Talk:History of Ford Motor Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Builder of the museum[edit]

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

Have you sold a Cadillac, lately?[edit]

Where's Henry's dispute with investors over selling cheap or expensive cars, & their forming Cadillac? Trekphiler (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Germany and WWII[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

By the numbers[edit]

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)[reply]

A Tjaarda at love?[edit]

This page says it's Ron Tjaarda; this page says John Tjaarda. Who's right? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Sues U.S. Government[edit]

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)[reply]

On Broadway[edit]

"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)[reply]

What about Visteon?[edit]

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)[reply]

The Taurus?[edit]

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

antisemitism[edit]

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)[reply]

I read the books by Baldwin and Wallace. They are consistent with DissidentAggressor's restoration. Iss246 (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

At best, the IP's statement is flat out wrong. SeeThe International Jew "In Spring 1920, Ford made his personal newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, chronicle what he considered the "Jewish menace". Every week for 91 issues, the paper exposed some sort of Jewish-inspired evil major story in a headline. The most popular and aggressive stories were then chosen to be reprinted into four volumes called The International Jew.[1] At the Nuremberg Trials, Baldur von Schirach mentioned that The International Jew made a deep impression on him and his friends in their youth and influenced them in becoming antisemitic. He said: "... we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us represented America."[2] In 1922, The New York Times reported that Adolf Hitler's office contained a large picture of Ford.[3]" This is covered in more detail and nuance in his biography at Henry Ford. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buying out other investors in 1919[edit]

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:

  • According to the official company history, Ford was established in 1903 with 12 investors and that in 1919 Henry made his son president and 'put a plan in place to buy out his other investors'.[1] (no mention of court case or any details of this plan)
  • The The Henry Ford Museum explains that by "In 1919, tired of 'interference' from the other investors in the company, Henry determined to buy them all out. The result was several new Detroit millionaires and a Henry Ford who was the sole owner of the world’s largest automobile company." [2] (no mention of a court case, or a threat to leave the company - see below)
  • Encyclopedia Britannica stating simply that "In 1919 the company was reincorporated, with Ford, his wife, Clara, and his son, Edsel, acquiring full ownership" and also "when the other stockholders balked at the idea of building the giant (and expensive) River Rouge plant in Dearborn, he bought them out;".[3] (this is not actually true as there was no reincorporation based on the sources below)

Here are some more detailed sources that I think paint a more complete picture, and concurs with the story as I understand it:

  • The WP Dodge v. Ford Motor Company article covers a court case that was settled in the Michigan Supreme Court in 1919 relating to a company's duty to pay dividends which Ford lost. The article notes the Ford threatened to leave the compnay as a result and set up a rival one.
  • The book 'The Dodge Brothers: The Men, the Motor Cars, and the Legacy' states that In 1917 The Michigan court ruled that Ford should pay a $19 million dividend against Henry Ford's wishes, raised to $20m including interests on appeal. It also notes that following the ruling Ford threatened to leave the company and set up a rival in order to encourage the minority investors so sell at a low price and that he then acquired 'all remaining stock' [4].
  • The publisher Wiley's website says " In his own response to the escalating feud, Henry threatened publicly to leave the company and form a new one. He even made plans and discussed the next car he would produce. Fearing that the worth of Ford stock would plummet, the minority shareholders suddenly became eager to sell; agents working surreptitiously for Henry Ford quietly bought up lot after lot of shares. The sellers did not receive all that the shares were worth... On July 11, 1919, when he signed the last stock transfer agreement, the fifty-five-year-old mogul was so enthused that he danced a jig. The stock was divided up and placed in the names of Henry, Clara, and Edsel Ford."[5]
  • This article, 'Henry Ford Buys Out Ford Motor Company, 1919' provides a lot of detail to the story (but does include an Editor's note that the author is negative in tone towards Henry Ford). [6]

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)[reply]

I have now added the couple of paragraphs on the above to the article. PeterEastern (talk)

"Wartime: Arsenal of Democracy" - made military equip for hitler[edit]

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)

Undue Ford Pinto additions[edit]

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)[reply]

Inadequate lede[edit]

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:

  • largest recall in a history
  • largest jury award in history
  • first corporation criminally charged with homicide

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)[reply]

OK, you have made a case for expanding the lead. Why you didn't post this when you originally tagged the article is not clear. Why don't you give the lead expansion a shot and see what you come up with. BTW, LEAD does not say every subtopic must be covered. Certainly you shouldn't use LEAD as an excuse to add a paragraph related to the Ford Pinto. Springee (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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, sorry, I accidentally sent you an edit thanks related to this topic. Stupid overly sensitive touch pad. Anyway, please disregard. Springee (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HughD's recent reverts[edit]

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)[reply]

Couple notes -
1) I'm going to revert any changes HughD makes in relation to Mother Jones regardless of the change unless he discusses it here first.
2) Let's try to avoid wall-of-text debates. Give short proposals for edits with short, concise explanations for why you think they are appropriate. NickCT (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Pinto, claim of OR[edit]

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:[reply]

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

  1. ^ Lee 1999:By 1977, the social context had changed. Dowie's (1977:18) article had labeled the Pinto a "firetrap" and accused the agency of buckling to auto-industry pressure. Public interest generated by the article forced a second Pinto investigation and guaranteed that NHTSA would be under a microscope for its duration.
  2. ^ Schwartz 1991:Pg 1019, Schwartz noted, "The Mother Jones article had encouraged consumers to write to NHTSA and demand a recall of earlier Pintos. Responding to the wave of consumer complaints it received, NHTSA began a recall proceeding relating to 1971-1976 Pintos." Also see footnote 15.

Springee (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"cash hoarding"[edit]

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)[reply]

Article issues and classification[edit]

Article reassessment (C-class) per B-class criteria #1 states; 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Ford_Motor_Company&oldid=1207552270"