Talk:Firestone and Ford tire controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firestone and Ford tire controversy article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Why shouldn't this whole article be deleted?

I know this is pretty brash for an unregistered user, but please explain why any of this article should stand without citations? The whole article is composed of unsourced statements of questionable accuracy. Check out Unless someone decides to back up any of these bald assertions, I think the article should be junked. 65.175.178.198 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The article should not be deleted, it should be edited. If I get a chance, I'll do it myself, but it may be a few months. If somebody could do it sooner, please beat me to the punch. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] current version of this article is copied from the section in Ford Explorer

I commented out the line saying that the current version of this article is copied from the section in Ford Explorer, so I thought I'd announce it here. --Laura Scudder 23:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Title

The title of this article is misleading. It gives the reader the idea that there was a court case involving Firestone versus Ford. This is incorrect and should be changed. Perhaps this should be moved to Firestone, Ford Explorer controversy or some other title. Any other suggestions are always welcome. -moogle 22:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old name

Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy Travb (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.136.85 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Bad article

If I can be so blunt, this is a terrible article, with zero sources. Both articles would be better served being merged into the respective Ford and Firestone sections, where more editors can edit and improve the article. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The Ford article needs things taken out, not more put back. It's massive. Mark83 15:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.136.85 (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose. You're right, Travb, this is not a well-written article. However, it could be, with a little work, and this subject is notable by itself. This was a huge deal in the news when it happened. I think that it deserves it's own article. I don't like the title of the article (maybe just "Firestone tire controversy" would be better, or something else), but I think that there should be sections about it in the Firestone and Ford articles, with "Full Article:" links to this article. --Aervanath 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Firestone article already has a section on it.--Aervanath 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed Actually, on second thought, I agree. Thanks for your comments all.Travb (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I would tend to agree that this should not be merged with the Ford and Firestone articles. I concur that the Ford article is way too cluttered with extraneous material, and this material would only serve to further that clutter. I also concur that the topic deserves a seperate article. If the Firestone article already has a mention of the topic, then it should be removed from there, a sentence or two should describe what happened, and link to a separate article (this one) for the topic. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Tag

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)