Talk:Henry Ford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Henry Ford article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives

Archive #1 early threads

Archive #2 multiple threads on anti-semitism, dearborn independent, education


Contents

[edit] Rename the "Dearborn Independent" Section

Hey if anyone has any useful info not on this page post it because I'm doing a research paper on him and I need stuff. Gunshow-Puzzle Pirates-Viridian(hehe im not gonna put my rl name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.191.58 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The section marked "Dearborn Independent" should be labeled "Anti-Semitism." The current title is not only inaccurate, as that section does not focus solely on the Independent, but it also downplays Ford's significant contribution to US anti-Semitism. Regardless of claims that Ford recanted his anti-Semitism or had Jewish friends, it is historically indisuptable that he played a major role in spreading anti-Jewish propaganda, particularly in the pre-war period.

Yes, it deserves a detailed section! The reason is simple: It`s well documented that Ford’s books ( four bound volumes ) “The international Jew: the World's Foremost Problem”, “Jewish Activities in the United States“, “Jewish Influences in American Life”, "Aspects of Jewish Power in the United States" had a great impact on the development and popularisation of modern Anti-Semitism. --Sushi Leone 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Before doing anything to the MOST contentious section of the article, be sure to read through the talk page, talk archives, and review the page history. This secion of Ford's biography here has gone through more fighting and dissent than any other. the section as it stands is the result of staving off numerous revisionists who associate the criticism of Ford with criticism of the US as a whole. Others seek to whitewash his actions, putting all the blame on others around him. Finally, the type and use of sources has been questioned as regards that. Plese fully familiarize yourself with the contentions first, review any sources you would prefer to use and check for criticisms of the sources, and so on. This part of the article can grow fights faster than my flower bed grows dandelions. Thank you for your circumspection. ThuranX 16:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been around working on this article for a while. The fact that the Dearborn Independent page has no reference to anti-semitism is ridiculous. The WHOLE section about the Dearborn Independent concerns charges of anti-semitism, and there is nothing in that section that is not concerned with allegations of anti-semitism. Who specifically is opposing the renaming of this section? Is it still Rjensen or one of his sockpuppets[1], or are there new whitewashers? -jncohen 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No, this is a 6 month old talk section, which was easilty settled out. I'm watching for white-washing, but support the consensus for the heading as is. As to the content of the DI page itself, that should be addressed there, not here. ThuranX 14:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locked?

Why is this article locked without a posted notice as to why? I'm not sure what policy applies to this matter, but I thought at least obvious notification of the lock (and its planned expiration?) was required. Thanks.63.88.58.254 21:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is NOT locked, it's semi-protected. If you'd like to edit, register an account. This article is often subject to edits which seek to hide, excuse, or thoroughly eliminate all of Ford's anti-semitism. Other editors like to attack other aspects of his character, insult the products of his company, and so on. Hope that helps. ThuranX 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That DOES help, thank you.63.88.58.254 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alclad (technicality)

Under the "Ford Airplane Company" section, Alclad is stated to be a "new alloy ... that combined the corrosion resistance of aluminum with the strength of duralumin" This is incorrect. Aluminum is an element, and Duralumin is an alloy itself of Aluminum. You can't characterize an alloy as being made of an element and another alloy. In addition to that, Alclad is actually not an alloy, but a sheet of aluminum composite as described here [2], here [3], and here [4]. As a side note, perhaps one could make a stub for Alclad based on the technical definition provided by someone who manufactures it? --Aaronjbryant 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Slight Puzzlement

Although the notice at the top of the talk page suggests that the page is not for discussion about the article, and despite the fact that vast quantities of such appear to have been occurring, I have run into a point of contention within the article, not as the result of a dispute over the accuracy of a given claim, but because it just doesn't appear to make much logical sense.

The article reads: "As sole owner of the Ford Company he became one of the richest and best-known people in the world," and then "Ford shunned greed and did not believe in accountants; he amassed one of the world's largest fortunes without ever having his company audited."

So, Ford 'shunned greed', yet managed to amass 'one of the largest fortunes' and become 'one of richest people in the world'.

I would suggest, firstly, that the descriptions of Ford's wealth are fascinatingly vague: 'one of the largest fortunes' where? In the US? In the world? Presumably in the world, in light of one of the phrases, but both could use some definition.

Secondly, personally, I find the statements rather contradictory; the use of the word 'greed' may be part of the problem, but if one takes that to at least imply a taste for the accumulation of wealth, it's very hard to see how someone can actually shun it and manage to accumulate one of the largest such fortunes around. In light of this, and given it's treatment as fact and lack of citation, it's very hard not to view the remark as an expression of a point of view, possibly an original one. Perhaps this means to suggest that Ford made personal statements to the effect that he 'shunned greed', in which case that is what the article should make clear, or that he is somewhere regarded as having 'shunned greed' in light of his, at that time perhaps innovative, approach to industrial production, including the minimum wage, etc., in which case the source of such regard should be cited - and bearing in mind that a critic could just as easily suggest that that is simply a clever way of accumulating wealth, and that capitalism, 'welfare' or not, hardly constitutes the 'shunning of greed'.

In addition, I'm sure I remember seeing a documentary some years ago about Ford and the early Ford factories, and was under the impression that the 'investigators' mentioned here as essentially employed in the interests of the wellbeing of employees also acted as anti-union spies, covert or otherwise, keeping watch for any signs of union activity or union-active workers? Similarly, I'm sure I recall the same suggesting that management also exploited racial divisions and lack of communication between white workers and black workers to hold back wage increases? Perhaps I'll try some 'net searches . . .

All the same, my other points still stand, I think they need addressing if the article is to make proper sense and provide a balanced view without recourse to biased POV or 'original research'. LSmok3 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is fine to discuss specific issues to improve the article. It's also contentious due to some of Ford's beliefs that create over-zealous and absurd policing even for everything else, with a tone to match. That said, this wiki needs also more references, as like you, I've found claims without evidence for the claim -- like, "By 1918, half of all cars in America were Model T'". Nice claim but where is the reference? Article needs clarifications, indeed! FResearcher 09:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
First, the article has both references and footnotes, some statements are sourced to the books. Second, it's possible to be a successful businessman without becoming a scrooge-esque, if you will, personality. Bill Gates donates far above his tax level every year in goods, monies and services worldwide, but also zealously protects his product. If eschewing greed means you cannot be a business success, then America's full of hypocrites, by your standards. Ford didn't believe in hoarding, but did believe in ethical success has always been how I've read those sections. As to your discussion of the investigators, probably need a source for that if you want to revise it. If you want proof about the Model T, find a source and add it to the article. ThuranX 11:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Where's the reference to "By 1918, half of all cars in America were Model T"? That's a bold statement without a cite, and if it was in a book, put the reference after the sentence so folks can research the claim. Afterall, Wiki articles are prone to personal opinions (no matter how much the defenders rant about WP:ETC ad naseaum), let alone publishers typos and what is known as "yellow journalism". FResearcher 08:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you might disagree with my point in political terms - that, perhaps, is a debate in itself, the reference to Gates (and indeed, modern business in general) notwithstanding (MS has frequently been in court for monopoly proceedings, as a major corporate entity has some role as a political lobbyist, and has had a hand in Iraq, alongside Halliburton et al, in post-invasion 'reconstruction' planning). I still maintain that I find it a contradiction, (my 'standards', yes), and your phrase 'ethical success', in light of the suppression of unions and the use of a prize-winning boxer for such (according to this article) would be another. I wouldn't really want to get drawn into a consideration of the 'moral character' of business success, whatever its regard for some, the personal motivations of individual businessmen or innovators, because that, for me, is rather beside the point (including in light of your specifically corporate example - the corporation as an economic unit would be another concern). Yes, of course, I suggested I would do some research (when I get around to it) to check up on my vague memories of the documentary in question - I just mentioned it because I wondered if anyone else knew anything of the same. But we don't want to get bogged down in a debate. Ahem. Nonetheless my point still firmly stands. You've effectively repeated the remark, substituting the word 'hoarding' instead (to which I would respond with exactly the same point). But regardless, IMO the reference to the shunning of greed, with or without the reference to Ford's actual wealth, IS the expression of an opinion and therefore needs to be cited. LSmok3 01:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see it. A man can be a success, and use his wealth to give back to the community. that he keeps a share, reflecting his wealth and efforts, yet gives generously of his income overall, doesn't reflect a contradiction. This is one of the basic principles of Conservative (and less so Neo-Con) thinking. One can be religious, give charitably, eschew the sentiments of 'greed', that is, eager hoarding in the Scrooge model, and still gain wealth and so on. Your determination seems to assert that those who oppose greed would thus be ascetics, living frugally and humbly. And there's a contradiction for you. Souter's humble, yet wealthy. Ford rich, no, but poor, heck no. I think that you see a contradiction based on your own POV. From Ford's POV, the acquiring of wealth through his efforts was acceptable ,but to recklessly pursue more would've represented greed, which he avoided. I honestly believe that this is a case of a reader bringing their POV to the article, not the article expressing a POV. Finaly, I am not a republican, but a recent article in Reason regarding the exorbitation (my POV) salaries of executives and Hedge Fund managers does she a bit of light on the relativistic standards the public engages when examining the incomes of others. (At least, I think it was Reason, it might've been The Economist). Anyways, the contention there was that although pays have skyrocketed, the pay continues to reflect either a steady, or shrinking, proportion compared to the wealth their management brings to the company or the fund. The argument made is that, as civilians, as 'the public', we say wow, they make disgusting amounts, but as investors, we see their efforts reflected in stock prices, and we say 'Yay, he's making us money', it's hard to divorce the views in some minds, hard to juxtapose them at all in the minds of others. I really recommend the article, it might give you some perspective into this sort of situation. Further, I don't want to be contentious, and I do believe that you're acting inthe best interests of a good article. However, I think this needs to be carefully examined from within and without before changing it, and I genuinely don't see the contradictions you see. ThuranX 02:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Apparently what you're not seeing is how words play. Maybe it's just words to you (like our disagreement with the use of "color" or "colour"), but words can be a reflection of the writer, and can "poison the well" of unbiased knowledge. For example, "hoard" can be seen as having a negative meaning, as "shunning greed" can be seen as a Socialist/Communist remark from the wiki editor taking a stab at Ford's capitalistic ideals. More neutral words describing the subject will dispell such ideas. Henry Ford is a controversial figure, and his inventions and life shouldn't be a political/idealogical football. Nor is Wikipedia that football field. You may not see XYZ, but others do. Remember Wiki articles are a group project, not your personal own. Please keep the "our" and "we" out of the replies, as of late, it's only "you" who's disagreeing. FResearcher 09:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
THe only 'Or' and 'we' used in my above statement were in regard to public perceptions as discussed in an article on a magazine, not in this Henry Ford article. Further, There is NO totally unbiased wording. That you see a socialist/communist attack on Ford in the article by use of the phrase 'shunning greed' is how YOU read it, based on your pre-existing biases. That I see no such thing shows that the wording is neutral enough that two different people can read it in different ways. were it so heavily loaded, then I too would read it in that way, but I don't, and I do find troubles with Ford's character in a number of areas. However, you're proposing a change to a section that's stood that way for quite a while. As it's stayed for a while, I have t oAGF and believe that the numerous other editors who've worked on this article all similarly didn't read a major contradiction into the article, and have let it stay. This article's had a lot of contentious arguments about how to shape and word it, but you're the first bringing this up, so you haave the burden of demonstrating that it's really bad to form a consensus to change it. And you don't have consensus, and I don't see this phrasing as bad at all. I also have to AGF and believe that, as we do not call for line-by-line citation, the greed/earning power dichotomoy you see is established in the references listed at the bottom. Finally, that you both see a 'socialst/communist' attack there, and are seeking to remove it also shows a POV on your part, perhaps a pro-capitalist, pro-American bias. As for your assertion that "it's only "you" who's disagreeing", no, you two editors are disagreeing with the current state, an in a way that I object to because I simply don't see it the way you do, and you've really done nothing yet to convince me of it, except talk down to me because I insist on spelling matching citation, instead of just changing it to how it's obviously really spelled of course, so I *MUST* be an illiterate who doesn't understand the use of words. ThuranX 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

The lead is a mess with no sources. It reads like color commentary. Can't it be shorted and stick to basic souracble facts? The rest of the stuff can go/is further in the article it seems. Any help would be great. Thanks--Tom 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The leads don't need sources. The can give an overview, which is supported by the article and citations within sections. Further, if you'd like to rewrite it, please make suggestions here as to what would ned changing, and how you'd do it. ThuranX 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about:

Henry Ford (July 30, 1863 – April 7, 1947) was the American founder of the Ford Motor Company and a prolific inventor with 161 U.S. patents. His introduction of the Model T automobile and the modern moving assembly line revolutionized transportation and American industry. He is credited with "Fordism", that is, the mass production of large numbers of inexpensive automobiles using the assembly line coupled with high wages for his workers. His commitment to lowering costs resulted in many technical and business innovations, including a franchise system that put a dealership in every city in North America, and in major cities on six continents. As sole owner of the Ford Company he became one of the richest and best-known people in the world. Upon his death, Ford left most of his vast wealth to the Ford Foundation but arranged for his family to control the company permanently. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to rename Dearborn Independent section "The Dearborn Independent and Allegations of Antisemitism"

After a full review of the talk page archives, I propose the above change for the following reasons:

  • The purpose of a section heading is to succinctly identify the core issues covered in the section. The central focused topic of this section is the anti-semitic material printed in the Dearborn Independent, not the newspaper as a whole. I cannot stress this strongly enough. If the section was mostly composed of a general and non-specific history of the newspaper while it was run by Henry Ford, the mere name alone would be appropriate. However, using just the name in this controversial context appears to be inaccurately non-specific.

Further: the inline citations fully support that the core nature of the section deals with the various allegations of antisemitism levied against Mr. Ford. I am not judging the validity of the allegations themselves, only that the sources which refer to the allegations all meet WP:RS and WP:UW.

Keep in mind, I have no dog in the Henry Ford fight, and this is a matter of pure procedural accuracy. WP:NPOV does not pick sides. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 20:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It was named that, or quite similar for a time, but was at some point changed. I see little reason not to change it 'back' (or to your suggestion), but one, wait a bit, and two, check the archives to ensure it wasn't consensus'd out. There were a lot of fights about that section for a long time, including Nationalistic editors who felt any negative coverage of Ford was anti-american, and others who felt for was thoroughly innocent, persecuted by ebil zionist cabalzez. Tread lightly here, but I concur. ThuranX 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
As I stated, I reviewed the archives and found no evidence of consensus on either side. This is not an issue of consensus, and I'm not making any sort of allegation against (or for) Henry Ford. If the change was a legitimate matter of dispute, I would be suggesting Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before any changes were made. But this is pretty basic procedural stuff: a section head is merely a descriptor that is named after the contents of the section itself. This is NOT a reflection on the ultimate truth or falsehood of the content itself.

I don't care if Henry Ford said the moon was made of green cheese; if there was a section containing a large historical controversy with many reliable sources attesting to the existence of the controversy, and Henry Ford made the claims in, say, the New York Times, the section head would read "Green Cheese controversy", not "New York Times". Basic Wikipedia article style is not subject to POV. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please self-revert for a period of say, 72 hours, to allow other editors to review thsi section and weigh in. Your fast change after I specifically asked for you to be cautious is frankly insulting. In order to avoid edit wars, please self-revert to discuss it back here for three days. after such time, go make the edit. But really, waitign just long enough for one 'concur' isn't long enough. Thank you in advance for cooperating. ThuranX 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Henry Ford's Greatness as the automobile genius can never be taken away from him. Nevertheless, what he has done to the paper he bough, called the Dearborn Independent can be summed up in three words: The International Jew, an accomplshment which earned him the admiration of Adolf Hitler. To imagine that there is anything else of any significance to be made note of in an encyclopedia is very unlikely to be consistent with reality. A better way of putting the essence of the matter in cyberspace would be the following (if that's what's asked for):
    The Dearborn Independent = Antisemitism
What do you think of this suggestion? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a bad idea. this is an encyclopedia, and has particular standards for headings; the use of symbols is discouraged. Further, we don't seek to equate the two, as if to say that antisemitism is ALL the DI did. If that were true, then the DI wouldn't have lasted long. We're seeking to correlate the DI's publication ofthe protocols with Ford's antisemetic views. The suggested heading is a good one, I simply want time for consensus. ThuranX 02:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I was joking - but you took me seriously. What I tried to say is that the only thing for which the DI is remembered today is the IJ - and that Mr. Henry Ford owned it. Don't you see that? Whatever else the DI ever did - even before Ford bought, or even after 1927 when he finally Publicly (though not Privately) renounced his Antisemitism, the IJ overshadows all else. Can you tell me one thing of any importance associated with the DI? It's like this: Do you know why we cannot see any stars in the daytime? It's because of the light of the Sun. Do you get my point? --Ludvikus 04:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • First, let me apologize to ThuranX; I actually did the reversion prior to your first response and my second. Therefore, I hadn't had time to read your well-thought out objection to it. I still feel it will eventually come to pass, but discretion never hurt anyone.
  • As for the issue itself, the important thing to remember about the DI is that it was entirely non-notable, a penny-ante dime-a-dozen privately owned newspaper, of which there have been untold hundreds throughout the history of the US. It produced nothing of apparent note aside from the IJ. This means that it is entirely appropriate, and indeed necessary, to only refer to the IJ controversy, because the paper produced nothing else that meets WP:NOTE. If someone can produce ANY reliable documentation attesting to anything the Dearborn Independent created that meets WP:NOTE and doesn't relate to their International Jew anti-semitic publication, we should consider it's value in determining the section header (in keeping with WP:UW). Until that point though, I see no reason why we should insist against all logic and reason on labeling the section otherwise just to protect people's feelings. The only notable thing the Dearborn Independent ever produced was the IJ articles; the entire section relates to nothing but the IJ article controversy; therefore, it would be a violation of WP:UW to not label the section as such. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 04:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ford was clearly anti-war in his motive, not anti-Semitic. Ford owned the Dearborn Independent, but didn't write it, nor did Ford claim that everything in the paper represented his views, and he ceased the publication in 1927, and even made amends for it. By Ford's personal life, public actions, and missions, the paper obviously was out of sync with his personal views. The section may properly raise questions, but it should not purport to label Henry Ford who had many facets to his public life. Throughout, Henry Ford displayed pro-active and positive Jewish associations. Ford also played a leadership role in war effort and ultimately the allied victory. Labels are not appropriate. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's YOUR personal perception, one not supported by the citations in the article. You've tried to whitewash him before, and were told to stop, not to coome back and try again in a few months. Stop trying to turn Ford into a perfect American icon. He did a lot of good, but he was far from perfect. ThuranX (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Credible sources don't label Henry Ford. You seem to be misinterpreting the edits. These are a few points of inaccuracy that detract from the credibility. Not saying Henry Ford was perfect. Those who have studied Henry Ford realize his fascinating personality. The article should attempt to present a better portrait of Henry Ford who was a multifaceted person. For example, one quote in the article characterized Henry Ford as a "right wing spokesman." Its seems a rather simplistic characterization, since Ford was a pacifist who traveled with a socialist on the Ford Peace Ship. Another example, Ford had been criticized by Wall Street for have a minimum wage, hardly the mark of a right wing spokesman. Ford was the first major company to have African Americans in its management, again, these points are not reflected in the article, thus the category discrimination is factually inaccurate, Ford was among the first to have a diverse workforce. You seem to be misinformed in some respects about Henry Ford. Some of these points appeared to have been settled before. The article perhaps relies too heavily on Ford critics for information. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to point out his employ of blacks and that he once sat next to a socialist at a dinner on a boat. I'll argue that the law of averages eliminates the second, and ask for sources on the first. But this constant 'Anyone who says Ford was anti-semitic hates America' vibe you ran last time you tried this, and which you're using again, is insulting. It's a violation of WP:NPA, just like it was last time. We have plenty of sourcing, you just can't stand that your idol had clay feet. We get that. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Go read{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Ford/Archive_2#alleged_anti-semitism this] again. Once again, you bring nothing new to this, just your strong desire to see Ford as a hero only. ThuranX (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you aren't addressing the issues. You seem to misinterpret the edits. Credible sources simply don't label Ford, though they have raised questions. Clearly Ford was anti-war in his motive, not anti-Semitic. Ford historians have discounted attacks by theorists. Ford didn't claim to be anti-Semitic, throughout Ford had positive and pro-active Jewish associations. There is no need to have a built in bias against Henry Ford to the article, that would violate a neutral point of view. Criticisms are Ford are one thing, labeling is another. The article should have a neutral point of view in that regard. What is your objection to the heading being neutral rather than a label? Or perhaps one of allegations? What do you mean hero only? The article as edited has criticisms of Ford and addresses the topic though it might be improved. The sourced content as you note has been kept, so what are you referring to?? Further, Ford didn't just 'employ', under Henry Ford, Ford was the first major company to have African-Americans in its management. The article is lacking many important accomplishments of Henry Ford. Certainly no one is claiming Ford was perfect. The few points of inaccuracy that were edited detract from the overall credibility. Labels detract from the points made in the article. The suggestion was to have the opening sentence provided rather than a label. If you have a suggestion to improve it, let's hear it. It seems others have raised the point of referring to them as allegations rather than a labeling. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Your edits are specifically designed to detach Ford from all relation to the Dearborn Independent, and to make it look like he had nothing at all to do with anything anti-semitic ever. That's not the case, and we've got sources to prove it. You have to show why the changes should be made and consensus should change, beyond your hero-worship, as seen in your comments about how great he was(removal of such comments caused the EC). You have done nothing to convince me of that. Your arguments now are no different than they were before, when consensus was against you. Your changes don't get to go in because youre' willing to edit war about them. ThuranX (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Not so. The article discusses Ford's alleged involvement, though it doesn't establish anything. Not objecting to the investigational type sources. The sourced content you note was kept. As to convincing you, labeling detracts from the article's overall credibility and doesn't maintain a neutral point of view. The edits made don't change the content you are noting. Presentation of good evidence is fine. The suggestion was an opening statement to focus attention rather than a heading that merely labels. Perhaps you have a suggestion for a different heading or opening statement. The heading itself shows a pre-conceived bias to the reader. Henry Ford's understandings of the issues were obviously amiss. Not saying not to criticize Ford, and of course there are criticisms. You seem to be misinformed of Ford's motives though. Ford had positive and proactive Jewish associations throughout. Ford's mishandlings simply don't rise to the level of anti-Semitism. They may have been clumsy at times. His motives were obviously anti-war, not anti-Semitic. The era in question was one where the road to war was challenged openly. Once the war appeared inevitable, and when Ford Factories were taken over, Ford helped lead the war effort. American corporations were concerned with nationalization by Germany. Ford critics should realize that Ford impacted the balance of power toward an allied victory, and intentionally so, with Henry Ford taking personal charge of it. (Compare the assertion by critics of whether Reagan approved of Iran Contra. Many believe Reagan probably didn't know or he believed it was another purpose and then apologized for it, yet many still criticized him for it). Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
These are the same arguments you made before 'we can't judge, the sources can't judge, the sources don't understnad ford, you don't understand ford.' Consensus is against your edits, clear and simple. Move on, go away, whatever. Do not keep whitewashing Ford into an unwitting simpleton who was nothing but a victim of the Jews he loved and championed non-stop. I'm sick and tired of fighting this shit over and over again on this article. Consensus is that the material stays in. We keep playing games, but the consensus is that Ford knew, the sources support Ford knowing, and so on, and on, and on. Stop. ThuranX (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Those edits made in the past few hours are MUCH better to me. They clearly, with citation, provide balance to the other citations, without whitewashing Ford's earlier involvement. Now readers can decide whether or not Ford knew or didn't know, instead of having that choice made for them by removing it all. That's a version I can live with easily. Thank you for finally trying something new. ThuranX (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CEO or President

There is a serious error in the succession box on this page. Henry, Edsel, and Henry II were not the CEO of FMC (although Henry II might have later become the CEO). Indeed, it is unclear whether FMC had a CEO until it went public. Douglass Brinkley (pp. 491 & 499) and Nevins & Hill, Decline & Rebirth (248-269) are in agreement on this point. The position in question was the presidency. --RedJ 17 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Correct. I suppose that to fix this properly, the "CEO of FMC" template would have to be revised, maybe split off into two templates, "CEO of FMC" and "President of FMC". I don't have time to get into that right now, but it does need to be fixed. — ¾-10 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dershowitz column (moved from above)

Include quotations and a link to Alan Dershowitz's article entitled 'Mitt Romney and Henry Ford: Strange Bedfellows', from the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/mitt-romney-and-henry-for_b_41205.html

Relevant quotes from this article include:

- That Ford was "America's most notorious and influential anti-Semite" - That "Ford was the American patron saint of this oldest of bigotries. His anti-Semitism was not a matter of degree, nor was it disguised by anti-Zionism. It was out and out Jew-hatred.

He published an anti-Semitic screed called the Dearborn Independent which became the model for the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer. Ford's newspaper reprinted the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other anti-Semitic propaganda.

Ford also wrote a an anti-Semitic treatise called The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, which was circulated widely throughout America, admired by Hitler and distributed and sold in translation in Nazi Germany. Among the things Ford said about Jews in its pages were the following:

"The Jews are propagandists . . . Few of their leaders even claim a spiritual mission. But the mission idea is still with them in a degenerate form; it represents the grossest materialism of the day; it has become a means of sordid acquisition instead of a channel of service." (Ch. 2)

"Jews have actually invaded, in person and in program, hundreds of American churches, with their subversive and impossible social ideals, and at last became so cocksure of their domination of the situation that they were met with the inevitable check." (Ch. 2)

"The Jew glories in religious persecution as the American glories in patriotism." (Ch. 3)

"The Jews conceal their strength because Jewish influence at the Capitol has been strong enough to win on all matters affecting Jewish interests, at all times." (Ch. 4)

"Jewish nature is autocratic. Democracy is all right for the rest of the world, but the Jew wherever he is found forms an aristocracy of one sort or another. Democracy is merely a tool of a word which Jewish agitators use to raise themselves to the ordinary level in places where they are oppressed below it . . ." (Ch. 5)

"As soon as the Jew got control of American Liquor, we had a liquor problem with drastic consequences. As soon as the Jew gained control of the 'movies,' we had a movie problem, the consequences of which are not yet visible. It is the genius of the race to create problems in whatever business they achieve a majority." (Ch. 10)

"In America alone most of the big business, the trusts and the banks, the natural resources and the chief agricultural products, especially tobacco, cotton and sugar, are in the control of Jewish financiers or their agents." (Ch. 12)" ab72 12:17, 21 Nov 2007 (UTC)

First, The International Jew WAS the Protocols, under a new title. Second, that's an opinion piece from someone qualified to discuss Politics, and even jewish-American issues in politics, but lacking the scholarship to back up such assertions about Henry Ford's character. Some might argue that John Birch was the most virulent anti-semite in the USA. Others might argue that some of the modern Neo-Nazis are worse. Ford's behaviors are already documented with better resourses and citations than a Dershowitz piece which better belongs in the Mitt ROmney page under his criticisms section. ThuranX (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar coats early business career

Ford was involved in at least 2 business failures and a bankruptcy before he became successful. The article ignores this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.124.61 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

SO find good, reliable, neutral sources, and add the information. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So added (although I'm not IP76). Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Father of the Modern Assembly Line & audits &

"Henry Ford (July 30, 1863 – April 7, 1947) was the American founder of the Ford Motor Company and father of modern assembly lines used in mass production".. See Wikipedia reference under Ransom E. Olds for another take on who is the true daddy of automotive assembly lines.


"Ford did not believe in accountants; he amassed one of the world's largest fortunes without ever having his company audited". Well, not audited by "certified public accountants" , but by 1945 the Ford Motor Company Company was a disastrous MESS because of this! Thus 1946 began the era of the Ford "Whiz Kids" and their concept of micromanagement (most notable Robert McNamara). Ford Whiz Kid-- Fred Secrest in 1948 said "The finance department had been old ladies in tennis shoes doing enough work to pay the bills". (Per Invention and Technology magazine ..Summer 2007 Volume 23.. Number 1 "The Outsider" by Richard A Johnson.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FawnKnutson (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Is it just or is the word colour spelled wrong or it it supposed to be spelle d like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.107.17 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's how it's spelled in the quotation, so we leave the spelling as is. ThuranX (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead of the article seems to reek of POV to me, using such words as "profilic". Not everyone might agree with me, so I'm discussing it here before I edit it. Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 02:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

well, all of the characteristics of the man are amply supported by the numerous references. As to 'prolific', how would you characterize that number of patents? I suggest you read the article through entirely. You'll see that many of the things stated there are supported later by both in-line citation and reference, including stuff about his cost-awareness, and innovation. ThuranX (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's rather verbose, though. Any objection to the alternate suggestion I had above (in the "Lead section" section)? Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to be bold in editing if it improves the quality, readability, and usefullness of the article. If the intro is too verbose, then perhaps trim it a little and move some of the material to an appropriate section later in the article. You do not want to arbitrarily remove encyclopedic material that "you don't like" without some really good cause, and the consensus might eventually rule against you if it becomes an issue, but certainly if there are some peacocking terms that might go against the manual of style, then by all means tone them down or remove them. Just be aware that others may also practice boldness if they disagree with you or wish to improve your improvements: please avoid edit warring and it will be fine. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it needs an all-new lead, although a comparison of the two does show that Andrew's strips out some excess that's in the article. I'm going to BOLD up today and, following Andrew's lead, drop out a bit of the lead where it seems to go too far into the details of things, like his pay scale and a couple other bits. ThuranX (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Try this diff out. Like the summares state, two clauses out; they're detailed elsewhere, and the 'sole owner' seems redundant. In a corporation that big, if there were multiple owners, we'd have used 'co-owner' or 'major shareholder' or some other terminology. 'Owner' is just straightforward and less redundant. (edit: I went back and dropped one more. Relative to the wide scope of Ford's lead, the 98 minutes bit seems trivial, in that lead para context.) ThuranX (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks much better to me. Thanks. Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adopted Chinese Baby?

Occurrs in about the 4th paragraph of early life after mention of Edsel as sole child.

Adopting a Chinese baby is hogwash. I will try to delete it.Bobber100 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taylorism

Shouldn't Taylorism be mentioned in the article, or at least listed under Henry Ford#See also? DES (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be. ThuranX (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Henry Ford himself is barely mentioned in passing the Taylorism article, but he is discussed at length at Fordism. The two methodologies might sometimes be considered in parallel as complementary or something, but it is not explicitely stated that Henry had anything to do with Taylorism - either in its development, application/implementation, or even in acknowledgement. I would think only if there are verifiable reliable sources which would directly link Ford with Taylorism can we assert any sort of connection here. Taylorism is linked at Fordism, and vice versa, and that is probably appropriate and adequate. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi DES. It's a fair question, because when you study Fordism you inevitably see the echoes of certain themes from Taylorism. Funny you mention this, because it is on my to-do list to eventually address this issue more completely in Wikipedia's articles on the topics involved. IMO the (current) answer is that Wikipedia is OK with Taylorism currently being mentioned and linked in the Fordism article, which the interested reader can reach by clicking through from this article; although the relationship (or, more accurately, lack thereof) between Fordism and Taylorism is not yet well explored here in Wikipedia. One thing that it is human nature to do is to jump to a post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion that Fordism borrowed ideas from Taylorism and expanded from there. In fact it appears that Taylor himself (FWT) did that when he visited the Ford Motor Company (FMC) plants not too long before he died (discussed more below). But it seems that the methods at FMC were in fact independently reinvented based on logic, and that any influence from Taylorism was either nil or at least was far enough removed as to be very indirect (to the point that Charles E. Sorensen was not aware of any connection at all). There was a climate at FMC, among Henry Ford (HF1) himself and his team, that the world's "experts" could all go F themselves, because if FMC had listened to them, its great successes would not exist. HF1 felt that he had succeeded in spite of, not because of, experts, who had tried to stop him in various ways (disagreeing about price points, production methods, car features, business financing, and other topics). Therefore Sorensen speaks very dismissively (and briefly) of Taylor, and the mention is only to lump him into the "unneeded so-called expert" category (Sorensen 1956:41). Now, Sorensen speaks very highly of Walter Flanders and credits him with being the first driving force behind the efficient floorplan layout at FMC. Sorensen says that Flanders knew absolutely nothing about FWT. Is it possible that Flanders (a New England machine tool guy) had been exposed to the spirit of Taylorism elsewhere, although not to its name, and had been (at least subconsciously) influenced by it, but did not cite it explicitly as he simply allowed logic to guide his production development? I don't think that that is particularly unlikely. But the upshot is that the FMC team really did independently (re)invent modern mass production techniques in the period of 1905-1915, and that they themselves were not aware of any borrowing from Taylorism. Maybe it would have taken a "college boy" (which FMC did its best to avoid at the time) to see the overall cultural zeitgeist that (indirectly) connected the budding Fordism to the rest of the efficiency movement during that decade. This is not unlike other invention storylines, where it was more than just Watt or Fulton who was working on steam technology (others were trying it contemporarily), and it was more than just Edison who was working on electrical technology (others were trying it contemporarily). Even with HF1 himself in the 1890s—people all over North America and Europe were trying to develop useful automobiles during that era, which HF1 freely admitted. I think that the same can be said about the engineering of processes, i.e., industrial engineering, although HF1 and his team at FMC were not at all conscious of this. They perceived themselves to be working in a vacuum, sort of, but we can argue with them about the extent to which that was really true. FWT was an early pioneer in the field of process analysis and synthesis. (Which is why people sometimes tend to think that the whole field owes everything to him.) But he didn't have the field to himself for very long. The world was ready for such development by the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And in fact many people started to work on it, sometimes independently, sometimes with direct or indirect influence on each other. There would have been practical lightbulbs without Edison. There would have been assembly lines without FMC. There would have been process analysis and synthesis without FWT. Sometimes the world is ready for the next logical step, although humans have a cognitive bias toward storylines in which "so-and-so invented the whole thing".
To sum up for now, we will eventually develop these articles in coming years to incorporate this kind of info!
OCRd FROM SORENSEN 1956:41:
"One of the hardest-to-down myths about the evolution of mass production at Ford is one which credits much of the accomplishment to 'scientific management.' No one at Ford—not Mr. Ford, Couzens, Flanders, Wills, Pete Martin, nor I—was acquainted with the theories of the 'father of scientific management,' Frederick W. Taylor. Years later I ran across a quotation from a two-volume book about Taylor by Frank Barkley Copley, who reports a visit Taylor made to Detroit late in 1914, nearly a year after the moving assembly line had been installed at our Highland Park plant. Taylor expressed surprise to find that Detroit industrialists 'had undertaken to install the principles of scientific management without the aid of experts.' To my mind this unconscious admission by an expert is expert testimony on the futility of too great reliance on experts and should forever dispose of the legend that Taylor's ideas had any influence at Ford."
— ¾-10 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Ford was not born in Sweden

I think it is pretty relevant that henry ford was Swedish and born in Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.59.226 (talk • contribs)

It might be if it were true. But it isn't. As the article says:
"Ford was born on 30 July 1863, on a farm next to a rural town west of Detroit, Michigan (this area is now part of Dearborn, Michigan). His father, William Ford (1826-1905), was born in County Cork, Ireland. His mother, Mary Litogot Ford (1839-1876), was born in Michigan; she was the youngest child of Belgian immigrants..."
--T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Later Career and Death

Although expanding this into two sections( the diff) seems like a good idea, it's full of facts which need citation, including all comments on his mental health, goals of the new company and his recruiting tactics, the consideration of nationalizing the company, and so on. Rather than tag it up, I'll post here and let it get cited, and if it's not, then I'll tag it in a few days, and go from there. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

True, I should cite it with inline citations. The info about Henry Ford and Son (separate company from FMC) circa WWI, and the info in "Later career", are from Sorensen 1956. Some of it is the overall gist that comes from many different pages of Sorensen 1956, but I will see about narrowing it down to certain passages. The info about the climate at FMC wherein "experts" were disdained comes from both Sorensen 1956 and Ford & Crowther 1922 (both primary sources). Again, the overall gist comes from many different pages, but I need to see about narrowing it down to certain passages. My time is crunched at present but I will try to do this in next few weeks. DES's question about Taylorism sucked me back into this article despite my lack of time for WP! :-) — ¾-10 00:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can inline the major points, that's enough, and maybe a general para cite at the end. For variety's sake, so we don't look to take only one book as RS, use F&C where you can, and a third or fourth source if you've got them. Having multiple sources reasserting similar themes gives a section more than one leg to stand on. Thanks for handling this. Also, I think two good cited paras is enough for that topic, so good on the length as well. ThuranX (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to other ethnic groups

I thought the article did a thorough job of dealing with Ford's well-known antagonism of jews. It is thus all the more surprising to find no mention of similar idiosyncracies, e.g., that Ford disliked blacks, and wouldn't hire them; or Ford's strong partiality to Arab-Americans. (Dearborn and other surrounding areas have the US's highest concentration of arabs as a result of Ford's hiring policy..)

--Philopedia (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Such thigns would need as heavy a set of solid citation as the Jewish section. As you can tell fro mteh edit history and the talk page, this article can be subject to contentious editing. Luckily, both sides can be appeased with solid, reliable sourcing. If you can find good citations for that material, please add it to the article, or if concerned about edit conflicts, post it here and we can help to build a consensus based presentation of the facts. ThuranX (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, I should have anticipated the danger I'd find myself having "volunteered" for a new research project. For now, I'm going to beg off with the excuses that 1) among the able and motivated creators of this page, there must be many with more knowledge on the subject than I possess, and 2) If that were not so, then very likely I would be mistaken in my presumptions.
I know, that sounds weak. So perhaps I will do something; although its sure to take some time to percolate up the to-do list.. --Philopedia (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There are several journal articles in the bibliography with intriguing titles regarding Ford's attitude toward other ethnicities. They are Dempsey, Mary A. "Fordlandia," Michigan History 1994 78(4): 24-33. Ford's rubber plantation in Brazil.; Lewis, David L. "Working Side by Side" Michigan History 1993 77(1): 24-30. Why Ford hired large numbers of black workers.; and Valdés, Dennis Nodin. "Perspiring Capitalists: Latinos and the Henry Ford Service School, 1918-1928" Aztlán 1981 12(2): 227-239. Ford brought hundreds of Mexicans in for training as managers.. I don't have time to hunt up these articles currently, but I bet they are interesting. In Ford and Crowther 1922:242-244 Ford seemed to genuinely believe that U.S. American businesses had been too neocolonial toward Mexico and he seemed to imply a confidence in the Mexican people's untapped potential. — ¾-10 03:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a great start, and thanks to 3/4 10 for the heads-up! ThuranX (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Ford

I think this helped me a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.143.234 (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Ford and M-35

I've been working on the M-35 (Michigan highway) article which is currently at FAC. Ford was involved in the early history of the highway in the Upper Peninsula. There's plenty of information there that could be added to this article. I can help with information from Fred Rydholm's book that's used as a source in that article to provide information for this article, which is currently missing. It's ironic that the man that put the world on wheels helped stop construction of a state highway. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction, it just passed FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. I'm really not sure how much a single road can be overlapped here, but by all means, please incorporate a link here with a couple of lines about it! Great job! ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Iv'e reverted your first inclusion. A paragraph summary with a link is acceptable. six paragraphs is excessive. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. it was suggested earlier to remove some of the information out of the M-35 article and put in here instead. If I followed that suggestion earlier, you'd have just removed it out of Wikipedia completely. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing in Union Section

Thuranx and I have a dispute over the writing of a sentence. Please say which style you prefer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Ford&diff=217218881&oldid=217217791

It will be greatly appreciated.

GordonUS (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I remind editors that wikipedia is not determined by straw polling, but by proper editing. For more on this, I recommend reading both GordonUS' and my talk pages. I provided, on GordonUS' talk page, links to writings by the Editor to the National Review, a major publication, Hosni Mubarak, a world leader, Arlington Cemetery, and PBS journalists, all of which used the dependent clause style. He has simply insisted that he is right, without supporting sources. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's dispute resolution ask for a third opinion policy mandates a third opinion be reached on the article's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion

You are getting people involved in our dispute when I am simply asking what version is preferred. If you need to respond do not respond here but on my talk page. Nobody cares about our dispute so please do not burden them with it unless they ask.

GordonUS (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What you consider a personal dispute, I consider a content dispute about this article, and that should be discussed here. That relevant information is elsewhere is simply a fact. I can repost all of that here if needed, but this 'hide stuff' attitude you're displaying is also inappropriate. ThuranX (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about this, right?

Option 1: To forestall union activity Ford promoted a former Navy boxer named Harry Bennett...

V.

Option 2: To forestall union activity Ford promoted Harry Bennett, a former Navy boxer...

The second option reads better. As a rule of thumb, avoid using the word "named" to introduce a person; it's redundant because the reader *knows* the name is a name. A third option,

Option 3: To forestall union activity Ford promoted former Navy boxer Harry Bennett...

...is clearly better than the first option because it eliminates the redundacy and delivers the same information using fewer words. Whether option 2 or option 3 is "better" depends on whether you want to emphasize the person (Harry Bennett) or the profession (boxer), but IMO the difference is small. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As the person, Harry Benntt, has an article, I prefer to emphasize the person. ThuranX (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrew,

I agree removing the "named" from sentence one is good, and in my judgment makes version 3 the best version. I like Option 3 because the reader doesn't need to stop, whereas Option 2 has a comma and forces the reader to pause. I see the pause as doing nothing but disrupting the article's flow and eating into the reader's time.

When we list Harry Bennet's name its just a name, whereas if we say "a former navy boxer Harry Bennett" we immediately know who he is. I have never seen Bill Clinton introduced as "Bill Clinton, fmr President" but "fmr president Bill Clinton."

Thuranx, Why do we need to emphasize Harry Bennet's title? Do we need to emphasize every person who has an article?

If he has a link on his name people can go to his page.

GordonUS (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, putting Former boxer harry bennet is emphasizing his title, name first emphasizes person first. Also, what is this 'it forces you to pause' stuff. Do you actually stop moving your eyes when you hit a comma? No. it's punctuation. it indicates numerous things in context, like a dependent clause. Again, you show that you simply refuse to learn how to use this grammatical structure. I have provided you the link to the wiki-article on the topic. Read it already. I'm sick of trying to explain things to you when you simply don't understand what i'm talking about. Finally, between your optino and mine, the third opinion you solicited preferred mine. That's your third opinion, and that's that. Leave it alone. ThuranX (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX is absolutely correct here. Leave it as he had it. --BenBurch (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't going to get involved regarding the recent copyediting, but since it is dragging out, I will simply cast my vote: Most of these changes were unnecessary. Many of them were tolerable, but overall, I feel that this is a case of "it wasn't broken, so don't fix it". — ¾-10 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to thank the editors who came here to offer other opinions. I believe we can call this issue settled. I didn't mind most of the changes, and left a note directly to GordonUS with the diffs of what I'd left in place. The dependent clauses were often written into place decently, though it's not a style I prefer. However, this one I felt changed emphasis, and I also felt that one image should've stuck with the topic not the timeline. Thank you all for your input. ThuranX (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)