This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Ford Motor Company article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ford Motor Company did not build "The Henry Ford" museum, Henry Ford the man did, with his personal fortune. There is no direct connection between the museum and the company although they do maintain a close relationship. I would also add that the name of the museum in Ford's time was "The Edison Institute". It has two components "Green Field Village" and "The Henry Ford Museum". In recent years a marketing firm decided that the name should be "The Henry Ford" which is an incessantly stupid name. I pray in time this too shall pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.32 ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 April 2008
Where's Henry's dispute with investors over selling cheap or expensive cars, & their forming Cadillac? Trekphiler ( talk) 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
ehy no mentioning of Ford producing in Nazi Germany until 1944??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.168 ( talk) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone else here. I will leave it to someone else to fix this:
"The Ford subsidiary in Germany had a subsidiary in Germany." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.49.80 ( talk) 12:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not the best source, but Sinclair's Flivver King has production 1708 in 1903, 1695 in 1904, 1599 in 1905, up 5:1 in '06, & taking 12h 28m to bld a T before assembly line. He also says the $5/day wasn't a wage, but was paid in "bonuses" for those who "qualified" (& the standards were tough...). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:50, 29 September & 06:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This page says it's Ron Tjaarda; this page says John Tjaarda. Who's right? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The current timeline mentions that in 1946 Ford sued the allies for damages to their factories in Germany and won compensation. Does anyone have reliable sources to verify this? I did a quick internet search and have found nothing only information on compensation from the Nazi government before it fell and U.S. government in 1965. -- Farbotron ( talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"Wall Street had criticized Ford's generous labor practices when he began paying workers enough to buy the products they made." I don't doubt it, but citing an A&E TV doc doesn't make it as a source... Or so I'm told. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention of the formation and sale of Visteon, even though that was a bigger deal than some of the brand sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.221.119 ( talk) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It got ford out of claiming bankruptcy, and revolutionized the auto-industry, and aside from the picture with an outdated text box under it, there's no mention of it. Wikimann1234
I don't understand why RJensen wants to remove this cited material that appears to have been added in good faith. I've restored it as it appears to be relevant. Perhaps we can get some consensus here on whether it should be removed or stay.
If it's not clear from what I've written above and my restoration of it, I think the addition of that material by Iss246 ( talk · contribs) was relevant and should stay. The Dissident Aggressor 14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that Ford had anything against either Judaism or the Jewish people as a race, so the term "anti semitism" appears to be in this case, as in so many others, malicious propaganda. "Maybe he liked the Nazis" is not speculation which should be included in an article of this sort because of the danger that it might be quoted by school children doing research. Any historical, political, geographical, religious or "social science" article should carry a disclaimer that it is not suited as a primary source for school research papers because they are subjected to such organized, distorted editing by various religious groups, governmental agencies and others. . Mr. Ford was obviously opposed to certain business and political practices of certain groups of Jews, and I have not read everything he wrote. Jewish organized crime groups in the United States, such as Murder, Inc. should be opposed by everybody, as should be Sicilian and Russian organized crime groups. Since these mafia gangs are organized by ethnicity, that is relevant. Mr. Ford's allegation that a group of Jews was organized to steal his company should be given credence. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.49.80 ( talk) 12:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The current WP article is silent about Ford's acquisition of the shares of minority shareholders in 1919 which I suggest is important. I note however that other significant sources are also rather vague and inaccurate on this important legal and commercial juncture in the Ford story:
Here are some more detailed sources that I think paint a more complete picture, and concurs with the story as I understand it:
I propose to add a short para about this to the article, but thought is worth laying the material out here first given the differing stories told on the other key sites. PeterEastern ( talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
so the ww2 history part is called "Arsenal of Democracy" while the company made military equip for hitler during exactly that time period? Rather "Arsenal of Democracy(equip US) and Nazism(equip Nazi era Germany)" . Calling a company that supported hitler an "Arsenal of Democracy" is disgusting!14:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)14:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.180.48 ( talk)
This is a general note for other editors. HughD's recent Pinto additions are questionable. First, there is a question of weight. The Pinto and the fuel tank controversy certainly is a significant part of Ford's history. That said, the current additions do not reflect the views of scholars on the subject. The material has been presented in a questionable fashion without historic context and analysis. The addition to the lead is clearly undue and the tag added to the lead could be seen as disruptive given the editor's involvement with the Ford Pinto article. [7] The fuel system controversy section of the Ford Pinto article is a subject of current discussion. Once it becomes stable then a summary, reflective of the Pinto fuel system controversy section lead should be added to the body of the text here. Springee ( talk) 21:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The lede is inadequate with respect to the article.
The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources...The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established... WP:LEAD
The lede should summarize all of the article. Whole sections of the article have no summarization in the lede:
Further, the lead inadequately summarizes the notability of the subject of the history of the Ford Motor Company, as reflected in numerous noteworthy reliable sources, in that some of the most notable events are not summarized on the lede, including but not limited to:
The current lede is so inadequate as to constitute a clear neutrality issue WP:NPOV.
See also Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section
Collaboration on improving the lede is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, why are you trying to start a new edit war here? I think Fyddlestix was clear that you would be well advised to step away from the Pinto topic. You clearly followed me to the Pinto topic and your current edits here are TEND at best. Please stop.
HughD, please respect the views of other editors ( Anmccaff and cut out the bludgeoning. You made several claims in order to revert my edits. The "alleged" is correct in this case because scholarly sources support the statement. Regardless, your changes to "correct" the "alleged" were well beyond what was needed and thus your edit summary was questionable. Your claim of OR here [8] is problematic given your involvement with this archived discussion [9]. You, NickCT and I discussed this topic. I'm sorry that you feel MJ was unfairly cast in the discussion but Lee and Ermenn (and others) clearly support the statements. To quote the main article, "Schwartz said the NHTSA investigation of the Pinto was in response to consumer complaints.[85] Lee and Ermann said that public interest created by the Mother Jones article "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration." I will grant you that your last edit was better than my original phrasing so I have edited the text as needed. I would ask that you refrain from making more changes without proposing them here first. Springee ( talk) 03:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, I have modified the statements in the article. You are correct in that the article statement cut out too much of the material between the public outcry and the final result. Perhaps if you had actually posted your concern to the talk page and discussed the issue rather than reaching for the undo button we could have solved this sooner. Springee ( talk) 05:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Here is the same material from the Pinto article:
Lee and Ermann note that the Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" and accusations that the NHTSA was buckling to industry pressure as well as the public interest created by sensationalized new stories "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration." [1] The Mother Jones article included a clip out "coupon" that readers could mail to the NHTSA. [2]
References
Springee ( talk) 11:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
One of the sections accuses Ford of hoarding cash. This sounds like bias to me. Would it be OK to re-word to more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAPwiki ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.The article currently has a multitude of "Citation needed" tags. -- Otr500 ( talk) 01:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Ford Motor Company article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ford Motor Company did not build "The Henry Ford" museum, Henry Ford the man did, with his personal fortune. There is no direct connection between the museum and the company although they do maintain a close relationship. I would also add that the name of the museum in Ford's time was "The Edison Institute". It has two components "Green Field Village" and "The Henry Ford Museum". In recent years a marketing firm decided that the name should be "The Henry Ford" which is an incessantly stupid name. I pray in time this too shall pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.32 ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 April 2008
Where's Henry's dispute with investors over selling cheap or expensive cars, & their forming Cadillac? Trekphiler ( talk) 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
ehy no mentioning of Ford producing in Nazi Germany until 1944??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.168 ( talk) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone else here. I will leave it to someone else to fix this:
"The Ford subsidiary in Germany had a subsidiary in Germany." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.49.80 ( talk) 12:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not the best source, but Sinclair's Flivver King has production 1708 in 1903, 1695 in 1904, 1599 in 1905, up 5:1 in '06, & taking 12h 28m to bld a T before assembly line. He also says the $5/day wasn't a wage, but was paid in "bonuses" for those who "qualified" (& the standards were tough...). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:50, 29 September & 06:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This page says it's Ron Tjaarda; this page says John Tjaarda. Who's right? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The current timeline mentions that in 1946 Ford sued the allies for damages to their factories in Germany and won compensation. Does anyone have reliable sources to verify this? I did a quick internet search and have found nothing only information on compensation from the Nazi government before it fell and U.S. government in 1965. -- Farbotron ( talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"Wall Street had criticized Ford's generous labor practices when he began paying workers enough to buy the products they made." I don't doubt it, but citing an A&E TV doc doesn't make it as a source... Or so I'm told. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention of the formation and sale of Visteon, even though that was a bigger deal than some of the brand sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.221.119 ( talk) 18:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It got ford out of claiming bankruptcy, and revolutionized the auto-industry, and aside from the picture with an outdated text box under it, there's no mention of it. Wikimann1234
I don't understand why RJensen wants to remove this cited material that appears to have been added in good faith. I've restored it as it appears to be relevant. Perhaps we can get some consensus here on whether it should be removed or stay.
If it's not clear from what I've written above and my restoration of it, I think the addition of that material by Iss246 ( talk · contribs) was relevant and should stay. The Dissident Aggressor 14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that Ford had anything against either Judaism or the Jewish people as a race, so the term "anti semitism" appears to be in this case, as in so many others, malicious propaganda. "Maybe he liked the Nazis" is not speculation which should be included in an article of this sort because of the danger that it might be quoted by school children doing research. Any historical, political, geographical, religious or "social science" article should carry a disclaimer that it is not suited as a primary source for school research papers because they are subjected to such organized, distorted editing by various religious groups, governmental agencies and others. . Mr. Ford was obviously opposed to certain business and political practices of certain groups of Jews, and I have not read everything he wrote. Jewish organized crime groups in the United States, such as Murder, Inc. should be opposed by everybody, as should be Sicilian and Russian organized crime groups. Since these mafia gangs are organized by ethnicity, that is relevant. Mr. Ford's allegation that a group of Jews was organized to steal his company should be given credence. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.49.80 ( talk) 12:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The current WP article is silent about Ford's acquisition of the shares of minority shareholders in 1919 which I suggest is important. I note however that other significant sources are also rather vague and inaccurate on this important legal and commercial juncture in the Ford story:
Here are some more detailed sources that I think paint a more complete picture, and concurs with the story as I understand it:
I propose to add a short para about this to the article, but thought is worth laying the material out here first given the differing stories told on the other key sites. PeterEastern ( talk) 04:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
so the ww2 history part is called "Arsenal of Democracy" while the company made military equip for hitler during exactly that time period? Rather "Arsenal of Democracy(equip US) and Nazism(equip Nazi era Germany)" . Calling a company that supported hitler an "Arsenal of Democracy" is disgusting!14:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)14:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.56.180.48 ( talk)
This is a general note for other editors. HughD's recent Pinto additions are questionable. First, there is a question of weight. The Pinto and the fuel tank controversy certainly is a significant part of Ford's history. That said, the current additions do not reflect the views of scholars on the subject. The material has been presented in a questionable fashion without historic context and analysis. The addition to the lead is clearly undue and the tag added to the lead could be seen as disruptive given the editor's involvement with the Ford Pinto article. [7] The fuel system controversy section of the Ford Pinto article is a subject of current discussion. Once it becomes stable then a summary, reflective of the Pinto fuel system controversy section lead should be added to the body of the text here. Springee ( talk) 21:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The lede is inadequate with respect to the article.
The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources...The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established... WP:LEAD
The lede should summarize all of the article. Whole sections of the article have no summarization in the lede:
Further, the lead inadequately summarizes the notability of the subject of the history of the Ford Motor Company, as reflected in numerous noteworthy reliable sources, in that some of the most notable events are not summarized on the lede, including but not limited to:
The current lede is so inadequate as to constitute a clear neutrality issue WP:NPOV.
See also Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section
Collaboration on improving the lede is respectfully requested. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, why are you trying to start a new edit war here? I think Fyddlestix was clear that you would be well advised to step away from the Pinto topic. You clearly followed me to the Pinto topic and your current edits here are TEND at best. Please stop.
HughD, please respect the views of other editors ( Anmccaff and cut out the bludgeoning. You made several claims in order to revert my edits. The "alleged" is correct in this case because scholarly sources support the statement. Regardless, your changes to "correct" the "alleged" were well beyond what was needed and thus your edit summary was questionable. Your claim of OR here [8] is problematic given your involvement with this archived discussion [9]. You, NickCT and I discussed this topic. I'm sorry that you feel MJ was unfairly cast in the discussion but Lee and Ermenn (and others) clearly support the statements. To quote the main article, "Schwartz said the NHTSA investigation of the Pinto was in response to consumer complaints.[85] Lee and Ermann said that public interest created by the Mother Jones article "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration." I will grant you that your last edit was better than my original phrasing so I have edited the text as needed. I would ask that you refrain from making more changes without proposing them here first. Springee ( talk) 03:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
HughD, I have modified the statements in the article. You are correct in that the article statement cut out too much of the material between the public outcry and the final result. Perhaps if you had actually posted your concern to the talk page and discussed the issue rather than reaching for the undo button we could have solved this sooner. Springee ( talk) 05:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Here is the same material from the Pinto article:
Lee and Ermann note that the Mother Jones labeling of the Pinto as a "firetrap" and accusations that the NHTSA was buckling to industry pressure as well as the public interest created by sensationalized new stories "forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that the NHTSA would be under the microscope for its duration." [1] The Mother Jones article included a clip out "coupon" that readers could mail to the NHTSA. [2]
References
Springee ( talk) 11:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
One of the sections accuses Ford of hoarding cash. This sounds like bias to me. Would it be OK to re-word to more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAPwiki ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.The article currently has a multitude of "Citation needed" tags. -- Otr500 ( talk) 01:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)