Talk:Jihad My Ride
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jihad My Ride article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies | |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2007.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
|
|||
Why did the Featured Image get removed from this page?
This article sucks. 211.29.178.61 04:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You suck. --
07:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
this shit is hilarious
64.233.166.136 21:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- This article is really really cool and funny. The only thing uncool here is the MP3 file that really sucks! I don't know what the hell is he talking about!! lol. Is that English?! Although the article is really funny. Good job guys. 180.94.93.5 17:36, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
From Pee Review[edit]
LOL actually the name should be Jihad My Ride, not Jihad My Car. It was tagged with NRV and Braydie changed it to rewrite. Then I rewrote it, with some extra images, please give feedback, cheers -- It's gneomI 13:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | Got potential, granted, but didn't get a laughter out of me. Too predictable, usage of Jihadist memes" (such as Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden etc...Possibly because I don't know the original too well (Pimp my ride that is). |
| Concept: | 8 | I like the general idea, but like I said - I think the approach could be better, Perhaps right it as an actual chapter of the show? |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | |
| Images: | 0 | Generally, I'm against featuring shock pictures - and two of the pictures here are falling under this category. I think that original pictures can be potatochopped in RadX's corner without posting those. The last image is unnecessary and doesn't contribute anything to the matter. |
| Miscellaneous: | 10 | Not applicable |
| Final Score: | 32 | Sorry for being a bit harsh on it... |
| Reviewer: | ~ 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
| |
Thanks for it, but which ones are the shock pictures, exactly? The first image was taken from the real logo of Pimp My Ride so, yeah. But I'll ask someone to create a new image for it though. Is it really zero? :P. Cheers again - It's gneomI 14:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I could argue that the pic at right is obnoxious. Is it really necessary to use a picture of what appears to be a hostage execution to make your point? Why not use a photoshopped montage of Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad grinning stupidly in front of a glitzy "Jihad My Ride" sign?
- The picture of the bombed-out London bus is also a shocker, but at least it's connected to the article; one could argue that the point of "Jihad My Ride" is blowing up the "ride" in question. We're used to seeing these pictures on the news. They are less useful in a comic piece.
- Personally, I would argue that you have a choice: you can try to get laughs, in which case the shock images are going to work against you because they are not funny...and that would be not funny in spades. Or you can try for black-humor satire, in which case your piece needs to find a clever way to expose the human folly both of suicide car-bombers and the political and social follies that allow them to exist. And I don't mean a "blame it all on Islam" piece, because that will inevitably end as simplistic racism. The godfather of black satire, Johnny Swift, did not write "A Modest Proposal" as a piece of anti-Irish racist propaganda, he wrote it in black rage against the inhumanity of ignoring the Irish famine.----OEJ 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- As for the pictures, that hostage picture is one of Al-Qaeda's in Iraq, a real one. The seoond shocker was, of course, the London bus. Really unncessary. ~ 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- As for the pictures, that hostage picture is one of Al-Qaeda's in Iraq, a real one. The seoond shocker was, of course, the London bus. Really unncessary. ~
- Argh. Let me cough up a bit more phlegm on that last topic. The fashionable perception in 2007 is that terrorists are a special kind of evil that we can blame on bin Laden, Islam, and the Arab race (if such a thing even exists). That fashionable perception is of course a great example of human folly. Historically, more innocent American civilians were killed by white Christian American terrorists -- the KKK -- than were killed on 9/11.
- Point being, terrorism is one kind of human folly; blaming terrorism on one race, one religion, one set of bad actors is another kind of human folly. A really deep and powerful satirical piece would go for the universal truths -- and it would satirize the fad-of-the-moment view of terrorism. ----OEJ 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, um, sorry about this, but maybe there's a bit of misunderstanding. When I rewrote, it's already there and personally I didn't really think moving all the pictures will be fair to the previous writer. So to be honest I don't want to bring pictures with horrifying content to the article as well. I'll remove it now. Cheers -- It's gneomI 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the history of this article. Gneomi did NOT add ANY of the objectional pics; previous writers did that. It's a difficult thing: when an article is a collaborative effort a Pee should be taken as a criticism of the article as it exists and not exclusively as criticism of any one of the authors. Gneomi, I applaud your efforts to make this piece work; and I would certainly take the opinions of the Pee reviewers as license to change the pics regardless of what previous authors may have done. And I apologize for not noticing that the pictures were not the doing of the most recent author, ie, you. I'd still like to see the piece move more strongly into either comedy or black satire, though... ;) ----OEJ 01:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nah remove the "I apologise" words there. I should've removed the pictures as well, though, but I just reckon it's not fair for the previous writer. Thanks for the reply ;) . Cheers - It's gneomI 03:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually knew that it was a rewrite, since I posted this article on VFD not too long ago, my criticism was not, in any way, against anyone in person (least of all Gneomi) - just vs. the concept of the article and specifically the pictures. ~ 09:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)