Talk:Trump dance

Covfefe

I understand I will get the common objection of recientism and if the Trump dance warrants an article, but if Covfefe warrants a page then this should stay. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Controversy

This:

The dance's emergence has sparked mixed reactions on social media and in public discourse. While some view it as a lighthearted homage, others criticize its potential to evoke political connotations in traditionally apolitical settings like sports.

Is there no irony here that we have players refusing to kneel, a clear political statement, but a "light-hearted homage" in the form of a silly dance is controversial? The hypocrisy of people should be the real focus of this article. GMAFB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.96.180 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reputable, reliable objective source of information, "news", or reality, most of all, reality unpalatable to its masonic-like chiefs and editorial cryptocracy. The grassroots Kantian-Jeffersonian "enlightenment of the masses" propaganda could only last so long, and now its main function, is providing, free of charge, perceptual management of the masses to insidious dark intel echelons of the world. Revisionist-maximalist Zionist cyber-brigades, Democratic "progressive" Trotskyists online saboteurs, Republican cultists of MAGA-numen who have learned how to type (good for them), militant task-forces solely dedicated to "the liberating potential" of pedophilia, and other such-like initiatives (destigmatizing necrophilia, and so on, endlessly), whatever; Azov brigade neo-Nazis pretending to be revolutionary freedom-fighters, Mafia banksters (review this platform's "interesting" presentation of Vito Roberto Palazzolo) - if you can think of it, if it exists, and morality and truth are not involved, the platform is ready to serve - Wikipedia is at the service of every particular vehicle and vector of untruth and amorality. For those with ears: why does Wikipedia have 10 gazillion articles on "anti-Semitism" and 100 zillion articles on "vaccination conspiracies" and related topics? "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hmm.

Cognitive dissonance is standard procedure here; the recognition of double-standards, as pointed out above, is not part of the game - as that presupposes self-awareness and controversially, not getting "on board" with pure untruth and amorality: all that matters in these parts is control, where ego is all, ego-tokens are gold (such as the educational certificates of modernity - toilet paper), and the pretention to "lack of bias", is the tabooed elephant in the room. Any person with even a slightly above average IQ realizes this, usually around the first or second edit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4700:4D:AC20:ABA1:D11D:ABF5 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Ain't reading all that. ~2026-10111-9 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Notability

There's no way this is notable... right? Even if so, this is a prime example of WP:NTRUMP. E_F⁵ 03:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sixteen exceptionally solid sources say it's notable. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

At least four of which are of questionable reliability. This couldn't just be a subsection of Donald Trump? — E_F⁵ 12:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Leaving coverage of the dance to the Trump article would require it be significantly pruned. Which I am guessing you would be in support of; I would not. I think it clears the due weight and notability bars as it stands just fine. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)