Talk:Rolling coal

Introduction of Topic

• New topic
• No Previous listings
• Hey, this is Wikipedia, Right?

Richard416282 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why?

The article just says what "rolling coal" is, not why it's done -- is there an improvement in engine performance or something? 62.232.85.2 (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Keri (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect/Invalid references?

The line "Coal rolling may also be triggered at foreign cars, bicyclists, protesters, minorities, and pedestrians." isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the references given. All the sources given are news articles which only claim it's against environmentalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regn752 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's a byproduct of performance modifications...

I have never seen "rolling coal" as a deliberate modification as the article currently suggests. Excessive soot emissions are, in every situation I am aware of, a byproduct of performance tuning of a diesel engine. Yes, this byproduct is environmentally unsound, yes this byproduct has been used in an infantile way by rednecks on YouTube, but I am not aware of anyone modifying a diesel engine with the aim of producing the "rolling coal" polution, in the same way that drag racers burning nitromethanol are not doing it to create nitric acid but rather to generate more power with nitric acid as a byproduct, and hybrid/EV drivers are not driving mobile batterypacks in order to cause the devastation that rare earth mining causes, but rather to drive a car that doesn't burn as much petrol with the environmental harm of Li-ion battery pack production as a byproduct. Suggest that if this article is going to claim that "Rolling coal is the modification of diesel engines to produce excessive emissions" or similar, that claim should be properly cited. Otherwise, improve the article by redirecting it as an article about "rolling coal" being a byproduct of diesel tuning, not an aim. No four tildes, I don't have a wikipedia account but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.74.14 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand, you don't want to believe Americans are actually this retarded. But they are, I'm sorry, it sucks I know. Yes, coal rolling, purposefully modifying your truck to use more gas and to increase levels of pollution, is a thing some Americans actually do for the purposes of entertainment and/or protest. Sorry. 24.111.54.158 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we have a principle of verifiability and using reliable sources. There are 17 footnotes in this article, and several of them go on for many paragraphs and never mention the terms "performance" or "side-effect". Feel free to volunteer some actual sources that back your claims, but until then I think we'll stick with The New York Times over the opinion of an anonymous person in Bedfordshire. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

ETA - take a look at the contents of footnotes 6 and 10 (the CTV and VICE articles). Both mention performance, so if you want to add a statement to the article that some owners are doing it for performance reasons, the sources you need are already there. I would caution you not to overstate the contents of the article or put undue weight on this, because as I said most of the other sources never mention performance. --Krelnik (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

What you or anyone else have seen, are aware of, are pretty sure of, and your opinions in general are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. This page is not an opinion forum. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Phantom vehicle?

Anyone know why the "See also" section includes Phantom vehicle (insurance)? I don't see the connection. Without one, I think it should be removed. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it relates to this sentence: A more actionable concern is road traffic safety violations, as the black smoke can intentionally impair visibility, risking motor vehicle crashes. Because the vehicle rolling coal doesn't make physical contact, it would be considered a phantom vehicle. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Then it should be linked, rather than See also-ed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Lung cancer

With the revision from 7th September 2016 this was introduced:

 the American Cancer Society has linked exposure to diesel exhaust to lung cancer

It stayed there quite unchanged until 22th August 2018:

 The American Cancer Society has linked exposure to diesel exhaust to lung cancer

But with the revision of 31th of August 2018 it changed significantly:

 The American Cancer Society has not linked exposure to diesel exhaust to lung cancer.

The only comment was 'true'.

I cannot open the linked source since it requires signing in. But this change looks very suspicious. Mamaisen (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)