Talk:Jesus and Mo

Comics: Webcomics / British Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Webcomics.
	This article is supported by British comics work group.

Notability

If decent webcomics like BTC and Ugly Hill get their pages deleted, why do garbage/completely useless comics like this still get a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.193.129 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugly Hill is extant and seems to have always been. Albatross2147 (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, Jesus and Mo is exponentially better than useless comics like BTC and Ugly Hill in my opinion. Indeed, I believe it is notable as it was nominated to the webcomic of the year award.59.92.78.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- With several collections in print and the 2011 Riffy Award for Best Comic of Any Medium ["Best Comics Contest: And the winners of your 2011 Riffy Awards are..." Washington Post. 2001-01-21. Retrieved 2001-01-21.], not to mention some 1.7 million Google hits, the issue of notability ought to be put to rest. -- Elphion (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bookshop

Since a link is given to the Jesus and Mo bookshop, why is there a "citation needed" tag after the sentence about books having been published?

TRiG (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Would it be appropriate to include a new section on censorship? I'm in Abu Dhabi, UAE, where the site is blocked by both national ISPs. I'd be curious to know where else the site is censored. 83.110.66.158 (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University controversy

Shouldn't there be a section on the controversy over University College London and other schools' atheist societies using J&M images? Gymnophoria (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

The References section lists sources that mention the cartoon but these are not all used in inline citations, which instead direct the reader to the Footnotes section. These could be re-organised so that inline citations direct to short-form Notes, with References holding the full citations. Alternatively, all references and footnotes could be combined into inline citations, however I do not feel like attempting either of these tasks.

Meanwhile, Google Scholar found a 2007 mention in The media's role in a clash of misconceptions: The case of the Danish Muhammad cartoons page 126 (The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 2007; 12; 112 DOI: 10.1177/1081180X07307190 [1]). That source considered two examples were offensive but that they did not provoke a violent response because of their lack of discrimination. This might be usable in the article, but I cannot see how to do it myself. -84user (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comixpedia entry info

J&M's Comixpedia article has information about the UCL and LSE Students Union controversies, including links to articles in The Guardian, the BBC, and the Daily Mail. It was updated by the author of the strip. Jandmo (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jesus and Mo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Published once a week or twice a week?

The article inconsistently claims both. Equinox ◑ 15:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the former. 131.172.95.145 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]