Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (fifth generation)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Muscle car

Discussion from Dec 25 - Dec 26

I find it interesting that the Camaro and Firebird articles are the only ones that insist on being labeled as muscle cars. Both were developed and released specifically into the pony car market as direct competitors to the Ford Mustang. Unless you want to start calling the Mustang, Barracuda, Challenger, Javelin, Genesis, Celica, and Cougar muscle cars, you really need to drop it. If all you're going on is other people calling it a muscle car because it has a big engine, then that also means that any rear wheel drive car modifed with a large engine would also qualify as a muscle car, which would mean you would have to include the Monza, Gremin, Pacer, Beetle, among dozens of others. Factory production of a V8 version is not a qualifier either, as the majority of models produced of the Camaro, like the Mustang, are V6. It's a long hood, short deck, open mouth, sporty design, off the shelf construction, unibody 2+2 car produced for the youth market, in other words, A PONY CAR. Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Here are my sources for the Camaro being a pony car; Car and Driver "Pony Car Revival: Camaro, Genesis, and More - Feature"[1] Popular Mechanics "2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS Test Drive: Does the Reborn Ponycar Live Up to Its Name?"[2] Motortrend "2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS vs. 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T vs. 2010 Ford Mustang GT"[3] Jalopnik.com "The Detroit News Opines On Renewed Pony Car Wars"[4] Autoweek "Chevy Camaro, Dodge Challenger and Ford Mustang in pony-car showdown "[5] Edmunds "Chevrolet Camaro Review"[6] LA Times "2010 Camaro SS: Subtle it's not"[7] Encyclopedia Brittanica "Stunning success of Ford's Mustang forced reluctant GM to join pony-car wars."[8] Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Bitemyshinymetalass78, it's great you've found references that the vehicle is a pony car. As you can see from the article, the Camaro is already claimed to be a pony car. So what are you trying to get at here? Also, please keep in mind consensus needs to be made before removing the information you are trying to remove. Let's keep discussing until we can reach a consensus instead of just removing info. roguegeek (talk·cont) 04:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The point is you can't claim a car to be both a pony car AND a muscle car, they are two entirely different categories. That's why I keep repairing what ignorance keeps posting. Just because idiot reviewers or forum geeks online like to call it a muscle car doesn't mean you can cite that as a source and call it one. The car was conceived, built, marketed, and sold as a pony car. Or are we also going to modify every other car article on here to say muscle car just because someone somewhere claims it to be? The Mustang? Vega? Corvette? Countach? All are 2 seat sporty cars with large engines available, and I'm sure at some time someone has called each one muscular. So where do you draw the line?75.1.183.243 (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I noticed the Firebird article is labled only as a pony car. So I guess it really IS just bias from the Camaro crowd. Btw, I own an 83 Z/28 modded with a Tuned Port Injected 331ci engine...and yet I still call it a pony car, regardless of the model or engine size, because that's what the Camaro is.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The Camaro is a quintessential "pony car", which includes: sporty styling with a long hood and short rear deck that is built using an existing platform and numerous shared mechanical components, and offering a wide range of options to individualize each car -- including economy and/or luxury and/or performance. These characteristics differentiate the new Camaro (as well as the current Mustang and Challenger) from pure "sports cars" and the historic "muscle cars". - CZmarlin (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Some models of pony cars have been considered muscle cars for decades, specifically those with the big block options. Are you going to tell me a Boss 429 isn't a muscle car? BWHAHAHAHA. How about a Terminator? CJ DUB (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Your point is well taken, CJ DUB! Yes, you have identified specific models of the pony cars that are considered in the muscle "muscle" category. However to claim that the entire nameplate of each automaker's entry in the pony car market segment is (as you similarly reacted) utterly laughable! Moreover, the vast majority of pony cars came from the factory in standard or economy versions. Using your examples: Boss 429 total production was 859 (Includes 2 Boss 429 Cougars) in 1969 and just 499 in 1970 (source). in both cases, these muscle "models" are a tiny fraction of the 299,824 in 1969 and the 190,727 sold in 1970. Cobra Terminator, total production in 2003 was 13,476 and just 5,664 in 2004 (source). This is just eight percent of the 153,134 in 2003 and less than four percent of the 141,907 sold in 2004. It is the automaker's marketing department's strategy to promote a perception of muscle and performance to the the rest of the models. That is why this class of vehicles is unique, because the vast majority of pony cars sold are not asphalt-melting muscle cars or road race refined sportsters. However, most pony car purchasers are perfectly happy to own these "specialty" marques with the perceived "performance image" to simply commute to work and run around town, rather than own the "real" muscle versions -- which they would probably not be able to afford. This type of marketing and promotion effort has become integral to the brand equity of each of the pony car nameplates (both historic and currently manufactured), as well as help define the "pony car" marketing strategy. I hope this helps explain the "pony car" mystique! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from Dec 27

Bitemyshinymetalass78, nothing about this issue has been resolved. Stop the reverts until the discussion comes to some sort of conclusion because it's simply considered vandalism at this point. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Bitemyshinymetalass78, I've left a list of policies and guidelines. EVERYTHING in Wikipedia must be built on reliable secondary sources. Please check out these policies. Also read WP:3RR because you are about to break it. CZmarlin, almost everything you've claimed in those last statements could be considered original research. I have found secondary sources from major media outlets that say the Camaro is a muscle car. How is that to be argued? Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC) To clowny with the production figures: the same argument could be made about your other bigger muscle cars. How much of the total production of a name plate was an actual muscle car, rather than an underpowered family car? Think about it. 01:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ DUB (talk • contribs) Roguegeek: No, the description is not original research. I have simply reworded the referenced definition of the "pony car" term as the Camaro is described by a reputable Source: Holder, William G. and Kunz, Phillip (1995). Camaro. MotorBooks/MBI. pp. 9. ISBN 9780760300923. Some of the many other sources to describe this market segment include the following (Please note the titles of the books) Grist, Peter (2009). Dodge Challenger Plymouth Barracuda: Chrysler's Potent Pony Cars. Veloce Publishing. p. 6. ISBN 9781845841058. Gunnell, John A. (2001). Mustang, America's Favorite Pony Car. Krause Publications. ISBN 978-0873419468. Bowling, Brad (2005). Mustang Field Guide: America's Favorite Pony Car. Krause Publications. ISBN 0896891453. It also seems that we are going over the same discussion as last year! See: User_talk:CZmarlin#pony_car Please also note that with the exception of one retro 2002 model review, the other "references" you list pertain to 2009 pony car model comparisons. They hardly describe all of the production of this nameplate since 1967. Moreover, all of your "sources" describe only the top-of-the-line model in its most "muscular" version, not the typical production and most popular sellers. Of course you can find many bogs and individual newspaper articles that use "muscle" and "sport" without any real definition to almost any vehicle, not just pony cars! These terms are so loose that they are virtually meaningless. It was interesting how a contributor tried to include the Fiat Nuova 500 Abarth version as a super car (Source). Just because you can find an "source" for a description, is may not be definitive. This is because automotive terms, such as sports and muscle classifications are subjective. There are also no legal car definitions for muscle or sports car that cross international boundaries. One problem with your "gotha" list of citations that describe the Camaro as a "muscle car" is that the automotive press is full of of BS (Boastful Superlatives). Auto journalists work hard to write articles describe new cars using glowing terms to earn credits from the automakers that feed them. Customers and fans have an insatiable apetite for this BS. Therefore, instead of repeating the promotional language, WP contributors should work reduce the amount of BS (Boastful Superlatives) in Wikipedia articles. I hope this explains why for all the various versions, models, and many years of Chevy's Camaro since 1967, the best way to describe them all is: "pony car". CJ DUB: I am sure you are referring to many other editors insistence on including every Chevelle and Maverick as a "muscle car". However, the examples that I consider true "muscle" are the models that left the factory in full performance form. Examples of these include: Plymouth GTX, Rebel Machine, Oldsmobile 442, ... in short, these models were 100% muscle, and not available in an "underpowered family" version! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I believe CZ just made my case for me. I might add in his reply to Rogue that I posted directly contradicting articles FROM HIS SAME QUOTED SOURCES calling the 2009 Camaro and its predecessors a pony car. As for CJ DUB's argument, only the production performance 2-door derivatives of the full size full frame cars are considered muscle cars, such as the GTO package of the Pontiac Tempest LeMans. The base 4-door is most certainly NOT considered a muscle car. As for the Boss 429 being a muscle car, it pursest terms it is not. It is a "muscular" pony car, as is the current Shelby GT500 and GT500KR, or the top of the line Camaro SS. But they are NOT muscle cars, nor are they sports cars. I still have yet to receive an answer from anyone why the Camaro articles are the only ones that everyone seems intent as labeling muscle cars. The Mustang and Firebird articles both say only pony car, in contradiction to your own arguments...Response?Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Rubbish, even famous ones like an "Olds 442", are just a slow, boring Cutlass with a huge motor, rather than the straight 6 and so forth. The GTX is a performance packages of the Belvedere. Neither of those things are muscle cars. CJ DUB (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC) And CJ DUB has just lost their credibility in this discussion by stating his position as opinion instead of providing factual sources to support his claims. Sorry CJ, the Oldsmobile 442 package of the Cutlass is in fact a muscle car [9] as is the GTX [10]. The Muscle Car Club has to say about the Camaro "After two years of watching the Ford Mustang enjoy tremendous success, General Motors finally launched its entry into the pony car segment, the Chevrolet Camaro."[11]. Some further interesting reading from the international Muscle Car Club;[12] "Strict Definition of a Muscle Car - A muscle car, by the strictest definition, is an intermediate sized, performance oriented model, powered by a large V8 engine, at an affordable price. Most of these models were based on "regular" production vehicles. These vehicles are generally not considered muscle cars, even when equipped with large V8s. If there was a high performance version available, it gets the credit, and not the vehicle that it was based on. Examples: Buick GS, Chevrolete Chevelle SS, Dodge Charger R/T, Ford Torino/Cobra, Plymouth GTX, Plymouth Road Runner, Oldsmobile 442, Pontiac GTO" "Fullsize Muscle Car - The strict definition only includes intermediate size vehicles. In reality, performance oriented intermediate size vehicles didn't appear until 1964. Before then, manufacturers took existing fullsize vehicles and added extra performance to them. Because of this, the early fullsize performance vehicles are generally considered muscle cars. Examples: Chevrolet Impala (SS only), Ford Galaxie (with 390 + cid engines only), Dodge Coronet (R/Ts only), etc." "Pony Cars and Compact Cars - In addition to fullsize and intermediate muscle cars, a number of smaller vehicles started appearing on the automotive performance scene. These new "pony cars" and compact cars are generally considered muscle cars only if they have the top of the line performance engines and options. Examples: Chevrolet Camaro (SS and Z28 models only), Ford Mustang (GTs and Boss only), Plymouth 'Cudas (no Barracudas), AMC Javelin, etc." "Two Seat Sports Cars - Two seat sports cars such as the Chevrolet Corvette and the Ford Thunderbird are not considered muscle cars due to their high price and specialty nature. The only exception is the AMC AMX as it was relatively cheap, and was based on the AMC Javalin pony car. Examples: AMC AMX, etc." So even though they do consider a fully optioned top of the line version of a pony car a muscle car, they do not consider the base platform as such. Therefore, as CZ said the most applicable and best way to describe them is as pony cars. I believe this also settles any arguement as to whether the Corvette is anything but a sports car. Label the Camaro a pony car on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.183.243 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) A reliable reference book describes the Camaro as a "pony car" ... from its development by General Motors, as well as through its various production versions: Gunnell, John and Heasley, Jerry (2006) The Story of Camaro. Krause Publications ISBN 9780896894327. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that even in a book about "muscle cars", the Camaro (as well as all the other competing brands) are all described in chapter 4 called "The Pony Wars" ... as can be seen here: Leffingwell, Randy; Holmstrom, Darwin; and Newhardt, David (2006) Muscle: America's Legendary Performance Cars. MotorBooks/MBI Publishing. ISBN 9780760322840. Once more, the best description is simply "pony car" .... CZmarlin (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Linked directly from the "Experience The Brand" page on the GM corporate website, an article on the 2010 Camaro from Mototrend [13]. Straight from GM folks, it's a pony car. Game, set, match.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC) You guys are certifiably dense. You argue till you are blue in the face that models that are muscles cars are muscle cars, i.e. Olds 442 and GTX, WHICH THEY ARE. WE KNOW THAT. But let's not forget these are simply DERIVATIVE MODELS, with different tags, which are basically high powered packages for your dad's old family car. The point you guys are not getting is the Camaro and the mustang CAN be pony cars in the right package, EXACTLY the same justification as the Olds 442, GTX etc etc etc. Is the mustang a muscle car 100% of the time? NO! Camaro? NO! But they can be, just as with the large body muscle cars, that typically would have no performance whatsoever. I mean you are arguing for nothing, when Camaros and Mustang have been keeping the muscle car hobby alive all this time, snce 1972, where you guys seem to live. CJ DUB (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC) CJ DUB: Before you accuse anyone of being "dense" and "not getting it" you should take time to inform yourself of the history of what are called "American muscle cars", as well as some research into the "pony car" market segment. You will see that the muscle cars developed as high-performance versions of "family" cars. In fact, the muscle car market category evolved long before 1972,(Source: Poolos, J. (2007) Wild about Muscle Cars. Rosen Publishing Group. page 5. ISBN 9781404237889) and before there were any pony cars. The pony car market developed with the Mustang, then Camaro and all the others, to target the mass market customer. They had specialty models to halo effect each nameplate's image. As I am sure you know, both the Mustang and Camaro were derivatives of ordinary mass production platforms (Ford Falcon and Chevy II, respectively), but in "sporty" dress and with effective marketing campaigns. In fact, the same performance engines and other performance upgrades could be ordered on the pony cars, as well as on the equivalent automaker's ordinary "dad's old family car" models. The vast majority of Mustang, Camaro, etc., that were produced were in fact not "muscle", but 100% of them can be described as "pony cars". Moreover, please familiarize yourself with the performance abilities for the era, and you will see that even the "large body muscle cars" had performance. The first factory lightweight muscle car (Source: Holder, William; Kunz, Phil (2006). Extreme Muscle Cars: The Factory Lightweight Legacy. Krause Publications. p. 16. ISBN 9780896892781), the 1957 Rambler Rebel, was the fastest stock car and second only to the highly Chevy Corvette top speed (Source: Rambler Measures Up" by the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, 2007-08-22). Mustangs and Camaros are not the only cars that have kept the "muscle car hobby alive"! This can be seen in the numerous vendors and magazines that focus on the great variety of traditional and historic muscle car nameplates. Furthermore, I am not sure why you seem to contradict every book that has been written about American muscle cars. All of them rank the Olds 442, Plymouth GTX, etc. in the muscle category. This also goes for the volumes written about pony cars. All the books list the Camaro as a pony car. It follows that if you insist on the muscle car classification for the Camaro, then it should also be categorized it as an economy car, because the majority of them were purchased with standard six-cylinder and unstressed "family-oriented" small eights. In summary, I don't know where you live either, but it would help if you focus on how automakers practice marketing through product differentiation. Once again, the numerous books about the Camaro, all identify it as a pony car. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I have yet to see a reason why the Mustang and Firebird pages don't include muscle car as well, considering all the arguments for keeping it on the Camaro pages cite models of the Mustang. Should we also add the descriptor of secretary's car, as the originally conceived inline 6 Mustang was intended to be? Same for the original Corvette? Can I add to the MR2 MkI page the title of supercar, since it was developed by Lotus in cooperation with Toyota, who still provides drivetrains for the Elise and Exige, descendants of the original MR2? How about we add muscle car to the MR2 MkI page, since there was a factory built S-class version built with 500+ Hp? Feel free to give me concise, detailed, supportable reasons why ONLY the Camaro gets special considerations.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The subtleties of my arguments are lost on you guys. Camaro and Mustang production history includes the term muscle car as well as pony car. If you can't recognize that, then you are high. Your examples for the MR2 are full of nonsene. I'm out. Enjoy your crappy page. CJ DUB (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

CJ DUB - The subtleties of your argument have degraded into incivility and hostility towards other Wiki editors.

I'm still waiting on those concise, detailed, supportable reasons why given the presented arguments ONLY the Camaro pages are listed as other than pony car.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bitemyshinymetalass78: I don't think you will get a supportable reason, other than even more rants from CJ DUB wanting to include the muscle and sports car labels to the Camaro. It seems as if all the material that explains the classification in books about pony cars does not matter. Even CJ DUB's statements that true factory muscle models are not "muscle cars" is contrary to reality. It also seems unusual to clam that muscle cars began in 1972! Even books written for children (Wild about Muscle Cars by J. Poolos) have the correct history! CZmarlin (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I will return to defend my rep if not this useless argument, that all i said is you guys are stuck in 1972. Go read it. The arguments that you guys use to say mustang and camaro are NOT muscle cars (i.e. only one part fraction of production) can be applied to other muscle cars. Do the math. CJ DUB (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember the Olds Rocket 88 in 1949 as creating the muscle car...As for the Camaro problem, I see only two solutions;

Remove "muscle car" and "sports car" from the Camaro articles, and label them as "pony cars" only

-or-

Clarify on the Camaro articles that "muscle car" refers ONLY to the SS and Z/28 packages, as well as add similar descriptors to the Mustang, Firebird, Cougar, Challenger, Barracuda, Javelin, Genesis, 350Z, Capri, Celica, and all other pony car articles for their high output variants.

Wikipedia must be neutral in its articles, so to treat the Camaro articles as special is in contradiction to the Wiki mission statement and spirit. Do we have a consensus?Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

CZmarlin, yes, I see your point and I apologize for the original research comment. I see there is a decent amount of resources you have pulled to identify exactly what a pony car and muscle car is and, honestly, with those definitions, I would see how the Camaro isn't considered a muscle car. Now I'm not arguing that the Camaro isn't a pony car. I agree it is. What I am arguing is the current definition of the muscle car. There's no doubt the main stream media and automotive media are calling the current Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro muscle cars. Are they calling them pony cars as well? Yes, but the vast majority of current reliable secondary sources are claiming muscle cars over pony cars. Why are they doing this? Well, who knows. The two labels have obviously evolved over the past 40-50 years and it makes complete sense it has. So what I've presented here is three major secondary sources that are saying these cars in their current form are muscle cars. (additional note: These are just the three I pulled off the top of my head. I could pull more if needed. Just let me know.) Are we then saying the LA Times (a major non-automotive media outlet), Edmunds.com (the main auto data publisher that's been around for 40+ years), and Jalopnik (a major online automotive media outlet) are wrong? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. The definition is subjective at best. But what we have are reliable secondary sources claiming these cars in their current form to be muscle cars and the Wikipedia policy has always been articles are built from secondary sources. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, on top of the three original sources I'm citing (), here four more sources from major media outlets I was able to find pretty quickly with a simple Google search: roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately ANYTHING can be proven by looking long enough through media articles, as the media have proven themselves time and again to be anything but concerned with accuracy or neutrality. As CZ already pointed out earlier in this discussion;

"It is the automaker's marketing department's strategy to promote a perception of muscle and performance to the the rest of the models. That is why this class of vehicles is unique, because the vast majority of pony cars sold are not asphalt-melting muscle cars or road race refined sportsters. However, most pony car purchasers are perfectly happy to own these "specialty" marques with the perceived "performance image" to simply commute to work and run around town, rather than own the "real" muscle versions -- which they would probably not be able to afford. This type of marketing and promotion effort has become integral to the brand equity of each of the pony car nameplates (both historic and currently manufactured), as well as help define the "pony car" marketing strategy. I hope this helps explain the "pony car" mystique! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)"

CZ and I have shown numerous sources from published books, the international Muscle Car Club (just try go to them with a V6 Camaro and tell them you want to register it as a muscle car!), and FROM GM ITSELF, stating the Camaro to be a pony car today and since its inception. Attempting to redirect the argument does not help reach consensus, especially as flawed as your argument is. Again, I ask if you will concede to either call the Camaro articles pony cars only, or to alter the Camaro articles and the other pony car articles to also and only list muscle car for only the production high performance versions. These are the only two viable options keep the articles neutral and balanced.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bite, could be true and that could be said about either the pony or muscle car title. Still, when you have this many secondary sources claiming one thing, it needs to be taken into consideration. As for the question you ask Bite, I think neither is either a viable option or solution. I'm just going to have to disagree with you and I think reading WP:VERIFY could help.

CZmarlin, I've always worked well with you and you make some real good arguments. Would love to hear what you think of my statements above. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW Rogue, didn't I ALREADY point out earlier in the discussion directly contradicting articles calling the 2009 Camaro a pony car from Edmunds, Jalopnik, LA Times, and Popular Mechanics? Just because a reviewer says it in his opinion article doesn't make it so. As long as you keep showing me magazine articles calling it a muscle car, I'll keep finding articles from the same sources calling it a pony car. I'll also throw in articles about family cars called muscle cars, sports cars called muscle cars, and anything else I can find. The point I'm making is you can't use reviews as a source in this case because they are not scholarly articles, only opinions. If you can show us more documented scholarly sources proclaiming the Camaro and ONLY the Camaro a muscle car, then I'll drop my argument. If not, then the article needs to be changed. I'm also STILL waiting for my detailed, concise argument why the options I offered will not work...if you have one.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to my above point, here's an article from US News and World Report [14] calling it a pony car, and one from Business Week [15] doing the same. I've already listed articles from Edmunds, Jalopnik, LA Times, and Popular Mechanics. Here's some more from the New York Times [16], the Chicago Tribune [17], MotorTrend again (comparing the high performance versions no less as pony cars) [18], the Miami Herald [19], the Dallas Morning News [20], the Canadian paper The Globe and Mail [21], the Detroit News [22], and another from Jalopnik (who seem to only parrot what others say, so I don't give them much validity) [23]. And again, I point out that I have already shown where GM classifies the Camaro as a pony car. There really isn't any more discussion after that.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bite, I think we've already pointed out that you can find any number of articles claiming the vehicle to be either or. In fact, some of these articles you're posting clearly claim it to be both. Finding sources isn't the point anymore, and I think all of our efforts will be wasted in doing so, so move on from it. If you have been reading anything I've written, then you could also see what I'm arguing here, which I can tell you right now isn't the number of sources. Whatever the case, there's still no clear consensus here. Might be time to bring in other editors here to see what they think. CZ, would still love to hear from you again. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation why the Mustang, Firebird, Challenger, and other pony cars don't get muscle car as well if you are so intent on leaving it on the Camaro page. Why does ONLY the Camaro deserve that label? And how many times do I have to ask? You also keep ignoring that both CZ and I have cited much more reliable sources, such as books from established sources and GM corporate, not magazine or newspaper review opinion articles. If GM considers it a pony car, and there is overwhelming evidence from numerous books that it is a pony car (and there clearly is), then the discussion is over. It's a pony car. If you want to argue over what the current miss-use of the word muscle car is, then take it to urban dictionary or the muscle car page on wikipedia. But for this article, give it up. The discussion was is the Camaro a pony car or a muscle car. GM, published books, and the Muscle Car Club call it a pony car. Newspaper reviews can call it a muscle car all they like, but citing their opinion doesn't make them correct. I can show you newspaper articles calling the AR-15 a machine gun all day long as well, but that doesn't make it true.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to keep waiting then. I'm editing this article. Not those. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you obviously aren't interested in discussion and are only here for vandalism. CZ and I have made our case, you haven't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another policy you should read is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Just an FYI for ya. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've asked repeatedly for you to make your argument as to why only the Camaro article gets special consideration against other articles from its same class that have been cited by both sides in the discussion. You have both failed and refused to do so. You have been shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your position, and still fail to yield. Trying to intimidate me with Wiki policies or changing the subject of the argument does not help you to personally "win" it or help the group achieve consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bit, you need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism too and stop reverting sourced information. Also, keep in mind consensus isn't always going to be reached on your schedule. There are many many editors on this article that need to chime in. The reason you aren't hearing from me is because I'm looking for other editor's feedback at this point. I know where you stand already. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but by what right did you remove my sources, given that they are from published books more reliable than your opinion articles? You've just vandalised my work.

Camaro: A Legend Reborn by Larry Edsell, an officially licensed GM book, also by Motorbooks, ISBN-13: 9780760328194, states the original and 2009 Camaro as a pony car, from quotes from its own GM designers. Or do you refute this as well?Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Directly from Wikipedia:Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW)."Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Umm, who is 75.1.183.243? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So are you happy with the article as is now? The next step is to systematically find the same sort of references and change the other applicable pony car articles to include muscle car for their high performance versions, as per my offer earlier, so all the articles have parity. Why this took so long I don't understand.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Is anyone else confused? Other editors, please please please... chime in. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Z-28

Is there any place in this article to mention the on-again, off-again Z-28 effort, or is it too speculative to include? It's something that fans of Camaros ask about often, so I'd think it would be beneficial to at least inform people here that it's only being hinted at. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is something I've been keeping up with a lot. I would say all of the information out there is too speculative for now, but as soon as something solid comes by, I would love to place it in this article. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

While the amount of speculation itself is notable, I'm against adding mention of the Z28 here until GM or some news service (aside from car magazines and blogs) makes an announcement. I don't like to see this or similar Wikipedia pages degrade into fansites or rumor mills. There are plenty of other sites out there for that. --Vossanova ^o< 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)