Talk:Ford Motor Company/Archive 1

Old discussions
Shouldn't Ford Motor Company and Ford (car) (or something to that effect) be different articles?

Ford Motor Company is the parent company which owns Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin and which controlls Mazda, while this article is primarily about the Ford division/brand.

Ford Motor Company is analogous to General Motors. Ford is analogous to Chevrolet. -- stewacide 23:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Until recently, it was just Ford, Mercury and Lincoln, and Ford kept all its divisions a bit closer than, say, GM. That's why, I think. --Morven 00:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * That was then, this is now :) To quote the FoMoCo website:


 * Ford Motor Company started the last century with a single man envisioning products that would meet the needs of people in a world on the verge of high-gear industrialization. Today, Ford Motor Company is a family of automotive brands consisting of: Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, and Volvo. The company is beginning its second century of existence with a worldwide organization that retains and expands Henry Ford's heritage by developing products that serve the varying and ever-changing needs of people in the global community.


 * IMHO the article should reflect the current reality (should it not?).


 * AFAIK Ford (brand) is operated at the regional level (i.e. Ford Europe, Ford North America, Ford Australia, etc.). Lincoln and Mercury are operated as a seperate Lincoln-Mercury division under Ford North America. The European luxury brands are administered under Ford Europe within the "Premier Automotive Group", but have much more atonomy as a group and individually than Lincoln-Mercury within NA operations. Mazda is administered globally from Japan. All are under the controll of Ford Motor Company in Dearborn.


 * I remember a yew years ago there was an uproar in Dearborn when they replaced the Ford "blue oval" logo on the corporate headquarters with the "Ford Motor Company" script to reflect the new reality. They ended up putting the old logo back due to popular demand, but the point was made. -- stewacide 07:37, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Interesting article: - didn't know it was the 2nd most recognized logo in the world.


 * Having thought about it, it would probably be a good idea to do the split - if only because otherwise the page threatens to become quite unwieldy. But what split do we want to do?


 * An obvious split is splitting as you said Ford Motor Company away as an article only about the parent company. Do we then want to split off the different regional Fords, since each one has a rather different history?  There's not much commonality between Ford (US) and Ford (Europe), after all.


 * Another issue is history -- how do we divide it? There was a period where both 'Ford Motor Company' and Ford (US) were the same entity.  --Morven 19:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Ford subsidaries (Ford Europe, Ford North America, Ford Australia, Ford China, Ford South America, etc.) should be seperate articles since they don't have much to do with each other.


 * Also, the period where Ford (North America) = Ford Motor Company was very brief (since both Lincoln and the foreign subsidaries came early). The Ford Motor Company article should probably give a brief overview of the entire history (with links to the full articles) but should include more indepth early "common" history. -- stewacide 20:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

History
Ford has not always been a publicly traded company. Prior to 1956 (or thereabouts), it was privately held (not merely controlled as it is today, thanks to a special class of voting stock), being totally owned by the Ford family.

Manufacturing Facilities
I just saw that the Dearborn Assembly Plant produced its last car on May 10, 2004. Someone may wish to discuss that in the article, or not. I guess it's the oldest Ford plant at the moment, but production is shifting to another plant in Flat Rock, Michigan &mdash;Mulad 05:47, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * The old Dearborn Assembly Plant was never the oldest car assembly plant,it was originally built in 1918 to produce submarines and was converted to car production later. The oldest currently in production plant is the Twin Cities Assembly Plant in St. Paul dating to 1924, which was before the old Dearborn Plant changed over. Pmeisel 04:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can "legacy" or past manufacturing facilities be considered? In the US, Ford's legacy manufacturing footprint included plants in Edison, NJ; Richmond, CA; Milpitas/San Jose, CA; Troy, MI; and Willow Run, MI, among other places. Several of these are of some historical importance-- WWII production; designed by Albert Kahn; built the Mustang, etc. Some of these are brownfields now redeveloped for other uses. What's the best way to record past facilities? The format of the List of Ford factories does not translate, and there is more information that could be included (years of operation; historically significant products; current use post-redevelopment.]] Ideas? --Hadley 02:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have an idea yet but I would love to help and am familiar with a lot of the history. Might work best as a separate article, there is a lot of material.  A similar approach to GM, Chrysler would also be interesting also I have less material for that. Pmeisel 04:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody confirm the 1913 date for the Rouge? I've always thought it opened 1914 (tho I think Grun in Timetables of History says 1913, too, but he often got his timing off x1 yr ±... Trekphiler 11:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

-- NEW POST - how Ford and the American auto industry can be saved! --

I have come across a letter that might result in a change of direction for the UAW and America’s auto industry.

This is the main body of a letter that was sent to the UAW’s Ford locals:

I am not a current employee of ford but I am an employee of a company under a union. However I do share concerns about how ford is hurting the future of its workers. I have been reading about how new Mazda models including CX-7 and CX-9 as well as others are being introduced onto the American market and imported from Japan. With Ford's controlling interest in Mazda, why are they continuing to hurt North American workers when I hear that Ford is having trouble at home? The Mazda CX-7 (and also spy photos of the CX-9) that I saw and Mazda 5, all imported from Japan, are UGLY PIECES OF CRAP that have no benefit to American workers.

At one time I heard that the CX-9 might be built in North America BUT now I hear that a decision has been made to import the CX-9 from Japan along with CX-7 and Mazda5.

When your current contract expires, maybe you can use your bargaining position to change this. For example, your Union can refuse to make any concessions to Ford until Ford promises not to allow any more Japanese import introductions from Mazda. Or at the very least maybe include in your next contract a limit on how many models Ford will allow Mazda to Import from Japan. You should require Ford to promise this before you agree to any concessions. If Ford is truly in trouble but is still allowing Mazda to introduce new (imported from Japan) models, then is Ford really telling the truth when it says the company is in trouble?

Please let me know what you think. I believe the time has come again to make a stand! And if you like my ideas maybe pass them on to your members for their ideas.

Ford has no right to ask for ANY concessions when Mazda is introducing new Japanese import models onto the American market!!

_____

If the UAW and its Ford locals decide to use this letter in their contract negotiations with Ford then it could have a major impact on America’s auto industry. Union locals representing workers at other automakers in America might use the Ford case as an example of ways to protect their security as well.

Automakers operating in America that do not have an assembly plant in the United States will probably also be affected as well. At this time Volkswagen does not have an assembly plant in the United States. However, Volkswagen must have a logistics/distribution network to be able to operate in America. They probably also have warehouses to store replacement parts (maintenance will be extremely expensive on Volkswagen vehicles if they do not have these American warehouses). If employees of these logistics/distribution networks as well as parts warehouses start to join Unions (some might have already done this but at this time I am not sure) then they will have the same collective bargaining power as Union employees at Ford now have. If Unions are organized at Volkswagen’s distribution networks and American parts warehouses, a possible strike can bring Volkswagen’s American operations to a complete halt and Volkswagen will not have the ability to sell any of its vehicles in America for as long as the strike lasts. I am using Volkswagen as an example to show that even automakers that do not have assembly plants in the United States will probably be affected just as much as Ford (if the UAW and its Ford locals decide to use proposals in this letter that has been sent to them).

This might be the early beginnings of a new direction for the American auto industry that has the potential to add more power to the security of America’s autoworkers.

removed "Fuel Efficiency"
== Fuel Efficiency ==
 * "Currently, Ford's average fuel efficiency for 2004 models stands at 21.9 mpg, followed by Daimler Chrysler with 23.8, Nissan with 24.2 and Volkswagen and General Motors with 24.9. Toyota and Honda score significantly better with 27.6 and 27.7, respectively. U.S. EPA report show Ford with the worst fuel efficiency for the past five years."

I removed this section as being POV'd propaganda/bias and because the info can date quickly. -- Netoholic 14:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know who posted that, but it looks more like propaganda/heresay than fact. Check link

Fuel economy
Having just come to this article, I wish to defend the fuel economy section. It's not propoganda; it's an objective statement that's been scientifically determined. If the concern is over the presentation, there might be a more neutral way to present it, but I thought it was quite neutral. As for the "dated" comment, I have a ton of articles on the U.S. govt. for you to take a look at. Keeping up with things as they go on is one of the things Wikipedia does best, and it sets us apart from dead tree encyclopedias. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:35, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)


 * The information is not encyclopedic. If it were added to Fuel efficiency, or better yet Corporate Average Fuel Economy, then it would be fine, but adding it to the Ford Motor Company article shows bias. Also, the information source for those statistics was not cited correctly. The link was to a "news article" which itself does not cite the source for those statistics. -- Netoholic 14:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the article linked cites the EPA. And I think that the avg. fuel economy of Ford's vehicles is extremely relevant to an article about the Ford company. Why should this fact go unmentioned in the article? I've reverted. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:51, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia article describing the history and organization of Ford Motor Company, not a discussion of any particular vehicle performance at any point in time. Please do not revert the article while its being discussed. -- Netoholic 14:58, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. I thought I would put in a new wording, see if that seemed more neutral to you. At any rate, you're right, this isn't a discussion of any particular vehicle performance--but neither are those statistics. They represent the average performance of the entire Ford fleet--a fact which is best dealt with in the article on the entire Ford company. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:06, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)


 * If those statistics are relavent to this article, then they should also be added to the other manufacturers, like GM and DaimlerChrysler, right? I'm being sarcastic, of course, but you see my point. Cite the EPA/CAFE data directly (not via a poorly written, biased news article) and add the information to Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Nobody would object to a link from this article to that one, if done in a way that doesn't attempt to use biased statistics. That is a road that leads to poorly written articles. Someone who really knows Ford could come in and cite positive statistics, making this a mess. -- Netoholic 15:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why are you being sarcastic? Absolutely, info on fuel economy should go on GM and DaimlerChrysler. Why shouldn't they? And if Ford supporters have alternative interpretations of the data that show Ford with good fuel economy, they should be encouraged to come here as well. That's the essence of NPOV. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:17, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)--P.S. I have contacted the article's author via email, asking for more info. Even if she doesn't get back to me, though, I feel we should include this in the article--given that it's from a cited source, and readers can make their own dections.


 * My personal problem with the section is that it gives insufficient detail to tell us what the quoted statistics actually mean -- they are instead being used to justify a point of view. If we're going to link to an external source on this, we should be linking directly to the EPA.  What are these economy figures actually for?  Are they for all Ford-owned brands, or just vehicles badged 'Ford'?  Is this a car figure, a light truck figure, a combined figure?  What's the historical data?  Do we know why these figures are so high?


 * My personal guess -- but it's no more than that -- is that the figures quoted are possibly only for Ford-badged vehicles and that they combine both cars and light trucks. A possible cause for such low figures, despite Ford selling a fairly large range of vehicles including those with rather good fuel economy, is Ford's success in the full-size truck segment, particularly with its new F-150.


 * So these results are not necessarily 'Ford vehicles, matching like-for-like, have worse fuel economy then the competition', but may well be the rather different statement that 'Ford is having more success with its larger vehicles than its smaller ones'. This could be because 'Ford is concentrating its marketing on its high-margin larger vehicles, particularly full-size trucks', but maybe not.


 * If we are going to put up a complex, nuanced view of what the fuel economy statistics for a particular manufacturer are and mean, by all means -- I'll gladly contribute. If it's going to be, as this one, POV masquerading under the guise of statistics, I'd rather not. &mdash;Morven 16:38, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to track down the sources now; I'll see what I can do over the next few days. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:41, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)


 * Cool. If we can get this a bit more encyclopedic, I'm all for it! &mdash;Morven 16:59, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * The first step is to properly cite the source of this data. Now, even with that, I believe this information shows bias by adding it to Ford Motor Company. Centralize the findings on one page (I've suggested Corporate Average Fuel Economy) and link to it from here, as well as from other car manufacturer articles.
 * To be honest, it also does not make for valuable reading to add this sort of information. This is a free encyclopedia of fact, not a podium for using fact or statistics to advance agendas or personal preferences. Try to keep a positive tone. -- Netoholic 20:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm for putting back the fuel efficiency information back in the article and also putting it on the page of the other automakers. It is relevant objective information and I see absolutely no reason - except if you work for ford maybe - not to include it. The information was from the EPA, the alternet article was cited because it contained all that information in one place instead of having to search different pages on the EPA website, but I'm sure that an EPA summary could be found somewhere. My vote: put it back, it's relevant, informative and objective. MikeCapone 03:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * MikeCapone, feel free to help with the search for the EPA source of this data. My guess is that you won't find it because the numbers are unfounded rhetoric from another uninformed environmental group. The AlterNet article is just more propoganda masquerading as fact.
 * Regardless, imagine you are reading this article five years from now... would that information still be relevant? If we set a precedent of including these sorts of statistics (both positive and negative), won't the article lose focus? I'm sorry, but I think the article is very good right now. It is informative, with detailed historical perspective. The world is full of statistics, that doesn't mean all of them need to be here in WP. -- Netoholic 05:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * One notes, for one thing, that the latest official CAFE data is for the 2002 model year. Since this article says it's talking about 2004 figures, these must be far from official.  In fact, I would suspect that they're purely estimates of no official standing whatsoever, and possibly quite biased ones. &mdash;Morven 06:55, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've been looking around on EPA.gov and fueleconomy.gov and all the info is there, but no summary all in one place, so I have emailed the author of the piece (who also writes for the Washington Post, btw) and we'll see what happens. Also, I don't see how "talking about 2004 figures" is a problem; it's done in tons of articles about software, politics, science, etc. Wiki is not paper. That information is very useful to see how things progressed with time and for the people who are researching things with wikipedia and want relevant information. MikeCapone 08:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Talking about 2004 figures is not necessarily a problem when that's explicitly stated, that's right. Though having a broader historical perspective would be better.


 * I don't see post 2002 CAFE data in either place or anywhere else. Individual vehicle economy data, yes, but no fleet wide averages.  Maybe I'm missing something.


 * Looking through the 2002 data shows Ford NOT at the bottom, despite what the article says. In domestic passenger cars, DaimlerChrysler is at the bottom in 2002, with Ford second bottom out of six. In imported passenger cars, Ford is eighth from bottom out of sixteen.  In trucks, Ford is joint third from bottom with Nissan.


 * Note that the data presented is across all Ford-owned brands: Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Mazda. Figures are not broken out by brand.


 * Most of the comments being applied to Ford here, though, equally fit all the US Big Three; they meet US government fuel economy standards, though not by any great margin, and they have the greatest sales success with the vehicles that do worst in fuel economy; trucks and large or performance cars. Ford is only being singled out in the article referenced because of certain environmentalists' anger that Ford is claiming environmental concern, not because their environmental record is particularly worse than the competition.


 * Why US auto makers don't have great success selling economical small cars is an interesting if controversial study. Certainly US-built Big Three small cars are considered undesirable compared to the competition by most consumers.  Are they truly inferior?  Hard to say, though my perception from the ones I've driven is that it is somewhat the case, especially GM products.  Recent small Fords have tended to be European or Asian designs (Focus, Escort, etc).  GM seems to be taking a similar tactic lately after its Daewoo acquisition.  Is it because the Big Three have higher labor and fixed costs than the competition, requiring more cost-cutting on the vehicles to remain price competitive?  Is it because they have never really been interested in the small car market?  hard to tell. &mdash;Morven 16:48, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Small cars have tighter profit margins than large cars. People are willing to spend considerably greater sums (e.g. twice as much) for cars that do not require twice the materials or design time. As such generation times for small cars are less - you try and sell the same model for longer to make back investment. Possibly Ford finds it difficult to break into the small vehicle market in the US because of this combination of low profit and low turnover of generations, thus fewer attempts. Certainly the US due to a culture of cheap gasoline and large roads has never had the same pressures to produce a small car market as Europe. Would that make it less or more competitive I wonder? My Dad is an authority on Ford so I'll ask him about this.

Oh, and on the issue of the fuel economy statistics, I think it would be biased to introduce them without some definition of how those figures were arrived at. Is it a mean? a median? based on proportion sold, or vehicles available? if so what vehicles? is it engine or car based? I'm not trying to protect Ford here, I'm always hesitant about statistics being introduced that are ill-defined. I don't think the age of the statistics is important though, as long as they are time-stamped, someone will either add or replace them with the newest figures when they arrive. Philip Thomas --129.11.204.92 10:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is so much fuel economy data, it is difficult to explain completely and properly (for example, it is a geometric average, how many average readers understand that), there are provisions for credits, carryovers and carrybacks, etc.... My point is that the subject is so complex it deserves its own article, and any mention of the data in an individual vehicle or company article without the context is almost certainly misleading. I speak from personal professional experience. Pmeisel 15:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Diversity Definitions
This is not the first article on a company where I have seen a Diversity header that consists in its entirety of a reference to the company's rating by the Corporate Equality Index of the Human Rights Campaign."Diversity" means a lot of things and covers a lot of issues...ethnicity,beliefs,workplace culture and more.The HRC is primarily focussed on promoting public acceptance of homosexuality and I don't know anything about its "Corporate Equality Index" and how it addresses the many issues that make up diversity.Is it a measure of how the company treats employees' homosexual relationships "equally" with heterosexual ones or does it cover racial integration,religious holidays,dress codes,sexual harassment,and everything else?Not surprising that Ford,whose retiring vice chairman Allan Gilmour is one of the most prominent homosexuals in corporate America,would score 100% from a group whose primary interest is that factor.But what do the NAACP,etc think?

Basically,if this Corporate Equality Index is going to be treated as the only needed yardstick of a company's "diversity",it needs to be explained either in an article on itself or in the HRC article to make its qualification as such clear.--Louis E./le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 22:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ford tractors
Henry was raised on a farm and as such was well acquainted with the HARD work it was. Once he became a successful manufacture he started trying to design a tractor. This effort was started very early in the history of Ford Motor Co. I would seem to me that there should be a full section on Ford tractors, not just the single one on the Fordson.

I have just "found" wikipedia and do not have the time right now to go further. BUT if I had some stubs to work on, I could try to fill in some of them.

Larry

larryajensen@lycos.com


 * Good point; this is quite an omission. There is little mention of Ford heavy trucks here, either. &mdash;Morven 05:52, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ford tractors would be a good separate article. It should tie in to the purchase and then spin off of New Holland, however.  Similarly heavy trucks should tie in to the Sterling sale. I would try to help with the bits and pieces I know. Pmeisel 15:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested action
I've placed suggeted action of merge to this article in the discussion section of the Blue Oval News article. Courtland 03:06, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Fix Or Repair Daily
''Ford cars are known for their levels of high maintenence. This has come so far that an acronym has been made: "Fix Or Repair Daily".'' - isn't this an old argument? Perhaps it applies to US Ford models - in the UK Fords are known for being very reliable. There seems to be an acronym for other models, mostly unfair, probably intended as a joke (FIAT = Fix It Again Tony etc.). I propose we remove this paragraph - comments? --Dan Huby 16:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's the typical kind of thing that advocates of another manufacturer make up about the competition. Ford, unfortunately, has a short and joke-acronym-friendly name!  IMO, all such slurs should be removed from this and other articles, especially if (as here) it's presented as factual.


 * However, this was recently added by an anon IP and thus can be considered vandalism; I've removed. &mdash;Morven 18:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Propose an opposite view: aggregate 'em all somewhere, equal opportunity insulting. Or's that to lowbrow? Trekphiler 11:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ford number two automaker
"It must be added that the incompetence of the Ford family has led to them being overtaken by Toyota, as the number two car maker in the world."

I've removed this statement by an anon contributor for three reasons. For this piece of information to return to the article, those three problems need to be cleared up. Thanks. &mdash; oo64eva (AJ) (U @ 20:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Statement is certainly not a NPOV as shown by calling the Ford family incompetent.
 * 2) Contributor did not specify what criteria was used when stating Toyota is number one and Ford is number two automaker in the world. Is this by revenue? Profit? Volume of cars produced? Employee satisfaction?  A combination of those factors? Simply stating that Ford is now number two means nothing to me.
 * 3) Is this the most appropriate spot in the article to put this information? I personally don't think so.
 * Ford is back in the position of second largest global auto maker as of the end of October 2006. http://www.localnewswatch.com/jordanfalls/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=21387

Fords in Saudi Arabia
The article says: "although US Fords are now sold in Saudi Arabia"

What is "now" in relation to time here? I lived in Saudi during the early 90's and US Fords were relatively common cars there. --Zilog Jones 02:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new picture to be added to page
I think that a picture of the new Mustang should be added somewhere on the page. Not only is it something of a revival for the Mustang name, it has been getting good reviews almost everywhere as the true pony car and what not. Sorry if it sounds a bit like I'm tooting Ford's horn, but I think that the Mustang -- the new one, which reminds one of the old one -- is Ford's most recognizable model. I don't have a picture of one that I own the copyright for, however, or I would have added it already. --MasterCKO 09:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

News in 2005
I read through this section, but it is messy and incomprehensible. If someone is familiar with the information in this passage, please clean it up. Thanks. Pentawing 05:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On September 9, 2005, Ford sold Hertz for $5.5 to $6 billion: report Corporate-buyout group also to assume car-rental firm's US$10b debt Ford Motor Co will sell its car-rental firm Hertz to a group of corporate-buyout firms for US$5.5 billion to US$6 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday.
 * Changing hands: Hertz is ideally suited for private-equity investors, which prefer firms with steady, strong cash flows, upon which they can then pile on significant debt
 * Citing people familiar with the matter, the newspaper said Hertz's fate could be determined as soon as today.
 * It said the private-equity firms, including Clayton Dubilier & Rice, Carlyle Group and Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity, would also assume Hertz's debt. It totals more than US$10 billion, according to recent regulatory filings, of which around half is long-term debt.The buyout firms will spend as little as US$3 billion of their own funds and borrow as much as US$12 billion to finance the purchase and the assumption of debt, the Journal said.A winning bid by the Clayton Dubilier group would hand a rare defeat to a competing group of private-equity firms - including Bain Capital, Blackstone Group, Texas Pacific Group and Thomas H Lee & Partners - people familiar with the matter told the paper. Both Ford and Hertz declined to comment.The two groups have been pitted in an intense auction for Hertz. At the last moment, despite Hurricane Katrina potentially harming prospects for the car-rental business, the price tag actually rose, participants in the process told the Journal. The newspaper said Ford had considered taking the company public, and it is possible Ford's board could return to that course at the last moment. The cash-strapped car maker wants to reduce the debt on its balance sheet, and it would no longer have to consolidate the debt of the fleet operations after a public listing.Ford also faces a renewed need for cash, as sales of profitable sport-utility vehicles have slowed.But selling Hertz outright would bring Ford more money more quickly than a public offering. And the company is ideally suited for private-equity investors, which prefer companies with steady, strong cash flows, upon which they can then pile on significant debt, the Journal said.

Fords in Australia
According to the article, the Ford Falcon & Holden Commodore account for over 40% of the Australian new car market. This information is incorrect. Thirty years ago, perhaps, their share may have been that high.

Today, their combined share is 20% or less, depending on how you look at it. In 2004, the Commodore and Falcon combined accounted for 15.1% of the new car market (or 8.3% and 6.8%, respectively)

Including the utility models, their combined share was 19.5%.

Their share is decreasing each year. Currently in 2005, their combined share is 12.3% (or 16.2% including the utilities). Davez621 10:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm...not aware of this...the debate between Ford fans and Holden fans is still easy sparked here in SA, and there seems to be jsut as many Fords and Holdens on the streets of Adelaide...but that is only one city. Although Commodores and Falcons are quite popular as first cars (or second cars...or tenth cars...), pretty much because of affordability (which you kinda need when you're trying to get insurance at 16). User:themagicalpixieelf 1:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporal Issue - A new direction for the 21st century
The section "A new direction for the 21st century" mentions that a long wheelbase Ford Expedition will soon replace the Excursion. Someone please keep up on this and update when needed, or completely edit out the temporal reference. I'm not yet skilled enough in writing for WP to do this.

Stuff
Some concerns. The article seems to imply Eli Whitney conceived the assembly line & interchangable parts; to my knowledge, he did neither. He's widely, incorrectly, believed to have invented the idea of interchangable parts; he was only the first to become successful using them. The assembly line I've seen credited to Oliver Evans (though it may've been no more than a conveyer belt system). The article omits to mention there were 2 Ford car companies; the original fell apart when investors wanted a hi$ Model K & Ford wanted a lo$ similar to the ult T. (As I recall, some of them went on to found Cadillac, or maybe Lincoln.) The article isn't clear how long it took for production improvments to cut build time to 2:40; it certainly wasn't immediate. (Was it?) And to be finicky, it wasn't that black paint was fast drying (tho that's how it's commonly rendered), it's that the paint was fast drying & happened to be black; Henry would've been just as happy had it been blue or orange. (As I recall, the trick was, it was a new laquer, N the old, slo-dry enamel.) I'd edit to correct if I could be more specific, or had quotable sources. One last thing: contrary to what's suggested, the '60s Brit-mkt Escort & the US-mkt model were 2 very diff beasts... Hope I've provided leads to someone who does... Also, I have 1 Q, not mentioned: Ford is credited with the introduction of the 5 day week; true, & when? Trekphiler 11:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know...I never heard about THAT one, haha. Should we add in a section for popular myths? I've heard so far of the Holden-Ford rivalry (haven't we all?), and the First On Race Day myth (it's popularly considered that Ford stands of First On Race Day because Ford won all races on the first 3 days of the Clipsal 500...last year I believe), and a few others (you hear these things, living with a Ford fanatic). Maybe the 5-day week could be considered an unconfirmed myth...but then again, I'm not very good for non-original researc or unverified claims. themagicalpixieelf 1:26, 8 July 2006(UTC)

Motorsports
I added quite a few sub-divisions to the motorsports category along with a pretty fair amount of information. Racing has long been a very important part of the Ford Motor Company and its image and I feel it needs to be talked about more in-depth here. I need your help to fill out more information about Ford's history in the various racing series.

Ford Sociology Department
I realize Ford wrote the whole page about Ford and I hope they would be willing to discuss the Sociology Department in the late 19th Century.

Ford used to send social workers to check on the morality of the single women employed at the company. I would like to learn more about this. So any history scholars or Ford itself if you could include some info about this it would be appreciated.


 * Ford Motor Company did not exist in the late 19th century. The company was formed in the early 20th century. --T-dot 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture of "union violence"
Hi y'all. T-dot reverted a picture of a physical altercation between staff and union members at the plant in 1937 which exists in this version. The reason he/she gave is that it "does not belong here. make your own article about union violence if you wish". I think the photo illustrates the text (see timeline year 1937) and is clearly relevant. Not everything about Ford or Fordism is benign and trouble-free. Why pretend it is? Andeggs 21:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad you asked. First of all the timeline year 1937 about union violence was unsourced.  All other timeline bullets were sourced from company records or from the production figures posted elsewhere.  You cannot just add new unsourced bullet points under the umbrella of the other bullets' sourcing information.  Now if there is a well written NPOV article posted elsewhere in the Wikipedia that properly documents, sources and confirms your information about specific union conflicts in the 1930's, with traceable references that can be checked by others, then by all means mention it, and post a link to the references.  If you just randomly add an unsourced unreferenced bullet point, with no justification, then it is liable to be removed as unreferenced and unsourced.  In addition, union conflicts and violence were very widespread throughout many industries in those days, certainly not just the automotive industry, and certainly not Ford Motor Company in particular.  Therefore, if an editor is only focusing efforts on certain unfortunate events at Ford Motor Company during the Great Depression, and not covering the issue in the broader sense, then the editor is engaging in Ford-bashing, like the other "I Hate Ford" drive-by vandals, and not addressing the issues in good faith from a NPOV.   To be NPOV, the mention would need to present the issues from both the Union's side and the Company's.  In addition, you would need to discuss similar events at other car companies, such as GM, Chrysler, Studebaker, and any other car companies that may have experienced problems with Unionization in those days.  Since you laid these issues only at the feet of Ford Motor Company, it gave the impression that only Ford had these problems and Ford was the bad guy.  This appears to be non-NPOV and is clearly only intended to bash Ford.  Throwing some random drive-by "dirt" on the Ford article to "balance" the "positive" and "neutral" stuff does not make it NPOV.  It only shows that the editor most likely had an agenda, to bash and smear the company.


 * As for The Image in question, which was imported from the Wiki Commons, it was not sufficiently sourced and could not be verified by any available means. The only sourcing information said it came from the F D Roosevelt Library.  This cannot be verified, and there is no information on how it got from the Roosevelt Library to the Wikipedia.  It appears to be a newspaper picture, which would be copyrighted.  We would need to know what paper, who was the photographer, and who owns the copyright to the original picture, and whether they have granted unlimited distribution and publication.  Just because it claims to have been taken from the private Roosevelt library, does not mean it is free to distribute as exempt from copyright under the US Government non-copyright banner.  The Roosevelt Library contains many images - collected by the Government or by Roosevelt himself - but that does not mean the original owner has released it for publication.  Now if the image was downloaded from an internet web site, then that information must be provided.  if you personally scanned the image from the "original" at the Library, and got written permission to publish it, then that must be stated.  All images must be traceable back to the source so its copyright status can be confirmed by other editors and administrators.  I believe you have not provided nearly sufficient sourcing information, and I do not believe you can use the US Government copyright exemption on this image.  That is why it was removed.  The Wiki Commons area may have more latitude in image uploading, but the Wikipedia is very strict about sourcing photographs and copyrighted images, and making it traceable and confirmable by other editors and admins.  From what you have provided, an editor would have to personally go to the Roosevelt Library and try to find it and discover its source information.  It is the duty of the editor who uploads an image to the Wikipedia to provide full disclosure as to the source (where you found it - with a link directly to the source) so the copyright status can be traced and verified by others.  Without such sourcing information, the Image will probably have to be deleted soon.  By the way - I noticed it was uploaded today, specifically for the purpose of posting in this article, and used no where else.  Again, that smells very fishy.


 * I do not personally have a problem with mentions of union strife in the past, as long as it is presented in a fair and neutral article, with perspectives of both sides, and documented sources and references. Isolated drive-by slash-bashes however are not proper. That said, feel free to edit as you wish, and let the consensus decide what is balanced and fair.  Thank you for asking.  --T-dot 00:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying.


 * 1) I did not add the bullet point, only illustrated it - it was there previously.
 * 2) There clearly was union/staff violence at Ford in 1937 - as described on The Henry Ford Museum's own website.
 * 3) The page above (which I just found by accident) contains the same photo and says it is Frankensteen being attacked.
 * 4) All photos at the Franklin D Roosevelt Library are copyright free as described on the home page. The link to the photo is here. The photo is stored under ref "7819(4)"
 * I understand why you are protective of the article - and rightly so. What really got my back up was telling me to "make my own article" if I so wished. I do not wish to do so. I wish to edit and improve this article, which is - at the risk of sounding childish - as much mine as yours. Andeggs 06:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll just place myself in time-out on report for a while and think about what I have done, while you improve the article.  Just do us a favor and look after the article while I sit in the corner - it tends to get vandalized several times each day.  There are 3 types of vandals:  1. The childish "random act" vandal who posts jibberish, or "FORD SUX", or deleting large segments of text and substituting expressions of love for another kid's mother, and the like.  2. The agenda-driven activist, who uses the wikipedia as a soapbox for their "free speech" pursuits with the idea of smearing the Company or bashing Bill (or Henry) Ford (see the Mazda thing below as an example, which was previously deleted a week or two ago, and has now curiously reappeared).  3. The Internet troll vandal who intentionally posts highly charged and controversial material, with the idea of drawing other editors into a "fight" over that content, apparently for fun.  --T-dot 09:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)