Talk:You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?

Lmaoooooo

nah I don't have any actual comments or suggestions on the content of the article itself but damn it, just seeing this written out as its own Wikipedia article is friggin' hilarious 💀 truly amazing stuff guys keep it up CitizenKang414 (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! This article might seem a little silly but if you read some of the other political quotes entries you'll see that it actually exists in the context of all in which it lives and what came before it. XO — Spaghettifier (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Overzealous reversion

regarding reversion in [1] by Chaotic Enby being characterized as wholly unconstructive is itself effectively un-constructive, amounts to punitive response to attempt to WP:BOLD, or at least ignoring WP:FAITH

To copy over from my talk page section on the matter

I strongly disagree with a full reversion; your objection seems in my view to apply fairly exclusively to this passage of my edit:

posing a facetious rhetorical question (erotesis) to the listener in which the suggestion of an absurd overall etiology acts as holonym to dismiss the credibility of a self-concept which downplays or disregards actual communal, familial, & cultural etiology and interdependence.

I would call this more plain clarifying description than original research, but I think reasonable minds can differ about that --- I however feel that my revision to the lede (as well as the re-structuring of the section containing the potentially-OR passage) was a meaningful improvement/constructive (if open to some re-wording/copyediting) and as well sourced as what it was replacing (a point that follows somewhat by how it contained a net +2 of references) Donald Guy (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to kick off a wheel war, and I certainly admit that my writing was not perfect/final, but I still believe it was in several parts an improvement Donald Guy (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I had in mind the "revert" part of the bold/revert/discuss cycle, and I'm happy you brought up the discuss part! Feel free to remove the warning on your talk page, it wasn't intended to be punitive or anything. I fully understand your edit was in good faith, there's no worries to be had about this.

Nonetheless, a large part of the addition was unsourced. It introduced a whole meaning section which, while it may look to some people as self-evident, is still clearly the level of analysis for which secondary sources are required.

Regarding the lede, the restructuring, while interesting, is in my opinion not an improvement either. The aim of the lede is to summarize the key points of the article, which isn't helped by going into asides like (and as uncited quotation of, or indirect reference to (e.g. "🥥🌴") or defining terms like metonymic of [expressing support for the candidacy of] in the first sentence. (By the way, I don't think that's the definition of metonymy). The previous lede incorporated both the nature and context of the article in the first paragraph, which your version fails to do. The edit also removed from the body part of the information summarized in the lede, which again isn't ideal, as the lede should summarize the body rather than add information of its own. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

its poorly formulated and probably needed copyediting, but to be clear the "[expressing support for the candidacy of]" was not meant to be a definition, and if it was would be a bad one

I rather did a bad job trying to add in that sub-qualified addition at the last second; I was trying to include the points that:

1. people are using not-further-explained references to coconuts or coconut trees or a longer version of the phrase as a way to invoke the person of Kamala Harris without also naming her, and thereby it is acting as a metonym

2. people are also separately using such reference and/or especially the emoji string by itself as an indicator of support for her candidacy, such as as embeded in the NPR article which I added (now twice) as a reference, they include a tweet from Jared Polis within minutes of Biden's endorsement that is in its entirety "🥥🌴🇺🇸"

that (and there are other examples but I don't have any super handy) seems notable for inclusion.

I think its fair to not be satisfied with how I achieved including it. Donald Guy (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

> 1. people are using not-further-explained references to coconuts or coconut trees or a longer version of the phrase as a way to invoke the person of Kamala Harris without also naming her, and thereby it is acting as a metonym

Like _this_ is OR: but I have honestly seen more people on various social media sites say things like "I am fully coconut-pilled" than actually mention Harris by name. Donald Guy (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's currently back in the article supporting "several times" basically, but yeah

NPR article: https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

Polis tweet itself: https://x.com/jaredpolis/status/1815086635161424301 Donald Guy (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeing people on social media sites and drawing conclusions from it is very much WP:OR. I'll add again that the lede is supposed to reflect the body, so, if any sources explicitly describe the usage as metonymic (rather than as an emblem), it should be added in the body of the article first. NPR, while describing it as an emblem, doesn't go for the metonymy angle (indeed, the "part for the whole" aspect isn't present in that particular symbolism), and tweets themselves are obviously not WP:RS for drawing inferences about their deeper meaning.
We need reliable secondary sources clearly describing it as metonymic if we want to add it in the lede. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Justifying partial un-revert

as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_think_you_just_fell_out_of_a_coconut_tree%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1236383529

1. I'm not married to my lede, but

"The question "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?" was raised by United States Vice President Kamala Harris during remarks delivered at a May 2023 White House ceremony."

- departs from MOS on the prefixing, I belive - does not quickly establish reason for notability - I think quotation of a rhetorical question attested to another person is INACCURATELY described by stating that the question was raised (which would imply "for serious consideration" by someone)

2. There may be some room for discourse on what is and is not a "White House ceremony" (and probably something that could be but isn't there cited used that phrase), but in point of fact the Eisenhower Executive Office Building is part of the White House compound but, it is not part of the White House and the event in question did not take place inside the white house

3. One can disagree about if it goes here or somewhere else but the fact that this quote rose to any popular notability as a result of RNC propoganda use (<- less NPOV than phrasing used in the article) is a relevant fact that should be included somewhere in the article. The link to that video with the upload date of the speech is clear evidence that happened (which now I'll I'm actually saying in the article), but the way the clip was immediately used in May 2023 to call Harris drunk, incoherent or crazy seems like it also bears mention

it was not first of interest to anyone on the internet in early 2024. Donald Guy (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

4. While it is indisputably a phrase notable because of quotation by Harris, the fact that it is a quotation of Shyamala Gopalan seems worthy of more prominent mention that the previous version

she is a notable figure in her own right, is the attested originator of the words,

and also I think understanding them (if one is inclined to follow through on this link) as potentially informed by her outlook as a research scientist (even where she was here talking as a mother) should be facilitated whereas it colors potential interpretation of the meaning (about which the article says nothing) and may be relevant to why Harris used them in the context of this particular event Donald Guy (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, your latest edit isn't really an improvement with regards to the lede. Describing it as an idomatic memetic catchphrase associated with and presently used metonymically to represent support is pretty jargon-dense for the first sentence of an article that is essentially still a popular culture phenomenon, and thus targeting at people not necessarily experts in the jargon you are using.

Honestly, it feels similar (but to a much letter extent) to your previous description of posing a facetious rhetorical question (erotesis) to the listener in which the suggestion of an absurd overall etiology acts as holonym to dismiss the credibility of a self-concept which downplays or disregards actual communal, familial, & cultural etiology and interdependence – too much rhetorics jargon, which ends up making the sentence struggle to convey actual information to the non-specialist reader.

Regarding your third bullet point, an upload date of a video isn't enough to assert that the phrase rose to popularity primarily due to RNC use. That connection should have been made in reliable sources to be discussed in the body (WP:DUE), and should be consensus among reliable sources to be asserted as fact in the lede. The sources you quote for this are the YouTube video itself and WP:KNOWYOURMEME, a user-generated website. Neither is considered a reliable source.

If you want to get consensus to improve the lede, after being reverted once, it is more collegial to discuss your proposed edits rather than to make similar changes directly again, as that could be interpreted as edit warring by some users. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean I have spent more than 5 hours trying to improve this article now and getting stone-walled, and in doing so failed to go to sleep before the sun rose here

so I have no patience for trying to wheel it, and if you don't like my take fine

but like (I'm not gonna nominate it right now) but my feeling is that:

"The question "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?" was raised by United States Vice President Kamala Harris during remarks delivered at a May 2023"

is _such_ a bad lede, that if its gonna end up staying that way much longer, this article should go to WP:AfD (as non-notable); maybe there should just be a wikisource of the speech in full

---

I am trying to AGF, I'm sure you want the article to be good also and not in fact (just) to make me feel bad, but I do - I put relatively a lot of effort in and now feel ~burntout with the whole thing and wish I'd never tried in the first place.

This has been an altogether negative experience that will likely discourage me from attempting to contribute (any) article text (to any article) again any time soon. Donald Guy (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies if that was a bad experience for you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it is best to discuss and workshop proposed edits with other editors, especially on an active page, instead of working for five hours on an edit before suddenly adding it. I genuinely hope this doesn't discourage you from editing, and, to the contrary, encourages you to discuss and share your ideas with other editors.

Regarding AfD, we have to remember that Wikipedia:AfD is not cleanup, and having "the wrong version" of the lede doesn't mean the article should be deleted. If anything, I don't object to rewording that specific phrase, although again we should discuss what to replace it with, rather than make unilateral changes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

On a tangential note (as I'm cleaning up tabs left open from the other day), it is odd/unfortunate that whereas I totally did do a search for Know Your Meme in the Wikipedia namespace, that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (and the redirects to the row of the table) didn't come up anywhere on the first 100+ results

As someone who was/maybe-is-now-that-I'm-less-exhausted-and-frustrated trying to gradually get more active as an editor, doing that search was my effort to try to establish if their was consensus on the reliability as a source before citing it, and then I erroneously concluded there was none

In retrospect I should have just gone to that page and looked for it there

Soooo ... I guess I'm a little just thinking out loud, and I guess I'd ask:

1. @Chaotic Enby: what would you have done if you had a similar question about a citation's quality? is there a good quick checker on such? (or at least a handy short-url to get to that page? or do I just gotta bookmark it)

2. is there a good place I could propose some methods to improve this discoverability? Either as a matter of search ranking weight or something fancier (like some feedback on existing consensus based on url domain as one adds a ref in the editor?) ; Ultimately it would flow up to MediaWiki upstream (phabricator?) probs, but it seems Wikipedia-specific enough that there would probably be a better place to discuss before going there? Donald Guy (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries! To answer your questions:

1. The page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has a search function that looks in the noticeboard's archives for previous discussion of the source, that is my go-to option as RSP only has the most commonly used sources.
2. Wikipedia:Village pump is probably the best place to suggest and discuss new improvements! In your case I would say either Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would be the best fit! (The first subpage is to workshop new ideas, while the second one is more technical-focused)

Good luck on your endeavor, I fully agree that it would be great to have this kind of stuff be easier (and more intuitive) to find. If you want, there are also a few citation highlighter scripts that automatically color references based on their consensus reliability. I personally use CiteHighlighter, CiteUnseen and Unreliable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Some discussion of meaning/intent should be included earlier

I did a bad job with my effort, apparently

but if people are coming to this article, they are probably motivated by having encountered the phrase and not understanding what it was talking about (I myself was stymied on Sunday by lack of good accesible info on the matter and have ended up reading it a few extremely different ways at different points)

I thought trying to break it down into parts with links to other relevant articles on the rhetorical devices and such was as objective as possible, and didn't consititute OR

but also I do believe VP Harris has fielded some questions about it in interviews sense, so either her or a credible surrogate probably has given a quotable or citeable explanation in some source somewhere

I'm too tired to look for it; I need to go to bed.

but I'd heartily encourage someone to do something to make the article more ~ergonomically useful to readers. Donald Guy (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to make comparison to other idioms / quotations / proverbs with a longer history of circulation? Perhaps no man is an island? Donald Guy (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It might also be reasonable to establish explicitly that (supportive) usage is not generally linked to the racializing pejorative - which is a common enough misconception that I bet it has been explicitly addressed in some reliable source's coverage (if/when I find such cite-able source, I will add it here later) Donald Guy (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kimikel talk 01:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Kamala Harris asks "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?" at a May 2023 White House event.

• ... that you exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you?

• Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-19588907.php

• ALT1: ... that the KHive is coconut-pilled? Source: https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick Gottsch
• Comment: not sure if the video would work here but it might be fun! ;,)

Created by Spaghettifier (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Spaghettifier (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC).

• Will take this up for review. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• All right. The article is both new enough (having been created just a few days ago) and long enough; more than 5.000 characters.
• The sources all are reliable and from mostly high-quality periodicals.
• A video is used within the hook, but it is in the public domain, having been created by the White House of America.
• Both hooks are properly cited, with sources that correspond to their location in the article.

Now to my "issues".

• From what I see, QPQ still needs to be done.
• For the hooks themselves, both of them could work. Admittedly, both are somewhat on the humorous side, but I guess that's the point. To hook the reader onto the article. The main hook especially is quite funny (subjective view) and takes advantage of the "Did you know that [XX]" portion of the DYK nominations. However, the second hook also brings up the word "coconut", which has become a meme of its own. Regarding this I'm curious, @Spaghettifier:, I don't suppose you have another hook in mind that uses the word "coconut tree" in it? Maybe "that Kamala Harris' mother asked her if she "just fell out of a coconut tree"?" or akin to that? PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PanagiotisZois: thank you for the review! The QPQ is complete here. With regard to the hook, I'd prefer to make ALT0 work if possible — it's lighthearted but pretty widely recognizable at this point, and an iconic part of the article. If we need to go with something more straightforward/coconut-centric, another idea might be using this LA Times quote from the reception section:

ALT2: ... that Kamala Harris is "fully coconut"?

Cheers — Spaghettifier (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, ALT3: ... whether you just fell out of a coconut tree?
Spaghettifier (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Spaghettifier: I'm crying. XD ALT #3 is great. Honestly, I do think both this one and the main hook are about equally good, so I'll leave the final decision up to you. With the GPQ done, this is all that remains.PanagiotisZois (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Although one suggestion I do have is that for ALT3, it might be best to just omit the word "whether" altogether. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe save this for an April Fool's hook? Bremps... 16:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I will say I think this is gonna get more pageviews if it goes up before the election. I'm still gonna vote ALT0 or ALT3, up to whoever promotes. Spaghettifier (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Waiting until next year is overkill. I will go with ALT3. It's catchy, and also includes much of the article's pagename within it. My only question is @Spaghettifier: if you wish to have it remain as is or remove "whether" from it; so that it will read as "Did you know... you just fell out of a coconut tree?".PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the 'whether' because it a) messes with the form a little bit and b) doesn't automatically accuse the reader of having fallen out a coconut tree. Spaghettifier (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

All right then. ALT3 is approved as is .--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• ALT3 was pulled from Queue by BD2412 per a discussion at WT:DYK, so this will need a new hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that I have struck ALT2. "Coconut" is a slur meaning "brown on the outside, white on the inside", and without the specialist knowledge that it is a quote (which should be attributed anyway), some will interpret it as racist. See also List of ethnic slurs and Banana, coconut, and Twinkie.--Launchballer 20:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That's super fair. Did anyone have any objections to the original ALT1? Still works for me. Spaghettifier (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as a Brit, I think it speaks to people who know what the KHive is. I have no objection personally to ALT0, so long as quote marks are added. (There's an argument that says hooks should avoid addressing the reader as "you", which is more than a bit silly given that all hooks begin "did you know"!)--Launchballer 09:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think this is different than the typical poorly-defined second person sentence, but quotation marks are fine with me. Either way works. Spaghettifier (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I really am sorry to flip-flop on this @Spaghettifier:. Now I think about it, a hook containing nothing other than a quote would violate the spirit of WP:DYKFICTION, as she could in theory say anything. What else do you have?--Launchballer 14:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Hmmm...... could alter ALT1 to be more universally comprehensible, or go with something totally different, i.e.:
* ALT4: ... that fans of Kamala Harris are coconut-pilled?
* ALT5: ... that the coconut tree meme drove D.C.-area sales of piña coladas?
Spaghettifier (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I could AGF approve ALT5, however ALT4 says "fans of Kamala Harris" and the article and source say "Democratic operatives" and I'm not convinced they're the same thing.--Launchballer 17:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is a source referencing online supporters' coconut-pilledness (now included in the article); here is the source for ALT5. Spaghettifier (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I know what the source for ALT5 is; it's paywalled, so I can't access it. ALT4 now corresponds with the source, but not with the article. (If it's to mention the KHive, then the previous sentence needs an end-of-sentence citation.)--Launchballer 17:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the sentence "The term "coconut-pilled", parodying the redpilled men's rights phenomenon, indicated support for a Harris candidacy among Democratic operatives and voters," which uses the Week citation, adequately covers ALT4, no? (Here is an archived version of the citation for ALT5.) Spaghettifier (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it does. The hook says "fans of Kamala Harris" and the article says "Democratic operatives and voters", which are not the same thing. (I just had an election in my country and I know a lot of people who don't much care for Keir Starmer but do care about getting the Tories out, and surely there are Labour Party employees who would rather they were still working for Jeremy Corbyn.) I am happy to approve ALT5.--Launchballer 06:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Spaghettifier (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding tick to satisfy the bot.--Launchballer 07:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Improvement to lede: phrasing and emphasis of subject/notability

I continue to feel strongly that the current lede is poor in a few important ways, and would love to know if I'm alone on this (in which case fine), or not.

My concerns are thus:

1. I think that "the question ... was raised" is meaningfully incorrect/misleading when applied to a rhetorical question and one that functions as something of a sarcastic wikt:erotesis (having an obvious answer of "no" to the extent it has any answer) - whereas to me, and for example, wikt:raise Etymology 1 sense (2)(5), there is a strong denotation of starting a discussion (towards the end of answering the question, whereas here that is the opposite of the situation)

2. I would go one further to say that characterizing it (primarily) as a question (rather than a catchphrase, meme, (basis for) snowclone; or saying, (neo)proverb, slogan, etc.) misattributes and fails to convey the actual nature of the subject of the article (and its notability justifying the article's existence),

   which lies very much not in having been said the first time (or rather the first time by Harris rather than her mother), but in having subsequently been repeated and used in variations (such as the adoption of the emoji 🥥🌴 as a signifier of support for Harris's candidacy similar to use of MAGA for Trump's, or the incidental use of e.g. Ukrainian and Palestinian flags)




3. (a distant 3rd level concern) I know this is pedantry, and there is certainly a basis to use the phrase "White House ____" to refer to broadly things done by WH staff / the core parts of the US Federal Executive regardless of location, and that here "on the white house grounds" makes it even more applicable,

   but nevertheless, it is my opinion that as used here the phrase "in a White House ceremony" conveys/reinforces the potential-assumption that the speech was delivered _in_ the White House, when in fact it was in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Does that matter? idk. but I think WP should err on the side of precision of facts.

Donald Guy (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

cf. that the lede of We did it, Joe! characterizes it as a viral video, which might reasonably apply here (though its not how I would lean), rather than "an exclamation, interjection", etc. Donald Guy (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead should say who she said it to (if known) and what it means. After reading this rather silly article, I'm not sure of either. Wastrel Way (talk)Eric

Contemporary (May 2023) usage as a Harris-disparaging meme

I also still feel that this bares mention in the article, as its status as a ~reclaimed meme seems notable (as well as the fact that it lengthens the timeline/history in a way currently omitted)

This does probably need better sourcing, since the know your meme page is considered inadequate

I would highlight the clear veracity of its claim, however, given both:

1. its inclusion of primary source examples (on Twitter/X) (as well as the fact of the existence of the youtube video posted by the RNC Rapid Response (propoganda) team excerpting that section of the speech ~about an hour after it took place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JWR29RT5sw )
2. that the KYM page was written/last updated 5 months ago (12 February), which essentially proceeds the period of popularity currently suggested by the article (in the NPR article I cited, the authors suggest a first wave of pro-Harris usage around that time)

---

I am mostly happy to spend some time looking for better sourced coverage of that era of the meme's life , but not if there is going to be consensus that it isn't worth inclusion in the article. so... thoughts, anyone? Donald Guy (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably not an ideal source either for easiest accessibility/verifiability, and not one about which reliability has an established consensus [no discussion surfaced, but one I did just encounter by accident:

"What I love about it is that it's kind of what happens to Democrats with Trump, where we, like, think we're dunking on him by posting these videos of him (Tommy Vietor: 'right.'), and the videos are actually like why they love him. Like, (Vietor, crosstalking: 'The RNC surfaced that video… the coconut tree video') The RNC, yeah … , they keep thinking they're dunking on her, here she is laughing, here she is doing coconut, and it's like, nope, nope, you just created viral videos for us on TikTok, we didn't have to do anything."

— Ben Rhodes, Pod Save the World, Ep 422 (23 July 2024)

References

Donald Guy (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

(Notable) metonymic use(s) (of variations / indirect reference) for Harrison & her campaign

I've peppered this in in other sections above, but it seems worth creating a place for discussion on per se, and possibly gathering citations of notable uses or coverage.

1. The use of the emoji string "🥥🌴" or "🥥🌴🇺🇸" as an emblem of support on social media
   • e.g. Colorado Governor Jared Polis tweeting (only) "🥥🌴🇺🇸" at 18:09 UTC on 21 July as his first (on X at least) endorsement of Harris

     This tweet was highlighted in a piece on the meme as a whole by NPR here: https://www.npr.org/2024/07/21/g-s1-12556/kamala-harris-coconut-tree-meme-context-unburdened

     Polis posted it 7 minutes after a 18:02 quote tweet of Joe Biden's decision letter (which was posted by Biden at 17:46UTC; Biden's explicit endorsement of Harris came at 18:13, so Polis clearly understood it to be metonymic for Harris and her candidacy ahead of that candidacy being firmly established public fact)

     Polis posted a more lengthy and explicit endorsement to the platform at 2:59 UTC on the 22nd, which also included in large type the three emoji

2. The use of the phrase "coconut-pilled" for the same

   (snowclone of Red_pill_and_blue_pill#As_political_metaphor)

   • one potentialy-notable example:

     "Are you coconut-pilled"

     — Vietor to Rhodes, 8 seconds into the same episode of Pod Save the World I highlighted & cited above

     Where notably the only thing said prior were the hosts names and "What a difference a week makes, huh? …". As such, though there is more context in the title of the episode, in the recording itself this is the first invocation of Harris or her campaign, before anything more explicit

Donald Guy (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Medhi Hasan of 7 July tweeted "I've been coconut pilled: " as plausibly self-summary (or alternative headline, in which case WP:HEADLINES applies) of his there-linked July 3rd editorial in The Guardian.

Whereas the editorial itself does not contain the word "coconut" or "tree", it (is useless in itself as a citation for such metonymic usage BUT it) follows that the antecedent of coconut or coconut-pill as ~psuedo-pronoun/metonym must be one of: Harris herself, her candidacy in place of Biden (which the editorial advocates for), or support thereof Donald Guy (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

“The question was raised”

She didn’t raise the question, she quoted someone else rhetorically asking the question. 2603:7000:4300:2DF:51CC:68D8:10C0:BB7D (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed lede addition

Thread retitled from "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?".

I have added a short phrase to the lede of the You think you just fell out of a coconut tree? article. It has been removed twice, without an adequate reason. I would kindly ask for other editors to take a look at this phrasing for me. Thank you. Oliver Phile (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase already on this page? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I support adding it to the lede for context. The lorax (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The addition has been reverted by two editors. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue. Yes, the phrase "You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?" is in the lede. Based on their edits, the proposer is asking for a change to add the text, "quoting a line her mother said to all of her children when Harris was young." --Super Goku V (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)