Talk:Jesusland map

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Jesusland map has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents


At what point is an Internet meme too ephemeral to merit an article? I think this one's real close -- I doubt very much we'll see this anywhere (other than a "tired jokes" forum) after another week or so. Jwrosenzweig 23:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then let's wait a week and see, shall we? In the meantime, I think the article is admirably done. (My main objection is to the recycling of the mildly interesting but gimmicky notion of meme, but that's another issue.) Hoary 23:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I do agree the article is well done! But I have my doubts about whether or not articles like this will open a floodgate of perhaps lower quality articles. Regardless, though, I'm happy to wait a week or much longer to see if this is a good move for Wikipedia or not -- I do credit the authors here, though, with writing an article good enough to be a serious treatment of a really rather silly image. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank you very much. You are correct; the whole concept is a bit, well, lightweight, but the meme itself is spreading rapidly and is the subject of serious discussions. I have heard (second-hand) that it was briefly discussed on The McLaughlin Group and touched on in an article in the Washington Times. Given that exposure, I decided to write the article. - Scooter 03:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The idea that some states have more in common with Canada than the rest of the union is not something new nor is it limited to internet jokes. While this is an interesting article (as it stands now it gets my stamp of approval), it would be interesting to conduct additional research (perhaps including the often raised idea that in the case of a split of the Canadian confederation, the middle provinces might join the US). Although it might sound extreme to most moderate/mainstream hears, a reshuffle of the Canadian and US provinces and states has often been mentioned in more or less serious papers - although certainly more serious than the image at hand. Anyway bravo for the article. --Phils 15:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! - Scooter 16:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the change by User:Ed Poor. It wasn't grammatically correct, for one, and the concept of a meme is well-established on Wikipedia (see Nevada-Tan, for example) and in the study of memetics. It's a sociological construct; calling it a "gimmick" (as above) doesn't really do it justice. - Scooter 22:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

seems awfully opinionated....is this real enough to merit a WikiPedia?


[edit] "Bush Country" map is irrelevant and inaccurate

It has nothing at all to do with this topic....


[edit] Subject for Delete

The origin of this is from the blog of former Dean campagin members at CivicSpace Labs. Now, my concern is practical here. The Jesusland map was a blogger's invention, that has been spread primarily through other internet blogs. Other satirical graphics can be found on blogs for Bush, Dean, Kerry, and Nader, and we can find blog satire on politics, technology, music, and television shows. Is Wikipedia going to be a storing house for blogger's cartoons? Do we want to add the "Dan Rather Credibility Flowchart"? Wikipedia is definitely not a blog, and this sort of thing sets a precedent for every bit of satire and wit created on the countless blogs on there and their equally countless topics. Unless Wikipedia is to be a storehouse for blog humor, this is completely inappropriate. --Corwin8 08:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the fact that this comes from Dean campaign members? If so, let's add it. - Scooter 03:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To follow up on my own post: the source given in a previous revert is CivicSpace, according to a "Robert Eriksson", and an anonymous user on Slashdot, according to a follow-up poster. I think it'll have to remain "unknown" until we can come up with something better. - Scooter 20:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The meme was created by G. Webb, a poster on a UK-based message board - an interesting wrinkle on this story. The source (in the form of a message-board thread where it was first posted) is now cited in the article. He appears to have been somewhat shy of garnering publicity on this, but it's important that Wikipedia gets even the small details right! (Sorry, don't have a user account, but around 8:20pm UK time, 9 Feb 2005)

Why do you consider it just "blog humor"? Why did the idea spread outside the blog? What is the signal it gives? Pure joke, are you sure? Or something more basic and serious? Why should Wikipedia blind itself to what happens in society? Now you can make it even more known by launching one of those weird Wikipedia VfD debates, certainly one of the best advertising tool in town, success guaranteed, maybe it is your purpose after all :-)) --Pgreenfinch 08:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The signal it gives? It's O.K. to spam Wikipedia. Pure joke? Of course it is. Something more basic and serious? No. Wikipedia blind itself to what happens in society? Society seems unchanged to me. Well, I'm assuming that you were honestly ignorant of the answers to your questions, so I've answered them for you (oh, this is my first Wikipedia talk). Satisfied? --Corwin8 09:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought you were a psychologist. Maybe in your studies you missed the chapter about cognitive dissonance, or some milder forms such as underreaction (I might write this last article, but no problem if you do it first ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 09:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If he were a psychologist, wouldn't he be much more interested in how individuals and communities express their fears and outrages to perceived negative changes in their environment? Perhaps that's merely anthropology. Regardless, the metric of "if it isn't on network TV, it isn't notable" isn't the prevailing measure of worthiness here. The point is moot; whether or not this concept results in a change to society doesn't indicate it's validity. It's one of a number of expressive reactions to a major political event that has had much resonance in many circles, mostly online. By nature, a meme must be notable, else it wouldn't be a meme. Even if it is only an Internet meme. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 01:58, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is more than just a blogger's graphic. It captured and came to personify the popular disenfranchisement and alienation two halves of a country's population. This is not a map, it's a cultural schism put into graphics, and it is entirely deserving of its own article space. Unlike the red state blue state divide which is an event and a concept, this map has given it a distinct form that American society can relate to. People are still remembering this map, as it was remembered in anger, gloating and frustration. Its presentation of humor has been a popular katharsis in this visceral national event. It must stay. - Gilgamesh 03:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To suggest that there is neither redeemable encyclopedic value in documenting the "Jesusland map", nor significant attention to the concept to justify this page is ridiculous. At a minimum, thousands of people are aware of, and were affected in some way by it, and this is a quality article. If we deny articles on the basis of their subjects being spread only by the Internet, then Wikipedia itself does not deserve an article. It must stay. -- Eric 08:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, thank you. My basis for writing it was that it did appear to be spreading to multiple forms of media, as I mentioned above. Do people feel it would make the article stronger if I could cite the dates and articles in the Times and McLaughlin Group? - Scooter 03:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bigotry vs. pride

On the comment that the map was considered "religious bigotry", I checked Google with the terms "Jesusland" and "bigotry" and ended up with 991 hits. They seemed slightly in favor of those saying that the concept was bigoted; some said that those in "Jesusland" were bigoted. However, a Google search on "Jesusland" and "proud" as terms yielded 9210 hits. About the same percentage as above gave some indication of "proud to be from Jesusland"; some expressed pride that they weren't. Based on that, I decided to list those who were proud along with those who thought the concept was bigoted, as the latter seem to be in the minority. - Scooter 04:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History is littered with people taking insults up and wearing them as badges of honor. As for religious bigotry, you might try asking a priest or minister or two what they think. I have no doubt that left or right leaning they would find the concept offensive for two reasons: 1. "Jesusland" has plenty of sinners. 2. The United States of Canada has plenty of Jesus followers.

It's bigoted.

12.190.79.238 08:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Whoops, wasn't logged in, here I am again TMLutas 08:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Only the first two paragraphs of the article specifically reference the Jesusland map(s). The last paragraph also references it, but its contents would also apply equally to other post-election division maps.

The remaining three paragraphs discuss other maps that are not the Jesusland map or make statements that apply to all such maps.

Suggest moving this article to one with a more generic topic that would include all such post-election division maps, something like Protest maps of the 2004 U.S. election.

- [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 23:34, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think the "Jesusland map" is the title which most people will be searching on. I haven't really heard names dedicated to the others with any real regularity. Perhaps we could redirect Jesusland, Jesusland map, etc., to your protest maps link when such terms grow in popularity? - Scooter 05:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of cleanup tag

I don't think, based on the above comments and the recent editing, that this article needs to be listed under "Cleanup". This appears to be motivated by something other than a wish for good copyediting. I've commented on it here and have removed the Cleanup tag. - Scooter 21:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lexicon entry?

I have removed the sentence "...and has entered the lexicon of typical American and Canadian pop culture references." because I doubt it and would like to see a source of that claim first. --Conti|✉ 17:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[1] should do you (from the new [Ben Folds] album).

[edit] Political colo(u)rs

One thing to watch when discussing "red state"/"blue state": in Canada the political colours are opposite. Conservative-Blue, Liberal-Red, NDP-Orange.

In the United States I believe state coloration is based on which party is incumbent, not on the conservatism or liberalism of each party. -Silence 21:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no, I believe 'blue state' = Democrat, and 'red state' = Republican. This is at least what I got out of various comments like "Vermont is a blue state." This is best explained at Red state vs. blue state divide. --Saforrest 07:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Since this was based on the U.S. election, noone cares about Canada OR it's "coloUrs" ;) 68.39.174.238 06:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, most of the countries in the world associate red with left-wing politics and blue with right-wing politics, the United States being one of the few exceptions. Not that any of this matters for the scope of this article... —Gabbe 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That's how it used to be in the U.S. as well, until the 2004 election. One news agencies arbitrarily chose red for republican and blue for democrat, and happened to have the most-cited map. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That's so not true. In the United States, Red has always meant Republican and Blue Democrat. If you want to talk Conservative and Liberal, the Red and Blue colors hold their meaning going back to 1960. --Solid South
What's amusing is that the well-researched article completely contradicts that statement. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

The 2006 canadian election saw BC, SK and MB join AB in going completely ga-ga Conservative, so this would seem to question the inclusion of those provinces in Bluestatistan. Admittedly CDN conservativism isn't the same as USA Republicanism, and the reasons behind the shift may or may not be ideological, but it's still a rightward shift in party support. And Conservative wasn't CDN's only viable alternative to the Liberals. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Did the voters shift to the right or did the party shift to the center? ;) heqs 09:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the latter. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
BC, Sasketchewan and Manytubas all elected non-Conservatives MPs - only Alberta and Prince Edward Island went entirely for one part. BC, Sask. and Man. are not nearly as Conservative as Alberta, especially historically. Albertans have been off the right wing diving boards since at least the 1930s, whereas Sasketchewan is the home of medicare, and so forth. WilyD 13:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Especially B.C. In Provincial elections B.C. has often voted for left leaning parties, votes for the Conservatives are much more of a reaction against the Federal Liberials, than any indication of support in Conservative/Jesus Land values Travis 23:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Manitoba and Saskatchewan both currently have left of centre NDP governments. In all provinces other that Alberta the CConservatives still polled less than half the vote, even though they had a plurality, and in most cases, the combined vote of the centrist Liberals and leftist NDP is larger than the Conservatives. I think it is drawing a long bow to say that Canadians have suddenly become conserative. Also, the issues that the CDN Conservatives campaigned on were different to the issues that conservative republicans campaign on.

[edit] Why is Canada on the map?

As a Canadian citizen I find this extremley offensive. Canada is a sovreign nation, not just some US state. You morons could have just omitted Canada like you did Mexico.

You do realize that it's just a matter of time til Canada is absorbed into the US.

Maybe not this decade, or the next, but sooner than you think.

Why? Canada has 30 million people, the US has 300 million people. A ten to one advantage.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesusland_map"


--PEAR 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The fucking point is that some regions of the US are so liberal, they might as well be Canadian, or at least they're much closer to Canada politically. ::sighs:: Less paranoia, please. —Nightstallion (?) 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I Agree - the point is that the blue states would like to join Canada rather than be a part of the rest of the reliogiously influenced country. No offence was meant or should be taken.

[edit] Canadian Election Map

Some took out the 2004 Canadian election which was helpful in illustrating the critique of the map based on assuming Canadian is just one big block of Democrats. Unless someone can give me a damn good reason why not, I'm putting it back in. After all there are about a dozen maps of the US that it is compared to in the article. One Canadian one wouldn't hurt. Kevlar67 20:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A part needs removing

I've found this in the first paragraph of the article "This page is a flamitory remark towards Democrates and should be elimunated. Wikipedia is sick for alowing this page to operate." I know THAT isn't supposed to be there, but it doesn't seem to show up in the "edit this page" function. Sorry if i sound like an idiot...

I'm not seeing that. — Gwalla | Talk 03:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it's not there anymore... I guess it was edited out WHILE I was viewing the page. Problem solved then.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/s/Talk%7EJesusland_map_e66e.html"