Jump to content

Talk:Covfefe

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Covfefe user (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 14 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

WikiProject iconInternet Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics
Page views for this article over the last 30 days

Detailed traffic statistics

Suggestion

I suggest that covfefe be read "carry on valiantly; flaunt every fair evaluation." Thus, in context, "Despite the constant negative press carry on valiantly; flaunt every fair evaluation." TheDean (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like "F@#% every-f@#%ing everybody". But I also can't think of any V words. Maybe Big Bird can. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

I suggest cov fe'fe be read: "I will stand up; stand firm" Thus, in context it will be clear, "Despite the constant negative press, I will stand up; stand firm." This is in accordance to translation of Arabic to English in Google Translate with the spelling cov fe'fe. Sharon Akins

I'd like to also go with the Arabic interpretation, but I would rather suggest, "In spite of the negative press, I shall rise (and crush fake news)!" --79.242.203.134 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Talk:Covfefe incident

Please consider merging Talk:Covfefe incident into this talk page. The current article was moved from Covfefe incident earlier today. — Peterwhy 18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does Chris Cillizza mean anything?

In the bigger picture, I mean. He's taking up a relatively huge chunk here. If he's very important, that's understandable. If he isn't, it's not. Seems especially weird literally hovering over the undeniably crucial Ric Flair. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

Trumpism

See also Trumpism.--Heyhowareyoudoing (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not this. This is a single thing, like a Bushism or malapropism, not an abstract somethingness like Trumpism or the rest. You can't just take half of Bushism and slap a Trump on it. At least you couldn't in the good old days. Lately, of course, nothing means nothing. I think you'll still have to defeat the old definition of Trumpism before you make a new one, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

"iPhone" Is Incorrect

I don't have a source handy, but it's been widely reported that Trump uses an older Android of some sort. 71.217.53.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny and new. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, May 31, 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017

Please add the IPA pronunciation of "covfefe." /kəːv.fə'feɪ/ Quantumapoptosi (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Holy Goo (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material

An editor deleted this:

Los Angeles Times columnist Matt Pearce wrote, "Covfefe had become one of those exhausting cultural events that, from time to time, inspires a collective response so that we feel in contact with each other, or at least do not feel left out."[1] Barton Swaim opined in The Washington Post that the nation's fascination with "covfefe" showed that it must not be truly imperiled, or it would not have time for such jesting.[2]

On the grounds that the people are not notable. They aren't bluelinked so maybe so, but the papers are notable and they're speaking in the voice of the paper and I think that's the basis for including the material. If it would help we could say "A Los Angeles Times columnist" instead, I guess.

Restored the material, inviting the editor or anyone else to comment. Herostratus (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the papers, they're just people. People without articles and without any apparent expertise in linguistics or Trump. If you suspend disbelief, maybe you can read Pearce's opinion piece in the paper's voice, but Swaim doesn't even try to pretend. Repeatedly refers to himself and his family, laughing over a breakfast table. Says "I offer three interpretations", yet Wikipedia cherrypicks one, for no discernible reason.
Non-notable people can matter if their expert views are covered by an independent paper. The guy from Merriam-Webster is a good (but quiet) example. But every outlet pays its own columnists to fill its own space. Recycling that makes us more of an affiliate than an encylopedia, particularly when these nobodies are discussing something they admittedly don't understand, but found funny. If that's where we're setting the bar, everyone is qualified, so long as they heard about the tweet and think anything about Trump. This article is already stupid, but there has to be a limit somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
Is there some reason you restored these two and not Dara Lind? Assuming it's the papers talking, isn't Callum Borchers (great name) already represented by Barton Swaim, via The Washington Post? If so, screw him. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
Well 1) Vox, while big, is nearly as famous and read as the Times and the Post I don't think, and 2) Lind's piece was quite polemical, and the Times and Post pieces not so much.
They're not just people. If the LA Times chooses to pay you to write a piece and prints it, that means something. I agree that we wouldn't quote from Matt Pearce's personal blog (as we would from Paul Krugman's or some other bluelinked pundit). But that fact that a piece appears in the Times (circulation 650,000) automatically makes it important, part of the national discussion. If for some reason you think it would better to not include the name of the person and just say "A columnist for the LA Times wrote..." without identifying the person, that's fine. I don't see that gain, but there's little loss, and then you don't have to worry about the particular person writing not, by himself, being notable, if that bothers you. Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution doesn't bother me. If we're going to host the verbatim views of non-notable people without specialist knowledge, it's better to say which people. Matt Pearce isn't even counted as a columnist, instead as a reporter. In that capacity, I don't think we have any business relaying his personal opinion on any topic, just the straight facts he's paid to report.
On the other hand, the news world has changed drastically in the last decade and the lines between fact and opinion have blurred substantially. Maybe I've just become a dinosaur, as far as covfefe goes, getting in the way and doing it wrong. Maybe it's finally time to lumber off the road to tomorrow and just graze on ferns till the meteor comes. The future is yours, Herostratus! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, June 3, 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pearce, Matt (May 31, 2017). "'Covfefe' shows how we are all wasting our finite lives". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 31, 2017.
  2. ^ Swaim, Barton (May 31, 2017). "If we're laughing at 'covfefe,' things must not be so bad after all". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 31, 2017.

Trump may be viewing this article

Should we make extra considerations that Trump may be viewing this article? I was thinking that since this encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral, probably not. He may even be view this talk page, and this post. In that case if you are reading this, hey! Reply back please, thank you!--Covfefe user (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Hey, you're welcome. :v -- Donald Trump 23:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think if he's reading this, you ought better write something like stating your eternal loyalty and belief in him, and beg him not to have you arrested and tortured for your puny mocking of the Rightful and Supreme Overlord of North America. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my main point is that if evidence is provided that Trump himself read the Wikipedia article should that be included in the article?--Covfefe user (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that matter? It's never brought up in any other articles of contemporary public figures even though it's a reasonable supposition. Also reporting on people's reaction to Wiki articles may be too meta: I don't know if it's against any actual site policy but it definitely feels against the spirit of this encyclopaedia. (wouldn't that count as original research anyway?) DAud IcI (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard Stone Cold Steve Austin read things I wrote on Wikipedia, word-for-word, on his podcast. It's a neat feeling, but that's about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, June 1, 2017 (UTC)

If Trump tweets about this Wikipedia article or something associated, should that be included in the article?--Covfefe user (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible meaning

Covfefe is Arabic for "I will stand up" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.247.218 (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So many possible meanings have been claimed in foreign languages, such as Yiddish, German, and Russian to name a few.--Covfefe user (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, would you care to also add (sourced) rationales as to the possible Yiddish, German, and Russian meanings? --79.242.203.134 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's from a faulty google translate translation. Peapod21 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

Page views of the Wikipedia article should be included as part of a larger section on it's popularity. Kina like the Death of Micheal Jackson. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Covfefe --Covfefe user (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but note that that article is not indexed (is tagged with__NOINDEX__) because it is at AfD. This prevents Google from showing the article high in its search results, I think. Herostratus (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopaedia. This is too trivial to be included anywhere on WP – that is not to say that it isn't news worthy, and therefore worth brief attention by the news media. Rwood128 (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to make your views known at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe incident in that case.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alone, it is perhaps too trivial, unless our culture causes this to explode into something much larger than just another mistake by a widely disliked president. Ultimately, however, I believe it at least belongs with a list of his tweets, particularly since it was deleted and inclusion here preserves the historic record. Since it is relatively new in the gestalt, development outside of other influences is preferred until it reaches maturity. It can always be moved later.108.16.53.203 (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been mentioned by a media organization

This article has been mentioned by a media organization, although it was not English language, although I am not sure that matters. Is that enough to keep this article from being deleted? --Covfefe user (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Covfefe user (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Covfefe user: No: one news article about this WP page is not, on its own, enough to stop this being deleted. You may wish to note this on the deletion discussion, but I doubt it will change many people's minds about the outcome - whatever that outcome is. It could be used to prove notability, but it doesn't seem (to me) like notability is the main issue about whether this should be deleted or not. (PS, I should probably say that I was the one who added the {{press}} template to the top of this page)  Seagull123  Φ  00:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Why delete? There is enough content and helpful to have info on incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.54.191 (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please keep the article. Recently, everybody started making jokes about covfefe and I didn't understand what they meant. I was desperate. As usually, in desperation, I turned to Wikipedia and alas, now I understand everything. I think Wikipedia should remain this reliable source of information for people who need them. No to deletionism! Deletionists, you deprive people of information! --217.155.37.242 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people shitting me?

Is everyone apparently trying to build an encyclopedic article out of this nonsense doing it ironically? Does anyone seriously think there are questions to be answered, or a topic to be covered here? The guy fat-fingered "coverage", had a case of premature tweetation (far from unprecedented), forgot about it, and went to bed. The chain of events is pretty obvious and wouldn't be at all remarkable if it hadn't gone memetic, and even then, it's not like Wikipedia has a corresponding article for everything politics-related on KnowYourMeme. This deserves at best a small section in Donald Trump on social media, which it already has. So, given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe incident is showing some reasonably strong consensus to delete or merge, I'm going to WP:BB and redirect this to Donald Trump on social media#Covfefe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcombs (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017

cf. Enallage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enallage also, Figures of Speech: 60 Ways To Turn A Phrase, Arthur Quinn (1982/2010) 50.52.118.126 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  00:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Use of "tweet"

"Tweet" should be replaced with "message". This is Wikipedia and not some Twitter fan page. Best regards, IP 92.231.219.195 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the dictionary, so I don't see a problem with it. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We begin bombing in five minutes

Numerous sources compared this to: We begin bombing in five minutes, by Ronald Reagan. See: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual meaning of the word COVFEFE

Dianne Marshall, an amateur historian, bible scholar, and author went digging and found that it is actually an Antediluvian term. It means, “In the end we win.” According to Marshall, it was commonly used by the sons of Adam as they fought against the evil and fallen men.

The word is pronounced: Covfefe’ (pronounced “cuv – fee- fae”)

Marshall Report says:

The term gained popularity prior to the great deluge and was rarely used after the flood subsided. It regained favor around the time Nimrod was building his tower, after which it was entirely lost in translation at Babel.[1]

Barron Gonsalves posted to Facebook, and explained it well. He said:

“Now, here is what is going on. If you study the bible you see how God has made fools of His enemies throughout various accounts of biblical history! Our wisdom is no match for God’s and those who know Him tap into His wisdom. The tweet Donald Trump did was a trap for liberal media and they fell right in it. President Trump tweeted a biblical code to describe how the media was going to loose then he deleted it. By deleting it the tweet it looked like a mistake! Had he left it up eventually it would of been discovered what the word meant and the liberal media would of not been the victims of the trap. The appearance of an error is what the lure was. Now, that they have taken the bait and gone off on how this is a mistake and it shows he may be loosing it as the narrative was by some like CNN it will totally backfire on them. The truth of what the president said will come to the surface revealing two things. One the president is much more spiritually connected than many may have realized. Two, he is far more intellectually deeper than liberal media has tried to paint him to be. He tweeted that in the early morning. It is a very well known fact among many believes that God does indeed speak to His people in the early hours. The tweet again reads despite the dishonest press Covfefe. In other words God will win in the end. Part of God’s plan is to lure the liberal media in to expose how deceitful they are and show the American people their arrogance. This is one of many traps they have fallen into and will continue to do so. They are loosing credibility each time. To God be the glory Covfefe!” [2] Dwgibson2000 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Dwgibson[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/cuvfefe-mystery-solved/
  2. ^ <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fbgonsal%2Fposts%2F1552443664791726&width=500" width="500" height="294" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

Edit war about blanking

Can we not? The policy isn't 100% clear on this because it wasn't deleted per se. Might be better to let the IPs have their way on this one, then discuss the policy at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review. —Guanaco 08:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect

Can a soft redirect be added to this page until the deletion review matter is resolved? As of now, there is no clear way to get to Donald Trump on social media from here, and the AfD had closed to merge content there. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done —CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Focus redirect please

If the soft redirect could go directly to the merged section: Donald Trump on social media#"Covfefe" (yes the quote marks are in the section title for some reason), thanks. Herostratus (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Covfefe&oldid=785616866"