Talk:Rant

Rant.com
I found and updated with great definition.

75.73.140.149 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

When you click on the links to different languages from this page it is linked to "diatribe". Don't know how to fix that. 213.71.140.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

This is a terrible article -- I daresay it could use a top-to-bottom re-write. Vranak 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article sucks. SpectrumDT 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I love how you both agree it is awful, but neither of you bothered to change it. 138.130.81.212 05:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It got better. Vranak


 * "The lower classes"? "Street definition"? Who wrote this? An aristocrat? This article itself is ironically worthy of a rant. I've re-written the introduction (still not good, though). A problem like this needs a complete transformation by many people, little by little. Uagehry456 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've rewritten the first section, and I think it is better. It could still use polishing, and the first sentence needs a major revision. Player 03 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Characteristics section, which was the most preposterous section due to it mentioning the differences between the "incoherent" rants of upper-class citizens and the "white-person's rap" of the lower-class citizens. Blarvink 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!- Uagehry456 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: When I said "This page is worthy of a rant", I didn't mean here, just figuratively. Dang, this page does not need an example. -Uagehry456|Talk 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the source given for the "ranting is the how the poor express their ideas" definition which has since been removed was Urban Dictionary; not exactly a legitimate source of information.74.67.115.198 01:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, the term "rant" refered to either (A) an emotional monologue about an issue that irritates the speaker, or (B) a sort of "stream-of-consciousness" written essay about any particular topic in general without much in the way of organization, as if one were holding a normal conversation. The latter form is rather common on the Internet, which leads me to suspect that, in this context, the term has fallen into "slang" use. Rapierman (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
I suggest that no matter how good this article gets, we never remove this tag :)

"This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards!"

being a ranter, having been able to rant here, I no longer even feel I have to read the article! The tag rocks!

Mathiastck (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We should also watch this article, as these types of articles are extremely susceptible to non-neutral points of view.Cosman246 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why I reverted from a redirect back to a full article
Back in May of 2008, this article was nominatedad for deletion. The result of the discussion was to merge and redirect to Monologue. However, the target section containing the merged information was eventually removed from the article leaving a redirect to a nonexistent section. Therefore, I'm restoring the original article. This unfortunately may mean another AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical context removal
I removed the historical context section from the article because, while a good example of a rant, I didn't think it met the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry, at least the way it was presented. Maybe with a more detailed introduction into why it is considered a classic example of a rant?

AikiHawkeye (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Rants in social settings" is trivia
I'm quite unhappy with how it is right now, and I advocate removing it altogether. Phrase by phrase:

--"Speaker's corner in Hyde Park..."

- It matches every trivia definition I'm aware of and doesn't add anything to either the article as a whole or even "rants in social settings"

--"Rants have been prohibited and still are in places where freedom of speech or political protest is discouraged or outlawed."

-Even though it makes sense, it's lacking citations, it mentions nothing in particular, it's not encyclopedic and so doesn't add much at all.

--"Rants are discouraged or prohibited in some scientific and decision-making groups. The prohibition of rants has a long history in Europe."

-Citations: needed. Knowing that sometimes, somewhere rants are discouraged is like not knowing at all.

--"Rants are used often in situations requiring monologue. Comedians, such as Lewis Black or Rick Mercer, use rants as a way to get their message or punch-line across to the audience."

-This is pretty much trivia. Maybe could be used in the definition of rant to show that rants may be mindless and angry or a parody of mindless and angry people, or other.

Also, I fear in this section the term rant is used too widely, including normal political speeches that are against anything. This alone may not be very important, though.

One last thought, as I see the same problems in "rants on the internet" and "rants in popular culture" this entire article may be better off cut out and turned into a wiktionary page.

LeinaD natipaC (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Moyles
It says: "Chris Moyles, a unpopular UK Disc-Jockey, often rants on his shows, particularly The Chris Moyles Show". Is whether he is popular or not really something to be said on this page? Seems a bit silly to me Mawkish1983 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Diatribe which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)