Talk:Rat rod

message: "Rat" rod isn't a reference to Ed Roth's designs? —RandallJones 08:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Daddy Ed Roth

message: Rat Rod has now been used in media for over 10 years as a type of radically built Hot Rod. This term orginal a negative comment has now become a postive comment used among the builder and enthusist of Rat Rods.  As cited in Old School Rodz, Kar Kulture Delux, Burnout, Barccuda, Rolls&Pletts and many other current Hot Rod publications.  The POV that rat rods is a poorly built hot rod is not the correct definition in todays publications. — HunterIrrigation 11:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rat Rod now defines style of Hot Rod 

message: I've found an article named Rat Rod, whioch obviously sdeals with the same as this article. Can someone merge their contents? -- NaBUru38 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Rat rod 

message: The picture that says ""Typical "rough" finish of Rat Rods"" is the same that the one in the article called Hot Rod where is called "Traditional Hot Rod". That car is a rat or a hot rod? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.32.43.41 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rat Rod picture 

message: The criticism section was edited for standard English and assumptive arguments were removed.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.149.2 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This article seems fairly littered with non-neutral content, unsupported (and even undocumentable) assertions, and a seeming general bias against the subject at hand. I also question the need for the "Criticism" section, since most of its content seems to be based upon the opinions of the original writer and his/her unsupported generalizations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.8 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: The following sentence seems contradictory and muddled, so I moved it here:
"There is a suspicion on the hot rod camp that the Rat Rod movement leans toward under dramatic, safe, and exaggerated vehicles built for nothing more than to display their "Radical innovative" engineering at shows, commonly driven or moving reliably under their own power for more than short distances, however operator status still is the directive factor in the outcome of negative vehicular interaction."
Straussian (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defenition 

message: I cleaned this article up somewhat. I'm not an expert in this field so I've tried to leave the content as it is, but have tidied up some wordiness and unencyclopedic phrasing.  The images were of Hot Rods, not Rat Rods, so I removed them.
Straussian (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of the January 2013 drive, I have completed a copyedit of the article. It would be good to obtain feedback from someone who is knowledgeable in the area.--Soulparadox (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Is this really a big enough phenomenon to have its own section here? I've been to countless rod and kustom shows in the past ten years and have never once seen one of these "modern" rat rods, nor does a quick google search turn up more than a single reference. Obviously, each person's rat rod is unique and at least slightly different from every other one out there, but does that mean that they all deserve their own segment in this article? If so, I'll start writing one for my car right now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.163 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its just placeholder info, they do exist, but its more personal and just describes the general look of these cars. Doing a google search probably wont give u references, but you will see 2 or 3 modern rat cars within the countless pics of ratrods. However most of them would count as sleepers, but this doesnt apply as these cars dont usually have high powered engines 67.243.176.215 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, that would indicate that it's not really prevalent enough to have a subsection. For example, while I'm sure there must be a non-zero number of people in Japan who consider themselves to be cowboys, does that miniscule subset REALLY warrant a subsection in the cowboys wiki article about "Japanese cowboys?" Unless I see citations/links to this so-called "modern rat rod" thing, I'm going to keep pushing for its deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.163 (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Rat Rods? 

message: Regarding the article changes that have been made (and reverted) during 11/18/2010: After investigating some of the links posted, and doing a little googling, it's obvious that this Russ Ellis guy is (or is affiliated with) the wiki user "azngosh8r," and is attempting to use this wiki article to advertise his car sales business. 192.249.47.163 (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is questioning whether the statement is true or not.  The problem is that you've linked to a website that does not qualify as a reliable source as wikipedia defines it.  The website in question seems to be mostly devoted to advertising a product or service as opposed to being a source of information on rat rods in general.  The second issue is that you admit to being the owner of the website in question.  This raises the issue of whether you may have a conflict of interest.  In a nutshell, we aren't convinced you are here to help us build an encyclopedia as opposed to trying to advance the interests of your business.  In these cases, it is recommended that you propose changes to the article here on the talk page and ask that if another editor agrees, they make the suggested change to the article.  Having a conflict of interest doesn't prevent you from contributing to the project, but it does mean your edits in the area where the conflict exists will be under very strict scrutiny.  Please view the WP:PSCOI guide for more information.  Thanks! Sperril (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I've removed Ronniepe's last post.  Threatening posts like this are not acceptable. --Daniel 03:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising