Talk:Rice burner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rice Burner vs Ricer 2 Utter garbage 3 Additional text for consideration/inclusion 4 Questions about term's origin 5 Not necessarily derogatory 6 "redundant" ? 7 That's enough on the 'commonly used' list 8 Poser Mobile Image 9 List 10 Funny 11 Racism 12 References suck 13 Completely off 14 Proposed merge with Rice rocket 15 Mustang picture 16 Gentoo ricers? 17 Definition of "rice" 18 Article & Talk bloat 19 Redirection 20 Non-encyclopedic? 21 2 Different Articles 22 HID Vs. Simulated HID

[edit] Rice Burner vs Ricer

These are two different subjects and should be in two separate articles. A rice burner is a term used to describe any and all Japanese cars and has been in use since the 1970's. A ricer is a type of sport compact tuner and the word has been in use no earlier than the 1990's. As it stands now the article that is supposed to be about "rice burners" is more about "ricers" and "rice". 75.33.92.91 06:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utter garbage

Is the word I use to describe this page, which seems to be written by American car enthusiasts with little regard for the universality of their claims. The statement about the supposed influence of the film Fast & the Furious is one example. 203.10.77.190

then contribute if you have something. RCHM 01:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion does not have a place on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. 130.127.78.139 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional text for consideration/inclusion

moved here from Rice (disambiguation)

Rice, or Rice rocket or Rice burner can be a derogatory adjective referring to modified family cars, sports cars, or any type of vehicle. Generally this term refers to those cars which look fast or 'overdone' but have little or no modifications to the drivetrain. Modifications include, but are not limited to: large spoilers, non-functional body kits that modify the look of the car, adding Nitrous Oxide Systems stickers (NoS), lowering springs to make the vehicle sit lower (like race cars), flashy chromed tail lights and special headlights, larger than stock wheels with low profile tires, and of course, an extremely oversized, loud muffler.

The origin of this use is most likely the popular association of souped-up cars with Asian American men (especially East Asian). There are some informal attempts to "reclaim" the term, in recognition that modifying cars is a legitimate form of self expression.

As a subcategory, in certain parts of the country, there is new usage of this term that refers to poorly modified cars, i.e. Spanish rice. Generally those of hispanic descent are found driving these cars and can be readily recognized by their last name stickered boldly on the back window, and tires that stick out a few inches from the sides of the vehicle. A common car to have "riced" is the Honda Civic.

See also: Import Scene

[edit] Questions about term's origin

I seem to recall the Hells Angels using the term "Rice Burner" to refer to Japanese motorcycles in the early '70's. Might have read it in Hunter S. Thompson's "Hell's Angels" (not sure when that was published, but I think it was before '71), but I'm not sure.

--Emesis 14:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hell's Angels" was published in 1966. The term can be found, used in an extremely derogatory sense, in just about any issue of Easyriders magazine, or any other publication catering to outlaw bikers or fans of Harley-Davidson, Indian, or Triumph motorcycles.

We do mention that it can be used to refer to motorcycles and suggest those looking for that term look at Rice rocket. -Drdisque 17:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not necessarily derogatory

I live in the San Francisco bay area and, while the term "rice rocket" is popular around here, I don't find it to be necessarily derogatory. I think there are a good number of people out here who think the idea of owning a so-called 'rice-rocket' or 'ricer' is cool. So, I think this should also be taken into consideration. I often hear about people who want to buy an Integra or a Civic in order to "rice it up," so I generally don't associate the term with anything insulting.

I think the current state of the article makes it clear that depending on who's saying it, the meaning differs.

Just like redneck or any number of a thousand different terms, I'm sure there are people who are proud to be characterized by it because they feel the values embodied by the stereotype are the ones that are important to them. But, this doesn't change the fact that it's commonly seen and used as an insulting term. I think it's probably important to note this in the first paragraph, but not to get too crazy about disclaiming it. Yes, it's potentially offensive; yes, some people don't mind. End of story, really. --Milkmandan 18:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reading the article from a completely neutral standpoint, I found that it seemed to contain a great deal of criticism of these types of modifications. Falcon 23:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I live in Australia and never thought of the term as derogatory, merely as a description of Japanese sports cars. Whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing depends on the talker or listener. I have also never heard of it used in reference to non-Japanese cars, with or without mods, and certainly wouldn't consider a worked Commodore as a "ricer". Obviously this is something that has regional variation, possibly this could be mentioned in the article? --Bass hound 06:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a Honda, and i don't believe that there is anything wrong with a person wanting their car to stand out from the others by having a body kit molded to the car, new rims put on, and a reduced ride height. Anyway, it is my understanding that the stereotypical ricer is a civic hatchback with stock 14 inch rims with silver honda center caps. Yes, huge spoilers are "ricey," but not all visual modifications to a stock car should be considered ricing it up. I see at least 10 accords a day, and i don't want mine to look exactly like the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.255.202 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "redundant" ?

Exactly why is a discussion of the use of the term redundant? It's used as many different forms in the article "rice", "ricer", "ricing", and by the person above "riced" and "rice it up". < OT > Sortof like that skit someone did about the F word being every part of speech ;D < /OT > Anyway, thanx 68.39.174.91 12:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Is something being called redundant somewhere? --Milkmandan 20:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's quite simple; all the points included in that section had been covered, more completely, elsewhere in the article. Hence, while the way in which it was added was humorous, Wikipedia is not a humor site, it was redundant, and it was removed.

Fox1 13:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, but that doesn't clear up what was being called redundant. The page and talk source from 20050710 didn't show anything like that. Now that I look at the edit history, I can see where you had tagged part of the page as redundant, which is what the commenter above took offense to. That's what I was looking for. --Milkmandan 15:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to the IP poster, little nested-post confusion, I think. The text in question was:

== Linguistic considerations ==

The word "rice" in this conntext can be use as multiple parts of speech. Examples include:

• Verb, describing the process: e.g. The neighbors are planning on ricing their car
• Noun, describing the modifications or car itself: e.g. My ricer has more rice then yours!
• Adjective, describes the vehicle: e.g. rice car

I thought that was adequately covered in the article and was largely an attempt to emulate the 'linguistics of the f-bomb' bit the IP poster mentioned, so I took it out, calling it "redundant." I've used that in reverts a couple times, I think, since saying "redundant" in the edit summary when someone adds "sOME people th1nk Rice cras are stup1d" seems more politic that using a word like "stupid." (not that this was an example of that, just saying)

Fox1 18:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That's enough on the 'commonly used' list

Please think about whether you're adding anything of value to the article before increasing its size. For example, building a list of the cars that could be modified in this style is a useless endeavor. In fact, I'm going to go back later and take a serious look at whether that list should remain in the article at all.
Fox1 18:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

i'll help. RCHM 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poser Mobile Image

I'm replacing the image back in. The reason for deletion was not sufficent enough for deletion. Provide a better reason here on the talk page. --Cantthinkofausername 07:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is asserted that the image in question is a copyrighted image whose inclusion here falls within the bounds of "fair use." It states, directly within the fair use tag, that this applies to images used "to illustrate the work or product in question, in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose." The image's inclusion in this article meets virtually none of these criteria. The article is not on T-Mobile, T-Mobile's products or marketing, or even on the culture which the image is claimed to parody. I'm sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on, here.

Additionally, while I find the goal of paring down the "vehicles used" list commendable, there is no way to quantify concretely which vehicles belong or do not. The only way the list will be maintained is through constant modification and argument towards concensus. It is, at the end, a subjective list. You do not have the ability to apply or enforce a special standard of inclusion above normal Wikipedia Guidelines.

Fox1 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Fair Use" do you not understand about the pic? The commercial in question has the group of "Posers" entering a group of modified cars, and trying (very poorly) to fit in, mocking what is essentially Ricer qualities. It fits in perfectly on a parody level, and as far as i'm concerned, it's inclusion is legit.

As for the other part, when is the list "too big" for it's own good? Theoreticlly, I could claim that every Sport Compact Car is ricer material, as is the Ford Mustang and any econobox car that can have a spoiler slapped to it's rear end, neon under the body and massive stereo systems as being "ricer." Oh wait, I can also claim the GNX, the Monte Carlo, the Impala, even the Aveo and the HHR as Ricer cars, they can have a fin slapped on and excess ricer features on that list. Oh, wait just one more minute, I could add any car "Pimped Out" by Pimp My Ride as being ricer as well!! Oh, and we also have to deal with European cars as well!! We need to add such cars like the Peugeot 206 and the Volkswagen Golf GTi to the list as well!! Even better, I also want to add the Japan-Only cars as well!! The Toyota Celsior, the Toyota Chaser....shall I continue? Or should I just post them for the heck of it?

Either we rein in the section to a somewhat manageable selection of common cars that have been riced and documented, or we just slip into utter anarchy and bicker pointlessly calling each other idiots and morons for all eternity. So the pic goes back, and we can work for the list of ricer cars. --Cantthinkofausername 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't seem to be communicating well, here. You spent the majority of your message arguing on a point where we both agree. I don't like the list, but your documentation requirements were not supported by Wikipedia guidelines, and the other option, "utter anarchy and bicker[ing] pointlessly calling each other idiots and morons for all eternity" is pretty much what we have now. So, I removed it. It was a stupid idea left over from old edits, we tried to make it work, and it didn't.

Also, you didn't really address the fair use status of the image. While the work in question is obviously a parody, the guidelines for parody fair use of copyright are very narrow. You may make fair use of a copyrighted work in order to parody that work or its creator. In this case, you're showing a copyright work that already is a parody. That's different.

Secondarily, the even more narrow WP guidelines for fair use state that fair use material should be avoided (as I already quoted above), except when it is: "in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose."

That is absolutely not the case here, and I would like to see you address that before re-adding the image.

Fox1 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The image will go back in regardless. T-Mobile intended that the image portrayed was to encite some "talk" of their products. If the image sparks other debate in the process, it has done it's work that T-Mobile intended, ergo, it's "Fair Use." Now quit acting like Jeremy Clarkson and live with it.--Cantthinkofausername 09:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, you've provided shaky rationale for one half of the issues involved here. The other is that, regardless of what YOU think, with no documentation whatsoever, T-Mobile meant to "encite," that in no way, shape or form addresses the fact that the image is completely outside Wikipedia guidelines for use of these types of images. I've pointed this out to you numerous times, but you seem to be determined to be sarcastic, overbearing and totally, willfully ignorant of Wikipedia policy on pretty much every issue, even the ones where we seem to agree. The fact that very few experienced editors care to spend the time keeping this page within guidelines does not make this YOUR page, and your complete unwillingness to work cooperatively is not going to get much done if you ever attempt to edit something other than this fringe article.

I'd also say something about personal attacks and name-calling, but I rather enjoy being compared to Clarkson... although lookswise, I'd like to think I'm closer to Richard Hammond.

Fox1 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If the image was taken by someone else, personally, who has the right to PD it, and does so, then what's the problem? 68.39.174.238 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (PS. If all I get in response is two total flames as a result of this, I think, legit question, I reserve the right to say that the people responsible suck. Hoping I wont need to... ;D)

(Dragburn) If the poser mobile image is not going to be acceptable might i suggest some other good examples of "rice"? I dont remember exactly where i got these but they are all uncopyrighted material so i dont believe there should be any problems showing them as examples. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/dragburn/rice.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/dragburn/stupid_mod.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/dragburn/lol.jpg

The first image is a type of car modification in Japan, which is exactly the point. They modify it just for the heck of it, not to prove that they have a horsepower advantage or whatever. The second oen is a commonly circulated pic mocking ricer tendencies. And the third....looks to be the same, mocking ricer tendencies. But not as good as the Poser Mobile picture. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List

The list is meant to give the reader an idea of the cars that are commonly riced out. Listing every car gives the reader very little information about the subject. I'm beginning to feel that this section may have to be trashed completely. -Drdisque 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely. It is of dubious value (readers can follow the links to sport compact and economy car for an idea of the models in question), is a source of constant editorial strife, requires daily maintenance and reverting and is entirely subjective and almost impossible to properly cite.

Fox1 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ricecop.com

http://www.anti-rice.com

Gee, two sites with "verifiable proof." Took all of three seconds to google it. A 10 minute search can produce more i'm sure.--Cantthinkofausername 09:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think that that is "verifiable proof," than I agree. However, I'm also concerned that you think "someone posted an image and said this was 'rice' on the internet" is "verifiable proof" of a subjective.

Fox1 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an entirely subjective term. It's defined by what people think it means. A car is 'riced' if enough people say it is - not because it meets some formal definition. So it's not entirely invalid to look at one of those sites - see the kinds of cars that show up there on a regular basis and use that to claim that a particular kind of car is 'riceable'. However, I agree that the list of cars in inappropriate precisely because you can see almost every kind of car on the planet showing up on those web sites at least once. A list of cars that are commonly riced ends up looking like a list of common cars...impossible to maintain - and of not much use to our readers. Also, it's impossible to do this with NPOV because words like 'common' and 'riced' are so vague. SteveBaker 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

This wiki page is great. "Rice" is any vehicle built by an Asian (Japanese/Korean) manufacturer. This terms has been used for eons. 70.26.11.45 04:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

language grows and changes...RCHM 07:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

I'm going to remove the philosophical musing about something not being racist unless directed against some of that race. Apart from the fact that this seems like a ludicrous position which has no references to back it up (consider this: would nigger not still be a racist term if someone accused a white person of "acting like a nigger"?), it certainly has no place in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpegden (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 May 2006

Avoiding, for the moment, the question of whether I agree with removing the text, I'm going to have to find fault with the logic of your argument here. You're creating a false relationship between "nigger" and the use of the word "rice." There are millions of ways to use the word rice without any reference or allusion to racial matters, "nigger" has no other meaning outside its racial one. For a counter-example, I offer: "Beaner" is used by some as a racist reference to persons of Mexican or hispanic descent, is it racist to refer to a tall, skinny white person as a "Bean-pole?"

The "philosophical musing" you removed was primarily a disclaimer that the term could be used with different meanings, and that context was important to its usage. This is true. I'd like you to provide better reasoning why you don't think it has any place in an encyclopedia article, right now I'm leaning toward replacing the text, but I'll wait for a response, first.

Fox1 (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References suck

Out of all the anti-ricer websites listed in the External links section, and not one is listed in references? C'mon, where are the goddamn references?--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"In the opening sequence of the 2000 remake of Gone in Sixty Seconds, after two characters steal a Porsche 996 from a Porsche showroom, they meet a driver and his girlfriend in a modified Honda Civic to start a traffic light race. The driver of the Honda (played by Mike Owen) is credited as Kid in Rice Burner."

- I'm pretty sure it was a Subaru.

I assure you, it's a 6gen Civic Zahn 22:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completely off

This article is pathetic. First of all, I've never heard the term 'rice burner'.

A 'ricer' is a person who is obsessed with putting giant useless spoilers, fart cans, etc. on their car(s). Those cars are called 'riced' cars.

As far as the name, 'ricer' isn't used in a negative way towards Orientals; many fans of Japanese car brands hate 'ricers' and their cars. Any car can be 'riced' and be called 'riced' regardless of where it was made.

'Ricer' isn't even derogatory. In fact, if you see a 20 foot rear spoiler, go ask that person if he/she is a 'ricer' or not. They probably won't take it as an insult.

If you don't believe me, go on http://nfscars.net/ and ask what a 'ricer' is.

Conclusion-this article fails. --Bears54 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Google says: "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,130,000 for rice burner". Merely because you've never heard of it does not mean it isn't common.
2. Your second concern is already noted in the article as a variant on "rice burner" (section 1, paragraph 1). So is your third concern (section 2, third-last paragraph), so is the fourth (section 2, last paragraph).
3. The opinion of a single group of individuals on the Internet doesn't have much bearing on this matter. Also, see my second point.
4. Your conclusion is flawed, as your points are moot. Have a good day! Bloodshedder 11:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you use advanced search, the results go down to 57,000-'ricer' has over 10 times that. And with the "single group of individuals", well, it's not just them. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ricer That pretty much sums up what a ricer is. --Bears54 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rice+burner   I'm not trying to say that "ricer" isn't a valid definition. I'm merely saying that the term is accounted for in the article as a variant of "rice burner": "'Rice burner' is used chiefly as a noun. Variations of this usage include ricer (both vehicle and driver)" (my emphasis added). Should the page be moved to "ricer"? I don't think so, but you may disagree. Bloodshedder 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge with Rice rocket

I disagree with this. The one paragraph in rice rocket that describes a rice burner can simply be taken out. The two terms are generally distinct in today's lexicon. Bloodshedder 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the term Rice Rocket applied to a car. As I understand it, it is a term that applies only to sportbikes (motorcycles). Slthrelk 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mustang picture

Who is the genius who randomly deleted the picture of the riced-out Mustang? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.57.118 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Gentoo ricers?

The term "Ricer" has been used as a derogatory term to describe Gentoo Linux users who use excessive or even dangerous CFLAGS and other settings in an attempt to gain extra performance from software modifications. Thought that deserved mentioning in the "non-automotive applications" section, but I wasn't 100% sure.69.23.67.8 09:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Funroll-loops is no longer online and it was the primary source for this meme. As a popular culture reference it isn't notable enough to be included. Chris Cunningham 10:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "rice"

A broad definition is, "Any modification done to any vehicle that appears to benefit performance, but instead, hampers performance, and is often not esthetically pleasing."

A study done by Ricekiller.com on LS2.COM, DFWLS1.COM and SUPERHONDA.COM, asked the question, "What makes a car a ricer"? Some of the answers are as follows...

-That lawn mower/weed-wacker type sound that you can hear for miles coming from their bad muffler, and a huge ugly looking wing that serves no purpose other then looking stupid, then there are the stickers all over the car so it looks like a giant billboard. -Mostly how they act, the hard look, the revving, the peeling out at every stop light, the "my car could smoke anything", etc etc. -Simple. The look/sound of speed without actually being fast/quick.Like the guy with a 72 nova with a 307 and open headers. Or the guy with the c5 that wanted to drill holes in his exhaust before his muffler instead of buying a cutout or different exhaust. Rice can definately be american. It's all in how the owner bastardizes his car. -The mentality, the way they drive, the way they'll floor it to pass you on the left, switch lanes in front of you, jam on the brakes and make a right turn. All the while sounding like a weedeater. -Aluminum wing on a front wheel drive, stickers, fart cannon, led turn signal mirrors, and a bad attitude.

People see "rice" not only as something you can see, but something that you can experience. Rice can be an attitude, a mentality, an action. Its stupidity. Society encourages this attitude with movies and music videos, whats cool and not cool. With the release of movies like the fast and the furious, normal people, in normal cars, all of the sudden got this great idea. "I can make my car look cool, and by doing so my own personal coolness will be increased." This has not been taken lightly by car enthusiasts, and since their appearance numerous websites have been created to make fun of them, take pictures of them, and attempt to discourage them.

(Removed from article due to being original research, though some of this might be salvageable) -Drdisque 14:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article & Talk bloat

The article and talk page are in serious need of trimming. Please make suggestions to help.RCHM 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection

When you search for 'rice boy' it leads to this article about 'rice burning'. This is an annoyance because the wiki for the Rice Boy online comic is being ignored. Can this wiki be redirected?

[edit] Non-encyclopedic?

I notice the article is pretty general and quick to judge. Putting a free-flow exhaust on an 330HP M3 would increase horsepower, but putting a free-flow exhaust on an economy class civic does practically nothing. So let's say you see someone with a free-flow exhaust on an M3. If they are doing it just to pretend like they are fast, that's rice. If they realize they are shaving some weight, and increasing the horsepower (and they drive in such a way that they would notice the extra horsepower), then that's not rice. The difference is that if person #2 was handed a heavy, poorly made free-flow exhaust, they would notice, and put the stock one back on. Person #1 would not care as long as it made a big noise and was shiny. I think rice is more a state of mind. PS - I don't think the yellow Honda is a good example of rice. Nothing is really over the top or pointless. It seems pretty tastefully done, and does not give the illusion of speed. It just looks like it needs some TLC

[edit] 2 Different Articles

Maybe there should be 2 different articles for rice burner and ricer? A ricer, in North America, is a Japanese car. This is why I added the "In North America" part. A rice burner is a car that looks good but is only normal.FogDevil 17:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of different uses the term is used, including variations on it. The "Usage" section and the introduction cover them already. I don't think two articles are needed. Bloodshedder 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HID Vs. Simulated HID

Rice burners do not use TRUE HID Technology. True HID's use Xenon Discharge bulbs with high powered ballasts. Ricers put Xenon Bulbs which do not use High Powered Gas Discharge Technology to SIMULATE REAL HID's. True HID Technology does not produce Excessive glare if installed properly, However HID Simulating Xenon Bulbs in Halogen Housings do. Since ricers do not use the necessary hardware to call their lighting systems HID's that name should be avoided because others may consider TRUE HID technology mounted in Projector housings to be a nuisance rather than the Xenon HID Simulation kits. Also, If someone could try to fit this image in there.

MediaRocker (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)