sourced to the team's own release, not an independent source) is an example of how this all relates to what reliable sources are saying about what actually happened with this sponsor deal. And I know this will all be contentious, hence coming here to gauge consensus (Edit: and gather WP:BESTSOURCES) first. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you implied that something was nefarious (or potentially nefarious) by your use of the terms "provide cover" and "smoking gun", among others. I still don't know that thing is, though. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To back up, yes I do think there could be some combination of these details which would look 'bad' for Brandon (or, another way, look 'bad' for NASCAR). Or at least, a set of details which would contradict his and his team's claims. The 'he said, she said' between the team and NASCAR about whether the sponsor was officially approved before the announcement or not being the simple example, and a detail we don't address at all in the article (in part, pending reliable sourcing). A larger stretch, as stated in the Nick Bromberg article I linked originally would be: Brown is clearly choosing to get political and let the side of his car speak now. And it's now hard to go back and read the Times article with a straight face. It's very unlikely that negotiations for this sponsorship materialized out of nowhere over the holidays in less than two weeks after the article was published. But just as we shouldn't repeat Bromberg's statement at face value, we can't take the team and sponsor's statements at face value either. We will need to address the controversy at some point: why was the sponsor announced and then unapproved? And the better, more reliable sources we have to cite such a description (may not exist yet) the better. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Larry's Hard Lemonade has put out a statement, seeming to announce the end of their relationship with Brandon. Unfortunately, it reads a bit too vague for me to know how we would address it in this section. Might be another thing to watch and wait for better sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brandon_Brown_(racing_driver)&oldid=1223381878"