Talk:Ford Pinto/Archive 5

Emergence of Controversy
Guys,

1) Sorry for not being involved in the recent debates. I'd wish I'd been here, but I've been a tad busy IRL. 2) User:HughD came in like a wrecking ball. Being somewhat familiar with Hugh's editing record, perhaps this isn't super surprising. 3) One thing that has been lost was the emphasis on MJ article and the "emergence of the controversy". In reading up on this subject, it became apparent to me that the revelations about the Pinto Memo and the public outrage it caused directly led to the 1977 recall. Not to play the "what if" game here, but I'm guessing if the Pinto Memo never came to light, the controversy and subsequent recall probably wouldn't have happened. As I've said before, I think the way the controversy started is probably as notable as the actual controversy itself. We ought to make sure it's mentioned.

Anyways, looks like the page got locked down. Hopefully when it reopens, we'll have enough eyes on this thing to prevent some of the sillier behavior we've seen recently. NickCT (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Nick. Thank you for your contributions. Your collaboration is welcome. Reliable sources agree the 1977 Mother Jones article was an important event. Certainly letters from consumers contributed to the recall. However, "the Pinto Memo ... directly led to the 1977 recall" is synthetic and overs-simplified. After all, the Mother Jones subscriber base is tad niche-y, even in 1977. We know the Center for Auto Safety was on the case, petitioned the NHTSA twice, and, indulging with you in what-if against my best judgement, unlikely to go away; had Mother Jones declined the story, it may well have run elsewhere. The historic Grimshaw verdict was trial commenced shortly before the recall, making national and international headlines (the timing was critical but its relevance to the run-up of the recall is not apparent in our article). As seen in the previous talk page section, we know ABC and CBS were poking around preparing long-form television reports. Thank you for teasing out at article talk an editorial direction of some editors, that the whole Pinto thingy was an unfortunate result of rabble-rousing by Mother Jones. Attributing the motivations of actors in historical events is wrought with difficulty, the motivations of organizations even more so, and best avoided in Wikipedia voice absent compelling weight in reliable sources; let the facts speak. So much has been written on this episode that authors supporting every possible point of view may be found, including "the NHTSA was under political pressure and had to find a defect in the Pinto." Our article may not demonize Ford or Mother Jones, or impugn the motives or results of the NHTSA, in Wikipedia voice. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" to me is a disagreement among persons. What to call Washington's football team is a controversy. What we are writing about here are historical events including crashes, fires, deaths, injuries, law suits, a criminal prosecution, federal investigations, and a product recall. May I respectfully comment that characterizing this content as a "controversy" is so dismissive of events as to be non-neutral. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While HughD is correct in stating we don't know what would have happened if MJ didn't run the article, he is doing a lot of OR speculation in claiming that failing the run of the MJ article things would have been different. Schwartz even notes how the Pinto PR issues impacted the Grimshaw case.  The Grimshaw plaintiff's lawyers and C4AS both provided information to Dowie for the article.  It is not at all clear that ABC and CBS would have run their stories absent the controversy, and thus interest, created by the MJ story.  Claiming one way or the other is clearly OR.  "Our" article may report on the motives of MJ or NHTSA when acknowledged RS's say as much.  What you think "controversy" is just your opinion.  You are welcome to suggest other titles but your previous attempt didn't fly since it implies fault where fault has not been firmly established.  What term would you suggest when it is clear there was a public outcry yet also a great deal of misunderstanding.  Perhaps we should follow the example of RSs "Myth" (Schwartz, Lee & Ermann).  Springee (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for your comments HughD. Your collaboration may be welcome.
 * Well listen, we and sources seem to all agree that the MJ was important in revealing the Pinto Memo. We also all seem to agree, along with some sources, that the recall was at least in part a result of memo revelations. I'm not sure saying "MJ led to controversy which led to recall" would be synthetic. There are some sources which make that direct connection (e.g. this one and this one).
 * If we don't draw a direct line, I think we can all agree that it would be OK to say, 1) "There was an article exposing the Pinto Memo". 2)"There was a controversy over the memos", 3) "Following the controversy and subsequent NHTSA investigation, Ford recalled".
 * I don't think phrasing things this way would "demonize Mother Jones", so much that it would just indicate that Mother Jones may have had something to do with getting the ball rolling on a recall.
 * re "controversy ... is a disagreement" - Ah but controversy itself can be a historical event. Would you disagree that a controversy over the safety of the Pinto arose during the 1970's?
 * - I sorta regret starting my "what if" conversation now. I think it may have taken us down the wrong track. I think it's sufficient to say that lots of sources point to the MJ article as being relevant to the controversy. So we probably should as well. NickCT (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nick, we agree on your 1 and 2, and I think the current article does a decent job of conveying those two main points. However 3 "Following the controversy and subsequent NHTSA investigation, Ford recalled" is so over-simplified as to be non-neutral. A more accurate terse summarization of the narrative around which we organize the "Safety..." section might be:

"Following deaths and injuries, following two Center for Auto Safety petitions, following an article in Mother Jones, following exposure of a controversial memo from Ford to the NHTSA, following a press conference by Ralph Nader, following numerous consumer complaints, following multiple lawsuits, following the largest punitive damages award in history, following the commencement of the Grimshaw trail, following national and international headlines, following an NHTSA investigation, following an NHTSA finding of defect, Ford recalled the Pinto."


 * But of course we would not say that in any one sentence but rather let the facts and events speak and trust our readers. Thanks again for your participation. Hugh (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * re "I think the current article does a decent job of conveying those two main points" - Can you point to the exact line in the current article that says the memo was exposed in an article, and that a controversy over the memo erupted?
 * Can you point to references which directly link Nader/Center for Auto Safety, or lawsuits to the recall in the same way I have provided you sources which directly link the MJ article to the investigation and subsequent recall? NickCT (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your collaboration on improving the article's coverage of the roles of the "Ford Pinto memo", Ralph Nader, and the Center for Auto Safety is welcome. The interpretations of the "Ford Pinto" memo were diverse and we should cover that. The events leading to the recall were complex. Our article should not say that Mother Jones, the "Ford Pinto memo," Ralph Nader, or the Center for Auto Safety, or any other one thing, was the cause of the recall. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia does not say that the American Civil War was the war to free the slaves or that the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria triggered WWI and it should not say that the Pinto recall was because of Mother Jones. Hugh (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , if you are going to accuse others of OR related to this material (see the NOR section below) please make sure your own facts are correct. The MJ article and the NHTSA decision to investigate occurred in August of 1977.  The Grimshaw case was first in court in February of 1978.  Certainly you have placed the cart before the Pinto when stating, "following the largest punitive damages award in history".  I'm pretty sure that the award came after the trial was completed in 1978.  Do you have dates to support the claims that other lawsuits, prior to August of 1977 influenced the NHTSA?  Basically, please don't accuse others of synthesis if your own understanding of the facts is VERY wrong. Springee (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Apologies but you haven't answered my questions. Clearly the level of weight you're placing on the MJ article is lower than the other editors here. You can defend your viewpoint by answering the questions you've been asked, or your edits can simply be reverted. NickCT (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nick, thank you for your question. In answer to your request for sources, here are some quick sources, most already in use in our article, that offer a telling of the lead-up to the recall more nuanced than "it was all Mother Jones", and citing crashes, deaths, injuries, consumer complaints, lawsuits, the Grimshaw trail, Ralph Nader, the Center for Auto Safety, the joint Mother Jones/Center for Auto Safety press conference, or other events:
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable source references documenting a more nuanced telling of the run-up to the recall, beyond blaming Mother Jones, including the roles of the Nader press conference and the Center for Auto Safety, are available upon request. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC), does this answer your question? Hugh (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of these appear to be prone to the same problem as other cites already present; the presume a problem that isn't actually statistically supported, and they also largely trace back to the same, discredited, primary sources. 19:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my question again; "Can you point to references which directly link Nader/Center for Auto Safety" (bolding for emphasis) to the recall. Look at the sources I provided you. They say things like -
 * "responding in part to the allegations in the Mother Jones article, the NHTSA initiated a formal defect investigation"
 * Do you see how the source makes a direct and clear link between the MJ article and the subsequent investigation?
 * Now look at your sources. Do any of your sources provide a direct and clear link between Nader and the investigation, or do they just say "Nader was at a press conference on the topic"?
 * The sources say that the MJ article directly led to the NHTSA investigation in a way that they do not say that Nader directly led to the NHTSA investigation.
 * Your problem is that you see the MJ as an "equal player" to things like Nader and consumer complaints. This simply doesn't appear to what the sources are saying. Many of the sources clearly identify the MJ article as being somewhat central in getting the whole thing started.
 * Again, we're not trying to demonize MJ. Sometimes there are articles that kick off scandals/controversies, right? Think Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate. We're not demonizing Woodward and Bernstein when we say they started the Watergate controversy, we're simply reflecting the important part their article played in history. NickCT (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your reply. The source you quote, which very significantly qualifies its statement of causality with the clause "in part," explicitly agrees with the consensus of reliable sources, that the NHTSA investigation had multiple causes. The NHTSA did not act directly, solely, on the basis of an at the time little-read magazine published in San Francisco; the Mother Jones article and other media coverage contributed to public awareness which led to letters which, along with reports of crashes, fires, deaths, and injuries, and petitions, contributed to motivating the NHTSA investigation; the main effect of the Mother Jones article was indirect through public awareness. Clinard and Yeager excerpted above offer us guidance in avoiding the pitfall of attributing the Ford Pinto recall or any major recall to any one factor. We may state the role of the Mother Jones article but we may not over-state the role of any one factor. Cullen excerpted above tell us the author of the Mother Jones article himself was aware of the relatively obscure mind share of his magazine and sought wider main stream media coverage via the key news conference with Ralph Nader and the Center for Auto Safety; Bob & Carl had a tad better pulpit than Dowie - Dowie had to call a Washington press conference with Ralph to get into the WaPo! If anything, the consensus of reliable sources is that the NHTSA was responding to the public. Meanwhile, currently our article says that certain specific things that the Mother Jones article said "forced" the NHTSA to investigate, which exceeds all sources. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Many of the sources clearly identify the MJ article as being somewhat central in getting the whole thing started." Yes, the Mother Jones article was important, and we can easily say so; however, we may not over-state its importance. Cullen and Danley, excerpted below, point out that the Mother Jones article was elaborating a point of view and re-using attitude and even language from Jack Anderson from nine months earlier; it may be said Jack Anderson got things started. Some, writing retrospectively, disproportionately feature the Mother Jones article in order to displace the role of reports of crashes, deaths, and injuries, and consumer input, in support of a point of view tending to exonerate Ford and impugn the NHTSA, but we are not free to lift their point of view to Wikipedia voice. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "but we may not over-state the role of any one factor" - Sure. We can't say "the MJ article caused the recall". We don't and can't know that. What we do know is that the MJ article was a notable and significant event leading to the recall. We know it was a notable factor in leading to the investigation and recall because the sources note it directly in relation to the recall. And no, it wasn't the sole event, but I don't think the wording that we've been putting into the article suggests that it was the sole event. Only that it was an important and notable event.
 * Your point about MJ not being the first to talk about the Pinto is understood and granted. But that doesn't mean that the MJ article wasn't the article that kicked the issue into the limelight. If the Jack Anderson had been as or more important in highlighting the Pinto thing, why don't more sources point to Jackson Anderson as starting the whole debate? NickCT (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your replies. We are in substantial agreement on the due weight of the Mother Jones article. Thank you for your patience.
 * The Mother Jones article did not kick the Ford Pinto into the limelight, because Mother Jones simply did not have that kind of readership or subscriber-ship. If it had, Dowie would not have had to arrange a Washington press conference with Ralph Nader. The press conference kicked the Mother Jones article and the Ford Pinto into wide main stream media coverage.
 * We agree the Anderson column shows that Mother Jones was not the first or only media coverage of Ford fire safety issues; it was not the sole cause of the Ford Pinto investigation, any more than the Mother Jones was. Thanks.
 * You wrote "I don't think the wording that we've been putting into the article suggests that it was the sole event" With this established mutual understanding, may we focus on one sentence of current article content which states the compelling causes of the NHTSA investigation? May I ask you to comment at WP:ORN? I believe the one sentence of article content discussed there is an example of current article content that over-states sources on the role of the the Mother Jones article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your question has already been answered. The way the statements appear in Lee and Ermann make it clear the authors associate the two events.  It's odd that you would include Lee and Ermann in your list of more nuanced MJ's descriptions since the quote in the article is a paraphrase of Lee and Ermann.  Perhaps, rather than flooding the talk page you could actually propose new language and explain why you think it fits better.  Also, since you pointed out that I've added more text to the talk page, yes, I added several long passages from Lee and Ermann and collapsed the quotes so they don't create a wall of text.  I would encourage you to do the same.  I would also point out that your "quote from Lee and Ermann" was very selective.  You left out the next sentence.  For those who don't want to read the through the long Lee and Ermann passage I quoted above to find the where you got the text, "''Also in 1974, Ralph Nader's Center for Auto Safety asked NHTSA to investigate Pinto fuel tank integrity. NHTSA beliefs and procedures were similar to Ford's: not enough evidence existed to warrant a full defect investigation (Graham I 991). The Pinto had no "recallable" problem, even though people were dying in Pinto fires.
 * 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.
 * Flooding the talk page with selected and out of context quotes doesn't exactly make a strong case. Please consider an alternative.  Write what you think the passage in the article SHOULD say then explain why with quotes and evidence.  If people say no, please accept it and move on.  Springee (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "We agree the Anderson column shows that Mother Jones was not the first or only media coverage of Ford fire safety issues; it was not the sole cause of the Ford Pinto investigation, any more than the Mother Jones was." - So we do now agree that the MJ article and related Dowie conference was probably more important/notable in starting the controversy/scandal than the other articles (e.g. Anderson) you've mentioned? We agree on that b/c most of the sources we've looked at (including the ones you've provided) directly note the MJ article and not the other articles. NickCT (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your reply. We agree, the Anderson column is not the sole cause of the Ford Pinto investigation. There was no sole cause. Neither was the Mother Jones article, nor the press conference with Nader, nor the Mother Jones article and the press conference with Nader. The causes were complex. At the time, Mother Jones was not the award-winning, widely recognized independent investigative journalism outlet we know today. People were not rushing out to snatch up Mother Jones. They were not reading it online. It was not in most decent-sized public libraries like it is today. The main stream media articles that kicked this issue into public awareness feature Nader standing alongside Dowie, and quote Nader demanding a recall, not Mother Jones. Nader, Dowie, Mother Jones, and the Center for Auto Safety recognized an article in Mother Jones was not enough, they needed more publicity, and Nader knew how to get it, and they got it. Two days after Ford agreed to the recall, Mike Wallace went on 60 Minutes; it is clear that CBS and ABC and other main stream media were taking up the story and asking Nader, Grimshaw, Grimshaw's lawyers, Ford, DOT and NHTSA for interviews. The point being our article should not make the Mother Jones article too central to motivating the recall. Mother Jones brought this to public attention is overly simplistic, but is definitely a point of view favored by some writers, particularly those who prefer to discount the role of other factors, including main stream media, and of course the reports of crashes, fires, deaths, and injuries, and consumer complaints; the "rabble-rousing" motif. The Mother Jones article took an over-the-top tone and made some claims that made it easy to set up as a target for defenders of the lowly Pinto. For some "NHTSA was forced to investigate after a hippy magazine made some outrageous claims" is an alternative narrative to "NHTSA investigated after numerous reports and consumer complaints." Meanwhile, we currently have one sentence in our article that incorrectly paraphrases one source that claims three very specific things "forced" the investigation; focusing on content, may I ask again that you please review the discussion at WP:ORN and comment, there or here? Can we maybe get an edit proposal out of our efforts? Progress is slow but real, thank you again for your engagement and patience. Hugh (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - You're dancing around the question. You just keep to seem pointing to the fact that the sources don't call the MJ article the sole cause of the investigation. That's not the question. Quit repeating the same point over and over when no one is arguing it. You're making straw men again.
 * The simple question is, do sources more often emphasize the role of the MJ article in leading to the investigation/recall than they do other events/articles in leading to the investigation/recall? If the answer is yes, then we too can emphasize the role of MJ. B/c we're reflecting the sources.
 * re "definitely a point of view favored by some writers, particularly those who prefer to discount the role of other factors" - Ok. So you seem to agree that this POV is reflected in some sources, but now you're calling those sources biased. Really? Look at the two sources I sent you. They seem to be from neutral academic sources.
 * I've reviewed a lot of sources (some of which, you yourself have pointed to) now which emphasize/note the MJ article in the early part of this story. Is it really your position that all these sources are biased? Not that it really matters what you think. If the majority of sources say it, that's what we're going to say.
 * I understand your conspiracy theory about people trying to propose an "alternative narrative", and I understand why it might look that. Is it not just possible the alternative narrative here is the right one? Maybe the MJ article did play a major role in kicking off the scandal.
 * I'm not going to look at WP:ORN b/c it looks like forum shopping. We're not deciding on an edit proposal. We're deciding on whether you're going to be worked with or whether you will be marginalized. If you want to "make progress" and continue to be here, why don't you propose what you think is acceptable wording on how the MJ article led to public attention, which led to the NHTSA investigation, which led to the recall? NickCT (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bro, no one asked you to sort out which editors will be permitted to collaborate, thank you. Please focus on content. I don't talk to you like that. I am not the issue; we are discussing due weight and editorial direction and what sources say, thanks. Now, all sources are biased; all sources have POV; we need to be able to discuss sources, including the POV of sources, and I am not advancing a conspiracy theory when I simply describe the diverse points of view of various authors in sources, thank you; my goal is a neutral telling of the vast majority of the facts and events which are not controversial, not to select from among the many available POV. You asked after my position on the bias of sources; my position is our article is biased: from discussion I know you to have a grasp on the causes of the NHTSA investigation; we currently have a sentence in our article that is a very strong statement of the causality of the NHTSA investigation, it says that three very specific things compelled the NHTSA administration, two of which are very specific things the Mother Jones article said; may I ask you to please comment on the copy of the OR issue below on this talk page or the edit proposal below on this talk page? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All sources that cover the causes of the NHTSA investigation cover the Mother Jones article; forgive me for repeating myself, but Graham says "in part"; Graham also covers Ralph Nader, the 1974 Center for Auto Safety petition, media coverage of the Grimshaw trial, 60 Minutes, and 20/20. The googles is blocking me from reading pages 44-45 in Baura, sigh. Hugh (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked for a proposal Mother Jones article -> public attention -> NHTSA investigation. Thanks for the question. Writing explicitly about the causality of historical events is dangerous. Our approach should be to cover all the noteworthy precedents leading up to the investigation, then trust our readers: the Mother Jones article, of course, say what it said, but also Jack Anderson, other media attention including 60 Minutes, 20/20 and the Grimshaw trial, both Center for Auto Safety petitions, the press conference, the reports of crashes, fires, deaths, and injuries the NHTSA said prompted the investigation. We express our best editorial judgment about what events most significant contributed to the investigation through our due weight; it is the Wikipedia way, after all. My position is we do not need, and we have no right to sort out the theories, and offer an explicit statement  in Wikipedia voice that "the NHTSA investigated because..." of any one cause or any small set of causes. What do you think? Again, more progress, thanks. Hugh (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , what do you think? Should we sort through the various points of view in sources and pick the best one to for our article, or should we collaborate on a neutral compilation of the vast majority of the facts and events which are not controversial, and treat the controversies subsequently? Thank you again for your engagement. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your conspiracy theory about people trying to propose an "alternative narrative", and I understand why it might look that. Is it not just possible the alternative narrative here is the right one? Maybe the MJ article did play a major role in kicking off the scandal.
 * I'm not going to look at WP:ORN b/c it looks like forum shopping. We're not deciding on an edit proposal. We're deciding on whether you're going to be worked with or whether you will be marginalized. If you want to "make progress" and continue to be here, why don't you propose what you think is acceptable wording on how the MJ article led to public attention, which led to the NHTSA investigation, which led to the recall? NickCT (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bro, no one asked you to sort out which editors will be permitted to collaborate, thank you. Please focus on content. I don't talk to you like that. I am not the issue; we are discussing due weight and editorial direction and what sources say, thanks. Now, all sources are biased; all sources have POV; we need to be able to discuss sources, including the POV of sources, and I am not advancing a conspiracy theory when I simply describe the diverse points of view of various authors in sources, thank you; my goal is a neutral telling of the vast majority of the facts and events which are not controversial, not to select from among the many available POV. You asked after my position on the bias of sources; my position is our article is biased: from discussion I know you to have a grasp on the causes of the NHTSA investigation; we currently have a sentence in our article that is a very strong statement of the causality of the NHTSA investigation, it says that three very specific things compelled the NHTSA administration, two of which are very specific things the Mother Jones article said; may I ask you to please comment on the copy of the OR issue below on this talk page or the edit proposal below on this talk page? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All sources that cover the causes of the NHTSA investigation cover the Mother Jones article; forgive me for repeating myself, but Graham says "in part"; Graham also covers Ralph Nader, the 1974 Center for Auto Safety petition, media coverage of the Grimshaw trial, 60 Minutes, and 20/20. The googles is blocking me from reading pages 44-45 in Baura, sigh. Hugh (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked for a proposal Mother Jones article -> public attention -> NHTSA investigation. Thanks for the question. Writing explicitly about the causality of historical events is dangerous. Our approach should be to cover all the noteworthy precedents leading up to the investigation, then trust our readers: the Mother Jones article, of course, say what it said, but also Jack Anderson, other media attention including 60 Minutes, 20/20 and the Grimshaw trial, both Center for Auto Safety petitions, the press conference, the reports of crashes, fires, deaths, and injuries the NHTSA said prompted the investigation. We express our best editorial judgment about what events most significant contributed to the investigation through our due weight; it is the Wikipedia way, after all. My position is we do not need, and we have no right to sort out the theories, and offer an explicit statement  in Wikipedia voice that "the NHTSA investigated because..." of any one cause or any small set of causes. What do you think? Again, more progress, thanks. Hugh (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , what do you think? Should we sort through the various points of view in sources and pick the best one to for our article, or should we collaborate on a neutral compilation of the vast majority of the facts and events which are not controversial, and treat the controversies subsequently? Thank you again for your engagement. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , what do you think? Should we sort through the various points of view in sources and pick the best one to for our article, or should we collaborate on a neutral compilation of the vast majority of the facts and events which are not controversial, and treat the controversies subsequently? Thank you again for your engagement. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

- Actually, I have been asked, bro. How many people are going to have to tell you you're the problem here before you get that? Yes of course you're right that it's dangerous to talk about causality. Yes of course there were multiple causes. You're still skirting the fact that a significant number of sources point to the MJ article as causal. Once again, please give the exact wording you would think is appropriate to reflect the sources which point to the MJ article as a cause of the NTHSA investigation and subsequent recall. NickCT (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your reply. You asked "please give the exact wording you would think is appropriate to reflect the sources which point to the MJ article as a cause of the NTHSA investigation and subsequent recall" Forgive me, I don't know how to reply to your request without repeating myself, but perhaps rephrasing will help: The events that precipitated the investigation and recall, and the motivations of the NHTSA and Ford, are so complex in reliable sources as to require treatment in Wikipedia voice in a section; attempting to summarize the vast noteworthy reliable sources in one sentence is ill-advised, unnecessary, and non-neutral. In a "Subsequent analysis" section or some such, we may paraphrase the significant points of view of representative noteworthy commentators on their interpretation of the causality, from later decades, with in-text attribution to distinguish from Wikipedia voice. Hope this helps. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "a controversy over the safety of the Pinto arose during the 1970's" Certain aspects of the story were controversial; most notably, the interpretation of the "Ford Pinto memo," but overall, the vast majority of the facts and events are not controversial, and our article should say so: There were crashes, fires, injuries, lawsuits, press coverage, jury awards, a criminal prosecution, an NHTSA investigation, an NHTSA finding of defect, and a recall. Stuff happened. It's in RS. I know you will agree that our first priority in our project is neutrally conveying the facts and events. Hugh (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The investigation took place before the Grimshaw lawsuit was in court. We have RSs stating that the NHTSA acted due to public pressure.  Springee (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , what exactly are you trying to illustrate with this wall of text and citations? Lot's of words but you haven't said what we are supposed to get out of them. Springee (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * HughD has created an impressive wall of text. It seems his core argument is that the article should not state or imply that "Pinto Madness" was the only reason why the NHTSA initiated a second look at the Pinto.  I'm sure HughD will be happy to know the article doesn't say that.  He will also be happy to know the connection between MJ and the NHTSA's actions was outlined by Schwartz and Lee and Ermann, the two most referenced scholarly works on this subject.  Can you think of any reason why we shouldn't quote or reference their views on the subject given their preeminent place in the related scholarship?  I would suggest you cut down your argument to some core statement, say no more than 3 paragraphs then set up an open RfC and get group feedback.  The wall of text isn't working because no one is going to read it.  Springee (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the master, I am not worthy, I would need half again more bytes to catch you on this talk page. Hugh (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , you commented above:
 * Some, writing retrospectively, disproportionately feature the Mother Jones article in order to displace the role of reports of crashes, deaths, and injuries, and consumer input, in support of a point of view tending to exonerate Ford and impugn the NHTSA,... 
 * That certainly reads like WP:OR to me. Do you have any source that backs your claims? Springee (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure of Ford Pinto fire safety issue, The Washington Post December 30, 1976
Some editors are advancing a point of view in Wikipedia voice pinning the whole Pinto dust-up on that darn anti-capitalist Mother Jones. Mother Jones was not first or only.







Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A classic example of begging the question, right in the header. As other discussion here as indicated, there is a substantial body of expert opinion that the "Ford Pinto fire safety issue" was at best an grotesque exaggeration, and at worst simply nonexistent. Anmccaff (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, some experts disagree on the hazard, and we should cover the disagreement, after a neutral telling of the vast majority of the facts and events that are in substantial agreement in reliable sources. Though some sources adapt a "dispelling the myths" organization, we are not free to. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is questionable if not dishonest to claim that "Some editors are advancing a point of view in Wikipedia voice pinning the whole Pinto dust-up on that darn anti-capitalist Mother Jones." That is certainly your OR.  If you feel that is occurring then perhaps you should get a 3rd opinion or RSN review of the subject.  Making such claims is certainly tendentious on your part.  Springee (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Umm, no, HughD. No.  Experts don't disagree much on the hazards, they agree they are rather close to other vehicles of its type.  The folk who disagree generally aren't very expert, and objective standards make that clear.  If someone claims that thousands died in fiery crashes, and is able to produce a handful of names to "prove" this, then describing them as "expert" is reaching a bit.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The NHTSA found a hazardous defect. The NHTSA is an expert on auto safety. Some agreed, some disagreed. In February on this talk page, a consensus was reached to treat retrospective opinions in a "Subsequent analysis" subsection established for this very purpose, a subsection sadly under-utilized to date as some editors persist in their idiosyncratic editorial position that Wikipedia should come out of the gate on this as if we were MythBusters or The Straight Dope. Hugh (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources make it clear that at the time the NHTSA was not the expert on crash testing and the like. The agency was still in it's infancy as was the science of crash testing.  Since you haven't specifically said which passages you are unhappy with it is hard for others to decide what your editorial intent happens to be.  Springee (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For all the accusations in HughD's posts, it's not at all clear what he things is wrong with the current article. Please provide some passages, specific issues and how you think they should be changed.   Springee (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to participate, but please do not shout. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Some of us are attempting to evaluate the due weight of the Mother Jones article in the our article's coverage of the causality of the NHTSA investigation and the Pinto recall, sorry if that is not clear to you from the thread's original post, above. Hugh (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reasking the question: What passage do you think is problematic.  What text do you have an issue with.  Please provide examples from the article as it stands.  So far you have just provided a wall of text and a vague complaint.  Your failure to get to the point required bold text.  Springee (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , ducking direct questions related to the article edits is listed as a WP:TEND behavior, "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". Springee (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pursue Topic Ban for HughD?
Not sure how others feel, but I'm beginning to get the sense the User:HughD isn't going to be able to edit this article collaboratively. I motion that we move to topic ban HughD from this article. Anyone want to second that? NickCT (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I'll probably get trouted for one of my comments above, hey ho. If you look at his previous record, eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Disruptive_Behavior_and_Editing.2C_HughD, you'll see that his behavior has not improved, and he's still up to his usual tricks. The result of the recent edit warring report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#.5B.5BUser:HughD.5D.5D_reported_by_.5B.5BUser:CZmarlin.5D.5D_.28Result:_.29 was rather more tightly focused than I'd hoped, probably because of the way the original report was written. I think Springee's suggestion of a permanent topic ban on all things automotive would be a start, but the patient will just find some other way to annoy the people he feels like annoying, since he apparently followed Springee here from some non automotive article. I'm not even sure there's any point in a wide ranging permaban since that is so easily evaded. If you do go ahead with this make sure that it includes diffs, is reasonably concise, and calmly written. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=HughD+arbitration&fulltext=Search&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&profile=advanced shows an astonishing record of similar behavior, yet somehow he continues to infest wiki with his nasty ways.  Greglocock (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed This article has been turned upside down and tilted in a single direction. It's difficult if not impossible to work with an intractable, biased editor. 842U (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This thread is off-topic, please focus on content here on this article talk page WP:FOC, WP:TPG. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, a discussion concerning the prevention of the disruptive editing of this page is a valid subject for this page. Thank you very much. Thanks. ta. Greglocock (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see ANI topic here Springee (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've started an ANI conversation to block HughD from this page here. NickCT (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Note about related edits: HughD has been adding Pinto related material to several other articles. The addition of Pinto related material may be appropriate in those articles but the summary type material should ultimately be reflective of the material in the lead of the fuel tank controversy section here. Material has been added to
 * Automobile safety
 * Ford Motor Company
 * History of Ford Motor Company
 * Product recall Springee (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - I've undone all those edits. - Best wait till your topic ban discussion is wrapped up before trying to put more content on this topic on other pages. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the recent edits are exactly what  was thinking of when he said "calculated aggravation".  I don't agree with Hugh's edits but until we have a stable fuel system controversy section here it is premature to add the summary material to other articles. Springee (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I left a talk page comment on [|Talk History of Ford Motor Company] briefly noting some of the the issues with the recent Pinto related edits to the article. I also noted that ultimately the material on those articles should reflect the content here.  The tag noting issues with the lead is perhaps ironically correct given the Pinto material added to the lead.  Springee (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This doesn't look like anything more than battleground behavior. It also doesn't look like the appropriate location. It also looks like your canvassing for support.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Judging from the behavior here, and from the previous need for multiple topic bans to be imposed on Hugh, another topic ban might be in his best interests. Better to be banned from one topic, than be indef blocked from editing all articles. Considering the prior block history and topic bans, I'm guessing that an indef block from editing, isn't too far away. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging from the behavior right here, he's not the only one that needs to be topic banned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Who else would you suggest to be topic banned? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors who inappropriately open an ANI discussion inappropriately on an articles talk page to drum up support and campaign for a future ANI they plan on opening would be a great target for a topic ban as this type of behavior is highly disruptive.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Seeing that it involves people on this talk page and this article, the comments were suitable.
 * It's much better than sending comments would be sent to individual editor's talk pages, therefore intentionally targeting certain editors. There is no realistic difference between a pre-ANI report comment, and someone making an ANI report, and linking to it, on the article that there has been a dispute on. Infact, it might be better to make the comments before an ANI report, and seeing if there are any better solutions proposed,before taking up more editors' time on ANI. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not even a point to offer a rebuttal. This talk page is not forum. It's being used as a forum to see who dislikes HughD. It doesn't mean a damn thing if you do not like HughD. Whether you like HughD has nothing at all relevant to do with a ford Pinto. Not kind of. Not sort of. Not even in a round about way. WP:TALK Here's all about article talk pages. Oh and infact WP:TALK suggests you use WP:DISPUTE resolution if you have a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior. WP:DISPUTE does not tell you to bring battleground behavior like this to the talk page of an article. It doesn't tell you to WP:VOTESTACK for support before an ANI. There wouldn't be any problem with someone coming here to find a solution to resolve any content dispute. That's even something that can be labeled.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry that you didn't get the answer you were looking for. I don't think anyone here gives a flying fuck about liking or disliking Hugh. This is about his edits and his conduct. I'd suggest that if this was the first incident involving Hugh, you might have a valid point, but it isn't and you don't. I'd politely suggest that you defer to editors who have more experience actually editing articles, rather than spending all their time on wikipedia debating points in ANI. Editors with extensive experience actually making an encyclopedia, tend to understand how harmful a disruptive editor can be to an article's progress.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, You thought I was looking for an answer? I didn't realize as what typed has been an obvious statement against this behavior as opposed to questioning anything. And yes, you correct, many experienced editors know how detrimental disruptive behavior is to wikipedia, for example disruptive behavior like this. That's ok though, eventually when you get some experience you might learn more about the policies and guidelines of wikipedia as well. And if it's all the same to you, I'm going to go back to not inappropriately using this talk page as a Forum even though there are users so experienced that the rules apply to them in no way.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I think I will trust the judgement of editors with a little more experience with actually editing articles, rather than just looking for drama in talk pages and wiki-lawyering than yourself. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's better to not use words like wiki-lawyering when you do not understand them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "It's to not use words" ? erm..... wanna rephrase that? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness you found a minor error from a disabled person. Thank you much. "It's better to not..."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't get defensive, please. If I was attempting to criticize you based on your English, I would be far less subtle, I just didn't understand what you were saying. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for joining the fray guys. re "inappropriately open an ANI discussion" - Was this aimed at me? How exactly was this inappropriate? Several editors here suggested HughD's behavior was disruptive. I thought ANI was the correct forum to take this situation to. re "It's being used as a forum to see who dislikes HughD." - So if you don't want the discussion to take place here, and you apparently don't want it to take place at ANI, where should it take place? re "This is about his edits and his conduct." - Precisely. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that directed at me, or serialjoe? I'm of the opinion that the discussion is suitable both here (it's related to this article) and ANI (they are equipped to deal with it) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Sorry for the ambiguity. I was replying to comments from both you and Serial. Your comment (i.e. This is about his edits....), I responded to with "Precisely". NickCT (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

NickCT, ANI is the perfect location to have this discussion and highly appropriate. Talk:Ford Pinto is not. This looks more like you a convening a meeting of the "I hate HughD club" than really talking anything about to do with the Ford Pinto. This is the very definition of WP:BATTLEGROUND, as you are WP:CANVASSing a faction to take on HughD at ANI. This is not a forum for "I hate HughD" or even a forum at all. This is a page set a side to discuss Ford Pinto, the article, and the issues the article has, but not the issues you have with the editors involved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be debate if NickCT was correct in drafting this section. I think it's important to remember NickCT was acting in good faith.  I guess a fair question is what would be the best way to have initiated the ANI?  I'm sure part of the reason for asking other editors is simply a sanity check before filing an ANI. Springee (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can either view NickCT's actions as good faith or I can view NickCT as a competent Editor. I can not do both and I've chosen to view NickCT as a competent editor. The best way to initiate an ANI? They explain everything over at the top of the page at ANI. Want to read about talk page guidelines go to WP:talk. Want to learn about dispute resolution go to WP:DISPUTE.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ah but policy tells us to assume good faith. Not competency....... ;-p   Regardless, I honestly don't feel like my starting this thread was "campaigning" or canvassing. I don't really feel recalcitrant. I'm sorry that you feel it was inappropriate. Please appreciate that I'm just doing my best to try to fix a problem. NickCT (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To assume good faith, yes, but not to slit your wrist.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "I honestly don't feel like my starting this thread was "campaigning" or canvassing" Starting it aside, keeping a talk page thread "Pursue Topic Ban for HughD?" active for 3 weeks is very certainly campaigning and canvassing, and keeping a talk page thread "Pursue Topic Ban for HughD?" active for 3 weeks after filing the proposed ANI filing is very certainly campaigning and canvassing. There is an open formal RfC on this page. An RfC is a dispute resolution step. Hugh (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "keeping it active" mean? Are you suggesting I should have archived this thread? NickCT (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be great of you or anyone else for that matter to archive it. It would be better if you didn't escalate this. The old proverb, two wrongs don't make a right, consider it. Your not an innocent victim, We are very likely beyond two wrongs on both sides. Perhaps the two of you can make a gentleman's agreement to only discuss the article and to avoid talking to each otherwise. Hugh, Also consider the complaints of you longwindedness and if you can strive for brevity at least here. One final thing for you to consider, there's no deadline, if possible try not to overload the page. Let some stuff resolve before you add 20 more things here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Given ANI failed to come to a resolution on this, I think this thread is now obsolete. No objections to archival. NickCT (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This was subject to archival the moment you opened it with or without your objection. I'm not archiving it. You can fix your bad faith yourself.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - Man joe. You're a peach. NickCT (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would ask that editors here review the Ford Pinto related material being added to History of Ford Motor Company Springee (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that you mention this article, and noting the discussions about Lawsuits below, History of FMC may be an apt location for the bulk of any major and notable cases if there's no reason to create a stand alone article for these cases.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think such a move might run into a big article length issue. There are probably enough legal and other significant cases that eventually you would overwhelm the page.  I think things like the Firestone recall (largely a Ford Explorer issue) are often given stand alone pages.  That said, I'm somewhat indifferent on the subject.  Certainly the fire controversy is a hugely notable part of the car and its legacy so keeping it here also has merit.  Springee (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Expand Ford_Pinto? - Judy Ulrich
It seems there's a significant amount of coverage regarding the death Judy Ulrich and subsequent trial. Might be worth adding something about that to Ford_Pinto. (ref) NickCT (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ section Ford Pinto. Thanks! Hugh (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sectioning Compromise?
Having read a little more into the analysis performed on the Pinto's safety, it seems there's clearly a reasonable amount of RS arguing that the Pinto was not as dangerous as the public perceived it to be. After some reflection, I think that's a good, WP:DUE and fair piece of information to have in the article. I think the disagreement here has been caused not by the point User:Greglocock and User:842U trying to make, but by the way they're trying to make it. Here's a solution I think we might all find palatable.

Let's create two subsections. The first subsection will cover the public controversy generated by the Ford memo revelations. The second subsection will discuss the more technical and statistical analysis of the danger issue. In that second subsection we can mention the fact that there were analyses done suggesting the Pinto wasn't really all that dangerous (I would still prefer we simply cite Schwartz rather than name him here). That subsection can also include the NHTSA head testimony.

There are really two stories here. 1) The controversy created by the Ford report. 2) The subsequent research suggesting the controversy may have been overblown. If we divide those two stories into two subsections I think it's going to be clearer for the reader. I also think this solution is going to let everyone insert the information they want in there.

Does this sound fair? NickCT (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting idea. There is no doubt the controversy exists, and hence should be documented, and I'd argue there is little doubt the attack part of the controversy was overblown, and the exaggerations in the MJ article and subsequent tag-ons should be examined and refuted via RS. Greglocock (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's possible this could work. The proof is in the pudding. In the meantime: there are not two but at least four stories to the fuel tank conversy: the initial media firestorm, subsequent litigation, the vehicle recall and the later Schwartz Study (five if you count the business ethics case study aspect). While there is an attempt to call references to the Schwartz Study "cherry-picking," the cherry picking seems to be occurring right now, in the article.  As it stands, there has been an effort to expunge the topic from the article.  And as it stands, the article has zero mention of the Schwartz paper in the article.  Clearly there editors completely content with that: ergo a highly dubious effort to lean the article in away from ONE counterpoint (Schwartz Study) while including THREE/FOUR points against the car. It is highly advisable that editors "against inclusion" of the Schwartz study at least revise the article in the interim -- make some mention of it, to show good faith.  Otherwise there is a willful disregard for telling the whole story. 842U (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support this idea as well. The public perception and the misinformation that was out there is VERY important because it not only guided people's understanding of the car but became the basis for many discussions on corporate ethics.  Ford has yet to live down the false accusation that they calculated that it was cheaper to pay off families vs install a cheap part (The Danley paper I mention is particularly significant in this regard).  I would add that I think we need to start off the public perception part with some sort of note that many of the facts and understanding initially reported were later found to be incorrect.  Basically we should warn the reader that the section is telling what was told and what the public understood, not what was later found to be true under careful and impassioned analysis.  Springee (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggestion Propose rolling the article back to the version with the Schwartz paper specifically mentioned until the better version that NickTC is created. Even though I agree with some of the concerns regarding how the article was a few weeks back, I think it's much better with that information vs without.  Given the clear evidence that the Ford design was not out of historic norms and that most of the MJ claims about the safety issues and corporate thinking were clearly wrong I think it's a disservice to leave the material out.    Springee (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - Appreciate your input. Give me 48 hr to give the "two subsection" resolution a stab. I think I can do this in a way that will make everyone happy. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. If you can get access to it I would really suggest reading these references as well: Danley, "Polishing up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk" Business Ethics Quarterly and Lee and Ermann, "Madness as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational Network Analysis", Social Problems.  They are long reads so perhaps just some skimming but they both support the general views of Schwartz with regards to the facts as well as discuss why much of the moral outrage was misguided.  To keep things more focused on the car and the controversy I would probably pick several of the key issues raised by MJ (tank location, value of life calculation, previous, "secret" Ford rear impact tests, projected number of deaths, law suits, others?)  These items could be described is a bit of detail.  The next section could be used to describe the same points as seen by the more recent scholarly work (Schwartz and others).  Springee (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - I took a stab. Would appreciate review.
 * re "suggest reading these references as well" - Ok. I will take a look if I get a chance. Please be WP:BOLD if you want to add the material yourself. You'll notice there's now a Ford_Pinto subsection where I think indepth analysis of the safety issue ought to go.
 * re "pick several of the key issues raised by MJ (tank location, value of life calculation.....described is a bit of detail." - Yes. In reading over this, I've seen a lot of coverage on the Pinto Memo and the value of life calculation. I was half considering another subsection call The Pinto memo. That subsection could detail the value of life calculation. Again, I can take a stab at this, but if you're feeling up to it, you should be WP:BOLD. NickCT (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick, perhaps tonight I can do some edits. The hard part is I read the articles a while back so I have to re-read them just to know what I think should be put in!  Anyway, thanks for starting this off. Springee (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is looking ok, but is there some reason there is no mention of Schwartz? 842U (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - See my comment above re "I would still prefer we simply cite Schwartz rather than name him here". I've already cited him. I'm not sure what the rationale would be for calling him out by name. I'm guessing Shwartz analysis is probably pretty similar to Danley's as Springee suggested. We should summarize all of their work, but I'm not sure we should name any of them.  NickCT (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the same rational of not citing Schwartz, let's also not look at citing the details and names of a lawsuit. Let's cite summary lawsuit information from any of the numerous citations and business case studies.842U (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * re "let's also not look at citing the details and names of a lawsuit" - Agree that we definitely don't want a long list of lawsuits and details. It might be worth naming one or two of the most prominent ones though. NickCT (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - No.... Thank you! You've provided good third party opinion, commentary and insight on this topic. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the intro changes I've just made. I think the paragraph has more do with legacy than anything else, and need summarize rather than detail the specific allegations, exonerations etc. 842U (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've taken a look. I like most of what you've done, but there are two or three edits I think are a little questionable. I'm going to WP:BRD those edits and give detailed explanations below. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 - Undid lead changes because 1) Your use of punctuation seems a little unorthodox. Are you using all those semi-colons for a reason? 2) The fuel tank controversy is probably a lot more notable than the rebagded variant. We should keep the controversy lede summary higher in the lead. NickCT (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 - Partially undid changes to the "Emergence.." subsection b/c 1) changing "saying that" -> "allegedly". I'm a bit confused why we'd use the word "allegedly". Everyone agrees that the Ford did know about the issue and had done a cost-benefit analysis, right? Is there anything in doubt there? 2) Regarding the line starting "and was subsequently revealed to per...."; this really confused me. This statement seems out of line with all the sources on this topic. Could you quote the specific line in Shwartz you are getting this info from? NickCT (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thinking a little more about the "and was subsequently revealed to per..."; I think you're getting this from the Walter Olson piece? I took a look at that reference. I think it's probably an Op-ed. While the WSJ is a RS, commentary in their Op-ed section should not be used for factual information. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede semi-colons have been changed to commas and the order has been changed to reflect your request. The paragraph has been modified to remove all colored language. Re: allegations: at the time Mother Jones published its article, it was making allegations.  Yes, we know more now than we did then, but that goes both ways, e.g., the memo.842U (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This thread was a significant milestone in the editorial progress of this article. 13-14 February 2016 a consensus was reached on what is really a very straight-forward non-controversial re-affirmation of fundamental principles of Wikipedia editing: we endeavor to keep facts and events separate from opinions and interpretation, and present facts and events to our readers before opinions and interpretation. A consensus was reached to treat retrospective opinions in a "Subsequent analysis" subsection, and, on behalf of the consensus, a "Subsequent analysis" subsection was established for this very purpose. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit: add 60 Minutes and 20/20
"On June 11, 1978, two days after Ford announced the Pinto recall, CBS televised a segment of 60 Minutes on the Ford Pinto. Host Mike Wallace opened saying, 'Is your car safe? Well, if you're driving a Ford Pinto, vintage 1971 to '76, the answer seems to be: Not as safe as it could be.' The report included an interview with Ford Pinto fire crash victim Richard Grimshaw, and an interview with Ford's vice president of safety, who said that the value of a human life used in cost-benefit analyses was set by the US government, not by Ford, and that the cost-benefit analysis was taken out of context. The ABC News television program 20/20 ran a segment on the Ford Pinto in June, 1978 featuring the Grimshaw tragedy."



While the Mother Jones magazine coverage was important, it was hardly the only media coverage. Schwartz credits CBS with a role in motivating the recall. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Additional reliable source added Hugh (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No car is as safe as it could be. Obviously. So that segment, which should probably be included, needs quotes around it via any of the sources (say gladwell) that point out that the Pinto was at least as safe as its competitors. 22:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support in including the 60 Minutes segment. "Not as safe as it could be" is in quotes, attributed in-text to Wallace, and the source verifies that Wallace said that. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I support including it IF it is accompanied by the information I suggested. Greglocock (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What information do you suggest? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * " needs quotes around it via any of the sources (say gladwell) that point out that the Pinto was at least as safe as its competitors." wasting my time again Hugh, even when I agree with you?Greglocock (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , we have been asked to take advantage of this page lock to discuss proposed content changes. You have expressed conditional support for the above proposal, if supplemented by some additional content. May I respectfully ask, what do you propose we add to the above proposed content, such that you would support it? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC), I would like to please hear from you on this question. Thank you again in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, that is a bit of a dishonest statement. "We were asked" ignores that the article was locked because you were edit warring.  You were not willing to engage in talk page discussions before the article was locked.  Since it was locked you have been pushing for all sorts of 3rd party feedback.  When that feedback didn't go your way you weren't willing to accept "no" for an answer. Springee (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , do I understand from your comments above, that you feel, in order for the above proposed edit to be acceptable to you, the paragraph must include the testimony of a former head of the NHTSA, testifying in defense of Ford, in a criminal trail in Indiana in 1980, two years later, regarding his general statement about the overall safety of the Ford Pinto compared to other cars, even though the testimony is already duly covered in our article in the subsection specific to the Indiana trial? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Include but not as proposed: The 60 Minutes news article was important in shaping public opinion and thus political pressure related to the Pinto case.  However, the news article has been shown to be largely incorrect (see primarily Schwartz).  We should not include quotes in a way that the reader may intemperate as a WP statement of fact. Springee (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is in quotes, and clearly attributed in-text, in conformance with policy WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. What is your objection to this proposed edit? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. The clear consensus of noteworthy reliable sources is that public awareness of the fire safety of the Ford Pinto was a noteworthy significant factor in NHTSA investigation and the recall of the Ford Pinto. The clear consensus of noteworthy reliable sources is that Ford desire to limit further damage to its reputation was a noteworthy significant factor in Ford recalling the Pinto. Ford was aware that major network media coverage was imminent at the time they announced the recall. The current article content mentions only the media coverage by one article in one magazine, Mother Jones, and so is grossly non-neutral with respect to reliable sources and misleading to our readers. The clear consensus of noteworthy reliable sources is that the Mother Jones article was a noteworthy significant factor in raising public awareness, but it was far from the only media coverage of the fire safety of the Pinto and certainly not the most widely read or viewed. It is due weight that we accurately summarize the breadth of the media coverage that fomented public awareness and concerned Ford. Addressing this neutrality issue is an editorial priority with this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit: add 30 December 1976 Jack Anderson Washington Post column
Add one sentence with four references before the sentences on the Mother Jones article in the Ford Pinto subsection:

"Among the first public attention to the fire safety of Ford automobiles was December 30, 1976 when columnist Jack Anderson and investigative journalist Les Whitten writing in The Washington Post said that Ford testing had revealed a fire hazard posed by the placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle in some Ford models, and that 'thousands' had died or been disfigured in fires after crashes."

Discussion

 * Support as proposer. The 1976 Anderson column is noteworthy as a contributor to the public awareness of Ford fire safety, and as a predecessor to the 1977 Mother Jones article, and exhibits significant similarity in terms of tone, claims, and vaguely substantiated claims. The clear consensus of noteworthy reliable sources is that public awareness and the 1977 Mother Jones article had noteworthy roles in the events leading up to the NHTSA investigation and recall of the Pinto; however, the Mother Jones article was not the first, and far from the only, media coverage of Ford fire safety, and certainly not the most widely read. The current article content mentions only the media coverage by one article in one low-circulation niche magazine, Mother Jones, and so is grossly non-neutral with respect to reliable sources and misleading to our readers. Addressing this neutrality issue is an editorial priority with this article.

Comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Pretty clearly HughD trying push his POV that the MJ wasn't central in getting the Pinto controversy started. What he's proposing here isn't inaccurate, but it's pretty clearly undue. Very few sources covering the Pinto safety issue note the Anderson article. Very many sources covering the Pinto safety issue point to the MJ article. Obvious example of WP:UNDUE weight. Pretty sad POV push. NickCT (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. The strong consensus of noteworthy reliable sources is that public awareness was significant in the lead-up to the NHTSA investigation and Pinto recall; currently our article mentions only one media report; it is non-neutral with respect to multiple reliable sources to present Mother Jones as the first or only media coverage of this issue. How can it be undue to add one sentence to our article to cover a second, earlier media report, that said many of the same things as the Mother Jones article, and was in a venue The Washington Post much more widely read than Mother Jones, by notable syndicated columnists Jack Anderson and Les Whitten much more widely recognized than the author of the Mother Jones article, and was covered by multiple noteworthy reliable sources in relating the build-up of public awareness? How would you summarize the above sources? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: A 3rd opinion was requested regarding this addition. NickCT is correct, this is just an attempt to piecemeal material into the article in a way that isn't supported by reliable sources.  RS's make it clear that the Mother Jones article and it's accusations kicked off the public controversy surrounding the Pinto.  Any independent 3rd party review should take note of the  [|Pursue Topic Ban for HughD?] section below.  Springee (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)