Talk:Jesusland map

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Why don't we readjust it for the results of the 2008 election?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.35.241 (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject for Delete 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bigotry vs. pride 

message: 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.
- 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)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of cleanup tag 

message: As a Canadian citizen I find this extremley offensive. Canada is a sovreign nation, not just some US state. You 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)
replies: text: The 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)
replies: text: Not everyone in Canada is a brain-dead liberal you know. I'm a Canadian and I consider American liberals to be some of the most disgusting and despicable people on Earth, Canadian liberals have many redeeming qualities, but American liberals are just self-hating baby-killing idiots. Not to say that I dislike Americans, American conservatives are great people. --RucasHost 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, please try to excercise more discretion when deciding whether or not to call someone a self-hating baby-killing idiot. Thank you. Calgary 05:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, it's what they are? Anyway, you must be one screwed up dude to choose the username "Calgary" when you've never been to Canada. "First item on the docket, despite what the username may lead you to believe, I am not Canadian, nor am I associated with Canada in any way. I've never even been to Canada. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a lovely country, I'm just not the sort of person who visits places very often." --RucasHost 09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. It's also generally a good idea to exercise discretion before attempting to vocalize how screwed-up you believe your fellow Wikipedians to be. Thank you. Calgary 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'd have thought that Canadians would know that Calgary is a Scottish name. I've been there, and I've never been to Canada. :) . .  dave souza, talk 13:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada only wants Minnesota, Michigan and Massachusetts where hockey is played and loved.  Geez, let's get our facts right, unlike RucasHost who decided to personally attack a whole host of americans.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is Canada on the map? Because that's how the original artist created it, that's why. That does not mean in the slightest that Wikipedia is making some sort of statement. Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Canada on the map? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Canadian Election Map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A part needs removing 

message: The map has hawaii as a red state. 65.119.109.3 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in 2004 electoral college map

message: Which conservative religious group?
There is no need for Israel to be included in this discussion as this pertains exclusively to North America.  Otherwise it can be argued that Conservative/Liberal division exist throughout the world (i.e. France, Brittain, Australia...).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.18.177 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specification in Israeli parallel

message: What happened to the Jesusland map.  I don't even see it on the page.  I see other irrelevent ones.  Would somebody please put it back on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgatesy (talk • contribs).
:The copyright police managed to get it deleted from Wikipedia. Maybe someone can obtain a version that's free to use here?
:Atlant 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm getting really fed up with the copyright fascism on this site at the moment. This article is ridiculous without a map on it. I think I'm gonna go make one now. — OwenBlacker 14:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original 

message: I added a small section on physical versions (clothes etc). Unfortunately I could only find commercial sites as proof of this. if anybody knows of news articles mentioning this development of the meme, please replace the commercial refs with them. Totnesmartin 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical versions 

message: I deleted a fair volume of material from the article on the grounds that it was unsourced and possibly non-NPOV. User:Atlant reverted me, arguing that the criticisms were "likely to be correct." That's certainly a good thing, but the standard for inclusion is and has always been verifiability, not correctness. Deltabeignet (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Wikipedia has always known it "wants to be" an encyclopedia, where facts are verifiable. For a wiki containing random rumors (to put it charitably), I suggest you check out Uncyclopedia instead. Have a nice day. CapnZapp (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: Whoever "recreated" the map did a bad job at it -- Here's the original: http://web.knoxnews.com/silence/archives/jesusland.jpg The colors are vastly different, the names are missing, and there are lines between the states when in the original the only lines are the borders of the whole countries. The original made the point in very emphatic visual way -- the "recreation" just fails at it.
So right now the recreation is no recreation at all. More like the shadow of the shadow of one.
I'd try to correct it, but have zero experience with SVG images. Aris Katsaris (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad recreation 

message: I've seen a United States of Canada flag around before in two different variations, one shows a Canadian flag with a star and the other shows a US flag with a Maple leaf. Why haven't one of these been posted along with the Jesusland flag?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.192.130 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USC flag? 

message: It's small, so it's hard to tell, but in the map currently on this article, Washington D.C. is shown as part of Jesusland.  It voted for Kerry, so I suspect it should be part of the US of Canada. - Shaheenjim (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just for Kerry - it is the bluest part of the US, having voted Democrat in every election since it was allowed to. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington D.C. 

message: I'm not sure how to phrase it or where it would go in the article, but perhaps something should be said for the oddity of including Alaska in "Jesusland" despite it being one of the least religious states in the U.S. See: Unchurched Belt, Alaska#Religion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomasecu (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's included because it is a predominantly conservative state, not because of religion.  The jesusland map is based off the 2004 election, not the religiousness of the states.  Hope that helps. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I understand that, but the red area is obviously named for the implied association between conservatism and Christianity. Jomasecu (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is true, hence "Jesusland", but we probably can't make such a comment without a source pointing this out. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alaska 

message: First, how come the original map isn't here? Didn't we get permission to use it, or what?
Second, I request that the "recreation" is re-made. The current recreation loses out much of the immediate humor of the original map. Specifically:
:1) It attempts to use official colors, rather than trying to mimic the colors of the original
:2) It attempts to superimpose the original map idea onto a real state-divided map, rather than following the original's feel of being "a quick sketch".
All in all, much of the impact of the original map is lost. Instead we have something that looks faintly scientific or official. Put simply, the joke is gone.
Couldn't we simply have as a picture a snap-shot of the original as it first appeared? Something like this: http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh205/kazapp/jesusland.jpg
CapnZapp (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation of map 

message: I moved the Jesusland flag lower on the page, as to not draw attention away from the main subject of the article. Now it doesn't show up when first reaching this page (on a decent-sized browser window, at least), which is what I feel is appropriate. After all, the article isn't about the flag. CapnZapp (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decreased visibility of the Jesusland flag. 

message: I reverted the section on a purported "update" of the map (as depicted on the above website). As it stood, the new section was all but indistinguishable from an attempt to draw traffic to a web site. I did not find any resemblance between the original map and those of the web site. 
I'm not saying it was, only that it could be. To avoid being reverted in the future, please add more context such as: What connects this site to the original map? Is it by the original author? Can you find mentions in independent media? Essentially, what makes this web site notable, as opposed to being merely an attempt to cash in on a fad? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.newjesusland.com & "update" section 

message: Good call, Zombie Hunter Smurf. Probably the section needs to go, but sure, give the community a chance to find a referenced connection. Do remember to clean out the Jesusland mention from the novel's page too, if and when that's appropriate. CapnZapp (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I figure if that after a month goes by and no one has found any cites we can delete the info. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auster novel 

message: Can someone find cites for some of the items in the list?  Its dangerously close to becoming rampant with OR. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture section 

message: Only Wikipedia can disseminate a meme so much it becomes incredibly unfunny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BLaafg (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol 

message: This was removed from the Jesusland article:
The term "Dumbfuckistan" came from the cartoon "Blue Christmas" that aired on December 18, 2004, as a TV Funhouse cartoon on Saturday Night LiveMedia Sluts: Drunken Weekend, Lotsa O.C.  In the cartoon "Blue Christmas", Santa skips the states that re-elected George W. Bush and hangs out with liberal celebrities like Margaret Cho, Al Franken, and Moby.  "Dumbfuckistan" is now a very popular term in US culture.  Often depicted on many U Tube videos are the fictional characters known as Dumbfuck and Stan.  "Dumbfuck" is US slang for a stupid person.
Reference
http://mediasluts.blogspot.com/2004/12/drunken-weekend-lotsa-oc.html Media Sluts: Drunken Weekend, Lotsa O.C<!
125.162.168.156 (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode is already referenced in the article and we really don't need to go into the plot.  The YouTube videos and the blog are non notable, but if you can find a reliable source we may be able to expand on the variation of the map. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative Censorship of Wikipedia 

message: This is an old internet meme. Wikipedia is not an archive of old internet memes. I would like to see this "article" deleted. Brianski (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it achieved wide mainstream media coverage in late 2004, and was understood as conveying political commentary.  It's far above the typical dancing hampster webpage type of thing in inherent notability (and even the dancing hampsters seem to have an article)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text: On what basis?  The AfD (see here and here) pretty much established notability... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

text: "I'd be surprised if you could find anyone outside of the U.S. and Canada who had heard of it." Well, it received pretty wide didstribution in the UK, and I got it in Malaysia... Wavy (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously?? 

message: I first searched for "Jesusland" after reading Richard Morgan's "Black Man" book (in a French edition, the term is kept untranslated). Never heard of that meme before. This makes more pertinent and relevant the persistence of this item in Wikipedia, to me, as it's being integrated in today's culture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwp (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting, even outside from its own origin 

message: shows current state of the construct. Agree that working the meme by updating is contrary to wikipedia rules. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: i.e. updating the main map in this article, as the meme stands now. Could be useful in another article/later. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Map 

message: I've seen a version of this with the same map with the text for the blue part saying: "GDP of over $11 Trillion, second only to China" and "GDP per capita double that of Jesusland".  I hope to get around to checking that at some point.
Also, my interpretation was of the US states joining Canada, not taking it over.  —Darxus (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP