Talk:The Truth About Cars

This web site is similar to a magazine and is not a blog or simple regurgitated web info. It is equal to a Car & Driver, Motor Trend or Automobile Magazine. Its strength has been enhanced by the inclusion of Brock Yates as a contributing editor.

It is equal to Car And Driver? You seriously mean that? uʍop ǝpısdn‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉ (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

HAHA The site' biggest weakness is that fanboy/know-nothing/applaude any test car/fatty Lieberman. He writes like a 12 y.o., has virtually nil car experience and sucks up to any manufacturer that slings a car his way... oh, so very much like C&D... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.47.32 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not written for TTAC for several years now and was never a "frequent contributor." Please remove me from your list of TTAC writers. I'm afraid I don't have one of Wiki's vaunted "citations," since I certainly didn't issue a press release at the time, so if anybody wishes to confirm this factoid, please e-mail me at stephwilkinson@verizon.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.11.151 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor(s) - COI

I found that this article is frequently edited by an editor (or more) with conflict of interest and hope this can draw the attention of other editors/administrators.---North south 101 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you can't say on wiki that unless the editor has broadcast the link between his legal name and his IP on wiki. I think by doing so you are sailing close to the wind on WP:OUTING . Greglocock (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As of July 12 2013, Jack Baruth has replaced Bertel Schmitt as the Editor In Chief. Can someone add that to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.12.55 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Old news. Some kid has taken over.Greglocock (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Truth About Cars. 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://web.archive.org/web/20071030044653/http://www.pcmag.com:80/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=216520&s=27153&a=216536&po=88,00.asp to http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=216520&s=27153&a=216536&po=88,00.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Peacocking - Recognition section

While it is true that once upon a time TTAC was worth reading, these days it is a mix of clickbait, AI slop, and advertorials, with the very occasional interesting article, often a re-run. I see that some editors resent having this pointed out. Obviously there are going to be no refs for a once notable website turning into an uninteresting click farming site, but perhaps the whole section is WP:UNDUE ? ~~~ Greglocock (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think your addition is acceptable as it's very much OR. However, your concerns seem legitimate. Perhaps if we rephrased the previous sentence to make it's time frame clear and merge it into a different section this might address the issue. Also, if we have a recent RS mentioning the increase in paid articles and AI stuff that would be good. Springee (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)