This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I'm proposing the removal of Burgess vs Ford on grounds that it is WP:UNDUE. This section was added early in March when fewer editors were watching this talk page. This section is undue for several reasons. First, what makes the case significant was that it was an early, publicly disclosed settlement for a safety lawsuit that included a claim of "lack of (passenger side) airbags". This may make it a landmark case in terms of airbag litigation but that the case happened to involve a Pinto isn't notable. In the 1973, the year the car in question was built, virtually no cars had airbags and a passenger side mandate was 25 years away (1998). Thus the lack of airbags on the low cost Pinto wasn't notable. This is in contrast to the fuel tank controversy where the whole argument is that Ford used an unusually unsafe design. Second, in "Pinto" related historical terms the lawsuit doesn't stand out. A few articles covered the topic at the time but they focused on the airbag aspect, not that the car was a Pinto. The only recent reference to the case (Graham) mentions the Pinto only to indicate the type of car. His discussion doesn't make any claim that the Pinto was unusual. There are MANY articles that discuss the legacy of the Pinto. The fuel tank placement and the Mother Jones article discussing the "Pinto Memo" are always mentioned. This airbag case is not. At best this would merit an "other reading" type link. Springee ( talk) 06:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
:Article size check: The article is currently Prose size (text only): 25 kB (4137 words) "readable prose size". The article is half the size at which the possibility of an article size issue is likely, as per our project's guideline WP:SIZERULE.Hugh ( talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Removing noteworthy, well-referenced content seems an unusual editorial priority at this time. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Contended content:
A passenger in a 1975 Pinto was seriously injured in a fiery collision. On August 30, 1979 Ford was served with a civil lawsuit Burgess v. Ford alleging defects including that the Pinto was structurally unsafe and that the Pinto fuel system was defective. In November, 1983, the suit was amended to include a claim of a lack of an airbag. Air bags were not legally required at the time. [1] [2] [3] [4] The suit was settled out of court in March, 1984 for $1.8 million, the largest known airbag litigation settlement. [3] [5] Ford said the injuries were due to driver negligence and that the settlement was unrelated to airbags. [4] [1] The court granted Ford a protective order on Ford documents obtained by the plaintiff via court order. [1] [3] The suit was widely publicized. The Today Show broadcast a consumer protection segment on the incident. [2] The settlement was covered on the front page of The Wall Street Journal. According to the Center for Auto Safety, the settlement was a "landmark" in establishing that a lack of airbags may be considered negligent design. [1]
References
Ford Motor Co. settled out of court for $1.8 million a lawsuit that safety advocates claim sets a precedent for auto makers to be held liable for the lack of air bags in cars. The suit resulted from a front-end collision involving a 1975 Ford Pinto. The plaintiff, Rebecca Burgess, then 18 years old, suffered permanent brain damage. The suit alleged, among other things, that the car was structurally unsafe and that it "was in a defective condition due to the failure of (the company) to provide and or offer air bags as a passive restraint designed to protect the occupant." "It's a landmark settlement," said Clarence Ditlow, director for the Center for Auto Safety in Washington. "It establishes that in a frontal collision you can bring in lack of air bags in a car as a negligent design." Ford disputed that interpretation of the case's significance. Car companies aren't bound by current law to install air bags...Mr. Pratt said Ford's internal documents on the company's crash tests of the Pinto "revealed that Ford knew about the weaknesses in Pinto's structure and that the car could be made much safer by (installing) air bags." He said those documents were obtained under a court order but details of Ford's test results couldn't be disclosed because the documents are under "protective order" at Ford's request.
In March 1984 a settlement was reached in Burgess v. Ford that reportedly provided $1.8 million in compensation to the plaintiff. Front right passenger Rebecca Burgess, at age eighteen, was rendered a severely brain injured quadriplegic when her Ford Pinto was struck on the passenger side at a 45-degree angle by a Chevrolet Camaro. Although this case was served on Ford on August 30, 1979, and alleged various defects, the plaintiff did not make the lack-of-air-bag claim until November 1983...The Burgess case was highly publicized. The "Today Show" ran a consumer segment that highlighted the Burgess incident.
In Burgess v. Ford Motor Co., Ford was sued by a woman who had suffered severe brain damage. The 1975 Ford Pinto in which she was riding as a front seat passenger, and which was not equipped with air bag safety restraints, was struck by a Camaro in a front-angle intersection collision. Plaintiff claimed that the lack of an air bag protection system had rendered the 1975 Pinto uncrashworthy...The settlement in this case is the largest to be divulged, amounting to $1.8 million. Ford has also persuaded a court to seal 5,000 pages of documents, cost studies, and crash tests which the plaintiff's attorney was using to show that Ford could have used air bags to avoid injuries like those suffered by the plaintiff.
An Anniston man reached a $1.8 million settlement with the Ford Motor Co. over the fiery crash of a Ford Pinto that seriously injured his daughter. W. E. Burgess of Anniston sued Ford in 1979 after his daughter, Rebecca Lynn Burgess, was injured when the Pinto in which she was a passenger collided with another car...According to the suit, Miss Burgess was burned and suffered a brain injury...The suit alleged that the car's fuel system was defective and that Ford knew or should have known it. An amendment to the suit contented that Ford should have installed protective air bags in the car. Ford contended Miss Burgess' injuries were caused by negligence on the part of the car's driver.
Only a few air bag cases have been settled; none has gone to trial. The largest divulged settlement is Ford Motor Co.'s agreement in 1984 to pay Rebecca Burgess $1.8 million for severe brain damage and burns incurred when a Ford Pinto's fuel tank exploded. Burgess v. Ford, Civil Action No. CV 79-3515.
Sources include a noteworthy mainstream newspaper The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, two noteworthy law review journals, and a chapter by a noteworthy author John Graham in a book from the Brookings Institute edited by a noteworthy editor Peter W. Huber. This section is much more strongly sourced than most of the article, cf. Ford Pinto#1974–1978, Ford Pinto#Mercury Bobcat (1974–1980) and Ford Pinto#1974–1978. This section seems an unlikely section in which to embrace a spirited defense of our project's due weight policy.
How would you summarize these sources? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Support inclusion The litigation history of the subject of this article is perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the subject of this article. Our article currently states that more than a hundred lawsuits were filed and no doubt some fans of the Pinto would prefer to leave it at that; however, coverage in reliable sources, the basis of our project's due weight policy, disagree. Given the more than a hundred lawsuits, obviously providing our readers with some detail on three of the most significant is due weight WP:READERSFIRST:
Sources for our article's summarization of Burgess v. Ford include a noteworthy mainstream newspaper The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, two noteworthy law review journals, and a chapter by a noteworthy author John Graham in a book from the Brookings Institute edited by a noteworthy editor Peter W. Huber. Noteworthy reliable sources include much more coverage of the Burgess v. Ford case than, for example, the wide variety of engines that were available in the Ford Pinto and their respective horsepowers, torques, and displacements in cubic inches and liters. The Ford Pinto is no longer in production; the significance of the Ford Pinto includes its contributions to legal precedents and automotive safety, in the areas of both fuel system safety and restraint systems. Section blanking of this section would remove five neutral noteworthy reliable sources for which no alternative summarization has been offered. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This page is, at the time of writing, 413,228 bytes long. This can make the page unreadable for some of our colleagues, and uneditable for others. I have therefore again tweaked the settings, to archive any section not edited in the last 30 days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Since we have graciously been allowed a breathing space....
WP:NPOV - "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."
Lede OK as is.
Fuel system design
"The first federal standard for automotive fuel system safety, known as Section 301 in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, was <INTRODUCED?> in 1968, and only applied to front-end collisions at over 30 miles per hour (48 km/h)." i
"In 1970 and 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued notices regarding fuel system integrity, fuel spillage, and fire-related casualties.[" should make clear these proposals were made after the launch of the vehicle i n 1970, and wer enot law until whatever date..
"The Pinto's vulnerability to fuel leakage and fire in a rear-end collision was exacerbated by reduced rear "crush space," a lack of structural reinforcement in the rear, and an "essentially ornamental" rear bumper. " These features were also present in its competitors.
Cost-benefit analysis
This subsection should probably be called The Pinto Memo.
"In 2007 Time magazine said the memo was one of the automotive industry's "most notorious paper trails."" Which rather ignores the point that this notoriety is based on the MJ beatup.The following para corrects that but the two need to be combined, and quit wanking on about tort law, nobody cares. This is not a lawyer's primer.
OK I'll do the rest tomorrow, SWMBO needs a hand. Greglocock ( talk) 11:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
On with the show
NHTSA investigation
First sentence needs a rewrite
"Lee and Ermann noted in testing to determine in the Pinto tank design warranted a recall, the NHTSA for forewent the 1977 rear impact crash test standard and created a "worst-case" test."
How about "Lee and Ermann that NHTSA used a worst case test to justify the recall of the Pinto, rather than the regular 1977 rear impact crash test." at least it is English.
"and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem." should be "whereas back in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem."
Recall
same problem as paper trail, sensationalist quote from Time slide show mixed into an article that mostly uses serious refs. Voluntary recall needs no scare quotes.
Civil lawsuits
If you quote how many lawsuits were brought it would be at least interesting, and NPOV to list the outcomes in some summarised form. Once a deep pocketed target is established it is scarcely surprising that many suits would be filed, whatever the merits of the case, lawyers being well known for their love of a dollar.
Subsequent analysis
I don't know what this sentence is trying to say but it fails. The refs do not support the sentence.
Overall If any of the above are non controversial I at least would appreciate being allowed to make the edits above when the lock is lifted, without HughD's usual shotgun blasts and major surgery. I think in this case interleaved comments make sense.
Greglocock (
talk)
07:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
(→Product development: This seems self evident given the link to the term in the sentence.)
And, of course, the naming pattern, Mustang, Bronco, Maverick...well, that last might Steer you to some Bull.... Anmccaff ( talk) 21:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm considering adding a new section to the article and wanted the input of other editors before proceeding. A significant aspect of the Ford Pinto fuel system fire story is the public understanding and news coverage. I would propose adding a section along the lines of "Media Coverage". I think this section could be located after "Fuel system design". In this section we could talk about some of the media coverage as well as material that was largely misunderstood by either the media or public. The Lee and Ermann paragraph from the into of the fire section could be removed and much of its material integrated into this new subsection. This section may also be a better place to cover material like the MJ article, the earlier article that claimed "thousands" of deaths as well as the 60 Minutes story. These were all significant stories in developing the Pinto narrative and thus worth including. It also might be a place to gather some of the material that currently sits in other article sections. Finally, I'm still not sold on the current layout. In my opinion the public perception and misunderstanding of the Pinto case are perhaps the most important aspects of the story. The details in the fuel system design and recall support that public understanding. Thus I feel the public understanding material is the most important material in the section. What do others think in this case? Springee ( talk) 00:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following epigraph, a long direct quote from Lee and Erdmann (1999), and content sourced to Schwartz (1990) and Danley (2005), be included in the section lede of the "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits" section?
Scholarly work published in the decades after the Pinto’s release have offered summations of the general understanding of the Pinto and the controversy regarding the car's safety performance and risk of fire. Lee and Ermann summarized the popular yet largely erroneous understanding of the issues surrounding the Pinto and related fires.
Conventional wisdom holds that Ford Motor Company decided to rush the Pinto into production in 1970 to compete with compact foreign imports, despite internal pre-production tests that showed gas tank ruptures in low-speed rear-end collisions would produce deadly fires. This decision purportedly derived from an infamous seven-page cost-benefit analysis (the "Grush/Saunby Report" [1973]) that valued human lies at $200,000. Settling burn victims’ lawsuits would have cost $49.5 million, far less than the $137 million needed to make minor corrections. According to this account, the company made an informed, cynical, and impressively coordinated decision that "payouts" (Kelman and Hamilton 1989:311) to families of burn victims were more cost-effective than improving fuel tank integrity. This description provides the unambiguous foundation on which the media and academics have built a Pinto gas tank decision-making narrative. [1]
Additional misunderstanding surrounds the actual number of fire related deaths related to the fuel system design, "wild and unsupported claims asserted in 'Pinto Madness' and elsewhere",[31] the facts of the two most significant Pinto related legal cases, Grimshaw vs Ford Motor Company and State of Indiana vs Ford Motor Company, the applicable safety standards at the time of design, and the nature of the NHTSA investigations and subsequent vehicle recalls. [1] [2] [3]
References
Hugh ( talk) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion The "Safety..." section is of course one of if not the most important sections of this article for us to get right.
Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Notice to WP:BRANDS, WP:VPM, WP:NPOVN, Talk:Ford Motor Company; update to WP:NPOVN. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC) update to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles Hugh ( talk) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) update to WP:VPM Hugh ( talk) 15:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC) update to WP:BRANDS Hugh ( talk) 19:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) update to Talk:Ford Motor Company Hugh ( talk) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Notice to editors. The content of the article section and even the title of the section are currently in not in stable form.
Springee (
talk)
21:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Removed RfC tag pending agreement on appropriate RfC text. Please propose the RfC so that others can verify it is a reasonable and neutral question first. In the past you have asked imbalanced questions. Also, so long as the section body text is in flux it would be inappropriate to assume that the reply to a RfC would still be relevant after body changes. Your current reasons for opposition include assumptions such as the title of the section, the purpose and/or content that should be in the section, and an inherent assumption that the content of the section is largely static.
Instead of a binary RfC we should ask for input on the scope of the lead. The length of that material may make it too long for a lead. However, the scope of the lead clearly should include discussions of the misunderstandings surrounding the facts of the Pinto case. I would propose an RfC question something like:
I'm open to other suggestions. Springee ( talk) 20:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Support with qualification I think this material could be cut down due to length. HughD's claims as to why it should not be included are based on what he wants to include in the body of the article, not an agreement between editors.
I think we should allow the article to become stable before answering this question. Springee ( talk) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: I accidendently removed Gregs response; I may have had an old version up, or I may have fat-fingered something. I did not intend to nuke it. Anmccaff ( talk) 17:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
BU Rob13, Thank you for closing this RfC. I'm not sure I agree that there was any consensus reached. Certainly by way of a count I would say the "leave it be" editors have it. I am thinking about ways to change because I think it could be better. That said, the lead currently does summarize the body (section). I would ask that you reconsider declaring the consensus for removal. At best I see a consensus that it can be improved with no specific proposal. Thank again! Springee ( talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Anmccaff indicated that she supported your view that the sources supporting this information are stronger, but that does not speak to the question of where the information should be included. She did not express an opinion on that.
I weighed both Ellen and Greg as weak supporters, because Ellen specifically acknowledged the summary style issue and Greg also acknowledged that it's odd to include such a long quote in the section lead. While both clearly supported the proposal, they did not have any real response to the Summary style issues, which they acknowledged were significant concerns in their discussion. In other words, they agreed that the Summary style issues were valid and could not refute them.
A quote from WP:CLOSE: "Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review ... if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." I believe I have followed the letter and intent of that page, which is widely accepted as the appropriate way to assess consensus. You are welcome to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you believe my close is in error, and I have seriously considered your views and reviewed my close, but at this time I don't see any reason to overturn it myself. ~ Rob Talk 00:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All, please review the Pinto related material HughD has added to the History of Ford Motor Company article. [7], [8], [9]. Springee ( talk) 18:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Veni. Vidi. Nuci. Anmccaff ( talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, please review the recently added Ford Pinto related material at Automobile_safety Springee ( talk) 19:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me there are really two stories with the Pinto. There is the car and then there is the "Pinto case". Hugh was right to suggest that the legal issues surrounding the car are (at least for some readers) more significant that what engine options were offered. The fuel system section is now about half the article. The total article length isn't too long but the content seems to split nicely along those lines. A split "Pinto case" article could also absorb the Grimshaw v Ford article as the one is a key part of the other. A split article might also allow for more discussion of some of the legal, moral and ethical questions that surround the case. For example, Danley's academic paper looks at the question of can we reasonably assign moral guilt to a company based on a legal case and and works this question in terms of the two big Pinto legal cases. Such information might be interesting in terms of a "Pinto case" article but is too far afield for the current article (IMHO). Anyway, wanted to put out feelers on this subject. Springee ( talk) 04:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Support, to a point Although I'm not sure what kind of article it would spawn, I think that something like this is worth considering. While I do concede that while this is one of several vehicles to have a legal controversy involved in its legacy, as it stands now, the legal content related to the fuel system is starting to overtake the content related to the actual vehicle itself. To improve this article from above C-Class, there needs to be a better sense of balance between the two issues. For those interested in the Ford Pinto/Mercury Bobcat vehicles, a "main" or "see also" link for the legal content would be of great benefit; both sets of content would be able to develop/thrive separately. I just am not sure where the article would go, or if it would pass muster as a notable article (I hope so). -- SteveCof00 My Suggestion box is open 07:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Neutral. I can see the case for splitting; I can also see this becoming a POV fork, where the legal article takes facts-at-law to be actual facts, and that never ends well. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This has been open for 10 days. If we don't get any strong supporters in another 10 days I would suggest dropping the suggestion because I don't think anyone is going to champion the effort needed to make the change happen. Springee ( talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Close with no action. We didn't have strong support for the change and no champions for the effort. I think that settles the issue. Springee ( talk) 01:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This seems to rely heavily on one article from 1991 (16 of the 128 citations are at least oblique references to the article in question, Schwartz 1991). Does that potentially indicate a problem? I'm new to Wikipedia from a contribution standpoint, but that would raise serious red flags in my mind.
In particular, the second half of the "Subsequent Analysis" section is drawn exclusively from three pages (Citations 6, 127 and 128 as I'm writing this).
I also can't seem to find what "Schwartz 1991" refers to. Is this just my inexperience, or are there shenanigans at play? Is there supposed to be a link to http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf (the first Google result for Schwartz 1991 pinto as of this typing)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F558:1000:18:E92D:5E32:9ED2:24F3 ( talk) 23:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" (PDF). Rutgers Law Review. 43: 1013–1068.
Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.
Schwartz and Lee and Ermann are related in that they advance Schwartz's thesis:
... the Ford Pinto case ... can be properly referred to as "mythical."
The article is non-neutral in its over-reliance on Schwartz and Lee & Ermann, as it over-represents the point of view that the issues with the Ford Pinto safety were unfounded, undermining the portions of the article that endeavor to present a neutral summarization of facts as reflected in the breadth of available reliable sources. This editorial issue is so severe that the article reads as if the Schwartz/Lee/Ermann point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the subject of this article.
2602:304:CC61:8BD0:D1CD:EE2E:8F0:9BDF ( talk) 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that the silly NPOV tag can be removed in the following circumstances
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
The neutrality of this article , and suitability of sources,has been extensively reviewed in the past. The Mother Jones based narrative has errors of fact and emphasis which are perpetuated in the media, but do not seem to have much evidence to support them where they contradict Schwartz. Perhaps you should read the Gladwell document. Greglocock ( talk) 08:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Tag removed. The IP editor in question is yet another sock of HughD, an editor who has been indef blocked impart due to his disruptive edits here. Rehashing arguments that have already been closed in the talk archives doesn't make them stronger. Springee ( talk) 10:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto.htm/printable. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 2602:304:CC61:8BD0:B188:9DD0:BDD4:A79 ( talk) 18:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
2602:304:CC61:8BD0:B188:9DD0:BDD4:A79 ( talk) 18:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Copyright © 2017 HowStuffWorks, a division of InfoSpace Holdings LLC
The above IP editor fits the profile of the indef blocked editor HughD. Springee ( talk) 12:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ford Pinto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change A number lawsuits were successfully brought against Ford. to A number of lawsuits were successfully brought against Ford. 64.39.156.254 ( talk) 17:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ford Pinto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead please change:
A number of lawsuits were brought against Ford.
to:
More than one hundred lawsuits were brought against Ford.
As per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarizes the body:
Approximately 117 lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents in the Pinto.
References
Ford customers filed 117 lawsuits, according to Peter Wyden in The Unknown Iacocca.
185.76.10.167 ( talk) 19:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ford Pinto. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Power~enwiki ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The "Production figures" table's style and placing could be improved, I'll try to fix this myself. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The sourcing in the "Background" section could be improved, but none of the statements there are controversial. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio detector only finds the direct quotes included in the article, which are correctly quoted and referenced. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The "Motorsport" section is so short as to feel unnecessary. I'm not sure what it can be merged with , though. Also, having coverage from both the 1970s and the 2000s in "Reception and criticism" is jarring. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass. The article isn't perfect, but it is Good. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC) |
Discussion with a blocked user. Almost all of this is discussed extensively in the talk archives. I'll re-check a few of the more credible points later today.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
Thank you for beginning the GA review.
The article non-neutrally relies too heavily on one source and its associated point of view: Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" Schwartz' point of view, over-represented by the over-reliance on this source, may be summarized (from Schwartz 1991):
Schwartz is cited directly at least 20 times. (Meanwhile, at least one book-length treatment is ignored: Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.) The article reads as if Schwartz' point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the Ford Pinto. PrefectF ( talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality of coverage of the emergence of the safety issuesAnother area in which the article non-neutrally summarizes noteworthy reliable sources is the coverage of the emergence of the controversy. The article expresses the point of view that the safety issues of this product were largely the result of rabble rousing by Mother Jones magazine. Noteworthy reliable sources offering a more balanced perspective were deleted, including The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and 20/20.
PrefectF ( talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @ Yamla: I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment regarding PrefectF (nice HHGTG reference HughD ( talk · contribs)). The Pinto article and talk page are both limited to verified accounts. This was due to a large number of IP edits that were, based on WP:DUCK, considered to be HughD IP socks. Similar text was added to the article talk page by IP editors (socks of HughD) over the past few months. Springee ( talk) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|
I've switched the production table from vertical to horizontal; I think it looks better that way, but if you disagree feel free to revert it. The table should have an inline reference; I'm certain one of the references in the prose section has this data but am not 100% sure which. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This article should have not have passed the GA review with several unsourced paragraphs and incomplete reference formats. Please address these immediately. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ford Pinto. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This language is far too strong to sources to just a single paper, especially when it clearly fails to reflect the literally any other source in the now-lengthy, extensively-cited section. The landmark status of the case is extensively well-documented and attested to; weighing Schwartz' opinion as equal to that is absurd. If you want to put it in the section's lead, find a second source saying the same thing, or at least a secondary source quoting Schwartz on that aspect and backing it up. As
WP:RS says, Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields.
I'm not suggesting removing him entirely (although the paragraph and mention in the lead is still somewhat
WP:UNDUE), but the "mythical" quote in particular is a personal opinion without any backing anywhere else and is inappropriate for the lead of an entire section. --
Aquillion (
talk)
19:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure of the best title (yet), which is why I didn't put a tag on the article. However, this is certainly worthy for discussion.
When looking at Category: Business ethics cases and Category:Product safety scandals, the content related to Ford Pinto fuel system fires is noteworthy enough to warrant its own article (if there is one for Ford Explorer tires, definitely so...). Along with this specific content being worthy of its own space, it takes up a large portion of the overall Ford Pinto article and a split would allow for both this content to grow on its own and for a better focus on the actual automobile. (While similarly presented, the handling issues of the Chevrolet Corvair take up a smaller proportion of its article).
Any thoughts? -- SteveCof00 ( talk) 08:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Going with WP naming conventions, I'm deciding on Ford Pinto fuel tank design issue to suggest for a title when splitting the article. Taking the split on a different scope altogether, the end result (of the design issue) could be used for the title 1978 Ford Pinto fuel tank recall. At the very least, I'm not looking to use "scandal" or "controversy" in a title; doing so implies NPOV issues.
Thoughts? -- SteveCof00 ( talk) 07:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I'm proposing the removal of Burgess vs Ford on grounds that it is WP:UNDUE. This section was added early in March when fewer editors were watching this talk page. This section is undue for several reasons. First, what makes the case significant was that it was an early, publicly disclosed settlement for a safety lawsuit that included a claim of "lack of (passenger side) airbags". This may make it a landmark case in terms of airbag litigation but that the case happened to involve a Pinto isn't notable. In the 1973, the year the car in question was built, virtually no cars had airbags and a passenger side mandate was 25 years away (1998). Thus the lack of airbags on the low cost Pinto wasn't notable. This is in contrast to the fuel tank controversy where the whole argument is that Ford used an unusually unsafe design. Second, in "Pinto" related historical terms the lawsuit doesn't stand out. A few articles covered the topic at the time but they focused on the airbag aspect, not that the car was a Pinto. The only recent reference to the case (Graham) mentions the Pinto only to indicate the type of car. His discussion doesn't make any claim that the Pinto was unusual. There are MANY articles that discuss the legacy of the Pinto. The fuel tank placement and the Mother Jones article discussing the "Pinto Memo" are always mentioned. This airbag case is not. At best this would merit an "other reading" type link. Springee ( talk) 06:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
:Article size check: The article is currently Prose size (text only): 25 kB (4137 words) "readable prose size". The article is half the size at which the possibility of an article size issue is likely, as per our project's guideline WP:SIZERULE.Hugh ( talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Removing noteworthy, well-referenced content seems an unusual editorial priority at this time. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Contended content:
A passenger in a 1975 Pinto was seriously injured in a fiery collision. On August 30, 1979 Ford was served with a civil lawsuit Burgess v. Ford alleging defects including that the Pinto was structurally unsafe and that the Pinto fuel system was defective. In November, 1983, the suit was amended to include a claim of a lack of an airbag. Air bags were not legally required at the time. [1] [2] [3] [4] The suit was settled out of court in March, 1984 for $1.8 million, the largest known airbag litigation settlement. [3] [5] Ford said the injuries were due to driver negligence and that the settlement was unrelated to airbags. [4] [1] The court granted Ford a protective order on Ford documents obtained by the plaintiff via court order. [1] [3] The suit was widely publicized. The Today Show broadcast a consumer protection segment on the incident. [2] The settlement was covered on the front page of The Wall Street Journal. According to the Center for Auto Safety, the settlement was a "landmark" in establishing that a lack of airbags may be considered negligent design. [1]
References
Ford Motor Co. settled out of court for $1.8 million a lawsuit that safety advocates claim sets a precedent for auto makers to be held liable for the lack of air bags in cars. The suit resulted from a front-end collision involving a 1975 Ford Pinto. The plaintiff, Rebecca Burgess, then 18 years old, suffered permanent brain damage. The suit alleged, among other things, that the car was structurally unsafe and that it "was in a defective condition due to the failure of (the company) to provide and or offer air bags as a passive restraint designed to protect the occupant." "It's a landmark settlement," said Clarence Ditlow, director for the Center for Auto Safety in Washington. "It establishes that in a frontal collision you can bring in lack of air bags in a car as a negligent design." Ford disputed that interpretation of the case's significance. Car companies aren't bound by current law to install air bags...Mr. Pratt said Ford's internal documents on the company's crash tests of the Pinto "revealed that Ford knew about the weaknesses in Pinto's structure and that the car could be made much safer by (installing) air bags." He said those documents were obtained under a court order but details of Ford's test results couldn't be disclosed because the documents are under "protective order" at Ford's request.
In March 1984 a settlement was reached in Burgess v. Ford that reportedly provided $1.8 million in compensation to the plaintiff. Front right passenger Rebecca Burgess, at age eighteen, was rendered a severely brain injured quadriplegic when her Ford Pinto was struck on the passenger side at a 45-degree angle by a Chevrolet Camaro. Although this case was served on Ford on August 30, 1979, and alleged various defects, the plaintiff did not make the lack-of-air-bag claim until November 1983...The Burgess case was highly publicized. The "Today Show" ran a consumer segment that highlighted the Burgess incident.
In Burgess v. Ford Motor Co., Ford was sued by a woman who had suffered severe brain damage. The 1975 Ford Pinto in which she was riding as a front seat passenger, and which was not equipped with air bag safety restraints, was struck by a Camaro in a front-angle intersection collision. Plaintiff claimed that the lack of an air bag protection system had rendered the 1975 Pinto uncrashworthy...The settlement in this case is the largest to be divulged, amounting to $1.8 million. Ford has also persuaded a court to seal 5,000 pages of documents, cost studies, and crash tests which the plaintiff's attorney was using to show that Ford could have used air bags to avoid injuries like those suffered by the plaintiff.
An Anniston man reached a $1.8 million settlement with the Ford Motor Co. over the fiery crash of a Ford Pinto that seriously injured his daughter. W. E. Burgess of Anniston sued Ford in 1979 after his daughter, Rebecca Lynn Burgess, was injured when the Pinto in which she was a passenger collided with another car...According to the suit, Miss Burgess was burned and suffered a brain injury...The suit alleged that the car's fuel system was defective and that Ford knew or should have known it. An amendment to the suit contented that Ford should have installed protective air bags in the car. Ford contended Miss Burgess' injuries were caused by negligence on the part of the car's driver.
Only a few air bag cases have been settled; none has gone to trial. The largest divulged settlement is Ford Motor Co.'s agreement in 1984 to pay Rebecca Burgess $1.8 million for severe brain damage and burns incurred when a Ford Pinto's fuel tank exploded. Burgess v. Ford, Civil Action No. CV 79-3515.
Sources include a noteworthy mainstream newspaper The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, two noteworthy law review journals, and a chapter by a noteworthy author John Graham in a book from the Brookings Institute edited by a noteworthy editor Peter W. Huber. This section is much more strongly sourced than most of the article, cf. Ford Pinto#1974–1978, Ford Pinto#Mercury Bobcat (1974–1980) and Ford Pinto#1974–1978. This section seems an unlikely section in which to embrace a spirited defense of our project's due weight policy.
How would you summarize these sources? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Support inclusion The litigation history of the subject of this article is perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the subject of this article. Our article currently states that more than a hundred lawsuits were filed and no doubt some fans of the Pinto would prefer to leave it at that; however, coverage in reliable sources, the basis of our project's due weight policy, disagree. Given the more than a hundred lawsuits, obviously providing our readers with some detail on three of the most significant is due weight WP:READERSFIRST:
Sources for our article's summarization of Burgess v. Ford include a noteworthy mainstream newspaper The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, two noteworthy law review journals, and a chapter by a noteworthy author John Graham in a book from the Brookings Institute edited by a noteworthy editor Peter W. Huber. Noteworthy reliable sources include much more coverage of the Burgess v. Ford case than, for example, the wide variety of engines that were available in the Ford Pinto and their respective horsepowers, torques, and displacements in cubic inches and liters. The Ford Pinto is no longer in production; the significance of the Ford Pinto includes its contributions to legal precedents and automotive safety, in the areas of both fuel system safety and restraint systems. Section blanking of this section would remove five neutral noteworthy reliable sources for which no alternative summarization has been offered. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This page is, at the time of writing, 413,228 bytes long. This can make the page unreadable for some of our colleagues, and uneditable for others. I have therefore again tweaked the settings, to archive any section not edited in the last 30 days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Since we have graciously been allowed a breathing space....
WP:NPOV - "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."
Lede OK as is.
Fuel system design
"The first federal standard for automotive fuel system safety, known as Section 301 in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, was <INTRODUCED?> in 1968, and only applied to front-end collisions at over 30 miles per hour (48 km/h)." i
"In 1970 and 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued notices regarding fuel system integrity, fuel spillage, and fire-related casualties.[" should make clear these proposals were made after the launch of the vehicle i n 1970, and wer enot law until whatever date..
"The Pinto's vulnerability to fuel leakage and fire in a rear-end collision was exacerbated by reduced rear "crush space," a lack of structural reinforcement in the rear, and an "essentially ornamental" rear bumper. " These features were also present in its competitors.
Cost-benefit analysis
This subsection should probably be called The Pinto Memo.
"In 2007 Time magazine said the memo was one of the automotive industry's "most notorious paper trails."" Which rather ignores the point that this notoriety is based on the MJ beatup.The following para corrects that but the two need to be combined, and quit wanking on about tort law, nobody cares. This is not a lawyer's primer.
OK I'll do the rest tomorrow, SWMBO needs a hand. Greglocock ( talk) 11:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
On with the show
NHTSA investigation
First sentence needs a rewrite
"Lee and Ermann noted in testing to determine in the Pinto tank design warranted a recall, the NHTSA for forewent the 1977 rear impact crash test standard and created a "worst-case" test."
How about "Lee and Ermann that NHTSA used a worst case test to justify the recall of the Pinto, rather than the regular 1977 rear impact crash test." at least it is English.
"and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem." should be "whereas back in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem."
Recall
same problem as paper trail, sensationalist quote from Time slide show mixed into an article that mostly uses serious refs. Voluntary recall needs no scare quotes.
Civil lawsuits
If you quote how many lawsuits were brought it would be at least interesting, and NPOV to list the outcomes in some summarised form. Once a deep pocketed target is established it is scarcely surprising that many suits would be filed, whatever the merits of the case, lawyers being well known for their love of a dollar.
Subsequent analysis
I don't know what this sentence is trying to say but it fails. The refs do not support the sentence.
Overall If any of the above are non controversial I at least would appreciate being allowed to make the edits above when the lock is lifted, without HughD's usual shotgun blasts and major surgery. I think in this case interleaved comments make sense.
Greglocock (
talk)
07:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
(→Product development: This seems self evident given the link to the term in the sentence.)
And, of course, the naming pattern, Mustang, Bronco, Maverick...well, that last might Steer you to some Bull.... Anmccaff ( talk) 21:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm considering adding a new section to the article and wanted the input of other editors before proceeding. A significant aspect of the Ford Pinto fuel system fire story is the public understanding and news coverage. I would propose adding a section along the lines of "Media Coverage". I think this section could be located after "Fuel system design". In this section we could talk about some of the media coverage as well as material that was largely misunderstood by either the media or public. The Lee and Ermann paragraph from the into of the fire section could be removed and much of its material integrated into this new subsection. This section may also be a better place to cover material like the MJ article, the earlier article that claimed "thousands" of deaths as well as the 60 Minutes story. These were all significant stories in developing the Pinto narrative and thus worth including. It also might be a place to gather some of the material that currently sits in other article sections. Finally, I'm still not sold on the current layout. In my opinion the public perception and misunderstanding of the Pinto case are perhaps the most important aspects of the story. The details in the fuel system design and recall support that public understanding. Thus I feel the public understanding material is the most important material in the section. What do others think in this case? Springee ( talk) 00:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following epigraph, a long direct quote from Lee and Erdmann (1999), and content sourced to Schwartz (1990) and Danley (2005), be included in the section lede of the "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits" section?
Scholarly work published in the decades after the Pinto’s release have offered summations of the general understanding of the Pinto and the controversy regarding the car's safety performance and risk of fire. Lee and Ermann summarized the popular yet largely erroneous understanding of the issues surrounding the Pinto and related fires.
Conventional wisdom holds that Ford Motor Company decided to rush the Pinto into production in 1970 to compete with compact foreign imports, despite internal pre-production tests that showed gas tank ruptures in low-speed rear-end collisions would produce deadly fires. This decision purportedly derived from an infamous seven-page cost-benefit analysis (the "Grush/Saunby Report" [1973]) that valued human lies at $200,000. Settling burn victims’ lawsuits would have cost $49.5 million, far less than the $137 million needed to make minor corrections. According to this account, the company made an informed, cynical, and impressively coordinated decision that "payouts" (Kelman and Hamilton 1989:311) to families of burn victims were more cost-effective than improving fuel tank integrity. This description provides the unambiguous foundation on which the media and academics have built a Pinto gas tank decision-making narrative. [1]
Additional misunderstanding surrounds the actual number of fire related deaths related to the fuel system design, "wild and unsupported claims asserted in 'Pinto Madness' and elsewhere",[31] the facts of the two most significant Pinto related legal cases, Grimshaw vs Ford Motor Company and State of Indiana vs Ford Motor Company, the applicable safety standards at the time of design, and the nature of the NHTSA investigations and subsequent vehicle recalls. [1] [2] [3]
References
Hugh ( talk) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion The "Safety..." section is of course one of if not the most important sections of this article for us to get right.
Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Notice to WP:BRANDS, WP:VPM, WP:NPOVN, Talk:Ford Motor Company; update to WP:NPOVN. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 16:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC) update to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles Hugh ( talk) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) update to WP:VPM Hugh ( talk) 15:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC) update to WP:BRANDS Hugh ( talk) 19:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) update to Talk:Ford Motor Company Hugh ( talk) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Notice to editors. The content of the article section and even the title of the section are currently in not in stable form.
Springee (
talk)
21:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Removed RfC tag pending agreement on appropriate RfC text. Please propose the RfC so that others can verify it is a reasonable and neutral question first. In the past you have asked imbalanced questions. Also, so long as the section body text is in flux it would be inappropriate to assume that the reply to a RfC would still be relevant after body changes. Your current reasons for opposition include assumptions such as the title of the section, the purpose and/or content that should be in the section, and an inherent assumption that the content of the section is largely static.
Instead of a binary RfC we should ask for input on the scope of the lead. The length of that material may make it too long for a lead. However, the scope of the lead clearly should include discussions of the misunderstandings surrounding the facts of the Pinto case. I would propose an RfC question something like:
I'm open to other suggestions. Springee ( talk) 20:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Support with qualification I think this material could be cut down due to length. HughD's claims as to why it should not be included are based on what he wants to include in the body of the article, not an agreement between editors.
I think we should allow the article to become stable before answering this question. Springee ( talk) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: I accidendently removed Gregs response; I may have had an old version up, or I may have fat-fingered something. I did not intend to nuke it. Anmccaff ( talk) 17:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
BU Rob13, Thank you for closing this RfC. I'm not sure I agree that there was any consensus reached. Certainly by way of a count I would say the "leave it be" editors have it. I am thinking about ways to change because I think it could be better. That said, the lead currently does summarize the body (section). I would ask that you reconsider declaring the consensus for removal. At best I see a consensus that it can be improved with no specific proposal. Thank again! Springee ( talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Anmccaff indicated that she supported your view that the sources supporting this information are stronger, but that does not speak to the question of where the information should be included. She did not express an opinion on that.
I weighed both Ellen and Greg as weak supporters, because Ellen specifically acknowledged the summary style issue and Greg also acknowledged that it's odd to include such a long quote in the section lead. While both clearly supported the proposal, they did not have any real response to the Summary style issues, which they acknowledged were significant concerns in their discussion. In other words, they agreed that the Summary style issues were valid and could not refute them.
A quote from WP:CLOSE: "Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review ... if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." I believe I have followed the letter and intent of that page, which is widely accepted as the appropriate way to assess consensus. You are welcome to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you believe my close is in error, and I have seriously considered your views and reviewed my close, but at this time I don't see any reason to overturn it myself. ~ Rob Talk 00:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All, please review the Pinto related material HughD has added to the History of Ford Motor Company article. [7], [8], [9]. Springee ( talk) 18:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Veni. Vidi. Nuci. Anmccaff ( talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, please review the recently added Ford Pinto related material at Automobile_safety Springee ( talk) 19:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me there are really two stories with the Pinto. There is the car and then there is the "Pinto case". Hugh was right to suggest that the legal issues surrounding the car are (at least for some readers) more significant that what engine options were offered. The fuel system section is now about half the article. The total article length isn't too long but the content seems to split nicely along those lines. A split "Pinto case" article could also absorb the Grimshaw v Ford article as the one is a key part of the other. A split article might also allow for more discussion of some of the legal, moral and ethical questions that surround the case. For example, Danley's academic paper looks at the question of can we reasonably assign moral guilt to a company based on a legal case and and works this question in terms of the two big Pinto legal cases. Such information might be interesting in terms of a "Pinto case" article but is too far afield for the current article (IMHO). Anyway, wanted to put out feelers on this subject. Springee ( talk) 04:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Support, to a point Although I'm not sure what kind of article it would spawn, I think that something like this is worth considering. While I do concede that while this is one of several vehicles to have a legal controversy involved in its legacy, as it stands now, the legal content related to the fuel system is starting to overtake the content related to the actual vehicle itself. To improve this article from above C-Class, there needs to be a better sense of balance between the two issues. For those interested in the Ford Pinto/Mercury Bobcat vehicles, a "main" or "see also" link for the legal content would be of great benefit; both sets of content would be able to develop/thrive separately. I just am not sure where the article would go, or if it would pass muster as a notable article (I hope so). -- SteveCof00 My Suggestion box is open 07:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Neutral. I can see the case for splitting; I can also see this becoming a POV fork, where the legal article takes facts-at-law to be actual facts, and that never ends well. Anmccaff ( talk) 01:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This has been open for 10 days. If we don't get any strong supporters in another 10 days I would suggest dropping the suggestion because I don't think anyone is going to champion the effort needed to make the change happen. Springee ( talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Close with no action. We didn't have strong support for the change and no champions for the effort. I think that settles the issue. Springee ( talk) 01:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This seems to rely heavily on one article from 1991 (16 of the 128 citations are at least oblique references to the article in question, Schwartz 1991). Does that potentially indicate a problem? I'm new to Wikipedia from a contribution standpoint, but that would raise serious red flags in my mind.
In particular, the second half of the "Subsequent Analysis" section is drawn exclusively from three pages (Citations 6, 127 and 128 as I'm writing this).
I also can't seem to find what "Schwartz 1991" refers to. Is this just my inexperience, or are there shenanigans at play? Is there supposed to be a link to http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf (the first Google result for Schwartz 1991 pinto as of this typing)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F558:1000:18:E92D:5E32:9ED2:24F3 ( talk) 23:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" (PDF). Rutgers Law Review. 43: 1013–1068.
Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.
Schwartz and Lee and Ermann are related in that they advance Schwartz's thesis:
... the Ford Pinto case ... can be properly referred to as "mythical."
The article is non-neutral in its over-reliance on Schwartz and Lee & Ermann, as it over-represents the point of view that the issues with the Ford Pinto safety were unfounded, undermining the portions of the article that endeavor to present a neutral summarization of facts as reflected in the breadth of available reliable sources. This editorial issue is so severe that the article reads as if the Schwartz/Lee/Ermann point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the subject of this article.
2602:304:CC61:8BD0:D1CD:EE2E:8F0:9BDF ( talk) 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that the silly NPOV tag can be removed in the following circumstances
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
The neutrality of this article , and suitability of sources,has been extensively reviewed in the past. The Mother Jones based narrative has errors of fact and emphasis which are perpetuated in the media, but do not seem to have much evidence to support them where they contradict Schwartz. Perhaps you should read the Gladwell document. Greglocock ( talk) 08:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Tag removed. The IP editor in question is yet another sock of HughD, an editor who has been indef blocked impart due to his disruptive edits here. Rehashing arguments that have already been closed in the talk archives doesn't make them stronger. Springee ( talk) 10:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto.htm/printable. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 2602:304:CC61:8BD0:B188:9DD0:BDD4:A79 ( talk) 18:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
2602:304:CC61:8BD0:B188:9DD0:BDD4:A79 ( talk) 18:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Copyright © 2017 HowStuffWorks, a division of InfoSpace Holdings LLC
The above IP editor fits the profile of the indef blocked editor HughD. Springee ( talk) 12:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ford Pinto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change A number lawsuits were successfully brought against Ford. to A number of lawsuits were successfully brought against Ford. 64.39.156.254 ( talk) 17:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ford Pinto has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead please change:
A number of lawsuits were brought against Ford.
to:
More than one hundred lawsuits were brought against Ford.
As per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarizes the body:
Approximately 117 lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents in the Pinto.
References
Ford customers filed 117 lawsuits, according to Peter Wyden in The Unknown Iacocca.
185.76.10.167 ( talk) 19:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ford Pinto. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Power~enwiki ( talk · contribs) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The "Production figures" table's style and placing could be improved, I'll try to fix this myself. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | The sourcing in the "Background" section could be improved, but none of the statements there are controversial. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio detector only finds the direct quotes included in the article, which are correctly quoted and referenced. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The "Motorsport" section is so short as to feel unnecessary. I'm not sure what it can be merged with , though. Also, having coverage from both the 1970s and the 2000s in "Reception and criticism" is jarring. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass. The article isn't perfect, but it is Good. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC) |
Discussion with a blocked user. Almost all of this is discussed extensively in the talk archives. I'll re-check a few of the more credible points later today.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
Thank you for beginning the GA review.
The article non-neutrally relies too heavily on one source and its associated point of view: Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" Schwartz' point of view, over-represented by the over-reliance on this source, may be summarized (from Schwartz 1991):
Schwartz is cited directly at least 20 times. (Meanwhile, at least one book-length treatment is ignored: Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.) The article reads as if Schwartz' point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the Ford Pinto. PrefectF ( talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality of coverage of the emergence of the safety issuesAnother area in which the article non-neutrally summarizes noteworthy reliable sources is the coverage of the emergence of the controversy. The article expresses the point of view that the safety issues of this product were largely the result of rabble rousing by Mother Jones magazine. Noteworthy reliable sources offering a more balanced perspective were deleted, including The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and 20/20.
PrefectF ( talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @ Yamla: I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment regarding PrefectF (nice HHGTG reference HughD ( talk · contribs)). The Pinto article and talk page are both limited to verified accounts. This was due to a large number of IP edits that were, based on WP:DUCK, considered to be HughD IP socks. Similar text was added to the article talk page by IP editors (socks of HughD) over the past few months. Springee ( talk) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
|
I've switched the production table from vertical to horizontal; I think it looks better that way, but if you disagree feel free to revert it. The table should have an inline reference; I'm certain one of the references in the prose section has this data but am not 100% sure which. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This article should have not have passed the GA review with several unsourced paragraphs and incomplete reference formats. Please address these immediately. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ford Pinto. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This language is far too strong to sources to just a single paper, especially when it clearly fails to reflect the literally any other source in the now-lengthy, extensively-cited section. The landmark status of the case is extensively well-documented and attested to; weighing Schwartz' opinion as equal to that is absurd. If you want to put it in the section's lead, find a second source saying the same thing, or at least a secondary source quoting Schwartz on that aspect and backing it up. As
WP:RS says, Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields.
I'm not suggesting removing him entirely (although the paragraph and mention in the lead is still somewhat
WP:UNDUE), but the "mythical" quote in particular is a personal opinion without any backing anywhere else and is inappropriate for the lead of an entire section. --
Aquillion (
talk)
19:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure of the best title (yet), which is why I didn't put a tag on the article. However, this is certainly worthy for discussion.
When looking at Category: Business ethics cases and Category:Product safety scandals, the content related to Ford Pinto fuel system fires is noteworthy enough to warrant its own article (if there is one for Ford Explorer tires, definitely so...). Along with this specific content being worthy of its own space, it takes up a large portion of the overall Ford Pinto article and a split would allow for both this content to grow on its own and for a better focus on the actual automobile. (While similarly presented, the handling issues of the Chevrolet Corvair take up a smaller proportion of its article).
Any thoughts? -- SteveCof00 ( talk) 08:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Going with WP naming conventions, I'm deciding on Ford Pinto fuel tank design issue to suggest for a title when splitting the article. Taking the split on a different scope altogether, the end result (of the design issue) could be used for the title 1978 Ford Pinto fuel tank recall. At the very least, I'm not looking to use "scandal" or "controversy" in a title; doing so implies NPOV issues.
Thoughts? -- SteveCof00 ( talk) 07:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)