Talk:Truck nuts

message: "Custom reproduction attempts are ill-advised and generally do not result in an aesthetically pleasing set of truck nuts."
Why is this line here? It sounds like its straight out of a line from a advertising book. I don't think it's necessary and I have removed it. It would be very easy to create something similar. 
173.33.130.147 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Custom Reproduction

message: I've seen these before, and I think they're notable enough to have an article.  It should be an article, though, and not an advertisement.  In particular, it needs to be neutral, factual, and should not link to any commercial websites that are selling these hideous, ridiculous things.  Otherwise, it is likely to get deleted. dbtfztalk 06:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion

message: See:
*Feedback for "Rebuild the Party: A Plan for the Future". 2008-11-12. URL:ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/. Accessed: 2008-11-12. (Archived by WebCite® at www.webcitation.org/5cGg9Cxrh)
"Rebuild the Republican Party" was subsequently laundered to delete the proposal that was by far the most popular: Give all Red Blooded Americans a pair of truck nuts for their F150's! I'd read about it in "American People Give Republican Party Major Responsibility: big $ale on truck nutz" (Wonkette). It's interesting that "truck nutz" are used to ridicule. Further, the caption to this Flickr photo: "Operation: Truck Nuts - Successful" suggests to me that people are adding nuts to others' trucks to ridicule them or their owners (rather like giving the finger to Hummers). All mere "original synthesis" so far, which is why I wouldn't add it to the article -- but it might be worth keeping an eye out for "reliable sources" on the notion of ascribing nuts to others or that of attaching them to others' vehicles. Tama1988 (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truck nuts for ridicule 

message: Can someone please remove the picture of these offensive "joke" products? At least hide it under a bar or something. This image offends my personal beliefs, and I think it should not be shown on a public encyclopedia such as this.35.32.229.95 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's laughable... You could just be happy that it's not more of a close-up shot. If you have issue with this photo illustrating the subject matter, perhaps you should post the same comment at Scrotum or Hirsuties coronae glandis.--Travis Thurston+ 20:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored, and doesn't give a shit about whether something offends your personal beliefs. 200.127.94.49 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This case we last heard was delayed, and that was 7 years ago. Most likely it was a PR embarrassment, the story got global coverage, and they made a deal to drop the charges or simply didn't pursue the charges. It could slip by without press coverage (as intended) and might be buried in court records, if the court didn't loose them or seal them or whatever. This is a very small town in SC they won't want to be globally famous for truck nuts. -- GreenC 14:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pure speculation. I think in cases like this we need to remember that we only know what our sources tell us. Even the  tag implies that somewhere out there is updated information and we just have to add it to the article. We have no evidence that there are any further updates. I'd rather focus on making sure the wording of the text doesn't drop hints or allude to facts that don't exist than try to push editors to fill in blanks with whatever they can scrape up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is speculation ("most likely") and this is a talk page where we can speculate about things to better determine the best course of action when not all of the facts are known. The point being, we will probably never know what happened short of doing original research in primary source documents which isn't permissible, so the tag requesting an update is based on the false premise that this information is available for update. -- GreenC 15:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment but to say it seems quite odd to attribute to one news source that another news source made a statement, when that other news source is not exactly hard to come by: . Someguy1221 (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonneau, S.C.