Talk:NASCAR/Archive 1

message: What is the source for the information that NASCAR is second to the NFL in television ratings? The World Series and Olympics both have significantly higher ratings than any NASCAR race.
According to this from Fox Sports:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/3410732
The highest rating ever for a NASCAR race was a 10.9. Contrast that to this from ESPN:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2005/news/story?id=2206044
The lowest rating ever for a World Series was an 11.1. If the highest-rated Daytona 500 gets worse ratings than the lowest-rated World Series, how can anyone say NASCAR is the second-most-popular sport by TV ratings?
*Just for sake of information, the 2006 Daytona 500 had a final rating of 11.6 Doctorindy 22:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

message: It should be added that F-1 is dominant in an international perspective....the no. 1 racing sport worldwide is F-1.
:Please don't make a comparison like "NASCAR vs. F1".  You'll be comparing a sanctioning body to a series.  You might as well compare MotoGP to the entire FIA.Mustang6172 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mustang. Now if you were to say "Nextel Cup vs. F1", it might be a more reasonable comparison.72.185.44.3 15:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International perspective

message: I have some questions about the veracity of Nascar's historical connection with bootlegging. Someone please confirm and provide sources. Jinnentonik 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Junior Johnson served time for bootlegging (see  or ; there's also a Tom Wolfe essay on JJ in Esquire, March 1965).  The historical connection is between bootlegging and the early days of auto racing in the South, which eventually gave rise to NASCAR. Simishag 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bootlegging

message: I hesitate to make any major changes to this page since I'm still pretty newb-y, but it just seems to me like a lot of the information in this article should be in Nextel Cup or Nextel Cup Series -- both of which currently redirect to NASCAR Championship which is just a list of the past winners. It doesn't make any sense to me that the Busch Series and the Craftsman Truck Series have their own articles and the Nextel Cup Series doesn't. If I had my way, NASCAR would be a (somewhat briefer) article explaining how it basically just makes the rules for and operates a bunch of series and it could link to Stock car racing and the articles on the other series. (Lists of the other series they operate are at http://www.nascartouring.com/ and http://www.weeklyracingseries.com/. There may be others, I haven't looked too hard yet.) I'd like to hear other people's opinions though. Any objections or ideas for improvements? Recury 22:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sounds great to me! Welcome to Wikipedia, and remember to be bold: if you see a problem, do not hesitate to fix it. If someone objects they can always say so, and it can always be changed back. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks! And in the spirit of being bold, I think I'm going to try to make a project out of this. There's just so much to do that it should probably be more organized. Recury 05:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'll help.  Added some tonight, need more time, back later this weekend.  --Pmeisel 01:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *This article still contains too much Cup related material that should be eliminated or merged with the Nextel Cup.  I'll try to help when and where I can. Burge 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Cup Centric

message: perhaps it would be worthwhile for someone with more knowledge of NASCAR/public opinion to make a section about public perception of nascar? while it is popular, bear in mind it also has many who deride it as an activity (not necessarily a 'sport') or rubes and hillbillies. it is a major POV, which wikipedia policy says to include. by the way, I am from texas, so don't dismiss what I say as hatespeech of some ignorant outsider.
I like this idea. Maybe we should also include POV of New NASCAR fans vs. NASCAR fans losing their intrest due to concentration on younger drivers.
--------
Well, I took a stab at a perceptions section. what do you think?
--edgester July 6, 2005 01:02 (UTC)
-------
Perceptions section was written with bias with no references backing up section.  "many people tailgate while eating barbeque and getting drunk".  Not true.  Most people who go to races come, park, watch the race and leave.  The campers/tailgaters are a minority.69.134.50.153 6 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
:So edit it instead of deleting it outright, unless you think that the controversies of NASCAR have no place in the article?Kurohone 6 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)
:: I have rewritten that section removing some of the bias and statements not backed up by fact.  I would like to find more factual information about the demographics of the fans of the sport before putting that information in there (i.e. are they really redneck?  are the fans that aren't redneck just not going to races, but watching on tv?  differences between traditional NASCAR and new NASCAR fans)69.134.50.153 6 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)
:::Well, from personal experience, I can tell you that a very large proportion of the people that attended the Cup races at Lowes Motor Speedway during the past two years are redneck or at least act it on raceday. I'm bummed that you removed the "go very fast, turn left" quote that's pretty common and is used by both fans and NASCAR-haters alike. --edgester July 6, 2005 22:32 (UTC)
::::Redneck is a very subjective term.  Redneck is an independent person's view of what a redneck is.  While not seeing any proof first hand, I would still argue that the majority of NASCAR fans are not redneck, and that they are just not attending the races (i.e. just watching at homes).  There still needs to be hard proof/statistics on the demographics of all race fans.69.134.50.153 03:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Perception of NASCAR?

message: This section is getting pretty detailed (too detailed) in my opinon.  Anyone care to create a new article for the EA NASCAR game?69.134.50.153 03:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Survery is Biased. The general population is NOT 10% black in the south. It's a lot higher than that.
----
Am I the only find who finds this ironic? It's got so much detail that it rivals the US Census. It's alot for a car racing body I think. Someone in NASCAR must of tried very hard to prove that there fans are not just a bunch of rednecks. --Arm 17:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I read this section, and I was a little confused as to why it is included at all.  I can understand that there is a stereotype of NASCAR fans that categorizes them as rednecks, but making a counterargument to an assumed stereotype doesn't make sense, nor is it appropriate for this artice.  I vouch for the removal of most of this content, if not all of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this information very valuable.  Haven't found the fan breakdown like this anywhere else
The page in the beginning is messed up like when it says the and then the picture of the nascar logo. 130.111.98.241 17:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I would expect this is a result of your screen resolution, no HTML trickery is being used to force the full version of "NASCAR" on to one line. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Video Game Section

message: Some bias comes from the belief that most NASCAR fans are are rednecks because of the sport's Southern heritage; this stereotype is largely inaccurate. According to NASCAR, about 10% of NASCAR fans are African-American, which is fairly in-line with the percentage of African-Americans in the general population. This compares to the NFL, where African-American NFL fans represent about 11.7 percent of the total NFL base. The percentage of African-American NASCAR fans has grown by 86% since 1999. About 40% of fans are female. Almost half have attended college and about 25% have attained a college degree. About 36% of NASCAR fans make more than $50,000 a year. Finally, NASCAR fans are evenly distirbuted across the country. For example, 20% of NASCAR fans live in the Northeast U.S.; this is in line with the general population--20% of the U.S. population lives in the Northeast. While the largest base of NASCAR fans live in the Southern U.S., only 38% of the NASCAR fans live in the South. Again, this is in line with the general population--35% of the population lives in the South. 
:The Survery is Biased. The general population is NOT 10% black in the south. It's a lot higher than that.
----
Am I the only find who finds this ironic? It's got so much detail that it rivals the US Census. It's alot for a car racing body I think. Someone in NASCAR must of tried very hard to prove that there fans are not just a bunch of rednecks. --Arm 17:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read this section, and I was a little confused as to why it is included at all.  I can understand that there is a stereotype of NASCAR fans that categorizes them as rednecks, but making a counterargument to an assumed stereotype doesn't make sense, nor is it appropriate for this artice.  I vouch for the removal of most of this content, if not all of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this information very valuable.  Haven't found the fan breakdown like this anywhere else
The page in the beginning is messed up like when it says the and then the picture of the nascar logo. 130.111.98.241 17:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I would expect this is a result of your screen resolution, no HTML trickery is being used to force the full version of "NASCAR" on to one line. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan Demographics

message: Can someone else keep an eye on both this page, Nextel Cup, and Busch Series? An anon user is repeatedly posting a link to his/her NASCAR forum, violating WP:EL. Now he/she's on AOL, making him/her harder to discover. I don't have time to go after him/her each day, so help out please. -- SonicAD (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just sprotected this page and Nextel Cup because of the link spam. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I am not affiliated with any of these sites, nor have I abused the system (other than breaking the (three-revert rule, which one may break in cases of vandalism.)-- SonicAD (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I do no such thing. I have a NASCAR blog that I link to on my user page (which one is allowed to do), and that's it. I have nothing to gain, and the one site I did add the link to and create an article about here I only did because it meets notability standards. Please pay attention to the fact that I am not the only person reverting your edits. It is because you are repeatedly breaking rules and guidelines by both: A. posting a link to your own website (See: WP:EL), and B. breaking the 3 revert rule {See WP:3RR). I am held to the same standards, as is everybody else here. Please consider this. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spammer 

message: : Should we bring in a section on how this is a predominantly white sport? Can anyone remember that survery that showed how most fans in NASCAR would not like a black man driving in NASCAR? --Hqduong 19:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Data cannot be biased. Its presentation could be, but this looks to me like the results of a simple survey. Are you suggesting that it is prima facie invalid because it came from NASCAR? That's a rather serious charge. Moreover, your previous comment about a vague, unknown survey smacks of race-baiting. While there's only 1 black driver currently (Lester), he's by no means the first. If you have other sources you'd like to include, by all means reference them. Simishag 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Predominantly White Sport

message: I have changed this to "fielding a Camry lookalike", as the cars are silhouettes. Duke toaster 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it back... none of the cars are actual models of the real cars, but they're simply called "Fusion", or "Camry" anyway. It's already given that they're not racing the real cars, so "lookalike" is unnecessary. -- SonicAD (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Car of Tomorrow will make this discussion irrelevant soon anyhow. Almost all racecars today (above the beginner class at the local tracks) are lookalikes. A rollcage with either the true fenders off a street car or sheet metal/fiberglass which was bent/manufactured to look right. I'm with SonicAD. Royalbroil 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "fielding a Camry"

message: Hey ya'll.Has anyone hear heard of any serious criticism from the environmental side of things? --JohnFlaherty 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was something about how NASCAR uses leaded fuel, but it's being taken care of... NASCAR's moving to unleaded fuel either next year or 2008, I forget which. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah.  I was refering more to common criticism I hear from liberal environmntalists that I know about what a sinful waste of Petroleum NASCAR is.--JohnFlaherty 04:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism - Environmentalism"

message: I added this article to the list of sites that are regularly spammed in the external links section so others can help watch. Right now there is a website in a foreign language, and another that links to some kinds of a team website source that I never heard of (and it doesn't look very professional to me either). Apparently I'm not alone, for others have been removing that second link. I think that the only two external links that should remain are 1) the official website (of course), and 2) Jayski.com (which has built an excellent reputation as a long-term source of NASCAR news). I have seen Jayski interviewed several times on reputable NASCAR-related television shows. Royalbroil 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with you. I've have this page on my WL for a month or so and yep...spam is a major problem. So thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that you have responded, and your response was civil. I have never heard of the site, but I am willing to listen. I will leave this link active until we can have WikiProject NASCAR members voice their opinions to reach a consensus. I will post a message on the WikiProject message page asking members to come here to reach a consensus whether or not this link should stay. People have argued about including Jayski.com, which is well know in the NASCAR community. Why are you so passionate about this link staying? Royalbroil 04:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is that if we keep MotorsportToday, well then we should have thatsracin.com or some of the other news sites out there. It could get out of hand real fast. I'm not even sure that we need Jayski linked since we have his site under "See also". --Woohookitty(meow) 04:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Woohookitty, this kind of stuff usually turns into a slippery slope and even if it doesn't, it's still a waste of everyone's time to keep adding and deleting links every day. I think just the link to NASCAR.com is fine. Also, if Thunderroad is in any way affiliated with the site whose link he is adding then it doesn't matter how notable or interesting it is; it should be removed. Recury 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Jayski is listed in the related articles section, and that's enough for me. The message that you added does look out of place. I propose that we as a community could just enforce the ban on adding any other links. Royalbroil 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I should note, not that it will be added anyway, that this website was spammed relentlessly a few months ago, and I would be wholly against adding it again (as it seems this user, now registered, is doing much the same thing as he/she was as an IP. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam links

message: The article is way too long and I will be removing/summarize/moving some stuff to try to fix this. The criticism section is especially, um, verbose. I know NASCAR is controversial and all, but we don't need to have 2-3 paragraphs for each issue people have with NASCAR when 2-3 sentences are sufficient to sum it up.  Recury 14:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No complaints here, definitely a good idea to trim the Cup stuff to its own article and the other edits look good. Thank you for posting here and also for posting detailed edit summaries; it's nice to know what people are up to. Simishag 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the internet.  I don't understand your concern with "too long".  Make sure you cut fat, and not muscle.--Mlprater 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Length

message: This article is very decent. It just needs more pictures.
--Leidiot 04:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I would like to submit nascarfish.com as one of the external link for Nascar. James Hick 10:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fansite 

message: I rolled back this change: "It is the most popular sport in the US.", assuming that it was vandalism.  I have a hard time believing that this is a true fact.  If this is true, a citation would be nice.  Thanks! --  timc  talk   03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably isn't true and definitely isn't the right wording for a claim like that (How was the popularity measured? NASCAR isn't a sport, per se; Auto racing is). You did the right thing, IMO. Recury 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV for sure.
NASCAR has promoted itself as the "fastest growing sport", but not the most popular.Mustang6172 04:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular sport in the US 

message: I moved a few paragraphs around.  I changed the format.  I added more information about the Busch and Truck series.  And I'm taking the Cup centric parts to the Nextel Cup article where they belong. Mustang6172 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Format

message: Someone's been having some fun with the article so I put a lock on it.Mustang6172 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you just added a  box, which I have removed.  Only admins can protect the page.  Mr Stephen 08:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And they do such a fine job of it!  Please note that's sarcasm.  Mustang6172 05:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is where people can request that an admin protect an article: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection SubSeven 06:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's to help AOL users, who have nothing else to do with their lives --ArmadilloFromHell 06:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Vandalism

message: I would like to see something added to the main article about sponsorship. i.e. "How to become a sponsor" "typical cost of sponsoring, running a car at NASCAR" "How much goes to the driver vs. the team" "Sponsor dollars vs. winning purse dollars" etc.
:I think that belongs under a series specific article.Mustang6172 03:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsorship 

message: Does this picture show a restrictor plate?  If so, should it not be pointed out for novices such as myself? PrometheusX303 00:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ricky Rudd's engine pic 

message: hi there im harvick fan ....... are u a harvick fan--Harvick29 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  is anyone a harvick fan 

message: In Early History paragraph 5 it says "barroom napkin" instead of bathroom
:No, it's suppose to say "barroom".Mustang6172 01:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: dear wikipedia, 
The points awarding chart in the article page is incorrect the points are in increments of 5 so 1st place gets 170 points 2nd gets 165 points and third gets 160 and so on.
:No, the point system is accurate.  Your source seems to be fautly.Mustang6172 03:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the points system 

message: I can't remember if I brought this up before, but this page describes what we should be doing to shorten this article. Recury 20:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to stream line some info under safety, but I think it will take something drastic.  Perhaps we could move the criticisms section into it's own article.Mustang6172 08:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right about it needing to be drastic. I'm going to start a rewrite at NASCAR/Temp that way we can decide what should be in the article and then write it instead of the other way around. The criticisms should be part of the article, not a section in it or a seperate article. If there are criticisms about the Frances, for example, then those could go in a section about the NASCAR leadership or the company of NASCAR. If you look at Featured Articles (and I don't think making this article featured is impossible) that is how they generally do it. Recury 02:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary style

message: I've started a rewrite at NASCAR/Temp. I'd like to concentrate on what we should include before we actually start writing the thing, so take a look and if you have ideas for what else should be included or better ideas for section titles, leave a message on the talk page. Recury 02:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa there buddy!  I think we've done a good job of working over the article in the last month or so.  You're new article has a section on the Chase for the Championship.  I took out a section on the Chase because this article was too Cup centric!  I moved that to Nextel Cup because that's where it belongs. The same goes for the Car of Tomorrow.  We've got a great article here now, it's just a little too long.  Look at the history page, it used to suck.  Mustang6172 06:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness, it isn't even close to great right now. It's poorly organized and not that well-written and has tons of balance and emphasis problems (I would say balance and emphasis are the main problems with it right now). And of course like most articles it doesn't have inline citations. It needs a rewrite badly. Recury 04:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide an example of some of these "balance and emphasis" problems?  Mustang6172 07:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections on safety and the point system are way too long for a general article on NASCAR. Recury 14:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not just start a new article for the point system?  Mustang6172 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just asked for an example. There's plenty more. Recury 13:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The saftey information seems essential.  What else is wrong? Mustang6172 21:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are two of the most glaring problems and if you don't think there's a problem with those, then me listing less glaring ones isn't going to convince you. The fact that you think that much info about safety should be included in a general article on NASCAR makes me think you probably shouldn't be involved with it anyway. Recury 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well if we don't put the saftey info here, where else could it go?Mustang6172 04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a lot of the individual safety devices already have articles, so it would just be a matter of linking to them from here. We can either have a seperate article about safety in NASCAR or we can have a much shorter section on it or we can just mention the more important safety parts as they come up in the history section. Recury 13:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: I think that someone should include something about the future hall of fame center, whose construction is due to begin in Charlotte, NC. I am not exactly a fan of the sport,but I feel that something should be mentioned about it.
:We'll just give it a whole new article. Mustang6172 05:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we have one at NASCAR Hall of Fame. I'll add a link from here. Recury 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hall of Fame??

message: What about adding the weekly or current standings for the cup here or on the cup page to show how the season is panning out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EinsteinEdits (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 October 2006
:Not a bad idea, but current standings aren't covered on the main page for other sports, and NASCAR's are currently covered by 2006 in NASCAR-- SonicAD (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standings

message: Here is an article discussing this: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/nascar/2005-09-22-nascar-baseball-ratings-claim_x.htm.  Also, it was mentioned earlier that Individual NASCAR races score higher than individual, regular season MLB games in terms of ratings.  This isn't really significant because there are 2,430 regular season MLB games (most of which are televised, many on multiple stations).  A fairer comparison would be to take the nationally televised baseball games against the natioanlly televised NASCAR events.  According to the USA Today article cited above, the 43 natioanlly televised baseball games had a 23% higher rating than the 26 natioanlly televised NASCAR races.  I think the No. 2 ranking ought to be taken out of the article. Rambo32x 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratings mean a lot in this case. Remember that the NFL, MLB, and NASCAR are all primarily American sports, and television viewership is an important part of that. If they were more worldwide, the US ratings wouldn't matter so much, but outside of America these sports aren't very popular. I think they're a pretty good meter for assessing popularity. -- SonicAD (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only one that realizes this article is obviously biased? The title points it out for you, BASEBALL says that Nascar's numbers are skewed. Well of course the MLB is going to say they are skewed to make themselves look better. What we need is a neautral point of view, like the raw numbers from Nielsen. I'm just saying anh article purported by NASCAR or MLB will be biased, I don't think we should take it out just yet, we just need to find the proper documentation, and base the article off of that. War wizard90 00:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 2 sport ahead of baseball 

message: Why does this page need an infobox?  NASCAR isn't a sports league, but a higherarchy of leagues. Mustang6172 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, it should have the infobox for a company.Mustang6172 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Its just a matter of time before a car bursts into falmes or a car goes airborne and goes through the fence at Daytona. Should Nascar be taking these things into consideration. Maybe that track could be mover farther away for the stands. Tyler N.Bold textNASCAR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.86.113 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saftey Concerns 

message: In consideration of the AfD debates over the notability of deaths at Daytona and over the effect of Dale Earnhardt's death on racing safety equipment, and in consideration of the preceding ... um ... comment before this topic, shouldn't this page have a small section pointing to a breakout article about the development of safety equipment in NASCAR over the decades?  Fuel cells, tire-building advances, tire inner liners, firesuits and helmets, restraint systems, SAFER barriers and other fencing improvements, coolsuits and fresh-air systems, fire-suppression systems over the driver and engine and fuel cell.  All of these topics have some notable developments that were specific to NASCAR and not just something racingwide that filtered into Cup or the org's other divisions.  I added a magazine source about wheel tethers into the Whelen Modified Tour article, and broke the safety topic into its own section there.  That same SCR story has other stuff that might fit into a "Safety in NASCAR" article, particularly the hood tethers (mandated mid-1999).  If anyone wants to work on such an article, I'll help, at least with sources and copyediting and some historical perspective.  Barno 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now I think that information would belong in NASCAR rules and regulations. Mustang6172 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page has a section on history-of, but I know that it could be expanded with content that's encyclopedic, including a lot from the 1960s, without getting into excessive detail.  That would make the section long enough for "undue weight", and would make the rules-and-regs article too long and too back-and-forth between current and historical parts.  Barno 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed article: safety (equipment, track mods, etc) in NASCAR? 

message: 2-3 vandals per day is generally considered manageable on Wikipedia. The idea behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. I find this to be a violent example of protection-creep. Protection was meant for when Stephen Colbert tells everyone to go vandalize reality, or for George W. Bush. It was not meant for pages averaging 15 vandals a week.--CastAStone|(talk) 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post an unprotection request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection FironDraak 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I did. I was told to discuss it on the talk page first.--CastAStone|(talk) 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was unprotected and already there is vandalism.  Benje309 05:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this page protected?

message: Surely this page has been vadalized.   The multiple redneck references and run on sentences would have to be satirical otherwise. 
Whoever maintains this article, you're doing a terrible job. 
24.131.16.112 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking at the real article and not the talk/discussion page. The run-ons might be there (I haven't really edited the article that much) but the word "redneck" is not in the article. Michael Greiner 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is terrible.

message: IMHO, the copyedit & cleanup tags were unjustified. This is an extensive article about a subject of broad interest, and there are a lot of editors who have contributed. Additional contributions are of course welcome, but those tags are rather prejudicial when they appear at the very top of the article. Please save those tags for articles which don't get very much attention. If you'd like to discuss particular changes here, we're listening. Simishag 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Someone should explain why they have applied a tag if there is ANY doubt. 2) How did Cannonball Baker get in the article? While he was the first commish, Big Bill was the real voice of NASCAR. I think that Baker should have at most a passing mention. Barkhimer doesn't seem like he should have more than a few sentences either IMO. Royalbroil T : C 05:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the "history" section is getting large enough to justify a separate article. All the historical figures could get sufficient treatment in such an article. Simishag 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Benje, that was talk page vandalism.  Look at the time index compared to the article's history record.  There were no "redneck refrences" at the time of his post.Mustang6172 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note my response to that comment:Try looking at the real article and not the talk/discussion page. The run-ons might be there (I haven't really edited the article that much) but the word "redneck" is not in the article. Michael Greiner 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of copyedit & cleanup tags

message: The article states that after Prohibition was repealed, the moonshine runners profits dried up, and they had no outlet for their fast cars and desire to drive such. As a person who grew up in North Carolina, I can tell you that this is patently untrue. Moonshining was a huge industry in the Southeast all the way up into the 1950s and 1960s, and still exists in many areas even today. We need another explanation, since there was 15 years between the end of Prohibition and the beginnings of NASCAR. Junior Johnson's conviction for making and running moonshine was in 1956. The truth is that moonshining flourished. The 'shine runners would get together at someone's horse pasture on Sunday (even bootleggers wouldn't run moonshine on Sunday) and race around in a circle. The establishment of local dirt tracks gave them a more respectable outlet, even one that might pay for their gas. That snowballed into local race circuits here and there, and is where Bill France started to build his dream. What we don't have is references, which shouldn't be hard to find. I won't edit the article now, but I will begin once I find some references, and I would appreciate any help. Thanks. -- Elaich 03:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right about the Prohibition reference being way out of date. Please feel free to contribute, especially if you have sources to add. The "History" section is a little long, but I think with a little more material we could break it out into a separate article, so if you can expand on it, have a blast. Simishag 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bootlegging 

message: :Image:NASCAR-CoronaLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NASCAR-CoronaLogo.jpg