Talk:Rice burner

Notability
Perhaps I am picking at bones here, but after reviewing WP:NOTE, this page really doesn't met the criteria. First of all, after almost a year and a half, there still isn't a single reference on this page. Without that, it already fails "Sources" criterion and knocks down the rest of the criteria since you can't describe sources you don't even have.

Now I realize that notability will come down to a consensus among the editors of Wikipedia no matter what, so I am probably wasting my time, but this page really seems to be nothing more than a glorified tribute to a slang term that only people immersed in the culture of cars would know about.Transcendence (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the page since it's been pretty much blanked, I really don't see why all that info had to be deleted, even though it was unsourced. Leedeth (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler for downforce on FWD car
A citation is needed to show that a rear spoiler is "unnecessary" or "useless" on a FWD car. Rear downforce could be used for high speed stability rather than just extra traction for the driving wheels. Aerodynamics play a significant role in high speed stability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metroplex (talk • contribs) 11:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A stabilizing wing is only helpful at highly excessive speeds (variable depending on body aerodynamics). Most of these cars are perfectly stable at several mph above their top speed anyway. Still useless, here's a couple links if you'd like to add them on to the article (Top Gear tested this, too, but I don't know how to add a video as a citation). I refrain from doing anything to articles because every time I edit something I get yelled at. http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106954/article.html http://www.recumbents.com/car_aerodynamics/ Which basically state the spoilers do nothing but drag and waste gas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.153.49 (talk • contribs)


 * Isn't this moot? The article no longer mentions spoilers. Spoiler (automotive) covers that topic.--Dbratland (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Than there should be a brief mention or a link to it. That is how a spoiler on a FWD is rice. Stuntman crow (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source you can cite which states that a spoiler on a FWD car is rice, then by all means, cite it and put it in the article. --Dbratland (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotta find one, ey? Stuntman crow (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem is a lot of spoilers are actually spoilers. They work to diffuse air currents after a sharp drop down on the rear of a vehicle and reduce drag. Rear downforce is also still required on FWD vehicles to achieve a better weight balance between the front and back, and that would be brought on by a wing, not a spoiler. (Sorry, not sure how to give this proper indentation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.247.229 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Performance Modification
After a 3RR by CJ DUB on this content, I figured I'll put the issue here for public discussion. An anon initially removed this, and I agree with the effort. This content is poorly written with no citation, and really doesn't seem to belong with the rest of the content, especially when the article is defined as: "More contemporary use of the term rice burner, along with the prefix ricer, has taken on an alternate pejorative meaning for an automobile that has been modified to give impression of high performance, but does not necessarily have any high-performance capabilities."


 * "Includes any performance-type modification to 4-door economy cars." - This line is regarding actual performance mods to a specific car, without stating anything about the false appearance of performance. 4-door economy cars can be performance sleepers in this aspect, the opposite of rice.
 * "Suspension lowering, resulting in dangerous driving characteristics." - Suspension lowering is a widely established performance modification. While some rice cars do it, so do all other performance cars.
 * "Engine and driveline modifications which have a monetary value exceeding the appraisal monetary value of the vehicle (turbo charger, boring, stroking, valve porting & complete engine build-up)." - This has nothing to do with rice. This applies to all high-performance vehicles.  The engine in my own drag vehicle is worth twice as much as the rest of it.
 * "Drag radial tires on all four wheels." - I'll agree with, if it has actually happened, but only on FWD/RWD. I've seen plenty of AWD vehicles with drag radials on all four wheels (GMC Syclones for instance).

This text needs to be written to become relevant to the article, or should be removed. It was introduced into the article here. I'd appreciate civil remarks from the community on this. Rurik (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, all of this should be removed. The only thing that should be retained (and can be added to "excessively low ride height" in the following section is "Vehicles lowered improperly using cut or heated springs or spring shackles, often resulting in worse cornering and dangerous handling characteristics and increasing the risk of suspension failure." -Drdisque (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to see all of the unsourced material deleted and to include only verifiable statements from reliable sources. This is the kind of article that attracts too much woolly thinking.  I have a few additions I can make that should help in this respect that I'll do shortly. This debate over what items should be on this list is baffling to me.  What do your sources say?  Include everything that has verifiable sources and meets notability; delete the rest.  Do you have sources?  If not, delete it all.  Simple as that; there is no reason to go back and forth over it.--Dbratland (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision
I did some revision and added a dozen citations. A lot of what I deleted was repetitive; statements made in the intro were repeated in the Usage section and then again in the Origin section.

I think the Characteristics section should be deleted. People get the point when you tell them the car is trying to make a false impression of being high performance. Why beat a dead horse? Especially since it is so lacking in sources, and I don't think you're going to find any. The closest I came was the "Mustang Monthly" thing, and it was tounge-in-cheek.

If you want to assert in the article that rice burner is not racist, or that it is used for non-Asian cars, please cite your source. As in a reliable source. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So I finished searching for more (reliable) sources to support this article and didn't come up with anything. I've deleted all the unsourced material.  I've also redirected Rice rocket to here, since everything reliable that can be found on that is already on this page.

Please find sources to go with anything you want to restore or add. There is obviously room to expand this article but I don't see how it helps to put it back to where it is several paragraphs of unsourced soapboxing.--Dbratland (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Only expensive cars are safe from being called ricer?
Can this insertion be supported by any sources: "Only cars that are safe from being called ricer are the high price exotics, tuned by major tuning companies, mostly due to the fact that they deliver decent performance"?

To me that looks like somebody just posting their personal opinions or their own personal life experience, i.e. original research. A blog or Twitter is a good place to voice your opinions, but an article like this really needs some reliable sources, not opinions and original research.

I'll probably revert this edit in a week or so unless any citations appears to support it. I spent considerable time pulling together every shred of verifiable reference material I could and it's all in this article right now.

If you ask me, the term ricer is class warfare: wealthy people don't like it when the middle class and the poor get uppity and try to act like they have a right to enjoy fast cars too. Hence they use racial slurs to put down those who dare to act like they are as good as Porsche drivers. And it really must irk them if any of these guys with low-priced sports cars get dates. The reason I don't say that in the article is I don't have any citations to support it; just my opinion.

And before you ask, I ride a Ducati and nobody has ever called it a ricer, or a rice rocket.--Dbratland (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term in the Asian community is unknown
Does this mean that people within the Asian community do not use the term or that there is no information available about whether they do? Stilgar135 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It means that when they cleaned out anything uncited in the article that they couldn't find any verifiable information regarding its use in the Asian community. If you can better get that message across, then have at it. -Drdisque (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably best to delete the sentence if it is uncited. Otherwise it's going to attract more uncited counterpoints to dispute it and it will grow crufty.  Now if anyone has reliable sources they could cite on the subject, well that would be awesome...  --Dbratland (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rice Burners, more commonly known as Ricers, have completely NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASIAN COMMUNITY. im not sure my sources can be sited, but its common knowledge, especially on racing game sites, such as nfscars.net. if you ask around there they will tell you what ricing is. ricing is just bad visual modifications to say that it is high performance. really, a ricer can be any car, a muscle car, a luxury car, more commonly a cheap run down regular car, like a ford focus. they can be as well asian cars, but that does not mean that all asian cars are ricers, and further more the origin of rice burner may be correct, but for a disambiguation, like a racial slur. Rice Burner is not a racial slur and has nothing to do with asian cars, but is a term to describe vehicles of any make and model. (Stuntman crow (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Community forums, where any Internet user is free to say whatever they please anonymously, such as nfscars.net, are not considered reliable sources. All that's needed here is a book, magazine article, newspaper article, or website where real experts writing under their real names post serious work.  Surely you can find something, somewhere, where a recognized expert writing under their real name has stated that "ricer" can be any kind of car.  Of course, there are a half dozen other sources that state the opposite, but the article can just say that all the dictionaries say one thing and this one expert says the opposite.  Take your time.  The article will still be here while you are looking for a reliable source.Of course, the fact that it is so hard to find one source for this perhaps suggests that this bit of "common knowledge" might not be a fact. --Dbratland (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand now, thanks for all your help! (Stuntman crow (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC))

What is the problem with the Mustang Monthly quote?
Can someone just explain that? I think it is fair use, and I think it helps clarify. If you think it goes beyond fair use, or have some other issue with it, that's what the talk page is for.

Please do not delete things from the page with no edit summary, and please do not accuse me of vandalism. That's harsh.

So what is this about? Thanks. --Dbratland (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Classic rant
--Dbratland (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In case you don't see the humor: Forbes: "For a Japanese bike, try the early Honda 750, introduced in 1969. Considered one of the most significant cycles ever, it was a four-cylinder road bike with disc brakes, reliable electrics and an electric starter--advances that put the nail in the coffins of Brit marques like BSA and Norton. Extra snaps if you can find one of the early sandcast motors. Ten years ago, they were selling for $2,000; now a nice example will set you back $15,000. Not bad, even for an icon of motorcycling history." Also. And. Just saying.  --Dbratland (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OR
I removed the claim "In some cases users of the term will go out of their way to assert that it is not offensive or racist." because the two sources do not argue that some people "go out of their way to assert that it is not offensive or racist". They are perhaps examples of that, but the conclusion that they are "going out of their way" to do something is original research. As WP:OR says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This conclusion is not explicitly stated in either of the sources, unless I totally misread. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So the only statement that you object to is "going out of their way."  That bit can be removed without deleting the entire passage and the supporting citations.  Melissa Holbrook Pierson's writing on motorcycles is well-respected, particularly within the motorcycling community.  For example, she was selected to contribute an essay to The Art of the Motorcycle exhibition's supporting books.  While most dictionaries of slang do state it is racist, Wikipedia can't simply ignore someone like Pierson on a whim.  Daniel B. Meyer is not as well known, but his writing is typical of the type of rider who thinks that because he once rode a Honda, he is allowed to say "rice burner" without being racist.  I added another such example, and I'll be happy to pile on more.  In my opinion "rice burner" is typical racist speech, but not everyone agrees with me and Wikipedia needs to include significant dissenting points of view.When deleting something that appears to not belong on Wikipedia, please try to be thoughtful and keep as the good material and only delete the parts that you feel must be deleted.  --Dbratland (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of Wikipedia isn't to cobble together primary sources (quotes by important people, in this case) to advance your own argument, but to summarize arguments people have already made elsewhere. If people have never actually made the argument that people who use this term often assert it isn't racist, then that claim doesn't belong in Wikipedia, per the passage I mentioned above. You have worded it now in a way that it isn't so blatantly original research, but it would still need to go, as it's implying an argument that none of the sources contain. The valid way to use these sources would be to say that "Pierson argues that..." rather than claim some/many people argue that point of view, because when you're expanding one person's argument to a general argument made by a group of people, that's making an original claim. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at the books I cited? Or are you going only on the snippet I quoted?  I'm starting to think that putting quotes in a citation does more harm than good.  You need to go to a library, as I did, check out the books, and read them.  The two authors I cited explicitly raise the question of racism, and after raising the question, they proceed to argue that it is not racist.  I also added a small sampling of usages from various news media who clearly consider the term harmless.  The New York Times does not publish "nigger" or "gook" in their headlines, and neither do the other media cited.  This places them squarely at odds with the slang dictionaries who say it's a racial slur. They use "rice burner" as if it were harmless.And this is not my argument.  I side with those who say it is racist.  But that does not allow me to delete references the numerous instances of those who don't think it is a racial slur and who do not treat it as a racial slur.  The policy of WP:NPOV means both opinions should be included in the article.  The link to the Texas Monthly article I put here on the talk page (above) probably needs to be incorporated in the article too, as an example of a much more aggressive use of the term to shamelessly bash the Japanese.I suppose you might want to look for a third opinion on this, perhaps at No original research/Noticeboard. A better option might be to simply adjust the wording yourself.  I'm completely in favor of any effort to improve the wording, as long as the existence of those who have this belief is included in the article. --Dbratland (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
Reading over this talk page, this apparently didn't used to be the case, but this article has turned into one giant finger-waving of "Don't use this term, it's RACIST!" instead of talking about the cars/bikes themselves much. The list of citations, if the photos were removed, would be longer than the article itself. Perhaps it's time for it to be merged into one of the Related Terms articles, such as Import scene? CSZero (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous version didn't have any citations. It was just a bunch of Wikipedia editors posting their opinions.  You can go to Urban Dictionary for that.Currently the article cites every single source I could find that mentions some variation of "rice burner".  Every dictionary says it is racist or offensive.  That's what the sources say, and so I cited them.There are also some books that say it is not racist, and I cite every single one of them -- in the lead.  What more do you want?  If you know of more reliable sources that say it is not a racist or offensive term, then cite them.  I would love to see more reliable sources added to this article.  I don't see how you can argue undue weight unless you can point to sources that are missing or under-represented.  If you have sources on the subject of ricer burners that "talk about the cars and bikes themselves" then you should cite them.  I looked and was surprised to find none.I do regret including the quotations in the citations.  They spark more confusion than they're worth.  It's better if someone wants to check a source for them go go read the book than to rely on a few quotes.  I'm going to remove them.  --Dbratland (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found the definitions in the article helpful as it's not very easy to go track down all these hardcopy references. I'm just saying that there is undue weight here on the history of the term and if it's derogatory or not.  Why not just merge this into the  Import scene article? CSZero (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For one thing, the books and magazines that cover the import scene don't ever call themselves "ricers" or call their cars "ricer burners". I found lots of evidence that fans of domestic cars and bikes use "rice" to describe their purported rivals in Asian vehicles, but no evidence that it is used within that subculture.  I have read a great many books on Japanese motorcycles and never once has an aficionado of Japanese bikes used this term, at least in print, as far as I know.  If you have evidence that I do not have, please cite it.  Certainly, my research skills are imperfect, to say the least.  Merging it into Import scene only makes sense to me if there are sources saying the term is part of the import scene, rather than something used outside the import scene.As far as the history, that's all I could find.  I put in everything that exists, as far as I know.  If you have other reliable sources that shed more light on the history of "rice burner", then please add it to the article.  Or share your sources with me and I will add it.  --Dbratland (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This term is not at all racist. It just doesn't make sense when you put stuff about the Korean war and how the term gook got to be about. If the term rice burner was sort of inspired from that concept, then it should clearly say so. The term is to describe vehicles, not people. So we don't have a definite origin category. Stuntman crow (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you know it is not racist? --Dbratland (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, watch isnt working. Your right, i cant (or wont) find a reliable source to say it isnt working. Stuntman crow (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin speculation
Out of pure coincidence I happened across the article for ricercar and found it odd how similar the definition is in regards to the pejorative of what a ricer is. Both are very imitative in nature and I couldn't help but wonder if this also - or is the actual origin - plays into the terms origin. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.89.233.9 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No relation. 'ricercar' (pronounced reach-er-car), comes from the Italian for "search", and shares a root with the English word "research." The term "ricer" almost surely (hard to find sources) follows the terms "rice burner" and "rice rocket", and are based on the popularity of Japanese economy cars (Civics are a common example) for the car-modding community. 04:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.162.8 (talk)

Contrary to popular belief, the term Rice Burner does NOT pertain to Asians. This article is heavily biased and racist.

Not all vehicles of Asian origin is considered \"rice.\" A poorly modified Dodge neon or even a Ferrari with a bolt-in \"show\" cage can be considered rice. Any vehicle regardless of country of origin can be considered rice.

Rice comes from the Latin word: Ricarus or to fail, which can be used as an adjective: Ricing or to Rice.

Modifications done to a car that will compromise safety can be considered rice. Such as cut springs as opposed to lowering the car the proper and safer way with a quality suspension kit.

Over lowering your car compromises the engineered suspension geometry of the car and causes the suspension to bottom out causing unpredictable handling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.153.51 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ricarus is not Latin for anything. Please cite a source for your opinions or stop adding them to the article. If you can't find one single good source, what makes you so confident you're right? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Questia wins again
Questia > Google again. Found an excellent chapter that expands on the relationship between different groups of car enthusiasts (American muscle cars vs Asian makes) and discusses the racial elements behind the use of "ricer" to describe cars and car drivers: Needs to be incorporated into article to expand coverage.

I'm well aware of the stark contrast between crowdsourced sites like Urban Dictionary and professionally written sources like Amy L. Best's book above. It's remarkable that the sources that meet the Wikipedia criteria Identifying reliable sources generally agree that "ricer" is racist, and that it's all about resentment towards Asians. While at Urban Dictionary, enthusiast forums, and personal blogs, the focus is on what's "wrong" with them -- the ricer cars and their drivers -- with universal denial that racism plays any role.

All I can say is that's a consequence of Wikipedia's standards: you get different worldviews depending on what criteria you apply for source quality. You can't change it on Rice burner; you can only complain at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources and see if you can offer an better way to write an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: V8 Supercars racing in Australia, and hostility to Japanese competitors: --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The "progression" from a beginning rider to the "elite" status as an outlaw biker, in the minds of outlaw motorcycle club members:"Chook chaser" is Australian English for a small motorcycle. Note again that ricer burner is used to refer to both the rider and the bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

More HighBeam refs. These need review: O.K., SUVs AREN'T RiCE ROCkETS, bUT... New Oxford Review. February 1, 2004 | Anonymous CHROME COWBOYS ON THE ROCKS BECAME AN UNEXPECTED HOME AWAY FROM HOME FOR CLIENTELE ON TWO WHEELS.(DAILY BREAK) The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA) August 2, 2003 JOANNE KIMBERLIN HIGH-PERFORMANCE SATURNS; RED LINE SERIES TRIES TO APPEAL TO OWNERS WHO LIKE TO MODIFY CARS.(Auto) The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) April 20, 2003 Kenn Peters Can Honda be fast and furious in Europe? Automotive News Europe November 19, 2001 | Rechtin, Mark Your wheels: Honda puts shirt on a Civic revolution; First Ulster drive.(Features) The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland) September 8, 2001 Richard Sherriff "RICE Rocket may not be the most PC term in the world but, then again, who cares? It does sum up neatly, however, the high performance Japanese cars that North America in particular has taken to its heart. " NASCAR Alters Its Foreign Policy; Decision to Accept Toyota Extends Reach, Ruffles Feathers The Washington Post May 11, 2003 | Liz Clarke http://all-things-aviation.com/aviation/another-mu-2-bites-the-dust/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-82623785.html Up Front. The Report Newsmagazine October 8, 2001 | Cosh, Colby Rebirth of Nissan Z-car recalls Datsun halcyon days.(Auto Weekend) The Washington Times (Washington, DC) April 23, 1999 | Anson, Mike 'The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift'. The Orlando Sentinel (Orlando, FL) June 13, 2006 Roger Moore --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-557072101.html
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-106214034.html
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-100430519.html
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-80374407.html
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77998268.html
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-263496.html
 * Mitsubishi MU-2 aka "rice rocket"
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56767084.html
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-147082343.html

Why does Ricer redirect here?
From what I understand, the term 'Ricer' is more or less synonymous with 'boy racer', at least round here. It has nothing to do with asian cars, but is a corruption of the word 'racer' and is applied to the driver, not the vehicle. It may be the term has different connotations in other countries than it does here tho'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.58.169 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you scroll up, you'll see many, many comments from others who also have heard a different definition of the term other than what is found in books, magazines, and newspapers. Wikipedia is written based on books, magazines and newspapers, but not the personal observations of any anonymous commenter on the Internet. It's not crowdsourced, in other words. This is why the definition at Urban Dictionary, which is entirely crowdsourced, is much different than what you find here on Wikipedia.That being said, I highly recommend reading Fast Cars, Cool Rides: The Accelerating World of Youth and Their Cars by sociologist Amy Best . She interviews many young car enthusiasts, and encounters a number of whites (and a handful of non-whites) who insist that "ricer" and "rice burner" are not racist or racial in nature. But after Best asks them to describe in detail what exactly a ricer/rice burner is, they proceed to make all sorts of highly racist and prejudiced statements about Asians, the way they think Asians drive, and the kind of cars Asians like. This is an example of how an experienced interviewer is better able to get at the truth than any crowdsourced website where people say what they want to say about themselves. YMMV.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

grammar does matter sometimes, at least to a few reactionaries

 * Riced out means, "overmodifying a sports compact, usually with oversized or ill- matched exterior appointments".

Are these two sentences equivalent?
 * Bill spent the whole day overmodifying a sports compact.
 * Bill spent the whole day riced out.

Or how about these two?
 * That car is riced out.
 * That car is overmodifying a sports compact.

If the definition as stated is valid, then in at least one of these pairs both sentences must be equivalent. If that's not the case, the definition needs amending or amended (depending on your dialect). My guess is that in each pair the second sentence is nonsense, and accordingly I modified the definition; but my attempt has been reverted. —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's cute and all but if you can't make your pedantic grammar fixes without deleting information and changing the meaning, then please refrain. The 'ungrammatical' version is more informative and more accurately reflects the original quote. Did you actually read the original quote in context before you changed it? Because if not then how can you be sure you aren't misrepresenting the person being quoted?In short, your priorities are backwards. Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The only information removed in my clumsy attempt was "sports compact", which seemed inessential; can't another kind of car be riced out? I used brackets and ellipsis to show that my version of the phrase was not exactly quoted; I could have unquoted it instead; would that be bad?  How did I change the meaning?  I raised the issue here in the hope that someone will suggest a way to make the sentence grammatical while retaining the essentials.
 * Would you prefer that nobody copyedit for clarity unless they also add content? —Tamfang (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of what has been written about this term centers on the debate over whether or not "ricer burner" is a racist slur. Most of those who say it isn't racist also say that the term can be applied to any car, or any sports compact, as opposed to only Japanese cars. So when you delete that term you move The Washington Examiner's reporter, Trey Palmisano, from one camp to another. It significantly distorts what Palmisano was asserting, at least within the car customizing subculture where such things matter a great deal. Amy L. Best's book  Fast Cars, Cool Rides: The Accelerating World of Youth and Their Cars is probably the most detailed field study of the subject. It's great to copyedit but you have to know when to leave something alone if you aren't certain you're not deleting information or changing the meaning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's subtle. (I confess I didn't sign up for an account that would allow me to read the article.) Wait, if Palmisano's position is that it applies to "any sports compact", did I shift him into the racist camp by applying it to any car? —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How about "Ricing out means…"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it now; I changed it to "Riced out describes the result of 'overmodifiying a sports compact etc'". Part of the motive was to bold the redirected term Riced out, per WP:R. Although bolding ricing out is probably fine too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good enough. —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Historic origins
I have added a small amount of prose and two mid-1960s published sources establishing a definitive date where and when this term was used. The majority of the article sources are 2000>, so I have been bold and suggested that it related to motorcycles originally, as there were relatively few cars around. If a suitably-period source should be found supporting that 1960s (or earlier) Japanese cars were also regarded thus, then it can be incoporated at that time.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Updating Rice Burner
At the present day; it's sad to see that the rest of the Internet has a more accurate description of rice burners than Wikipedia does currently. I think the page should have sources found for it that cite:
 * the backronym Race Inspired Cosmetic Enhancements, which is often used to avoid the racist connotations of the base term
 * the use of "ricer" to describe the driver of such a vehicle
 * that many of the people who modify their cars in this manner wish to own a sports car, but cannot get one
 * the use of specific modifications, such as large spoilers, skirts, stickers, and loud exhausts
 * the fact that American and European cars are also commonly made into ricers
 * various cultural influences, such as the Fast and the Furious movies and the Need for Speed video games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.29.252 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The page should have a "History" section added, to house historical original definitions, such as simply any Asian car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.29.252 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the historical citations to prove the date, but not to suggest any perceptions from the various many decades since. Race Inspired Cosmetic Enhancements, from your description and from my general perceptions in central England would have been from mid-1970s IROC, but any early 1960s similar connotations could nave been stripes, pod mounted tachs, etc., and would still require references not just opinions. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and works on the basis of citing published reliable sources, so if you know of any that exactly confirms and supports your statements you could add to the content. Readers have a choice - they can choose to access other websites via the same search engine if those are perceived to be better.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to react to the added-on comment from IP 24.94.29.252, any statement ascribing historical relevance to "simply any Asian car" would also need a citation, preferably equally historical, not just a modern opinion trawled-up by a search engine.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree.Almost all of these points, the backronym, ricer describing the driver, that they wish they had a sports car, and so on, are original research and adding them to any Wikipedia article would violate the policy of verifiability. In the article history you'll see many other new editors and IPs who have tried to add these and similar personal observations they've made among themselves and the people they know who use the term ricer, and I've deleted them all. Before I revised this article a few years ago, many of these things were present, until I deleted them.There are truths which Wikipedia is not capable of containing because of the way our verifiability policy works. For example with contemporary language like ricer, Urban Dictionary is often more accurate and up to date than Wikipedia. This is as it should be; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a set of policies developed in order to make it possible for anyone to edit and build the encyclopedia. Allowing original research, or any unverifiable facts, would make that impossible. Urban Dictionary uses upvoting and so has other methods of approaching truth.<P>While this article is not out of date by Wikipedia's criteria, it could be expanded further, and there are good sources listed at the bottom of the page that can be used for that. In particular, sociologist Amy L.Best's Fast Cars, Cool Rides: The Accelerating World of Youth and Their Cars has a chapter on ricer that meets our verifiability rules and has some good insight on contemporary youth car culture (in Los Angeles, at least), how the attitudes behind it are informed by race relations between whites and Asians, how South Asians are lumped in with ricers from the Anglo-American point of view, etc. Sources covering UK and other countries' car culture are welcome, but they should meet the criteria for reliable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rice burner. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130221150736/http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100602-kinchen-columnsbookreview.html to http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100602-kinchen-columnsbookreview.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530103433/http://www.spectroscopyonline.com/spectroscopy/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=573339&sk=&date=&%0A%09%09%09&pageID=2 to http://www.spectroscopyonline.com/spectroscopy/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=573339&sk=&date=&%0A%09%09%09&pageID=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524172545/http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/201007130645?page=2 to http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/201007130645?page=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928053315/http://www.asianweek.com/2001_06_22/feature.html to http://asianweek.com/2001_06_22/feature.html

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) 11:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term 'ricing' in user interface design
The term 'ricing' is also used in the sense of aesthetically enhancing technology. Most commonly this is in regards to the user interface (specifically the desktop) of personal computers. It finds its origin in the GNU/Linux community, "inherited from the practice of customizing cheap Asian import cars". I was wondering if adding a small header referencing this use of the term would be welcomed or regarded as superfluous.

Kind regards,

GoodWithBroccoli (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Those are self-published sources, that is, open wikis and social media. First step, before mentioning it on this article or any article, before even discussing mentioning it anywhere, is to cite a reliable source. Otherwise, nope. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"The Rice Burner" drag bike
Following the expansion of this article which uses mostly modern sources, I have added a headed section with content that I have sat on for 5+ years, as there was no suitable article for it. My hard-copy references (in the house since 1982) are authentic and show genuine contemporaneous (now historical) usage, as with my 1960s citations. IIRC, there was no pejorative aspects associated with the name relating to the drag bike.

Further info can be seen at this forum. I suspect from memory there was another website with full facsimile page scans of the article shown in part, however I cannot find it presently, but I'll add it to my list. The moral of this story is to screenshot the entire URL, which could be checked at Wayback Machine. Neither of these could be cited on WP.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have found a very large number of examples of users of the term saying it is not pejorative, but the ones saying that are nearly always non-Asians, and when interrogated, they usually reveal feelings hostility and superiority towards Asian people. The few recorded examples of someone asking an Asian person how they feel about the label indicate they generally don't appreciate it, even back in decades when open racism was the norm. Amy L. Best's study of the LA car scene takes a close look at the 'American vs Asian' rivalry. Her interviews reveal a great deal about those who use the term while claiming it is not racist. Here is one example, in which an American muscle car enthusiast "starts out talking about cars but ends up talking about the drivers".<P>But I'm sure you're right that the 1982 drag bike name probably didn't receive any public criticism. The term appeared frequently in respectable US newspapers in the 1960s in reference to the Vietnam War and in the 1970s discussing Japanese car imports. The evolution in attitudes about this sort of thing is one of the reasons this encyclopedia article even exists; otherwise a link to Wiktionary would be sufficient to supply a definition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

'Ricer' as a non-racist & inoffensive term
This sentence in the introduction section: "In some cases, users of the term assert that it is not offensive or racist, or else treat the term as a humorous, mild insult rather than a racial slur." The references in that sentence don't indicate or suggest that the term 'ricer' is in fact non-racist and inoffensive. Is this sentence really necessary to post in the wiki? I'd like to see a source that explicitly states that. Indeed, the term 'ricer' is often used in a humorous & mildly insulting manner, but many racist terms are used in such a way (e.g., the 'n-word' and 'beaner'). I would argue that this sentence fits the criteria for "giving undue weight" to a minority viewpoint that is not supported by the sources cited (WP:undue), especially when it's placed in the introduction section. --Chilledsunshine (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you can have read the sources and still say that.<P>You read "In some cases, users of the term assert that it is not offensive or racist" and the footnote is to Melissa Holbrook Pierson, which you can click on and read "Buzzingly quick little two-stroke rice burners (not a term of derision)". So you read that and concluded that none of the refernces indicate that the term is not racist or offensive? I don't understand.<P>The 1999 Hartford Currant article isn't linked at the moment, but I found it online. That, along with the New York Times headline from 2004 "Spinning 'Rice Burners' Into Gold" are examples of recent mainstream usage. The 2003 Hartford Currant article isn't online so I'm not sure if you read it. But in any case, if you're citing WP:UNDUE, then it appears you're saying that the NYT and Hartford Currant are "fringe"? They're using this term in articles and even in headlines, and not the kind of direct quotes such as when they print one of Donald Trump's F-bombs (see use–mention distinction). They're actually using the term, even though it is not the policy of these mainstream newspapers to use racial slurs, and not as direct quotes.<P>It could be added in the lead, though it's not mandatory, per WP:LEADCITE, but we also have the Korean War section which provides a similar defense of using the term, "Although we might find the term 'rice burner' offensive and laced with racism, Patricia soldiers used the term out of respect for the indefatigable travails of their Korean porters."<P>I will say that the Ultimate Hot Rod Dictionary citation in the lead is probably not helping, since it says it's a term of derision but isn't clear on whether they mean it's considered acceptable or offensive. It would be an improvement I think to clarify the dates on these usages. We have numerous mainstream examples from publications from the 1950s through 1980s, but fewer in the 90s and later, suggesting the mainstream is becoming less comfortable with it. Not that I would all a 2004 New York Times headline ancient history.<P>Further expansion should be done using Amy Best's book, since the researcher digs deeply into the attitudes of those using these kinds of slurs. She draws out one young man, who says, "you'll see a complete difference between a Vietnamese car and a white person's car. I feel like I'm being racist but I'm not... Asian cares they'll always do a body kit. And that's why they call them Rice Rockets. Because their cars sound a lot different than..." (p. 85) Best comments elsewhere "JP starts out talking about cars but ends up talking about the drivers, too. Ricers are no longer cars but people, Asians, as he attempts to denounce imports and import racers. Racial tropes are mobilized as JP defines the values of the cultural scene. Asians are constructed as the outsiders." (p. 99).<P>All of this is to say we could go into a lot more depth as to whst's going on in the minds of people who use a racial slur and yet defend it as not being racist, using racist arguments to justify themselves, such claiming as that Asians are bad drivers and are posers,(Best p. 98-100), therefore the term isn't racist. A dictionary will tell you "this word is offensive", which we say in the first sentence, citing multiple dictionaries. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary and what distinguishes an encyclopedia is that it doesn't simply tell you what a thing is and stops. An encyclopedia is supposed to dig deeper and uncover the whys and hows and recount the history and circumstances that lead to making a thing what it is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)