Talk:Covfefe/Archive 1

Merge Talk:Covfefe incident
Please consider merging Talk:Covfefe incident into this talk page. The current article was moved from Covfefe incident earlier today. &mdash; Peter why  18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

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, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Trumpism
See also Trumpism.--Heyhowareyoudoing (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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, 31 May 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (t) Josve05a  (c) 23:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Holy Goo (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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


 * 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)

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)
 * 28K views on May 31 is nothing that amazing.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * Padlock-silver-open.svg 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)

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)

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)

Deletion of material
An editor deleted this:

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)


 * 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, 1 June 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, 1 June 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)
 * 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, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Source

 * http://www.advocate.com/comedy/2017/6/03/randy-rainbow-sings-epic-musical-medley-covfefe --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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, 31 May 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No, that's from a faulty google translate translation. Peapod21 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

We begin bombing in five minutes
Numerous sources compared this to: We begin bombing in five minutes, by Ronald Reagan. See:. Sagecandor (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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, 1 June 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)

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)
 * It's in the dictionary, so I don't see a problem with it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Focus redirect please
If the soft redirect could go directly to the merged section: Donald Trump on social media (yes the quote marks are in the section title for some reason), thanks. Herostratus (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 23:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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.

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!” Dwgibson2000 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Dwgibson

Covfefe = "I Will Stand Up" in Arabic
According to this article: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/unreal-google-buried-true-meaning-of-covfefe-i-will-stand-up-once-president-trump-tweeted-it/ Either this article has deceptive agendas or Wikipedia's well known biases completely obscuring the truth on this matter. ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   19:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It probably can't be proven, but I still think "Covfefe" is his and Putin's safe word when it came to having the hookers whiz on him in that Moscow hotel room.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean [User:TheKurgan] "It probably can't be proven"? Either cov fe'fe means "I stand up" in Arabic or it doesn't. Accounts I read said that Google Translate translated it as such until this situation arose. Either it doesn't mean that, or you get a "Disgraceful Wikipedia Censorship Badge". I am sick of this in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.202.184 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Other Theories
I added a statement on the Arabic meaning of cov fe'fe. This seemed at least as pertinent as other stated explanations. And semantically it makes perfect sense. There seems to be no valid reason to disclude this interpretation. I noted, to be fair, that Google Translate currently contests this Arabic definition (although apparently no-one else does). Update: my addition was removed within 24 hours. Either justify this, or admit that Wikipedia is an Orwellian organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.203.179 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Negative, IP. Please do not add unsourced content or your own original research — that is not allowed. El_C 01:54, 12 April 2020 (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)
 * Shiny and new. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

He did use a Samsung galaxy S6 android phone as a private citizen, and was annoyed when he had to change to Apple. But all presidents now have to use IPhone. They’re considered more secure. And Apple are also an American brand, so less of a national security threat.

2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:C9F7:9C5C:F0F0:5803 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcombs (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. A real encyclopedia like Britannica doesn't go down to this silly level of trivia. It doesn't have entries on auto-correct glitches/misspellings of people in the public domain. Does WP have an entry of every misspelling/auto-correct goof of every famous person out there? I suspect not.

Dictionaries don't have these either. Or rather, serious ones don't anyway. The OED lost all credibility when they started to include 'words of the year' such as 'bootylicious'. Wikipedia lost all credibility a long time ago, when anyone can edit one, continually- you end up with trivial things like this. Stick to printed encyclopedias or Britannica .com. WP is just a pretender. Delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.147.17 (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hands
Donald trumps hands are small. he tried to type coverage, but his hands are too small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannybai (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Outdated link
Please add this archive link as the citation for Shashi Tharoor’s gaffe in the 5th para under “in language and politics” sub section. (Reference no. 41)

https://web.archive.org/web/20171116021048/https://www.india.com/buzz/shashi-tharoor-commits-a-typo-in-his-tweet-and-the-twitterati-was-quick-to-crack-jokes-at-his-expense-2632289/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.57.198 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2020
change the second paragraph in the "Covfefe" tweet and public response section to nothing, because it is redundant. ATandem (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Jack Frost (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Archived tweets
With the banning of President Trump's twitter account, this and many other articles around wikipedia are going to need links to his tweets updated with links to archived versions of his tweets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.195.241.202 (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Change of wording
Under "tweet and public response" there is a sentence that says:

implied later that day that the tweet was not a typo but rather intentional

(Sean Spicer)

So the source is there, but this is wrong: Sean didn't imply it was intentional, he implied Trump knew what he meant. Now, if you then infer or assume anything further, it is not factual. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Easily fixed. I’ve added a cited source which explicitly says: “White House press secretary Sean Spicer suggested the typo was intentional, telling reporters, ‘A small group of people know exactly what he meant.’“ Problem solved. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I am definitely nitpicking. So Sean did not imply, he suggested intent. Sandrazhoureal (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the exact phrasing from sources is generally deprecated. See WP:CLOP. I think “implied” works fine and avoids that problem. DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, but I'm not convinced yet, because this doesn't seem like copyright infringement, and maybe a third opinion is merited? Sandrazhoureal (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can be bothered. It’s trivial - but it’s not copyright infringement. DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

why does this page need to exist
how is this significant in any way Imagine offline (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * reading this might give you a clue. DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Source for this being a misspelling?
Isn't covfefe being a "misspelling" just an assertion or assumption? "The tweet itself was erased, but he jumped on the bandwagon by adding a challenge in a follow-up tweet: “Who can figure out the true meaning of covfefe??? Enjoy!”" That's evidence for it being on purpose moreso than a "misspelling." For it to be a "misspelling" that would mean you knew he was trying to spell something else. And afaik saying "he's just trolling" would just be more assumption and speculation. . 71.74.225.60 (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia follows the sources, which attribute this to being a misspelling. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)