Talk:Firestone Tire and Rubber Company/Archive 1

Wilderness AT Tire Recall

I've added mention of the infamous 2000/2001 tire recall that was big news at the time, but I'm wondering it really belongs here, or over on the Bridgestone page. On one hand, there were "Firestone" tires, but on the other hand, the problems happened after the Bridgestone/Firestone merger. Thoughts? -- Kaszeta 14:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This comment was deleted by User:207.45.131.11 originally. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needs help

This article needs help. I've deleted a big chunk because it's unreferenced and it contradicts itself. Some of it may or may not be true, but somebody needs to formulate it in a way that makes logical sense. I'm also deleting the reference to "Ford and Firestone mending fences", since, again, there is no reference, and the public record would indicate otherwise -- the NHTSA, in its investigation, found in favour of Ford. --Rhombus 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

added back deleted info:

I've added mention of the infamous 2000/2001 tire recall that was big news at the time, but I'm wondering it really belongs here, or over on the Bridgestone page. On one hand, there were "Firestone" tires, but on the other hand, the problems happened after the Bridgestone/Firestone merger. Thoughts? -- User:Kaszeta 14:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

corporate history

More needs to be said about the corporate history of the company. Particularly the 1978 Firestone 500 tire recall [1], 2000 Firestone tire recall [2] and the Liberia controversy [3]. Cedars 08:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to write this yourself, asking someone else to do it on the talk page almost never works.Travb (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Wikiedit:

During the 1970s, the Firestone 500 steel-belted radials where known to separate from the tread, usually at high speeds, due to water seeping under the tread, which caused the belting to rust and the treading to separate. This caused dozens of deaths, and Firestone blamed consumers, before recalling 10 million tires.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/start.html?pg=9:

These steel-belted radials allowed water to seep under the tread, which caused the belting to rust and the tread to separate, typically at high speeds. Dozens of deaths later, Firestone blamed consumers, then recalled 10 million tires.

A person can rewrite an article in their own words. I can't get into this, because I promised not to, but I will rewrite this further.

Signed:Travb (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Defense

Nothing about defense contracts such as the Corporal missile? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi User:Gadget850, if I had a nickel for everytime someone made a suggestion on a talk page and it was ignored. The majority of requests, the vast majority of reqests are ignored: 99.9% in my experience. So please write this in the article yourself, WP:BB. Travb 15:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, "What's stopping you from writing about it?" Wahkeenah 15:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, or you? I am glad you brought this up, kind sir/ma'am.

You wrote: "What's stopping you from writing about it?"

It is probably because I have no f***ing idea what the h*** he is talking about, nor do I care. That is the reason why talk page requests are almost always ignored: I don't care about Corporal missile. The person who cares most about this issue is the person who put the request in themselves.

Maybe if someone who is more interested in the subject did some research and posted this on the actual article page, then I would care. But I am too indifferent, to lazy to do research that I know nothing about.

Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I have gone through hundreds of talk pages and found hundreds of orphaned and ignored requests. I used to ask requests too, before I realized that WP:BB was a really, really good policy, and the old addage is even better: "if you want something done, do it yourself". Travb (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say my experience is similar to yours. My comment was not directed to you, but to the quy that raised the question. My comment is my stock response anytime someone posts a "Why doesn't someone...?" remark on the talk page. If they think it's worthy of discussion, they should research it and write it themselves. That's the whole point of this website, as I see it. Wahkeenah 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes. Look forward to working with you again. Travb (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

TV Jingle

I noticed the TV jingle was re-added. I don't think this adds much to the article and, if it must be included in Wikipedia, might be better served by a sub-article. Are there any objections to it being deleted again? Cedars 06:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I added it minus the gawdy quotation marks someone had put in at one point. Maybe it could be a sub-article. Then in about a week, someone will decide to merge it back into this one because it would be so small. Also, I don't see why you have a problem with it. Wahkeenah 07:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the Firestone jingle, but I have heard of Firestone, I can't see why it is relevant to this article at all. If a sub-article is inappropriate maybe we could link to it off-site? Cedars 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Before you go zapping it again, think about this: Wikipedia has a spinoff called wikiquotes. Would that be a place for jingles of all kinds? Or would it make more sense to have a page devoted to jingles? Or is there already one somewhere in this behemoth of a website? Wahkeenah 01:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be moved to Wikiquotes. Cedars 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But is that an appropriate venue for jingles? I'm not even sure who to ask. Hmmm... maybe the guy that was hassling me about World Series quotes. I'll look into that. Wahkeenah 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See List of advertising slogans, section Transport, subsection Automobile tires, for appropriate placement of the slogan "Where the rubber meets the road" (not the entire jingle, the inclusion of which in this article is questionable). Athænara ✉ 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Source please

Please cite a source for this addition:

In 2001 Bridgestone/Firestone severed its ties to Ford citing a lack of trust. The lack of trust came about concerns that Ford had not heeded warnings by Bridgestone/Firestone relating to the design of the Ford Explorer.

Thanks, Travb (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Source?

Another user delted this:

Ford has since stopped equipping its pickup trucks, SUVs and full-sized vans with Firestone tires. However, passenger cars such as the Ford Focus and Mercury Cougar bore Firestone tires as original equipment.

I removed it again, because I also cannot find this information online. Travb (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Liberia section

I would appreciate it if editors would stop deleting the Liberia section. It is well referenced. If there is a problem about NPOV, then add sources which match a different POV, please don't delete referenced material.

I have comprimised on the edits, deleting sections with no source, see #source. In regards to the other edits, I will quote the material verbatium later. Thank you. Travb (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The liberian controvesy while interesting does not belong on this page. This is a page about Firestone, what it does, and it's history in the USA. I have created a new article Liberian Controvesy which has been placed in the correct WIKI area for such a topic. Most of this Firestone Article is taken up with irrelevant information which seems aimed at impuning the company rather than providing facts. While this may seem relevant to people with personal agendas, it is not what Wikipedia is designed for. Mobile01

I am merely enforcing the un-enforced Neutral Point Of View policy. Again, citing references is not justification for violation of this policy and it is not incumbent upon those reading the article or editting it (like me) to provide the un-biased view for you. The author of the "Liberia section" did not adhere to this policy, so the section is being removed until the author provides a balanced, un-biased view.

"All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source." -LucaZ

Please address the issues I've presented before you make blanket revisions. LucaZ (talk)

I am familar with WP:NPOV, thank you

this edit war began when you added the above text: #Source_please I was probably heavy handed to delete this source, and move it to the talk page. For this I apologize, I whould have added a {{fact}} tag instead. You responded in kind to me deleting the unreferenced section, and deleted large sections of reference material. As you can see, your referenced section has remained intact, I have not attempted to use NPOV policy on your two sentences and I have not deleted those two sentences, I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

I am adding a {{NPOV}} tag to the disupted Libera section, which I will keep on this section for one week, while you find sources which match your own POV. You have not explained how or why this section does not meet {{NPOV}},

I could be wrong, but based on the edit history on this page, this appears to possibly be retribution for my unwise deletion of your two sentences. I apologized for this deletion now, I have let your edits remain unmolested, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

The fact is that there is a Liberia controversy and lawsuit.

I welcome your additions to the article, and I am excited to be able to build this article with your together, to make it an article which meets all of wikipedia's important policies. Thanks for your understanding and hard work. Travb (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten me with the 3-revert rule since you have violated (14 in one day) much more than I. Let me repeat myself: I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE COUNTER-BALANCE TO THIS ARTICLE. Nowhere in the Wikipedia policy is this infered. I will continue to remove NPOV violations (REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF CITES USED) and I will not adhere to your flawed interpretation of the wikipedia policies.

This is not retribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucaZ (talk • contribs)

I apologize, I did not know you were famliar with 3RR. I am attempting to avoid an edit war. I am glad this is not retribution, I crossed out this section.

You have not explained why this section does not meet NPOV, please explain. I added a {{NPOV}} tag too this section.

There are many ways to diffuse an edit war, booting users is the most exterme, and I want to avoid this at all costs. I could also suggest this page be protected, or I could ask other third party neutral admins to comment on the page. I would like to think that we can comprimise and come to an amicable solution which we both can agree upon alone, without third party intervention.

Again, I apologize for removing your two sentences, I have let your referenced edits remain unmolested, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I look forward to working with you. Travb (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

LucaZ, while it is generally preferable that articles be written in a NPOV manner, it is not justification to delete a well sourced section. If you feel that the section is NPOV, you should try to rewrite the section using more neutral manner and/or providing additions from Firestone's POV to counter the POV present within the article. --Bobblehead 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Deleted for WP:RS:

The www.stopfirestone.org website states that Firestone's request to transfer the case to Indianapolis, Indiana from California was granted in April 2006.

If someone wants to find a source for this, it would be grand...I have done enough with the page today. 00:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

I have renamed this to "Problems For Firestone USA", I dont think the title Criticisms is appropriate as it makes it sound like the issue discussed are not factual but personal opinion of the company. As these are factual problems for Firestone then they are not criticisms. Also Firestone is a global company with operations in Europe and New Zealand, as such the title should reflect that these issues are USA based only. I have also moved it to the end of the article as it seems appropriate that if we must have this section at all, then it should be at the bottom with the other references and external links. This wikipedia entry is after all about Firestone the company, it's heritage and products.Mobile 01 03:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I conceded and comprised, allowing the move the Liberian critism section to a new article. I didn't say anything when the official version of 100 years of Firestone, was added from the Firestone website [in fact, I think this is wonderful, and a great job :) ]. That said, in the spirit of comprise I have added a lot of work to this wikipage. I am a little concerned and hurt when my work is removed from wikipages.

Deleting the entire Firestone critism section, and also deleting links that are critical of Firestone IMO, crosses the line. Firestone, like almost all companies on wikipedia, should and will continue to have newsworthy events, critical and positive on their wikisite.

Anyone who is troubled by the criticism section, I suggest adding positive spin to the criticism section, from postive sources, which will help balance out the POV. Anyone can also expand the history section. Firestone, as one wikiuser was kind enough to add, has a rich 100 year history. This can be expanded on, with subsections, making the criticism section much smaller.

Thanks for everyones hard work on this page--it is so much better than when I came here months ago!

(Later), sorry, I realized the critism section was moved, not deleted, my mistake. Usually wikiarticles are in this order: text, graphs, quotes, references, see also, external links, categories. I welcome any wikiuser adding more text to the article. Maybe expanding the graph? If necessary, we can move back the history section, where it was before. I will do this now.

In regards to the USA ecentric approach, i will add tags to expand these sections.

Again, I welcome all wikipedians to add new information to this page. Travb (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

reverts and edit wars

Once again I have had to remove the Liberian section from this article. It has its own article which fully covers these events. The small section within the Criticisms section is adequate to cover the needs of the firestone article. This article is about Firestone and not Liberia.

Travb you should be fully repremanded for your revert and deletion of the Liberian Article. To replace this article with a redirect to the firestone page is ludicrous at best. Why would someone wanting information on this Liberian topic want to be redirected to an article about Firestone. I agree its an important article and deserves to have its own place. Your comment on the revert is also innapropriate. You reverted a lot of work by different editors just because you believe they are playing a game with you. Quote "(revert-not going to play this remove game any more.)". Interesting to note that in the above section, you complained heavily about other people reverting your work. Hypocrisy does not reflect well on your bias.

If we must have a criticims section then it is only fair to split that up to truly reflect that these are USA problems. Firestone is a global company and any critisims should reflect a true picture to the reader of where those problems occuured.

I have left the StopFirestone link on the page, although I do not believe it is relevant to this article as that link is purely a propaganda site with obvious personal bias against this company. However in the interest of Wiki fair play I have left it. I am calling for a straw poll as to whether it should remain on the site. We will take the wiki users majority after 2 weeks. Mobile 01 02:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile 01 thanks for your comments. I want to understand your concerns, and I am sure we can come to an amicable solution that we both can be happy with, and we can work together to make this the very best wikipedia article.

I want to explain my feelings so we can understand each other better. No one wants an edit war. I read as far as "you should be fully repremanded" and a red flag came up. Please WP:AGF, and I will strive to do the same, is this okay?

Verbs and adjectives such as "innapropriate" "ludicrous" "Hypocrisy does not reflect well on your bias." are possible violations of WP:Civil and WP:NPA. I don't feel it is productive to discuss this with you when Verbs and adjectives such as this are used. It only puts me on the defensive. I am sure you are familar with WP:PAIN. Please temper your words in the future, and I will do the same, okay?

I await you building a straw poll, it was a great idea, I also think we should let the community decide. I only ask that your introduction to the straw poll be as neutral as possible, I know this is the policy for posting WP:RfC, and it proably is also the same.

In the interm, I would appreciate if you keep the version as is right now, and please stop deleting information which is unfavorable to Firestone.

As you know, in edit wars, often a page is protected. I don't want to involve third parties anymore than necessary. I think we are both adults, and we can work out a version we can both agree with.

Again, please set up a strawpoll, which is a fabulous idea, and we will let the community decide.

I didn't think the Liberian information should have been moved, but I went along with it.

Afterwards, when you began to delete everything that is critical about Firestone repeatedly, this is when I have to draw the line, this is when I wrote that I will no longer play this game (i.e. I will no longer see my work on this article be edited out completely). I apologize for using the word "game" if that offended you. I hope you can relate, it is really frustrating when you work hard on an article, and another editor begins to delete the material you added.

As we both know, this is not a Firestone corporate site. Sorry if I am stating the obvious to make a point. Firestone has been involved in several major national controversies and scandals, which in my opinion, deserve to be addressed here.

There has been no community support for either of our edits, because we are pretty much (other than Bobble) the only people editing this page.

I praise your inclusions to this article, but my biggest pet peeve is when people delete well referenced material. I don't want to debate you about the definition of "well referenced material".

My comments and feeling about this to another editor about this are here:

I feel that deleting information actually weakens the article. Many wikieditors unfortunatly disagree with me.

I want to be crystal clear about how I feel, and why I feel this way, to avoid an edit war. In my experience, edit wars are a waste of everyone's time. To avoid further conflict, I will be very careful what and how I talk to you in the future.

Again, I praise your work on this article, the timeline was fabulous, and I really look forward to working with you again. You seem like a smart editor and a great asset to wikipedia.

If you haven't set up the straw poll in the next couple of days, or if there is any more edit reverts, I will set up the straw poll myself.

Happy New Year Mobile, and best wishes, Travb (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Travb - I take exception to you just reverting things back to your version. As you could have seen from my last revision, I did not just blanket revert the article, but kept other users edits in place and their new information. Only removing the liberian stuff. I am not about deleting negative stuff about firestone. I am about removing things not relevant to the article and covered else where.

The liberian Controvesy may well be well researched and highly emotive stuff, but it does not belong here. The criticisms section has a small entry about the liberian controvesy which is appropriate for this article. Users wishing to know more can follow the link to the main article. Firestone is a company and like all companies it does both good and bad things (mostly generated by corporate greed), however we do not need to fully explore to the 10th degree these right or wrong doings here. Appropriate information is placed within the criticisms section to show that the problem exists and points the reader to the correct location to learn more. This is the way Wiki should work.

To provide an example of this, I would not expect to go to the article on the city of london if I wanted to find information on Jack The Ripper. While Jack the ripper may have perpetrated his crimes in London it is a separate topic. I would appreciate it, if you would stop reverting the page to your point of view and leave it the way it is now which is a Neutral Article. Especially the criticisms section which I have painstakingly tried to make obvious that these are USA problems only and not issues relating to Firestone Global. I would also point out that I have not deleted anything, unlike your reverts which keep deleting my changes to the criticisms section where I try to show these to be USA only issues, I have reworded and in my opinion improved the article.

Some information has been moved to the appropriate place or a new topic created for it (as in the Liberian thing). I have no personal bias for or against Firestone, I just find the topic of the history of tyre manufacturing interesting. You should be able to tell from my other contributions e.g. Bridgestone Article, Michelin article, Goodyear article, Perelli article that this is my topic of interest.

I notice from your edit history that you seem to favour Conspiracy, Government Control, CIA, Oppression and workers rights issues. Given the difference in our usual edit topics I think the general Wiki user can quickly draw conclusions as to who it is that is biased in there revisions.

While your revisions seem intent on showing Firestone to be a wicked and evil monolith that should be tarred and feathered, my edits are about the manufacture of Tyre and Rubber products by Firestone. You may also note that I spell Tyre differently to the American spelling Tire. This should indicate to you that I am not from the USA. I am actually from Australia. We dont even have Firestone in Australia. The closest is New Zealand. This would explain my insistence that the USA problems be labeled correctly.

You claim you will respect the wishes of the Wiki community but in fact you do not. The liberian section has been deleted by many editors as is shown above, where you asked editors to stop deleting it. The reasons for deletion were explained to you by Lucaz.

Your comment in the Revert said you were doing it because no one would comprimise. I have comprimised more than anyone on this issue. I just didnt delete the Liberian section, but went the extra mile and created a topic for the information and then referenced it in the firestone article. The Liberian Article is quite lengthy and has been added to since by other editors. It is too long to be included in the criticisms section and the way it is now is correct. A small entry telling the reader that it exists and a pointer to the full article. I have also left the other criticisms in place and pointed readers to their articles too. Comprimises I can do, Respecting the global Wiki users POV I can do, Dictatorship; I have a problem with. Mobile 01 05:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, one comment stands out, which I feel is important to address immediately:

I notice from your edit history that you seem to favour Conspiracy, Government Control, CIA, Oppression and workers rights issues. Given the difference in our usual edit topics I think the general Wiki user can quickly draw conclusions as to who it is that is biased in there revisions.

WP:NPA Comment on the edit, not the editor. This is the second WP:NPA violation. Please lets not have a third. Here is how I see wikipedia works: you can't comment on other peoples biases, no matter how obvious. Bottom line: My edit history is irrelevant to this article, because of the rules of WP:NPA. This is a lesson I have learned the hard way, you can't state the obvious, especially in an edit war (which we are in). This rule is absurd on a certain level, but on another level it keeps wikipedia more civil than it would otherwise be if this WP:NPA rule was not in place.

Your continued accusations against me:

"You claim you will respect the wishes of the Wiki community but in fact you do not." "Dictatorship; I have a problem with"

Are clear violatins of wikipedia rules. I encourage you too Please do not repeat them again. I know we can work this out together, without third party assistance, as two adults, but when you say such things, it makes it more difficult for both of us.

I am not going to argue with every one of your points. You stated that you were going to set up a strawpoll, please do, otherwise I will myself the next time I log in.

But first, I will look over your edits and see if we can come to an agreement and comprimise we are both happy about.

I am going to try my hardest to avoid escalation in this, as I am sure you are going to also. I have faith we can work this out.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Later) edits look good to me, have a great evening. Thanks for your hard work.Best wishes, Travb (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Later) I am restoring deletions. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Information restored

I restored the following infromation which was deleted:

The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was founded by Harvey Firestone in 1900.

When John J. Nevin became president in 1980, Firestone began selling off unprofitable plants and began buying back the company's stock. Firestone boosted the number of its automotive repair shops, which account for nearly 20% of the company's $3.9 billion in 1988 annual sales. The company also relocated its headquarters away from Akron, Ohio -- the traditional home of the nation's rubber and tire-making industry -- to Chicago. The company was purchased by the Japanese tire manufacturer Bridgestone in 1988. The combined Bridgestone/Firestone North American operations are now based in Nashville, Tennessee.

Signed: Best wishes, Travb (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Information merged or modified

1970s scandal

Version one:

During the 1970s, the Firestone 500 steel-belted radials were known to separate from the tread, usually at high speeds, due to water seeping under the tread, which caused the belting to rust and the treading to separate. Joan Claybrook, who was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stated before the Transportation Subcommittee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations on September 6, 2000, that, "there was a documented coverup by Firestone of the 500 defect, spurred by the lack of a Firestone replacement tire." In March 1978, NHTSA announced publicly a formal investigation into defects of the Firestone 500. Firestone first asserted that only 400,000 tires produced at the Decatur plant were defective. But the NHTSA investigation found that the tread separation defect was a design performance defect affecting all Firestone 500's. After forty-one deaths, and after Firestone initially blamed consumers (improper repairs, rough use, or under-inflation), on October 20, 1978, Firestone then recalled ten million tires.

Version two (fact tags added):

Firestone 500 tread separation problem During the 1970s, Firestone experienced a major problem with one of its tire sizes. The Firestone 500 steel-belted radials began to show signs of separation of the tread at high speeds. While the cause was never proven, it is believed that the failure of bonding cements used by Firestone to hold the tread to the tire carcass, may have allowed water to penetrate the tire which in turn my have caused the internal steel wire to corrode. In March 1978, NHTSA publicly announced a formal investigation into defects of the Firestone 500. The NHTSA investigation found that the tread separation problem was most probably a design defect affecting all Firestone 500's and ordered the recall of 400,000 tires from the Decatur, Illinois plant. Following Congressional hearings into the Firestone 500 problems that were blamed for 34 deaths, on October 20 1978, Firestone ordered the recall of over 7 million tires.

New version:

In 1975 Firestone attempted to fix a tread separation problem in the radial 500 tires caused by moisture getting inside the tire and corroding the steel. In March 1978, NHTSA announced publicly a formal investigation into defects of the Firestone 500. Firestone first asserted that only 400,000 tires produced at the Decatur, Illinois plant were defective. But the NHTSA investigation found that the tread separation defect was a design performance defect affecting all Firestone 500's. After forty-one deaths, and after Firestone initially blamed consumers (improper repairs, rough use, or under-inflation), on October 20, 1978, Firestone then recalled ten million tires.Joan Claybrook, who was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stated before the Transportation Subcommittee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations on September 6, 2000, that, "there was a documented coverup by Firestone of the 500 defect, spurred by the lack of a Firestone replacement tire."

signed: Best wishes, Travb (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Orginal, no sources, unverified, unsourced POV highlighted:

From the start, Firestone worked relentlessly to improve quality and meet the needs of his customers. His efforts and integrity paid off when in 1906 Firestone tires were chosen by Henry Ford for the first mass-produced automobiles in America. To put Firestone tires to the ultimate test and publicize their superior performance, Firestone began what would become a legendary history in car racing by entering and winning the first Indy 500. Cars driven on Firestone tires would go on to win more than 50 checkered flags at the fabled brickyard.

Newer, more encyclopedic version:

In 1906 Firestone was chosen by Henry Ford for the first mass-produced automobiles in America. Firestone tires were used to win the first Indy 500. Cars driven on Firestone tires would go on to win more than 50 checkered flags at the Indy 500.

signed: Best wishes, Travb (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The memory hole

The following has been removed from this page [4]:

However, in the late 1970s Firestone received tremendous amounts of negative publicity and was the subject of numerous lawsuits over an allegedly defectively-designed automotive tire, the steel-belted radial Firestone 500. The company never fully recovered from this, and eventually was forced to sell out to a Japanese rival, Bridgestone, which acquired it in 1988. The combined Bridgestone/Firestone North American operations are now based in Nashville, Tennessee.

The family had decided in 1984 to look for a purchaser and began liquidating assets at that time.

The company was purchased off the stock market by Japanese in 1988 by formally offering to buy stock at $80 per share by Bridgestone. March 21, 1984 was the formal offer to purchase. August 1st, the Bridgestone Corporation (Japan) announced it’s intent to integrate the corporate assets from Japan, the U.S. and Canada into Bridgestone. This pattern continued with other assets for almost a decade.

Bridgestone was started by Firestone, but had been previously bought out by the Japanese and was therefore a separate entity.

The combined Bridgestone/Firestone North American operations are now based in Nashville, Tennessee.

However, in these law suits Firestone proved it was not tire design, rather either the result of under inflated tires and the Ford suspension. While Ford broke relations with Firestone for a period of time, that relationship has been healed and Ford is currently purchasing Firestone tires again.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bridgestone is editing both Firestone and Bridgestone

(Firestone was purchased by Bridgestone in 1988)

Please see: WP:Conflict of interest for evidence:

1. Bridgestone, Belgium;
2. Bridgestone, Akron, Ohio
3. Bridgestone Nashville Tennessee; and
4. Jardine International (whose clients are Bridgestone)...

Are all editing Bridgestone and Firestone.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Troubling. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 19:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointless. - Morton Devonshire^Yo 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Start The Ball Rolling

1. I would like to reintroduce my original concept of a parent DAB for Firestone see -[5].
2. I would like to have a new article based on Firestone Internationally and we could rename Firestone International to maybe Firestone Internationally where I could start to incorporate information on the other Firestone Plants In Europe, New Zealand and South America.
3. I would like to see the Criticism section returned to how it was before and expanded if required in a NPOV manner.
4. I would like to see any references used to either support or negate these critisicms be taken from unbiased sources.
5. I would like to expand this article to include more of the origins of Firestone in the USA
6. I would like this article to be edited to a full NPOV and discussion consensus reached on how that can be achieved.

Mobile 01^Talk 07:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like you to read WP:Disambiguate thoroughly before we proceed. After you finish that, please read WP:Naming Conventions. Your past actions, and point #2 above show an unfamiliarity with these critical aspects of WP, so I encourage you to study up, so that we can work together collaboratively. By the way, do you or any of your immediate family work for Bridgestone or any company connected to or affiliated with Bridgestone? Thanks much. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 07:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read those pages and I think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. So actually the Firestone article should be redirected to the Firestone (disambiguation) page. The Firestone (disambiguation) page should be deleted and then recreated so as to pickup all the new Firestone articles that have been created since it was. I am only guessing here, but I am assuming that when you create a Disambiguation page, that wiki trawls the database for matching articles but once created it does not continue to update this.

My naming suggestion was just a thought for starters, but on reflection and reading those articles you mentioned, it would seem that the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article is the correct place to put my new edits about the international operations. I did try to do this originally but had them reverted. If that is the way we should go then separating the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company into sections such as USA Operations, South America, New Zealand, Europe etc seems to be the best compromise available.

This would address my original issues of USA criticisms being levied at the entire Firestone International Company and allow user Travb to apply his edits to the correct section.

Good to have some constructive discussion on this article Fairness And Accuracy For All, so thank you for taking an interest.

In answer to your question, my father used to work for Uniroyal back in 1980 before it was bought out by Bridgestone Australia in 1982, my sister used to work in the Tyre Plant as a secretary until 1984. I have a family friend who worked as a tyre builder in the factory up until he retired 4 years ago, and I visited the factory back in 2002 for their annual childrens xmas party.

Mobile 01^Talk 10:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

People think about global brands, not corporate governance. I understand that you would like to finely parse words and differentiate Firestone's different territories to protect the global reputation of Firestone/Bridgestone from criticism, and ultimately to limit that criticism to one region, but that's not they way the general public thinks, and Wikipedia is designed for the general public, not for Bridgestone stockholders or potential investors. Please notice that in this BBC article about Firestone's alleged child and slave labor violations in Liberia, it says nothing about which exact corporate partnership owns the operation. Such minutia and obsfucation are best reserved for corporate spin-doctors, not Wikipedia. Firestone in Liberia Rubber Row Cheers - Fairness And Accuracy For Rubber Barons 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fairness and Accuracy about not needing to create a separate Firestone International page. That sort of convention is usually only needed when the topic becomes too large and unwieldy for the main article. My opinion on the scandals would be to establish a section entirely devoted to them, rather than sprinkle them through out the article. This would achieve better organization. As per differentiating on locale of scandals, I don't see anything wrong with this, but it can be achieved in text in the introductory sentence. Example: "In 2000, Firestone USA, its North American branch, was involved in a scandal involving the quality of its tires...etc..etc."

I'd also like to see the history section added to and expanded. As a historian by training, this certainly is something I attach importance to. In sum, I agree with the above points 4 through 6.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input .~ (The Rebel At) ~ and I appreciate that you are offering sound advice for this article. I had already stated above that the International page seemed the wrong way to go and that the sections in the main article would be a better choice. Your statement that we should establish a section entirely devoted to them was ammusing as this is exactly what used to be on the article before Travb reverted it.

We had a well sectioned "Criticisms" section with at least 3 maybe 4 entries. These included the Liberia thingy, The Ford Explorer and Tyre Separation problem. There were commentaries on each event and outlinks to wiki articles for expanded view plus web links for off wiki information.

Fairness And Accuracy For All, when you offered to meet over here and discuss this article I had hoped that you were going to offer constructive advice on how to edit and improve it as .~ (The Rebel At) ~ has done, instead it almost appears that you are trying to start up the same arguments again. Your statement "I understand that you would like to finely parse words and differentiate Firestone's different territories to protect the global reputation of Firestone/Bridgestone from criticism, and ultimately to limit that criticism to one region" is just another spin doctor putting words in my mouth and trying to apply a biased motive to my actions. If you are not here to truly work on this article then maybe you should leave now.

I would suggest that all editors focus on the article and how we can best write it to accurately portray this topic rather than once again denegrating into personal attacks and supposition about another editors motives. I archived this talk page so that what was here would be about the article and its content, we are already several pages down and not achieving much in presenting ideas for it. I started the ball rolling with a few "Off the top of my head" suggestions and ~ (The Rebel At) ~ has provided a few more. Mobile 01^Talk 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

M1, it's very troubling that Bridgestone has been deleting sourced criticism in the Firestone article, and the perhaps unrelated fact that you have done the same, and created several POV forks that (IMHO) were attempts to further hide negative info - are all impossible to ignore. I suggest we ask for mediation, as I predict you're not going to accept my suggestions for the article. IMHO, one of the most important aspect of Firestone's history was the late 1960's to late 70's corporate mismangement, and series of mistakes and poor decision making that almost bankrupted the company. It's so significant that Harvard Business School (and other business schools) wrote papers on it, so that other corporations can avoid making the same near-disastrous mistakes. Please see Wharton and Harvard and Harvard. Would you be OK with this being a significant portion of the article? - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what is troubling is that you want to keep talking about these issues that have already been addressed instead of actually talking about improving the article. It has been shown that someone, possibly an employee of Bridgestone in the USA attempted to rewrite a POV criticism to NPOV. It has been shown that after having the edit reverted the user then deleted the topic altogether. Rather than allow a propoganda piece to exist, they removed it completely as no compromise was offered. It has been shown that other possible employees from Bridgestone globally have attempted to include facts into the article. It has even been shown that a competitor employee of Michelin has edited the article. I infact did not delete this content but also tried to bring it to NPOV adding further explaination, references and reworded the section. As shown also was that my edits and creations were not content forks or POV. But rather an attempt to write a neutral article about this company. I think the topic you mention above is a worthy inclusion to the article as it basically shows why the company was eventually taken over by it's competitor Bridgestone and has now flourished into a major participant into the US economy. I don't want to keep rehashing this same stuff over and over again. It's been said, it's been dealt with and it's time to move along. Mediation may well be an answer if you have no constructive ideas to make. Mobile 01^Talk 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the main article, and the articles that Fair suggested, I do believe there's a place for them in the article. Presently, in its current form, there really isn't much mention. As I would see it, these articles should be incorporated into a general history of the company, since they're definitely more historic than present day scandal or problem, like the recent tire fiasco. It is important to remember that when writing history, all aspects of that history should be included. While Firestone's problems are not on the level of slavery, we can't write a history of the United States and not include slavery. A better corporate example, is that if we were writing a history of Pepsi, we'd need to include something about Crystal Pepsi, or if Coca-Cola, discuss New Coke!

Remember, we're here to compromise. Mobile 01, why don't you create a draft of the article as you envision it. Hands down you're the one with the most experience working on this article, and it would more suitable for Fair and I to then step in and offer our own tweaks and constructive criticisms. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure - On your talk page:

Content forking

Hi, I responded to your question on my talkpage: User talk:Wangi#Firestone. The response the basically the same as my fellow admin Woohookitty said.

Please stop recreating the content forks, continuing to do so will lead to you being banned. Discuss the issues you have on the article's talk page and acheive consensus for the changes you believe need to be made. If you cannot reach agreement then there are additional avenues that can be used to get more people involved in the discussion and break a deadlock - let me know if you want to know any more about them. Thanks/wangi 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We ain't talking about ancient history here - This was a week ago. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 00:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, lets stay focused, folks. Here's a draft page in my sandbox that can be used for visualizing this article's future. Remember, we're here to work on a mutually approved article, not to rehash lessons already learned. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me ~ (The Rebel At) ~ I will start putting some things together shortly, right now I need some sleep, OK for you Gravity Defiers, but us people up the top of the world need our rest. P.S. Why do Europeans and Americans have there Maps and Globes upside down. Mobile 01^Talk 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Why do Europeans and Americans have there Maps and Globes upside down." Bah, they're right side up. Its just those colonist-prisoners didn't know how to use them and turned them upside down, leaving you a horrible legacy of invert cartography. :) ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First Suggestion

I would like to create a "/" page Firestone Tire and Rubber Company/Draft which we can use as a sandbox for content and format and then once agreed those edits could be moved to the main article. Your thoughts please.

Mobile 01^Talk 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Suggestion

As there is the potential for quite a few editors to want input into this, I would suggest leaving the main page protection in place for now until we have a first draft of the sandbox agreed on. Your thoughts please.

Mobile 01^Talk 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

POV problems

The more I read, the more problems I see with the current article. (and I'm a 'car guy' and already knew about Firestone's impressive history, and the 500 recall, etc) IMHO this article in NOT objective - it's a pro-Firestone 'puff piece'

The Wiki article claims, by quoting a 'timeline' :

First Firestone investigation

"In 1975 Firestone attempted to fix a tread separation problem in the radial 500 tires caused by moisture getting inside the tire and corroding the steel."

HUH???!

One of the first aricles I find when I search for 'Firestone 500 Hearings' states:

"Back in the '70s, Firestone was in a similar position. You may remember the Radial 500 tires and the fiasco that followed. The company's director of development wrote a memo stating, "We are making an inferior quality radial tire, which will subject us to belt-edge separation at high mileage."

"So what did Firestone do? Nothing. They kept it hush-hush and kept on manufacturing the 500s. A high number of consumers were completely dissatisfied with their 500s and brought them back. Firestone still did nothing." Firestone Rides on its New Ad Campaign (ultimately leading to the biggest consumer recall in American history, the largest NHTSA fine in history, congressional hearings on Firestone 500 Tires, and almost bankrupted the company)

I WILL be working on the MASSIVE POV problems of this article! - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A more scholarly source says the same : "In 1972, Firestone Tire Director of Development Thomas A. Robertson sent top management a memo warning that the 500 tire was inferior and subject to belt-edge separation at high speeds." Santa Clara University and the Wiki article spins this as "In 1975 Firestone attempted to fix a tread separation problem" ???!!! - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are great for citation. I think the problem is not so much "spin" or "cover up", but lack of inclusion. This we can do, but we need to make sure that the article doesn't become a criticism of Firestone, but rather, a chronicle of its ups and downs. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input "Fair", I would agree that this statement hardly does the case justice, you will have to take this up with user Travb though, as he is the one that put it there in his reverts and edits. The last version I worked on put a slightly different spin on this event than you are trying to imply. see the criticisms section of - Last Mobile 01 edit. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I want this article to be factual and Neutral. Finding the right balance is the hardest thing here as there are two sides to every event. Remaining NPOV and focusing on the history and events of the company should be our primary goal rather than a "Puff" piece for either "Firestone" or "StopFirestone.com". Mobile 01^Talk 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The version you pointed to is no better. The (pre Bridgestone) history (and timeline) states:

In 1968 Graham hill became the first driver to win the FIA Formula 1 championship on Firestone tires.

In 1979 Firestone pioneered the concept of the "temporary spare" tire.

When John J. Nevin became president in 1980, Firestone began selling off unprofitable plants...

This 'history' completely ignores biggest consumer recall in American history (The 500), the largest NHTSA fine in history, congressional hearings on the Firestone 500 Tires, massive financial and consumer confidence losses that almost bankrupted the company and forced it to look for a corporate suiter at a fraction of what the company had been worth a decade earlier - all due to one defective product and the accompyning mismanagement and poor decision-making in several areas, on mulitiple levels. This does not negate the immense importance of the company for the first 70 +/- years of it's existance, but makes the 1970 - 1988 era even more important, IMHO. For such a significant, powerful, respected company to nearly collapse over one defective product (the 500) and their total mishandling of that situtation is rare indeed. (and it happened again with the atx!) Historical facts of great importance like this do not get shunted into a 'criticism section'. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I most wholeheartedly agree with you on every aspect of your last statement and I was only trying to show you what the page looked like before Travb went into revert and edit mode. The page as I stated earlier was coming along nicely but was still a work in progress. The 100 years timeline was only recently added by me and I had started to edit it. The criticisms section was a compromise to keep the information on the page until I had time to incorporate it in the timeline. Until then it served it's purpose in providing information and links to further reading. Editing a topic of this magnitute to include every piece of relevent information while trying to remain NPOV and avoid copyright problems takes time. As in reality I was the only one trying to update this article it was a slow job. Constant reverts before the finished piece was completed only hampered this effort.

While I believe Travb was doing what he thought was right, in effect his work just made it harder to keep continuity in what I was attempting to do. With the page protection inplace it was then impossible to work on this article anymore. I did create the International page as a copy of my last edited version so I could continue working on the article on my own and allow me to introduce information about the global operations of the company while also looking for unbiased references to the other issues. Whether that page would have eventually been merged back we will never know. I am currently working on the page at home on my PC and will copy it to the sandbox when I have something for you all to look at. Mobile 01^Talk 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Why don't we start with rewriting the history (up until 1968) incorporating all the info in the 'timeline' but rewriting that as well, as much of it is copyvio. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts: I think that the Firestone 500 fiasco, and the Liberian labor practices controversy should both be covered in detail - but in separate 'spinout' articles, like the Explorer Rollover issue is - with about the same amount of text in the main Firestone article. Thoughts? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean something like this Firestone Liberian controvesy Mobile 01^Talk 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Spinout articles (also called spinoff, or even content or POV forks) should not be created without discussion and consensus, and should never be created unilateraly by one editor during an ongoing content dispute. The content of such an article, and even the name should be a group decision. That particular article has problems from the first line. It is (AFAIK) uncontested fact that Firestone opened the Liberia rubber plantation in 1926, and it is the 'world's largest'. To start the article out with 'according to CNN' + 'claims' casts doubt, is POV, and un-encyclopedic. Believe it or not, M1, lots of rightwing Americans (maybe Aussies too?) try to paint CNN as liberally biased - they actually call it the Communist News Network, and believe that any claims from CNN or other MSM (main stream media) sources can't be trusted. (I know it's hard to believe) People like this would read 'according to CNN' as coded-language meaning biased, and not to be trusted, just like people on the left and center of the political spectrum might distrust an article or claim that says 'according to Newsmax'. Other than those issues - yes - 'like this'. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 04:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically I was on the right track when I created this "Spinout" article and another user renamed it adding the prefix "Firestone", I was pretty new to Wiki when this occurred and didn't really understand a lot of the rules you just mentioned. It was created because the whole topic was causing edit war problems (The meny reverts and Travb's request for people to stop deleting it) and I felt this was a good compromise which everyone seemed to agree with at the time, even Travb.

So with some basic mods to reclaim NPOV this article could serve a purpose once again. I never realised that people reading an encyclopedia would interpret political motivation or secret codes behind an article. Maybe it's an American thing, no offence meant by that statement, it's just that Americans seem to take everything so seriously, and we aussies tend to be too apethetic to give a hoot. Mobile 01^Talk 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Really??? Family_First_Party and John_Howard and Australia_First_Party etc etc ;-) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your forgot our Female SS Officer Pauline Hanson Mobile 01^Talk 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, Mobile 01[6] and Rebelat[7] have both told me that they do not want me to edit this draft. So the invation is for only select editors, not everyone.

RE RebelAt's comments: Hands down you're [Mobile 01] the one with the most experience working on this article

I started working on this article in February 2006,[8] the Bridgestone employees came along in November of 2006,[9] and Mobile came along in December of 2006 as an anon.[10] I have added the most references to the article, and have the most edits to the article.

RE: User:Mobile 01: I would like to see any references used to either support or negate the critisicms, be taken from unbiased sources.

I have added almost all of the 17 references on the page, these include:

St. Petersburg Times, Los Angeles Times, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Money magazine, Fortune magazine, Business Week, United Nations, and CNN All of Mobile 01's sources have been bridgestone corporate sites.

So which of these sources is biased? I would say bridgestone corporate is probably the most biased, but I have never deleted anything that Mobile 01 has written, in fact, I praised her for the table she created. So when Mobile 01 says she wants an "unbiased article", I am curious, which of my sources is biased?

RE:I would like to expand this article to include more of the origins of Firestone in the USA and it's expansoin globally.

The Bridgestone article already has an international section. The one other active editor, who wrote the European section stated he was okay with the idea of this article being merged into that article. Despite Mobile 01's repeated wordplays, Bridgestone bought Firestone in 1988, and Bridgestone has adopted Mobile 01's corporate history on their webpages. They are, in fact, the same company. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01#States_there_are_no_Firestones_in_Australia

RE: I would like this article to be edited to a full NPOV and discussion consensus reached on how that can be achieved.

As per Bobblehead:

LucaZ, while it is generally preferable that articles be written in a NPOV, it is not justification to delete a well sourced section. If you feel that the section is NPOV, you should try to rewrite the section using more neutral manner and/or providing additions from Firestone's POV to counter the POV present within the article.[11]

Written by Travb. Comments deleted by Mobile 01,[12]. Restored later by User:Travb. Travb (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

comments to address

Mobile how do you square the comment above:

"As I have stated on numerous occasions, I want this article to be factual and Neutral."[13]

With your edit history of deleting all controversial material from the page, and when the page was protected, creating a "dupe" page[14] and redirecting to that new page? You clearly stated your reason for creating the "dupe" page: "Removed from this page are all the negative comments relating to Firestone USA."[15]

My suggestion is this: I think this page should be merged with Bridgestone, if the Bridgestone New Zealand page can state the history of Firestone as its own history[16], I think the Bridgestone article can do the same.

I studied this page because despite the 1988 Bridgestone buy out of Firestone, User:Mobile 01 argues repeatedly that Firestone is not Bridgestone.

Also, User:Mobile_01 you stated above that you created the Firestone table, but the 203 anon created the Firestone table, in which you immediatly began to edit. Are you now acknowledging that you are in fact the 203 anon? If so, there should be a note on your page or somewhere that the 203 anon was booted for disruption on the Smallville (Season 5) page. I don't know what the policy is, can someone tell me? [17]

Also, FYI the past WP:NPA violations are in the past, but any future WP:NPA, I will file another WP:ANI including the old and the new WP:NPA violations. Calling other editors "dumb" is not allowed on wikipedia,[18] and I shouldn't have to tolerate this continued abuse from yourself, or User:Morton devonshire. I have called neither of you any names, and I expect the same courteousy. Travb (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Information for future Firestone/Bridgestone editors

It is imporant for all future Firestone editors too know the background of this page, to stop the abuse and flaggrant violations of wikipolicy:

Regarding Firestone/Bridgestone editing this page:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Firestone

Regarding Mobile 01 editing this page:

• User:Travb#Third_party_involvment
• User:Travb#Third_party_opinions
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

Thank you, Travb (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For the love of it all, you simply cannot let it go, can you? Mobile 01 makes an effort to come to terms and make peace, you entirely ignore it, and do your best to throw dirt on her and all future edits on this page for any new editors. I wish I knew Wikipolicy, because I'd like to hope there was something that addressed this type of behavior. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 13:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I give up!. I had hoped to work together with other editors to make this a really great article and we were starting to get some good ideas flowing. It would seem that Travb will stop at nothing to prevent this article ever being anything but what he wants it to be. For me to edit it now is pointless as this latest attack will no doubt poison any future editor against me and anything I contribute. I guess that was the reason Travb put it there and on the Bridgestone discussion page. I dont want to spend my entire wiki time defending myself from edit wars and malicious attack. Frankly it's just not worth it. So for what it's worth. Travb - You win. Mobile 01^Talk 14:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page User: RebelAt, I notice how neither User:Mobile 01 nor User: RebelAt have ever argued Mobile 01's past behavoir that I state here, or anywhere else. No one is disputing what led us to this point.

Mobile 01 wrote: "I had hoped to work together with other editors to make this a really great article and we were starting to get some good ideas flowing."

Does working together include this statment which led me to filing a sockpuppet:

• "I have created a new article Firestone International which is a copy of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company in its best state prior to the edit war. Removed from this page are all the negative comments relating to Firestone USA. The article now does what it is meant to do in that it provides information about the company Firestone Internationally...The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company becomes a redundant orphan now"[19]

After months of edit wars between your "inconclusive" sock, your anons, and the Firestone employees who edit just like you do, I set up a page protection, filed a Wikipedia:Third opinion request, and invited you to join this talk page in conversation. There really was no comprimise, because your stated intention, in your own words, was exactly like the firestone employees before you: "Removed from this page are all the negative comments relating to Firestone USA."[20]

"I [user:travb] had hoped to work together with other editors to make this a really great article and we were starting to get some good ideas flowing,"

Instead Mobile 01, you orphaned this page, attacked all of the editors and admins who stopped your redirects, and began viciously attacking me. This is all amply documented, and no one seems to dispute these facts.

We can move forward with this article, but only if we keep in mind what got us to this point. What led to the page protection and the bitter feelings here.

I am here to talk, but after the vicious WP:NPA violations, the redirects to avoid the page protection, do you honestly expect a warm welcome? Do you honestly expect fruitful dialogue when Mobile 01 stated intention, in her own words is to have a Firestone article with no "negative comments"?Travb (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not off to a good start. Please calm down, and consider putting all of that behind you and just editing the article. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  • 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To avoid edit archive war, comments on your talk page Morton[21], which you have deleted now.[22]

Please see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Travb (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you can go for more than 5 minutes and not mention the behavior of other editors? Maybe just focus on the article?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  • 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure Mr. Morton, I look forward to your response to my suggestion to merge this article with Bridgestone.

Also above I am discussing whether Bridgestone is in fact Firestone. Travb (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again you try to twist the case facts to make yourself look the White Knight of Wikidom.

1. Never have I said that Firestone is not owned by Bridgestone, I have said that Bridgestone Australia is not owned by Bridgestone Corporation and that Firestone have no manufacturing presence in Australia. You say no one has ever argued youe facts, where in fact I have done nothing but argue your facts.
2. As I have only been a wiki editor for a few months, your attempt to make your edit war seem like a long time is purely farcical. To say that the edit war went for months is a laughable statement and once again shows how you attempt to twist truth for your own purposes.
3. No attack was made on any other editor about page protection, my comments have been purely directed at you and are in direct response to your personal vendetta to have me evicted from wikipedia for daring to oppose your POV editing of this article.
4. I make no appology for creating the Copy page and removing the negative comments about firestone, it is still my opinion that your edits on this article were very much POV and the references you used such as www.stopfirestone.com are hardly an unbiased source for referencing your edits. As I have stated many times, I do not dispute these events occurred with Firestone or that they should be included, my dispute is in the way you present the facts in a POV manner and cite biased references for those edits.
5. As far as I can see the only disruption to this page has been of your making. I have explained my actions and have been dragged through your Kangaroo court and have been exonerated. Your checkuser was denied, Your sockpuppet case closed with no action taken. User NeilinOz1 - Exonerated. No sockpuppetry has been proven, case closed.
6. Once you have finished that last mouthfull of Crow, I will be glad to accept your appology.
7. You even have the audacity to copy my own words and put your name in there as if to show you were the one offering to discuss the article.
   "I [user:travb] had hoped to work together with other editors to make this a really great article and we were starting to get some good ideas flowing," A direct copy of my statement but with your name.
8. You are not here to discuss this article or join other editors to make it better. You are here once again to cause trouble and ensure that other editors pick up your flag and march with you in preventing me or anyone else making this a NPOV article. This very section is proof positive that your motives and intention have nothing to do with compromise on this article.
9. We got to this point because of you and no one else. You refuse to accept the advice of anyone else, you have a poisonous attack style with almost every editor you come into conflict with. You say that you have made many enemies on wiki because of your caustic mouth. Perhaps it is time you addressed your own faults instead of fabricating evidence to try and drag support from others to your POV. Your actions in this case and the unrepentant manner in which you have tried to steer others to your poison and venemous viewpoint epitomize the absolute worst behaviour of wiki editors.
10. As stated above, there is little point in my continuing to edit this article as you and your clique will no doubt revert everything I try to do here. You said earlier that "I may lose the battle but I will win the War". Now I understand what you meant by that and exactly how you planned this whole thing from the very beginning.
11. Mobile 01 will be leaving wikipedia and focusing on her families needs which have been largely neglected since this whole vendetta began. I can not see any point in working on this or any other article with user Travb trolling every edit I make and spreading his malicious inuendo and distortions of fact around behind him.
12. Go ahead and file another of your WP:NPA protests, Frankly Travlet, I don't give a Damn. Mobile 01^Talk 05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile 01, I have been an editor on wikipedia since October 2005. In that time I have seen a troubling trend. Editors will actively remove any referenced material which does not match thier own POV. I have condemned pretty much everyone for this behavior, on both the left and the right. See: User_talk:Travb/Archive_9#Bad. Some of the most intellegent editors, who would otherwise be my personal role models, are guilty of this behavior.

As you know, User:Booblehead, who has been the only other active editor to this page in months, (other than myself, yourself, your anons, and the Bridgestone employees) said to the sock of a Bridgestone employee (we both agree that LucaZ is probably a sock of a Bridgestone employee):

LucaZ, while it is generally preferable that articles be written in a NPOV, it is not justification to delete a well sourced section. If you feel that the section is NPOV, you should try to rewrite the section using more neutral manner and/or providing additions from Firestone's POV to counter the POV present within the article.[23]

I began editing this article in February 2006. Since that time a slew of socks and new users began deleting the sections I helped build. Frankly, I am used to this response. I have a fairly unpopular view of American politics and I am in the minority. I have learned to adapt and survive these POV attacks.

Mobile 01, I want to offer a thanks, then an apology.

• THANK YOU I want to say thank you for being so tenacious. With out your tenacity I would have never found out that Bridgestone employees are actively editing this article and the Bridgestone article.
• APOLOGY My apology is this: I am sorry for accusing you of being a Bridgestone employee and being User:LucaZ. I was wrong. The evidence simply does not support this claim. Although you edit just like the Bridgestone employees, there is simply not enough evidence to prove this on Wikipedia.

I am no "White Knight of Wikidom" I have made a lot of mistakes in this case and on wikipedia in general.

If I could do it again:

I should have waited on filing the sockpuppet case, I was simply excited that the WP:Third opinion wikieditor, who was assigned to this case saw the same editing pattern as I did and felt that "may be" you were LucaZ.

I should have been nicer to those admins who offered their opinions, and spent a lot more time building bridges.

Building alliances is hard for me too do, and it feels to much like work. It is much easier to be blunt. In this Firestone case I realized that if I want to continue to learn and grow on wikipedia, I have to change. I don't really want too. It is hard for me to stroke fledging egos and liberally hand out barnstars. I am simply not Machiavellian enough.

Once again, I got frustrated at the way wikipedia works. "Justice" on wikipedia is as uneven as justice is in the real world, I personally have been severely punished several times for the same things that other editors, in "clique"s as you call them, get a free pass.

The irony is that you say I am in a "clique" at all. The only person who supports almost everything I have done is Fair, who I have been more critical of then any other editor here. There is a very well organized "clique" who has been involved in this case, but it surely hasn't been supporting me.

RE: "You said earlier that "I may lose the battle but I will win the War". Now I understand what you meant by that and exactly how you planned this whole thing from the very beginning."

I don't remember writing this, but maybe I did. I didn't plan anything, and I surely didn't plan this outcome. Frankly, I was shocked at the backlash I recieved from admins and editors. I was also frustrated that User:Morton devonshire, an editor who I have a long history with joined this argument. Fair jumped in also, another uninvited guest, saying things to Crockspot that made me cringe. Crockspot, who doesn't like Fair and has some history with him, jumped in also.

I already mentioned my grevious errors about the sockpuppet case above. I didn't realize there was a time limit on checking socks, and unfortunatly I didn't know WP:Sockpuppet policy as well as I do now. It seems like sockpuppets are okay, as long as the person is caught after a month has expired (a sort of statute of limitations), and the sockpuppet doesn't "vote" on AfDs in tandium with the sockmaster.

I was also shocked that the Wikipedia community gave a collective yawn when I found out conclusively that several bridgestone offices around the world are editing Firestone and Bridgestone. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bridgestone_and_Firestone

So to say this entire case turned out the way I planned, and I planned this end result from the very beginning I personally find absurd.

RE: "Mobile 01 will be leaving wikipedia"

If I had a dime for everytime someone said they were leaving wikipedia and later came back. While this case was developing, I even wrote a grand goodbye, but was quickly sucked back into this case. Maybe you are the minority exception. I have noticed that many editors simply create socks and start editing a new, or leave for a couple of months then come back. I am not saying you will do this at all, I am simply saying that is the trend I noticed.

One of the editors who supported you recently made a grand pronoucement on his talk page that he was leaving wikipedia, but in his edit history, he seemed to indicate that he was only leaving his username. Again, maybe you are the minority exception.

When you come back, we can discuss all of the other issues you brought up in your goodbye. Travb (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule against employees of a company editing an article about their company? Is it possible you're pushing your own agenda, a possible vendetta against the company? Wahkeenah 13:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I have no connection whatsoever to either Firestone or Bridgestone, nor does my car have their tires. I'm just raising questions about this Edit Jihad that's been going on here. Wahkeenah 13:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello User:Wahkeenah, I know you have no connection with Firestone or Bridgestone.

RE: Is it possible you're pushing your own agenda, a possible vendetta against the company?

Of course it is possible. But the answer is no. Whether you believe me is completly up to you.

If you look at the pages I create and the pages that I actively edit, Firestone is just one of hundreds of articles which I have exhastively researched and have often added the majority of the references too.

I am just some guy typing in my underwear, who does this for free to escape the real world.

Here is how I got invovled in this article: I read a Commondreams article about the Liberan lawsuit around Feb. 2006 and I decided to add it to this article.[24] Later, in my international affairs class, I had an American UN inspector come and speak to us about Liberia. He knew nothing about the Liberian lawsuit, and didn't really answer my questions about the work conditions in the Liberian rubber plantations. I have always been troubled by the Ford_Pinto#Safety_problems rear end cases (Later I had a smug professor who won hundreds of thousands of dollars for himself for suing Ford for the Mustang II). With further research and the information on this page, I found out that Ford and Firestone were involved in a case that was almost as bad as the Pinto cases.

I am a far left liberal 3L lawstudent who believes in social justice, and that justice in the world is often a farce. I graduate in May and takes the bar in July (Ironically, I don't want to practice law though--I don't like most lawyers--they are too much like me--a Type A personality).

I welcome and encourage a counter opinion. I just have no patience for those who delete large sections of well referenced material, no matter what their ideology is. See: User_talk:Travb/Archive_9#Bad.

Thanks for your comments User:Wahkeenah, and playing devils advocate. If I recall you were involved in this case from the beginning.

I hope this answers your questions and concerns, and I hope to see you around more. If this is getting too off subject, please move the conversation to your talk page.Travb (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Draft Article to Replace the Current one.

Editors please note that a draft article is currently being written to replace the current article. If you have information you wish to include, correct or revise in the Firestone article, discuss them on the talk page of the Draft Article. Edits made to the current page may well be lost in the new article. Mobile 01^Talk 11:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile 01[25] and Rebelat[26] have both told me that they do not want me to edit this artile. So the invation is for only select editors, not everyone. Travb (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Travb, your twisting things again and this is a habitual problem that you really need to address.

The invitation is for everyone and yes that means even you. The invitation clearly states that all editors are requested to visit the sandbox article and leave comment or inlusions on the discussion page. It does not invite editors to edit the sandbox article itself. Mobile 01^Talk 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What I did was offer you the same opportunity as Mobile 01, to create your ideal vision of the page, in addition to requesting that you share your thoughts on what edits you'd like to see done, rather than implementing those edits. The point of that was to create a means to prevent one draft (and I was more than happy to create a link for a second draft) from spiraling into the same edit conflicts that happened with the real article. Pretty much, I wanted both you and Mobile 01 to offer your opinions of what an ideal article looked like, so we could merge them. :) ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am happy with the current article. I am only concerned that:

1. There will be claimed consensus on this article draft when there was none. Mobile 01 has repeatedly stated that she has consensus for her edits, when there has been none. I hope that this will not be repeated, and I trust you will not do this Rebelat. I actually find you very pleasant to work with.
2. There is no "comprimise" about removing well referenced material, which I have added. The stopfirestone.org link is gone, and despite Mobile 01's repeated claims in at least 6 different places, I don't think I ever even quoted from stopfirestone.org in this article, I only added the link. Mobile 01 is welcome to add as many corporate links as she likes (thus far that, to my knowledge, is all she has added), and there is no risk of me deleting these links or additions as she has done, repeatedly. We will discuss what a "NPOV source" is below. Mobile 01 repeatedly claims that she wants a "NPOV" article. I find Mobile 01's argument that my media sources are NPOV, when all the sources she has added are corporate Bridgestone articles rather fallacious. Travb (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Location of Draft

The Draft Page is at Firestone Article Draft Page

Rebelat and Fair, I like your ideas of adding more history to this page.

Also, I would ask Morton and Mobile 01 to refrain from archiving my comments. If Mobile 01 indeed wants to comprimise, as she states, I would suggest no more antics like the archiving of my comments from yesterday, and selectively choosing her own to keep. Travb (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There were no antics as you put it. This page is about the article and not about who said what to whom or rehashing old assertions about who edits what or with whose assistance. Clearly up the top of the discussion page is a box which states:

• "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article, This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

What was archived was all the irrelevant garbage (mine included) and what was left behind was the discussions and suggestions for improving the article itself. Which is after all what this page is for. If you have more personal references about me or what I do or do not do, then address those on my Talk page and leave this page for discussion about the article and how to improve it. Mobile 01^Talk 11:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"NOTE: Some of the comments below have been edited for clarity and do not reflect the full statements made by those credited, see the talk archives for original transcripts." Sorry Mobile01, but you should not be censoring discussion on the talk page. Where, in the archives, are my FULL UNEDITED comments about Firestone almost going bankrupt because of the 500 fiasco and the resulting corporate mismanagment - and how much of that info should be included in the article - edits that can be found here ? POV problems I stongly suggest that you restore all discussion that you deleted (inadvertantly, I'm sure) and refrain from censoring this page in the future. Thanks. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 11:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry FAAFA, all your messages were in the archives before somebody tampered with them and blanked the pages. The archives having been tampered with, no longer reflect what was here before. As such I am following Fairness & Accuracy For All suggestion and restoring the complete discussion page. Mobile 01^Talk 12:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not cut and paste select comments Mobile 01, that was yourself. Both Morton and Mobile 01 have attempted to archive active comments here, some less than a day old. I cut and pasted the full comments back here. Would you like to look at the edit history Mobile 01? Would you like me to continue to quote Archiving etiquitte? It is clear that you, in the words of Fair, "censor[ed] discussion on the talk page".

Fair, your edits should be above, unmolested and unarchived. Sorry about all this.

Mobile 01, archiving my comments will not make them go away.

Am I now allowed to edit your draft? Are you now giving me permission, because thus far, both you and Rebelat have refused to allow me to edit the page. There will never be consensus on your draft, if only select editors are allowed to edit the draft. Travb (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• NO! you are not allowed to edit the draft, as already stated above, you are invited to comment on the draft discussion page along with all other interested editors. You have been offered a draft of your own should you wish to do so.
• Censorship is an ugly word with malicious conotations, as none of the discussion was deleted it is harly censorship. I originally archived this talk page with archive1 when agreement was reached to begin proper discussion of this article. I started with a clean page which was to focus on the article and it's improvements. Within 5 days of the clean page, it was once again filled with argument, posturing and irrelevant attacks. I include myself in this as I am just as guilty of constantly being baited into argument with Travb.
• When I archived the page a second time, I left behind the relevant discussion that had taken place about the article, once again trying to bring focus to this discussion page.
• Travb interfered with the archives and then blanked out the archive2 page. He then left the archive2 link in the archive box, thus making it look like the information had been deleted instead of archived. Any editor attempting to follow the link to archive2 would have gotten a blank page - this I believe is what happened to FAAFA and prompted his comments about not finding his full unedited message about the Firestone 500.

Mobile 01^Talk 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Replace Travb Message

I have replaced the message that you claim was archived while still current, and it is shown below. As you seem to truly believe that this message is relevant to the discussion of the article and have made such a fuss over it being archived. Having read it again, I still maintain that it has no relevence to the article or discussion, however if you would like to indicate exactly which part of this message is designed to assist with topic discussion and article improvement I will be glad to retract my comment. Mobile 01^Talk 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[These comments are above, thanks for restoring all the comments, and allowing the comments on this talk page to remain] Travb (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Page is For Discussion

Please note what it says in the box right at the top.

• "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article.."
• "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

"Am I now allowed to edit your draft? Are you now giving me permission, because thus far, both you and Rebelat have refused to allow me to edit the page."

Now Travb, did you not read the comment I made above? I never implied that the draft that mobile 01 is working on is the only draft. As I said, I'd like to see ideal drafts by both of you, from which we can merge the two together into a compromise article. I am not, and will not, exclude you from the process!

~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh. All of you have thoroughly confused me with this talk page edits. I'm not sure where to post now.

~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please follow Wiki Policy and make your messages on this page about improvements to the article. Messages left on this page that do not relate to article improvement will be immediately archived. Messages relating to editors past or current editing habits, methods or other such non article related information, should be directed to the editors talk page or the appropriate dispute centre. Basically, if your message does not relate to article improvement then it doesn't belong here. While you may feel that Lengthy, Misleading and Contentious edits assist in gaining support from other editors to you POV, in fact they simply detract from valid suggestions and contributions of genuine editors and make the task of following genuine discussion almost impossible.

Mobile 01^Talk 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mobile 01, you continue to ignore my comments, you continue to make false claims, and you continue to carry on the same behavior which you have since the page was protected on January 11, 2007. When I catch you in a blatant factual inaccuracy, and there have been many, you yell "attack".

If you would stop archiving comments I made the same day, and then claiming that I was responsbile for the deletions of Fairs comments, etc, then there would be no need for me to let everyone know about the shameful edit history of this talk page and this article.

I respect how Rebelat continues to give you the benefit of the doubt, despite all of the wikirules you have broken in the past 20 days.

But rebelat is a late comer, before this edit war errupted, he never added any of well referenced material, he never actually added anything to this article. After all of this well referenced material was deleted by yourself, the bridgestone editors, for months. Rebelat had really no stake in this article, because he has never worked on this article until recently, and only on the talk page.

Lets all keep in mind: This page has been under constant attack since October, first by bridgestone employees, then by your anons, and then by yourself. Honestly, how would a reasonable person react to such attacks?

Mobile 01, you can't break repeated wikirules, over a 20 day period and then suddenly expect everyone to magically forget about these violations the next, or even the same day. There is a rich history of wikirule violations which led us to this point.

Archiving comments in an edit war is a big no-no, again, as in so many cases before, I have asked you and Morton to stop, and you have ignored these requests, repeatedly.

Morton continues to archive all of my comments on his talk page, and so do you. So, Mobile 01, if you want dialogue so badly, as you repeat over and over again, why are you two deleting my comments on your talk page, and archiving my comments the same day repeatedly. Is it because the points I bring up you simply have no real response too? Again, you simply can't have it both ways.

User: RebelAt, response above and on your talk page. Sorry for adding the {{inuse}} tag to the section I was attempting to edit. I created a new section below with === === for editors to edit in while I edited that section, to avoid a edit conflict. (the inuse tag didn't help anyway[27]). Travb (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont ignore any comments you make about improving this article, but as you haven't made any that would explain my lack of response. As all your comments here relate to other issues and not the article and it's improvement, I ignore them. You continue to ignore my requests for only article related discussion on this page, you continue to make false claims, and you continue to carry on the same attrotiously bad behavior which you have since the page was protected on January 11, 2007. When I catch you in a blatant factual inaccuracy, and there have been many, you ignore it and respond with more of the same. Again you twist the truth to push your own POV. I did not say you deleted Fairs comments, I said you left the archive2 page blank thus making it look like I deleted them. There has been no attack on this page except in your opinion. Other editors having different points of view than your own have attempted to edit this page as is their right to do so. You have constantly reverted evey edit that does not suit your view on how this page should be presented. You keep saying that I have broken wiki rules repeatedly, however it is your bad faith behaviour which is the real problem on this article. All of these supposed violations are open to interpretation. If I come across a reasonable person I will ask them. Do not complain to me about your comments being deleted, You do not see me complaining about the multitude of edits you have made on this page where you hae actually gone and either deleted or reworded things I have written. You can't have it both ways Travb. We delete your edits to our talk pages because they are irrelevant, inflammatory or just plane viscious. You continue to repeat yourself over and over again, and refuse to listen when things are explained to you. You have your own POV and nothing or no one is going to dissuade you from that POV. A simple message was left by me asking for restraint on this page except for actual discussion, could you do that?, of course not, you just can't get off your soapbox long enough to discuss the article except in a thinly disguised attempt to further cloud the issues. Quite frankly I am so so so so tired of constantly having to explain things to you that even a child could understand. Mobile 01^Talk 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving and deletion history of this page

06:45, 22 January 2007 User:Mobile 01 archives my comments which were 3 hours and 23 minutes old, stated reason: "archived - Make room for new constrcuive discussion"[28] 02:21, 27 January 2007 User:Morton devonshire archives my comments, which were 1 minute old[29] 03:13, 30 January 2007 User:Mobile 01 selectivly archives this talk page[30], removing several users comments, including comments in the same section,[31] including the last comments on the page, by myself.[32] 02:47, 31 January 2007, I revert the archive of Mobile, cut and pasting the archive to this page. Reason: "cut and pasting the archive to include only select comments is not standard see: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page" [33] 11:08, 31 January 2007, User:Mobile 01 again archives the talk page, including my comments which were a few hours old. She kept her older comments above mine, but deleted my new comments.[34] 11:20, 31 January 2007, User:Mobile 01 Restores a few of the comments I made. [35] User:Fairness And Accuracy For All rebukes User:Mobile 01 stating archiving the comments is "censoring" [36] User:Fairness And Accuracy For All begins to "unarchiving pertinent info"[37] 12:51, 31 January 2007 User:Mobile 01 restores the full archives.[38] 18:20, 31 January 2007 User:Morton devonshire again archives the page.[39] 00:12, 1 February 2007 User:Mobile 01 blames User:Travb for the edit war about archiving comments, and blames User:Travb for what happened "to FAAFA and prompted his comments about not finding his full unedited message about the Firestone 500." [40] 00:22, 1 February 2007 User:Travb return the information from the archives. [41] 09:03, 1 February 2007 Admin User:Robdurbar, who originally protected this page, tells User:Mobile 01: "if you keep removing his comments then you remove any chance for a sort of reconcilliation." [42] 19:17, 1 February 2007 User:Travb warns User:Morton devonshire on his talk page to stop archiving and deleting comments.[43] User:Morton devonshire removes the comments from his talk page[44] 18:29, 2 February 2007 User:Morton devonshire deletes comments and again archives the talk page. [45]

So who is really responsible for the Archive mess?

Mobile 01, why did you delete my comments while changing your own?[46] This is not "archiving", this is removal of other users comments on the talk page.

User:Morton devonshire: Is it standard policy for an editor to archive someone else's comments 1 minute after they make them?

Mobile 01, is this going to be one of your "accidents" again? Where you really didn't mean to do something at the same time blaming everyone else for your disruptive behavior?

If I can't comment on violations of wikipolicy here, and I can't comment on users behavior on Mobile 01 and Morton's talk page, where would Morton and Mobile 01 like me to comment on issues I have?

On the one hand mobile 01, you have repeatedly stated that I am not commenting here and taking part in the discussion on this talk page, but at the same time, you continue to archive all of my comments, some only hours old.

Again, you can't have it both ways Mobile 01 and Morton. Travb (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were archived because they were not about improving the article, but instead more soapbox grandstanding. I also archived a lot of my own comments too and left only that was actual discussion.

Is it standard for someone to archive after 1 minute, I don't know, I know you did it to my messages on your talk page if that is any indication.

There is only one accident on this page.

I would like you to coment on improving the article on this page, anything else you have to say should be taken up on the relevant pages such as ANI or RFC.

As I have already stated, edit about improving the article and you will get response, continue to personally attack me and twist the truth for your own purposes and you will get ignored.

Mobile 01^Talk 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mobile 01, but these comments were not about improving the article? [47] you selectively deleted my comments, below yours, which were discussing the article. It is not up to you, who are in a heated edit war, to decide what is and what is not archivable, espeically when you archive messages which are newer than yours. "There is only one accident on this page." Would you like me to find more "accidents" Mobile 01? For the past 20 days, you have done nothing but "accidents". When does a reasonable person start to believe that your "accidents" are not accidents but are deliberate attempts to game wikirules? There have been plenty of "accidents" by you in the past 20 days. Showing you compelte fabrications, false statments, and grevious breaking of wikipolicy is not "personally attacking" you. It is trying to uphold wikirules. Travb (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm tired of the verbose accusations, ridiculously transparent manipulations of fact, and the self-congratulatory comments, and want to see it all gone so that we can focus on edits to the article. In the future, I'm going to start removing all edits from this talk page that don't have anything to do with improving the article.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Morton, do not delete or archive anything from this page. You have continually broken wikipolicy. I don't want to involve other editors, but I will, if you continue to archive my comments. There is no excuse for you archiving comments 1 minute old. Morton, you broke wikipolicy, despite me asking repeatedly for you to stop, and I demand that you stop now. Travb (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not in a position to demand anything. Stick to improving the article, and you won't see comments deleted.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Morton, does starting a new edit war by deleting an entire section of this page qualify as "improving the article"?[48] immediatly after I wrote not to delete any more comments on this page?

I welcome your constructive comments on this page Morton, but thus far, to my knowledge, you have added no comments at all about improving this article on this talk page. There are two drafts of this article you can contribute too. There are plenty of points that we all have brought up which you can comment on. I see those as ways of "improving the article". Thank you. Travb (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Mobile 01 relating solely to this article

Here are the repeated questions that I have for Mobile 01, which have repeatedly been archived by both Mobile 01 and Morton devonshire (see above):

First Mobile 01, would you agree that there is no corporate entity called Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. This is the old name from before the company in the USA was purchased by Bridgestone?

Second Mobile 01, the Bridgestone article already has an international section, you continue to state that Firestone has no international section (you have said this in various places, at least seven times). For example above you state, "I would like to expand this article to include more of the origins of Firestone in the USA and it's expansoin globally." The one other active editor on Bridgestone, Cls14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), wrote the European section. You added Cls14 to the mediation.[49] Cls14 stated it was "okay" for this article to be merged into the Bridgestone article. Why don't you want Firestone Tire and Rubber Company to be merged into Bridgestone?

Third Mobile 01, above you state: I would like to see any references used to either support or negate the critisicms, be taken from unbiased sources. You have said this repeatedly, at least seven times.
Myself, USer:Travb has added almost all (and maybe all) of the 17 references on the current page, these include:

St. Petersburg Times, Los Angeles Times, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Money magazine, Fortune magazine, Business Week, United Nations, and CNN

Mobile 01 all of your sources you have added have been bridgestone corporate sites.
I have never deleted anything that Mobile 01 has written, in fact, I praised her for the table she created as the 203 anon. So when Mobile 01 says she wants an "unbiased article", I am curious:

A. Which of my sources is biased?

B. Are Bridgestone corporate websites biased?

Travb (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Agreed, the company is now called Bridgestone/Firestone North America Holdings.
2. You keep implying that these are the same article and mixing my comments to suit your POV. The Bridgestone Article has an International section which relates to Bridgestone Manufacturing plants globally, it also has a section about Firestone North America which links to the Firestone article. The Firestone article is about Firestone North America and does not expand beyond that. What is missing is information about Firestone plants in New Zealand and Europe. These plants are operated under the Firestone Banner and not the Bridgestone Banner. I think CLS14's reaction was one of apathy rather than consensus, she just didnt want anyone messing with her europe section. Did you consider that she may also have been a Bridgestone Employee.

Your quote of her is once again twisted and innacurate, you wrote above "Cls14 stated it was "okay" for this article to be merged into the Bridgestone article"

Whereas, what she really said was,

I don't see any problem with merging the two. Although I certainly can't be bothered to do it and heaven help anyone who messes with my European section of the Bridgestone page, lol. Cls14 13:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You see the actual difference between what an editor wrote and how you want others to interpret it, your version specifically highlights the word "OKAY" which is a word that never existed at all in her statement. Yet another factual innacuracy that I bring to your attention along with the ever increasing amount of your other such misleading and misquoted references. In your own words, "You cant have it both ways", you cant persecute a fellow editor for your percieved violations and yet continue to violate policy yourself. Clearly you edit other peoples messages and reword them and constantly misquote others in an attempt to push your version of history.

1. I think I have explained my reasons for not merging the article many times, the admin who removed the merge request on the Bridgestone page put it quite clearly in his edit tag. Basically there is no benefit to Wiki to merge the article and only a detremental effect. Merging two company articles with such vastly different histories must by its very nature dilute the accuracy and content of both.
2. The majority of your sources are fine Travb except for when you add your witch hunt stuff. The UN article for instance is a generic piece which talks about 7 plants in Liberia one of which is Firestone. The edit in the firestone article is taken out of context and does not truly reflect what that report says. Other references you use are very much POV or suggested interpretations of fact. Corporate websites would be most probably biased towards their company, the fact that they are included in every corporate article on wiki would suggest that this is the norm. My observation is that corporate web sites tend to not include anything about negative events rather than trying to puff those events.
3. The table was created by another user and improved and formatted by me, this article is in my watch list and I saw the table go up. It was badly formatted and lacked any esthetic appeal, I edited it, added logo and images and made it look better, so in my opinion I created what is now there.
4. My final comment is directly to Travb, do you feel honestly that any editor coming to this page for information about how to edit the article could make any meeningfull discisions based on what he/she would find?, I think even you would have to agree that the discussion page is just a mish mash of collective opinions about non article related events and political point scoring.

If you have finally finished your diatribe and now wish to actually start to provide serious debate and ideas for the article, then I would suggest that YOU archive the discussion page and start a new with your valuable ideas. Mobile 01^Talk 05:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to:

Your quote of her is once again twisted and innacurate, you wrote above "Cls14 stated it was "okay" for this article to be merged into the Bridgestone article" Whereas, what she really said was, I don't see any problem with merging the two. Although I certainly can't be bothered to do it and heaven help anyone who messes with my European section of the Bridgestone page, lol. Cls14 13:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC) You see the actual difference between what an editor wrote and how you want others to interpret it, your version specifically highlights the word "OKAY" which is a word that never existed at all in her statement. Yet another factual innacuracy that I bring to your attention along with the ever increasing amount of your other such misleading and misquoted references. In your own words, "You cant have it both ways", you cant persecute a fellow editor for your percieved violations and yet continue to violate policy yourself. Clearly you edit other peoples messages and reword them and constantly misquote others in an attempt to push your version of history.

True or false, did Cls14, by saying:

I don't see any problem with merging the two. Although I certainly can't be bothered to do it and heaven help anyone who messes with my European section of the Bridgestone page, lol.

Agree with the page merge? I was simply summarizing Cls14 approval of the merge. Would a reasonable person reading this statement ascertain that the user "okayed" the page merge? Calling my summary of Cls14's approval of the merge Cls14 "twisted and innacurate", is ridiculous.

In response to: "Other references you use are very much POV or suggested interpretations of fact." What references? As per User:Bobblehead:

LucaZ, while it is generally preferable that articles be written in a NPOV, it is not justification to delete a well sourced section. If you feel that the section is NPOV, you should try to rewrite the section using more neutral manner and/or providing additions from Firestone's POV to counter the POV present within the article.[50]

I have continually welcomed your corporate additions to this article. I welcome your additions to counter what you see as POV, but I do not tolerate, because it is against wikipolicy, for anyone to delete well referenced material. My views on this are consistent on this, not only on this page, but on every page I edit and work on.

"do you feel honestly that any editor coming to this page for information about how to edit the article could make any meeningfull discisions based on what he/she would find?"

No, absolutly not. Mobile 01, if you would stop deleting/archiving this talk page and my comments, then blaming me for other wikiusers not being able to find their comments, then we can finally discuss this article.

For 20 days I have had to counter everyone of your questionable statments, as you continue to repeatedly violate wikipolicy. The deletion/archiving edit war with Morton is only the latest wikipolicy you have broken, which I have had to waste a lot of time repairing.

Think Mobile 01, 20 days ago, if you would have only discussed the edits rationally on this talk page, when the page was protected and I asked for a WP:Third opinion, how much further along would we have been?

Instead for 20 days you have repeatedly broke wikipolicy, which I think deserves a response, and a counter response.

If you would have simply discussed this page here, Morton, Fair, and rebelat would never have gotten involved in this edit war, along with countless admins. We can't go backwards and change what we did, but please allow me to go forward.

Mobile 01: No more wikipolicy violations.

If your arguments are too weak to stand community scrutiny, no more wikipolicy violations, and no more WP:NPA violations either. Travb (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question from Travb

True or false, did Cls14, by saying:

I don't see any problem with merging the two. Although I certainly can't be bothered to do it and heaven help anyone who messes with my European section of the Bridgestone page, lol.

Agree with the page merge? I was simply summarizing Cls14 approval of the merge. Would a reasonable person reading this statement ascertain that the user "okayed" the page merge? Calling my summary of Cls14's approval of the merge Cls14 "twisted and innacurate", is ridiculous.

Most definately FALSE. I do not believe that a reasonable person reading the statement "I Dont see any problem", would interpret it to mean I agree with your proposal. She simply states that from her perspective she see's no problem, this is not an endorsement or an "It's OK, go ahead and do it because I agree with you 100%".

As I have always maintained, your messages do not relate to the article, while I always try and address each of the points you raise and provide answers, you on the other hand ignore my questions and only answer those you can twist to your own advantage with more rhetoric and allegations. I replaced your message that you complained about having been archived, you stated that it was a current message, I asked you to show exactly which part of this so called relevant mesage related to improving the article. Your response : Question ignored. As already stated, I am so so so tired of debating this with you as you are either unable or unwilling to see any point of view but your own. I am done talking with you. As of now, You do not exist, you are a non person and I shall neither respond nor comment on anything you write. Mobile 01^Talk 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA Draft Article

I started one too. I do not support merging Firestone into Bridgestone. I do not support renaming. Phillip-Morris is known as something else now, as they didn't want to be associated purely with tobacco. I don't even know the name. I haven't checked - but I KNOW theres still a Wiki article on Phillip Morris. Same with Arthur_Andersen and Accenture Same with Western_Airlines Here's my draft version. FAAFA - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FSStorefront.png

Image:FSStorefront.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Labor

There are two issues:

• ) Even if treated in another article we need to mention it here because it is relevant to the company.
• ) We cannot trim too much since then the section where the CEO talks about their measures against child labor would be too heavy. To solve that we could trim both sections but between trimming two sections and leaving things as they are I'd rather leave things as they are. Brusegadi 01:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this article proof that international corporations & the US wage system causes world poverty? It proves it to me. Whebn we end it we'll quickly end world poverty to end human suffering. Sundiii (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bridgestone Firestone logo.png

Image:Bridgestone Firestone logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting

Just a quick explanation for my reformatting. I'm fundamentally opposed to criticism sections and Travb's renaming of the section triggered my memory on why I didn't like that section. In keeping with that, the contents within the section are large enough to constitute their own sections without "hiding" them by using the semicolon technique, so I just eliminated the section header and turned all the semicolons into section breaks. The military contract section really isn't large enough to have its own section, so just eliminated the header and smooshed it into the "early history" section. I also sent the jingle section to the bottom since it really is just a "factoid" so, not that important to the all around article. Other than that the reformatting was relatively minor cleanup fixes.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bridgestone logo.png

The image Image:Bridgestone logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anne Firestone Ball

It is unclear why Anne Firestone Ball links to this article. Either development of the article is required to include Anne Firestone Ball's role in this company, or the link should be removed and a stub created for Anne Firestone Ball. Thelema418 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Improving quality of information available regarding Firestone's Operations in Libera

The current Liberia section (recently updated to reflect the Nov 18, 2014 airing of a PBS documentary on the subject) has a few areas that can be improved.

The current section highlights three specific issues:

• The usage of the Firestone plantation by Charles Taylor's army to assault Monrovia in 1992
• The 2005 ACTA case brought by International Labor Rights Fund against the company
• The 2014 PBS Frontline and ProPublica investigation and history of the Liberia Civil War, and Firestone's involvement therein

In my restructure, I worked very hard to make sure that I maintain all three of these points, while adding significantly more salient information to give a good overview of the subject, which can then be more fully explored on the Firestone Natural Rubber Company main page. The section is currently written such that it goes very specific on the topics listed without providing any actual information, instead just repeating statements made by individuals without giving context on the "why" of a quote. I've worked to fix this, but happy to collaborate with any others.

The Pro Publica piece in particular is an excellent history of the Liberian Civil War and how major companies in Liberia (specifically firestone) dealt with it. The only thing I would desire from it is that they would release the State Department Cables and other documents that they base their story on, since there is so little primary source material available for this period in Liberia's history or in US-Liberia relations (wikileaks, for example, doesn't have much from the 1990s). Stefannagey (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Rationale for deletions

This image of an African-American Firestone employee was deleted and deleted again by this contributor who claims the photo is "promotional".

The "website" parameter of a citation should not contain an external link, per Help:CS1 errors. The actual citation can still be accessed/checked via the first blue link in the References section (i.e. the bit between the quotation marks). As explained in the edit summary, I deleted the images because I felt they add no value to the article and border on promotion. DH85868993 (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough about the citation parameters, but the images belong in the article. Firestone is a company, and a company is not just about tires or services performed but about its people. Take a good look at this article after you removed the images. There are no people in it: there is an image of tires, one of a car, an early storefront, an ad from 1919 -- so why no people? In my view, the article is unbalanced with a bias towards things. I'm a customer of Firestone not a paid promoter; I like my images being in Wikipedia, that's all. What you may or may not know is that there are few images of people in Wikipedia, given all the permissions involved and privacy concerns. When I do get permission, such as these kind representatives gave me, I take the photos. That's all it is: employees smiling. It is not advertising saying "buy this!" or "15% discount!" or "Sale today!" -- it is just people. I don't think these images are going to make people run out and buy Firestone tires. Plus, you are edit warring by your repeated removals here and here. That's two strikes. I don't edit war so I won't revert you but I strongly suggest that you should please restore the images. And there's one other aspect to this that I hope is not a factor when you removed this image of an African-American -- that your repeated removals have nothing to do with the skin color of the employee, that this is not an example of what comedian Chris Rock might describe as sorority racism, but inevitably I will feel obligated to raise this issue elsewhere in forums if this image is not restored.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the images, even though I still believe they are not necessary. I find your suggestion that one of the images was removed for racist reasons quite offensive. DH85868993 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable and I apologize for the insinuation. I do not think your motive was racist, but I am becoming sensitive (probably because of the Chris Rock monologue?) that it seems to work out, in Wikipedia, that there is not enough inclusion of women, minorities, LGBTers. I am a white male and in the past, because of my white-male luck of the draw, I've had an easier time of things, and I feel a bit guilty about this, and in the future, as best I can, will try to be fair everywhere I can. Thanks again and I appreciate your kindness.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. No hard feelings. DH85868993 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105041726/http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/ch-2-investigation-finds-recalled-tires-sale/nbg3G/ to http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/ch-2-investigation-finds-recalled-tires-sale/nbg3G/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510230226/http://www.bridgestone-firestone.ca/eng/history/default.asp to http://bridgestone-firestone.ca/eng/history/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310222630/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/corporal/welcome.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/corporal/welcome.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)