Talk:Ratt/Archive 1

Mickey Ratt
I've been trying to learn all I can about the Mickey Ratt period of the band. They went through various line-ups during that time, including quite a few people who were also in Rough Cutt. Gringo300 09:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Mickey Ratt (Pre Ratt)

 * The Garage Tape Dayz 78-81 (2000)
 * Rattus Erectus 1976-1982
 * In Your Direction
 * Pre-Ratt Days (2007)

Heres the answer to Micky Ratt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.110.235 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article needs to go into a lot more detail about the Mickey Ratt period. Gringo300 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

no mention
No mention whatsoever is made of the Ratt song "Tell The World" which initially appeared on Metal Blade Record's Metal Massacre I. The ten included tracks were mostly thrash metal, notably Metallica's "Hit the Lights", and "Tell the World" was omitted in later pressings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.198.11 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted image
This article contains a copyrighted image downloaded from the Internet Image:CurrentRatt.jpg which was tagged incorrectly as a Windows screenshot. Unless an editor can get permission to use this image under GFDL or similar, the image is going to be deleted. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

clean up
The article does need a clean up but not for the reasons that the previous comment suggested. The tone of the article is not a grandstanding attempt to make RATT on par with the Beach Boys, as that comment said. It is obvious that this person a negative POV toward this type of music. RATT may not be important to critics but they did have an enormous effect upon the music of the 80's and the substantial amount of people that bought their records and watched them on MTV.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. First, I don't know why it's "obvious" I have negative feelings about the band or its genre of music. I simply suggested that the claims of the article, as it stood when I wrote the comment, were unsupported, and, it seems, overblown in some cases. I don't deny that RATT was influential for people who bought the record (though one would need to be specific in precisely how this influence manifested itself to include the claim; e.g., "The studio complexity of 'Pet Sounds' was influential on the Beatles as they worked on "Sergeant Peppers...."). Nor would I counter the claim that the band influenced others within and without its genre.  But I disagree that the article, in places, does not try to make sections of the band's recordings "on par with the Beach Boys" (which was, if you read my post carefully, never a comparison I made; I compared Jan & Dean to the Beach Boys in terms of quality and only mentioned RATT in relation to the Beach Boys in terms of the dates at which they appeared on the Southern California music scene).  Certainly, the claim about RATT having an album--and that album, of all that one might have chosen-that remains a "pillar" to "the annals of rock history" is one that few would support. Really, would any serious rock historian or knowledgable fan consider "Dancing Undercover" an integral, supporting album that helps support an understanding of sixty-five years of rock? There's no problem with developing well supported, qualified claims defining the band's influence or importance. That's simply not what the article does right now. Finally, I like the music, grew up on it, but none of that should matter at all as the article develops. Indeed, having crtical voices in the mix can really help the tone and quality of the evolving product. --Patchyreynolds 15:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In need of clean up
As it currently stands, this article approaches hagiographical tone in regard to the band's quality. What is the sourced, scholarly justification for Ratt being "talented" (how does one even measure this?) or "pop-savvy" (when was its last hit on the pop charts?)? (Not fan sites, blogs, or chat rooms.) Can anyone seriously make the argument that "Dancing Undercover" is "important" in the "annals of rock ' roll history"? Also, the claim that they are "pioneers of the Southern California music scene" (in any sense, "intrepid" or otherwise) is pretty tough to make given that they first charted in the 1980s, well after, one would imagine, that scene had established itself with, say, the Beach Boys and Jan & Dean. Obviously, Ratt is in a different generic category (and incidentally, enjoyed far less commercial success) than these groups, but the fact that such claims allow for the confusion only highlights the problems with the article to date. The article is simply trying to hard to make the band sound as if it was/were significant within rock history--and its tough to make a comparison with Chuck Berry, Nirvana, Elvis, Beatles, etc.--rather than significant within the more appropriately limited genre of glam metal. I mean, though they're before my time, I like the previously mentioned California groups. But the Beach Boys was an important rock group; Jan & Dean was "only" an important surf rock group. Any arguments to be made against some fairly substantial deltions and/or re-writing? --Patchyreynolds 16:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the tone of the article does sound more like a late night pitch for CDs than an encyclopedia article. For example, "impressive guitar solos," could better be written as "noted for the strength of the guitar solos," if such a reference could be cited would be a more encyclopedic tone.

POV
Again, the previous Hall of Fame assertions were extremely POV and completely unsupportable. There's simply no way to demonstrate the the bad is "guaranteed" admission, a fact the bulk of the current article admits in detailing mainstream critics' frequent dismaissal of much of its work. Also, what is the legitimate source for the band being of "continuing importance and influence over rock music and the United States|American music industry"? On the former claim, one or two bands claiming they like RATT's sound doesn't qualify, otherwise every band could claim similar influence. Where is the source from objective rock journalism, or the multiple sources to multiple successful and productive current bands that nod toward RATT as an influence? Also, even if sourced, the claim will most likely have to be qualified, i.e., "RATT's early music continues to be influentital for..." or "RATT's music continues to be influential for the rising generation of metal bands." For the latter claim, precisely how is RATT continuing to influence the music industry today? Have they reimagined the album format, brought legions of new fans to a small genre, returned the genre to its roots in live performance, pioneered downloading, etc.? Finally, the claim that the band is "rivaled" only by Nirvana, GnR, Metallica, and Def Leppard appears tremendously vague and incredibly overblown. First, rival in what way? In terms of influence or historical importance, the band isn't even close to being regarded alongside Nirvana. In terms of album sales in the 80s, Def Leppard far outstrips them; in terms of album sales today, Metallica far outranks them. In fact, to claim that the band is "only rivaled" by this handful of bands implies that RATT sits atop a hill onto the peak of which that the other mentioned bands occasionally nudge their way. In its current state, the article simply uses the term "widely" five times, each use allowing the claim to elide concerns for sourcing, qualification, and specificity. --Patchyreynolds 15:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
Please injclude sourced support for the claim the the band's induction to the Hall of Fame is "guaranteed"--is it even possible to do this?--or cease reverting to the section that includes this claim. This is POV, and more properly the realm for fan sites, not an encyclopedia. --Patchyreynolds 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war
It would be helpful if the anonymous poster reverting to POV comments would use the talk page to address these problems or provide sources for his/her opinion. Failing that, the page would seem to be fated to bouncing back and forth. Is there any reason not to submit this difference for mediation? --Patchyreynolds 22:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Too POVish
Hello everyone, Cory pratt here. I would like to thank all of you for helping me with this article and the articles related to this, however, some of you are making too much POVish statements. Some of you are making Ratt sound like they were like Zeppelin and the The Beatles which they're actually not. Some of you need to stop making these POVish statements in the article. Bye for Now--Cory pratt 09:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Beth Fairbrother
I removed the following:

"On the back cover of the EP, the band gives a "special thanks to Beth". This is in reference to Beth Fairbrother, who managed Ratt prior to the band signing with Atlantic Records."

The back cover of the original album I have on Time Coast/Enigma contains no such reference.--DannyRay 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Walkin' The Dog
True, the song was written by Rufus Thomas. However, Ratt's cover was inspired by the Aerosmith version, from the album Aerosmith (1973). Indeed, Aerosmith was very influential in the Southern California metal scene. GnR covered Mama Kin from the same Aerosmith album. My revision notes the Aerosmith connection.--DannyRay 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Miltie
I see no mention anywhere of Milton Berle. I'm positive that this band's lead singer is Milton Berle's great-nephew--that's why Uncle Miltie was in the band's video, if anybody remembers the Round and Round vid. I may start to look for a citation. For someone as significant to entertainment as Berle, at least a passing refence seems right. Added 09-06-06 1315 CST by Jason S. Klepp

Milton is not the lead singer's nephew, he was the band's manager's nephew.--Cory pratt 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I bet you mean UNCLE, not nephew? - Anonymous Coward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.64.234 (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pooh or Grateful Dead?
Hello again. I'm kinda confused whether that sticker on that car in the VH1 Classic Commercial is Winnie the Pooh or that Grateful Dead Bear. Does anyone know? Because both of them look a lot alike.--Cory pratt 02:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

its the bear —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Writing Music?
Does anyone know if Ratt is still writing music or have any plans to release further albums?- Cory pratt

Based on Pearcy interviews, if RATT recorded new music and released it, Pearcy would be owed money because of the use of the RATT name. So from what I understand based on various articles read, RATT as it is today will simply tour but not record or release new tunes. Best bet would be to watch the VH1 show tonight to see if they offer any insight for Ratt's future.

Damn! Pearcy should go to hell then!-Cory pratt

There's been reports that Pearcy and DeMartini have been writing songs and that the band will release a new album in 2009. Of course, it's up fairly up in the air, so until the band enters the studio, it's speculation. (Farrarsm (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

Glam or Hair Metal?
Does it really matter if we call Ratt a hair or glam metal? For me I think that Glam Metal is a more appropriate genre to call them. What do you think?--Cory pratt 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---Response My honest opinion is that they were a Glam Metal band. I say this because of how they dressed, but to seperate them from the Poisons, Warrants, and Cinderellas, they were much, much heavier.
 * Ratt are connected to Rough Cutt, who are connected to Ronnie James Dio's bands. Obviously, musical classification is going to be kind of difficult. Gringo300 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it does make any difference anyway. Mötley Crüe was called hair metal and was pretty much as heavy as Ratt. Anyway, from what episode is that Simpsons bit? I'd like to see it. 201.9.142.17 10:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing
I write to report that this article has been vandalized in various parts in these days. Luckily it only involved minor vulgar attacks, but still I had to undo more than one edit. If this goes on, I think it would be wise to have the page semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FateForger (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

heavy metal
Ratt a heavy metal band ?. You must be joking!. It's ridiculous. It's like calling ABBA rock and roll. Ratt is a mainstream pop rock band.Aishah Bowron 12:01, 27 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.233.74 (talk)

How many ttimes do I have to tell you guys that Ratt are not heavy metal ?. They are a pop rock band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.233.74 (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that Europe the band that had topped the charts with "The Final Countdown" were influenced by Ratt ?. User :Aishah Bowron 20:17, 28 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.233.74 (talk)

Back in the early 80's, they would have been labled metal just as Van Halen was. They would not have been considered thrash metal. Looking back you can see how "pop" they were trying to be as a metal band. So the "Dancing Undercover" section should be changed. How does anyone say Ratt was trying to be thrashier by having more mid-tempo pop oriented songs? Look at the song list and sing the chorus in your head and you can see how not-heavy the album is. That's why the fans didn't like it as much as the first album or EP. If it's not heavy, it's not metal. Out of the Cellar has some heavy stuff. 23 October 2008 REL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.151.194 (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets make it clear once for all. Ratt were heavy metal. They are clearly not trash metal and they are very different form Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. This is why they are glam metal, which is still heavy metal, like it or not. This is it. Heavy metal. hard rock and glam metal is the trio which describes them well, as it describes well Poison, Motley Crue, Cinderella, Warrant, Dokken and many other 80's bands of the time.FateForger (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, as long as it's clear that it's a blurry crossover territory. From where I stand, it's easy to discredit most of the so-called Glam Metal scene and correctly classify most of it as Hard Rock in it's 80's form. Differences in melodic content, lyrical atmospheres, and hook emphasis (favoring vocals as opposed to riffs) makes for a pretty clear line between that and any Heavy Metal genre. Generally with these bands, you'll see more space allowed for an earthy side, where tinges of southern rock, blues shuffle swagger and Chuck Berry-isms abound. (looking at Poison, Guns 'N Roses, Bon Jovi, etc. here) Also there's the bands who did put out some material in a Heavy Metal vein and completely dropped it for more rock/AOR directions, causing further confusion about their later material.(most infamously, Def Leppard) And White Lion is as heavy as a paperclip.

To the point though, early Ratt DOES represent in every aspect what I would include in the actual, fleeting genre known as Glam Metal as opposed to 80's Hard Rock. Motley Crue, W.A.S.P., Twisted Sister, Dokken, Quiet Riot... I feel they were the core of what the movement represents. Older, established Heavy Metal/Speed Metal/NWOBHM bands also released albums with Glam Metal aspects during the mid-80's: Judas Priest, Black Sabbath(w Tony Martin), Ozzy Osbourne band, Scorpions, Warlock, Saxon, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.168.40 (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Pearcy's Ratt
Who were the members involved with Stephen's pseudo-version of the band back in 2000/2001? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.40.3 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanked compilation album
One of the compilation albums was blanked and redirected without discussion. Not sure how this affects the other compilation albums. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Motley Crue Vs Ratt
A Lotta people compare and put Crue and Ratt against and rival echother when it comes to the 80's, Motley crue to people are fully credited as a heavy metal band, but what about Ratt, when ratt first hit the scene it was all heavy metal 1982, so its hard but I was there75.155.46.228 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC).

Plus Albums, Shout at The Devil came out 1983 it was known as Heavy Metal, same with Out of the cellar and the EP 1983-1984. Plus its hard going on which albums heavier I personally love both and both are heavy metal classics75.155.46.228 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia relies on verifiable facts, not the opinions of people who want to edit the article. The way to determine the genre of a band is to look at the published sources and summarize them for the reader.
 * It doesn't matter what your personal opinion is; it only matters what was published about the band. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Its not just the opinion, Its the truth about the era and albums, Its always the truth about me and the true guys who grew up in the metal era. TRUTH75.155.46.228 (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is in RATT? And how do we resolve this here.
The status of this band has been absolutely crazy and the edits on this page have joined in on the madness, yet no one has brought up a discussion about it. My opinion is that of course this new band is not RATT. However, I think that officially, this new band is RATT. Now whether we like it or not, I believe that we have an obligation to report the closest we can to the truth, and I believe that the Bobby/Blaze/Alan/Ellis/Griffin band is what would currently count as RATT. I find that either way with the status of the original members feuds, that given that this band has officially started promoting themselves as RATT and not "Bobby Blotzer's Ratt Experience" as the same group of musicians, and that DeMartini is currently failing his lawsuits against them, it seems that this is really the new Ratt. See: https://www.facebook.com/TheRattExperience/photos/a.769995743110547.1073741828.769610033149118/856446344465486/?type=3&permPage=1 http://ultimateclassicrock.com/ratt-re-infestation-tour/ http://loudwire.com/bobby-blotzer-wins-first-round-battle-over-ratt-name/ http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/warren-demartini-vs-bobby-blotzer-the-continuing-battle-over-rights-to-ratt-name/ http://loudwire.com/ratt-bobby-blotzer-wins-second-court-ruling-over-band-name/ Shout out to and  to join the discussion. — DLManiac (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should leave Ratt on hiatus until all legal disputes are over. In my opinion, there's no need to change its last known lineup to "current" members of Blotzer's version as there's not many sources which tell us how the lawsuits are going between Blotzer and the others. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

More Photos
I believe more photos of the band and band members need to be in the article. even a original photo of the original Mickey Ratt era. Having only one photo of the band wont turn people on to what they were or looked like back then, other band articles have lots this article needs a few more. Thanks75.155.46.228 (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's only one picture related to Ratt on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore, more pictures aren't available at this time. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ratt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.juancroucier.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/007476.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
I was requested by to look through Ratt's discography and identify unreliable sources. This is what I've found:
 * Ratt (main article): News article on Ultimate Guitar that is not attributed to a staff member. Also, most of the sources are primary, in that they are press releases or other similar news clippings, most re-posted through Blabbermouth.net. For a band like this that had the type of mainstream presence that it did, there should be plenty of reliable sources to draw from.
 * Out of the Cellar: Review on Ultimate Guitar that is not by a staff member.
 * Dancing Undercover: A wiki site that doesn't even fully support the content it's supposed to.
 * Detonator (album): What looks like a PIRATING SITE!.
 * Infestation (album): A Blabbermouth post. I'd avoid Blabbermouth unless it's reviews or else press releases, since it's hard to gauge the editorial oversight for news postings on the site.
 * Round and Round (Ratt song): A tabloid site

The following articles have no sources listed at all:
 * Ratt: The Video
 * You Think You're Tough
 * Wanted Man (Ratt song)
 * Lack of Communication (song)
 * You're in Love (Ratt song)
 * What You Give Is What You Get
 * Dance (Ratt song)
 * Eat Me Up Alive
 * Body Talk (Ratt song)
 * Slip of the Lip
 * Way Cool Jr.
 * I Want a Woman
 * Lovin' You's a Dirty Job
 * Shame Shame Shame (Ratt song)
 * Givin' Yourself Away
 * Nobody Rides for Free
 * Best of Me (Ratt song)

I hope that this is helpful.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem has been that Special:Contributions/75.155.46.228 from Alberta, Canada, has been insisting on his own interpretation of the band's genre. For instance, he has removed the "glam metal" genre here and here. We must stick with genres found in the literature. Of course, there are good sources about Ratt! Some have been cited in the articles, but not enough of them.
 * AllMusic says they were a hair band and a glam metal band, mixing hard rock with pop hooks.
 * This book by David Konow says that Ratt's best output was pop metal.
 * The Big Book of Hair Metal by Martin Popoff examines Ratt in detail.
 * American Hair Metal also has a section on Ratt.
 * Deena Weinstein writes that Ratt was one of the big hair metal bands from the L.A. scene.
 * The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal says that Ratt is the "poster child" for the pop metal genre.
 * Wikipedia combines pop metal, hair metal and glam metal into the same genre, which means that Ratt is certainly glam metal. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never listened to Ratt, but I know that they were one of the big glam metal groups. Thank you for providing some context to the request.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ratt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.juancroucier.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/007476.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Official website
According to this tweet from the band's verified Twitter account the official website has changed. The old one may have been official for longer, but I see no reason not to update our information. Huon (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, on second thought I see the reason. Since the "official" Ratt seems to be in debate, we should not link to either website in the infobox until that's resolved. I'll remove the link there and remove the "official" descriptor from the external links section. Huon (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ratt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150920105021/http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/14/local/me-passings14 to https://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/14/local/me-passings14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Caps
Their website renders their name in all caps. I changed it on the page, but someone reverted it. Tim Long 05:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there names has always been stylized in all capital letter as "RATT". That needs to be changed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.214.174 (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted Changes
Info was updated a few months ago to reflect the new members of RATT. User Sabbatino reverted all changes with the comment, "Last good version." This is someone's opinion and should not be instituted within Wikipedia. I reverted his changes to reflect the facts. November 28, 2016.
 * 1.This was discussed on multiple occasions in the past and it was determined to leave everything as it was before the split. 2. As I see that you're a new user, I advise you to get familiar with Wikipedia's policies before editing, adding or removing content. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "This was discussed on multiple occasions" Legally this is the version of RATT and should be reflected. Your discussion took place nearly a year ago and since then the band received legal allowance to tour as RATT and is considered RATT.  It does not matter that you consider it to not to be. Legally it is. And it is part of RATT's history, whether people agree with it or not. "As I see that you're a new user, I advise you to get familiar with Wikipedia's policies before editing, adding or removing content." I have been using and editing within Wikipedia for going on 9 years now (no, not on a regular basis). However, I am well aware of the fact that content is not to be edited based on people's opinions. It is to show the facts. And, in your opinion the 2014 version was the last stable version of RATT, which is your opinion. Not fact. What I input is the history of RATT, and the current members (Bobby Blotzer, Joshua Alan, Mitch Perry, Brad Lang, and Stacey Blades) cannot be erased from the history. True, there are still legal proceedings, but it does not matter as this is still part of fact and history and should be documented as such. You removed ALL legal references I had input to legally back up why all changes should be made. I had all of the information with the legal proceedings. And you removed all of this. This is ALL part of the history. Do you not agree this part of the history? You're going to arbitrarily remove the history of the last years because you don't like it? Or don't agree with it? Now THAT is against Wikipedia's policies. Dijares (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * WTF do you mean by "Legally" ? -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I had all documentation within the page. Please see https://www.facebook.com/TheRattExperience/posts/873713249405462/. On November 5, 2015, a ruling overturned Warren Demartini and his attempt to procure an injunction to prevent Ratt Owner and Ceo Bobby Blotzer from using and touring under the Ratt trademark. Since then, Bobby Blotzer was allowed to use the name RATT. Since this time they are legally considered RATT. As I stated previously, this is part of the history and cannot be just removed. Dijares (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am still not seeing a response from either one of you. Would you not agree that this is what was needed to show you that the band that is currently touring and in place is RATT? And would you not agree that the updates I had in place were accurate? If I do not receive a response or input, I'm going to assume that my legal backup is proof enough that the changes were, in fact, accurate and that I can revert the page back to the correct text. Thank you. Dijares (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just asked a question. You'll need consensus before replacing your changes and this discussion so far is not consensus. Oh, please review WP:INDENT -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did ask a question, but included "WTF" within that question, which was rather disrespectful. Pretty sure WP:GUIDELINES have something to say about that. Thanks for the reference to the WP:INDENT. But since I was still within the conversation in which I was replying to myself, I kept the same indent... I provided the legal documentation stating that the current lineup is the correct line up for RATT. This was decided upon in a court of law. This adheres to WP:VER, as the reference was provided to state that legal outcome. All information was kept neutral and factual, per WP:NPOV. I am not attempting to be disruptive or cause any harm. I merely stated the facts as they are and updated the page in a concise manner according to the current information as it is. I applied the updates, and there seemed to be no issues until it was converted back to the version from over a year ago, therefore basically erasing a year's worth of history for this band. I see above it is stated you wanted to wait until legal proceedings were complete, but there is no clue as to when this will happen, so the page should be updated to state what the current status is. Because people come here to find this information. And, as it stands now, the information is incorrect as it refers to the court date with DeMartini, but does not provide the outcome, therefore leading readers to believe there wasn't one, or to come to their own conclusion. This is skewed data and needs to be updated. Dijares (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * When someone says "legally" it can be assumed that the person is related to the subject. Moreover, Facebook is not necessarily a good source as most of the time it contains POV from certain party, which doesn't belong here. Current band's status is something similar to Great White vs. Jack Russell's Great White situation. If the reverted content is added again then it should be in the vein of Great White situation and there won't be any problems. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Facebook is not necessarily a good source as most of the time it contains POV from certain party, which doesn't belong here." I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately that was their only platform at that time, which is why the press release was placed there. "Current band's status is something similar to Great White vs. Jack Russell's Great White situation. If the reverted content is added again then it should be in the vein of Great White situation and there won't be any problems." Thank you. That I can do. If you don't mind, I'm going to revert the latest version that included all the edits made by the bots and others, and all the latest references, and then will edit it to be similar to Jack Russell's Great White. Dijares (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm moving on, good luck with your consensus. -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 17:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I reverted the changes and was in the process of editing the page to make it similar to Jack Russell's Great White, when User:Mlpearc decided to revert the changes and then send me two messages accusing me of doing an edit war. This is ridiculous. Sabbatino and I came to a consensus, and I was doing exactly as he requested, and then I'm being accused of being in an edit war? I'm going to once again revert the changes. If the changes are reverted by User:Mlpearc, I will have to report him. Everything is documented here that a consensus was made, as per WP:CONSBUILD. User:Mlpearc even stated above that he's "moving on" and wished me good luck, and then he throws an accusation at me for starting an edit war? Wrong on all counts. And completely unprofessional. edit: Dijares (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason why there is this "hostility" towards edits is because there used to be a user who claimed that he/she was connected to Blotzer's Ratt and always added copyvio material. But as long as there's an understanding I'm not going to revert recent changes. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Sabbatino. I'm not sure who that user is that is making the claims of being connected to Blotzer (actually I do recall someone stating they were related to him, but I have no idea who that is - I am not related to him.). But User:Mlpearc reverted my changes after you and I made the consensus, and then sent me two messages threatening to have me removed if I revert the page again. Is it at all possible that you can revert the change you made? I know this is asking a lot, and I will absolutely make the changes so the page similar to Jack Russell's Great White. After the threat, I'm afraid to do any changes, and have unfortunately had to post elsewhere for help. However, if you are able to revert the changes, I can notate that you did them. If you don't feel comfortable doing this, I understand, and will continue to pursue other means to get this resolved. Thank you again. Dijares (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding that I'm posting this information as from my POV (as Mlpearc seemed to point out on my wall). The facts are the facts - the judgments have been made. This is not a POV issue, this is not my opinion, but actual things that have occurred (despite that others have issues with these facts - they are what they are and someone's opinion on the matter does not matter). Since there is an understandable issue with using the RATT FB page as a reference, here is another link that states that Bobby Blotzer won the case over a year ago against DeMartini to use the RATT name: http://bravewords.com/news/ratt-battle-over-band-name-continues-the-choke-hold-misappropriation-of-power-has-ended-says-bobby-blotzer. I hope this helps to better clear up the reference I mentioned above. Thank you. Dijares (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is to let you know that I, unfortunately, had to place a dispute regarding Mlpearc (he's asked me to not ping him). You can see the dispute here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ratt.23Reverted_Changes_discussion. The volunteer asked if you wish to have any input. If you wish to, please go ahead. Thank you. Dijares (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My hands are tied on this one as the article is now protected and only admins can edit it. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that. Thank you very much! Dijares (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The admin hold on the page has been removed, so I'm going to revert and start applying the promised changes and also update with the latest news as well. I will update here when done. Thanks! Dijares (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Made changes to reflect Blotzer's court proceedings, band members, and tour. Unable to revert due to conflicting changes. Someone had already added the November 2016 court ruling, but the citation wasn't input correctly, so I fixed this as well. Thank you to everyone for your input/help/assistance. I really appreciate it. [User:Dijares|Dijares]] (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Member Lineup
Member line up was changed by Rambotje without discussion or consensus here on the talk page. Please read and come to a consensus on this talk page prior to making changes to the RATT page. The line up with Blotzer still has tour dates scheduled until the end of this year (and into 2017) and nothing has prevented them from going on these dates. There is no court order to state they cannot tour. To state their last date was on November 30, 2016 is incorrect. Please fix the dates to reflect the correct timeframe. Thank you. See ref: http://rattwebsite.com/ratt-n-rolling-december-onward/ Dijares (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rate Your Music
In the Ratt albums I noticed that somebody is trying to delete the RYM links and ratings. I think we should keep it because there are alot of other albums with the RYM ratings. It may not be professional reviews but thet are reviews made by fans and if certain fans liked the albums you might like it too. And if certain fans hate it you might also hate it. So I think we need to work something out like maybe create a section on the infobox that says "Fan Ratings" or "Fan Reviews". Any ideas?-Cory pratt 20:31, 16 May 2006

Album sales
Does anyone have any links to show how many albums Ratt has sold to date?-Cory pratt

RAT:ATT:AGG
As well as a similar name the 'british' band RAT:ATT:AGG uses the same fonts as the RATT logo, any one know any more about this

Wording in lead
I see in the infobox that there are sources identifying Ratt as heavy metal, glam metal, and hard rock. And yet the lead sentence defines them as heavy metal, and it isn't until the end of the lead that it mentions the obvious fact that they are more in the vein of glam/hair metal. I think this should be re-arranged, but knowing how prickly people get about genre changes I'm bringing it here for discussion first. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine the way it is. There's no mention of them being "more in the vein of glam/hair metal". That sentence only makes a mention that they were one the most important bands of that scene, but that doesn't mean they aren't heavy metal. For example, Black Sabbath or Motörhead says "rock band", while their infoboxes say the opposite. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Ratt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metalsludge.tv/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1454&Itemid=42
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927222032/http://www.metalsludge.tv/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1570&Itemid=1 to http://www.metalsludge.tv/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1570&Itemid=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606053924/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=132413 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=132413
 * Added tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.Net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=117604
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220071115/http://metalholic.com/2010/03/ratt-interview-with-warren-demartini-let-the-infestation-begin/ to http://metalholic.com/2010/03/ratt-interview-with-warren-demartini-let-the-infestation-begin/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planetrock.com/Article.asp?id=1998354&spid=35830
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030153324/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=148402 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=148402
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=168875
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=169001
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=171761
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=172865
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=173941
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=186270

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no Bobby Blotzer's Ratt.
The case was closed and decided by a judge and appeal's court. This is silly and make Wikipedia a joke and unreliable by listing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VHFanatic (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

http://loudwire.com/ratt-dispute-settled-stephen-pearcy-warren-demartini-juan-croucier-oust-bobby-blotzer-regain-control/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by VHFanatic (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like Bobby Blotzer keeps really editing himself as a member of Ratt. Even though a judge told him he isn't allowed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4080:2D96:8C9A:36DB:D7B5:7E4 (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If nobody can find a reason to keep Blotzer's Ratt listed within a few days, only the current version of Ratt featuring Pearcy, Demartini and Croucier will be listed, because that was the judge's order.
 * There is a consensus to list both versions and until we decide otherwise, this is what we will list. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How can there be a consensus when, a judge granted rights to one side and ordered the other not to use the name?VHFanatic (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Because, the community decides what is listed in Wikipedia, not some judge or even the President for that matter :P Now the thing to do is start a new discussion about removing it and if the community agrees, out it goes, that how it works around here.   -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

A judge said Bobby Blotzer can not use the Ratt name, the few times he tried in the last month. A cease and desist was issued the show was cancelled. he is expelled from the partnership and has no legal rights to the name. So how are you doing Blotzer, enjoying some cheesecake with your time off? VHFanatic (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Despite what the judge states, this is part of the history of this band. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks... It's fact and history. That's what Wikipedia is about. Just adding my own consensus as what has been decided upon in the past. Again... It's about fact. What the history is. It's all there. Just because someone doesn't like it, doesn't make it untrue. Dijares (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Then we should list the band members when Stephen Pearcy tried to book dates as Ratt in 2000 as well? And Deep Purple band members in the early 80's, when their original singer tried to use the band name? It can be listed in the history of the band, but to list them as current band member when that band doesn't legally exist is asinine and make Wikipedia a joke.VHFanatic (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you've actually read the page, it states Pearcy toured in 99-2000 as Nitronic, and then later as Ratt Featuring Stephen Pearcy. He did not tour as RATT, as Bobby's version has. Bobby's version was legal at that time. Yes, it is confusing. But the fact - and it is fact - remains Bobby's version was a version of RATT, and did tour as such. All bookings used the logo and the name. Just like Great White and Jack Russell's Great White, which has both versions on the same page.Dijares (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Pearcy tried to tour as Ratt, then a judge shot it down, like a judge did to Bobby Blotzer. Jack Russell is legally allowed to tour as long as it is called Jack Russell's Great White, that is in their court settlement. A judge ordered that Blotzer has no right to the name. You are clueless. VHFanatic (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Listing that it happened is one thing, but to list it as a current line up, when a judge said it isn't a legal lineup and that he can't use the name is asinine. There are no dates booked, and he can't legally book dates, if he does, there will be a cease and desist and the show will be cancelled.VHFanatic (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone has once again removed the American Made Tour lineup. Since nothing has been heard from Blotzer, perhaps let this rest. However, there should be nothing else removed regarding the version and/or members of Blotzer's RATT, as this is part of the history of the band. Please let me know what you think and if you agree. Thanks! Dijares (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Needs work
The article has been flagged for a lack of sources for more than a decade. It still needs more sources, and has been tagged accordingly. It also could use more information about the band's formation. There are a few instances where sections do not seem connected to their section headings. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Origin
This article needs something about how the band formed. -- Beardo (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)