Talk:Henry Ford

Anti-Semitism in intro

I don't agree that it should be in the intro. I could be wrong, but I want some degree of consensus for this, as the article has been in its current state without the anti-Semitism in the intro for a long time. I'm reverting the last edits that included this info in the intro, pending consensus. I have a feeling that consensus about this has already been made in the archives and hopefully someone who's been here longer will tell us about this. Jrtayloriv, don't be mad at me. I, like you, am a huge fan of human rights, including those of Jews. But I just don't believe that info belongs in the intro. Belasted (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

First, just to save people the trouble of having to dig through the article's History, here is a copy of what I was proposing to add to the intro:

Ford was also a very vocal anti-semite, who owned an anti-Jewish newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, and published the book the International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, as well as numerous other anti-Semitic articles. Adolf Hitler deeply admired Ford, and said to a Detroit reporter: "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration". Ford also received Nazi Germany's highest civilian award, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle.

I personally do feel like this should be in the intro, or at least deserves brief mention there, followed by a more detailed section in the main text of the article. It sheds a lot of light on Ford's character, which gives people a more accurate lens through which to interpret the rest of the information in the article. A man's wealth and economic activities are only one aspect of his life: his cultural achievements, if they have a large impact, are equally important. For instance Bill Gates has his philanthropy work mentioned twice in the intro to his article. Ford's antisemitic literature was so influential and widespread that it is still found on most major anti-Semitic sites to this day.

What are your reasons for not including this in the intro? Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I don't personally feel that his anti-Semitism was one of his most notable achievements. I could be wrong, I don't really know the history that well. My problem is that this is a big deal to add to the intro and this article has been the way it is for a long time. I feel that more people need to be involved in the discussion before you make such a change. However, as I am fairly ignorant of the issue, I will not revert your edit if you add the info back. If other people have a problem with it, then they can let their voices be heard. Belasted (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is very notable to Jewish people who, to this day, still have to put up with racial stereotypes and ridiculous racist myths which were widely propagated in the works that he published such as "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the book that I mentioned in the proposed addition to the Introduction ... It will also help readers understand the motivations for some of his other activities like the car factories he ran in Nazi Germany using Jewish slave labor. For now, I am going to put it back up, until I hear from other people who believe that it is not appropriate.Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted out all the new anti-Semitism nonsense. This was long discussed and consensus built. Leave the article neutral. As it now stands, we know that ford approved the printing of the Protocols in the DI, but he did not accept the cross, so its' awarding is irrelevant to the man. It'd be akin to Achmedinijad giving Bush an award for hating Jews, and Bush not accepting it. Fomenting trouble doesn't make the attempt notable. ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the same as "Ahmadinejad giving Bush an award for hating Jews" -- incorrect analogy. The difference is that Bush and Ahmadinejad are not friends and business partners.

Without getting all angry, and calling my edits "nonsense" -- why don't we discuss it. I personally felt that I was being neutral. Just because the truth is uncomfortable, does not make it not neutral. I sourced everything I said. From you, I heard a lot of accusations, loaded words, etc -- but no sources, other than your opinion that it is "nonsense". Could you be more specific. I didn't realize that Ford didn't accept the cross -- all the sources I've found said that he did. Do you have a source for that. I'll trust you for now, and assume that he didn't. So that would leave us with (with the medal removed while I look for a source that contradicts my other sources saying that he accepted the medal.):

Adolf Hitler deeply admired Ford, and said to a Detroit reporter: "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration". Vincent Curcio wrote of Ford's publications that "they were widely distributed and had great influence, particularly in Nazi Germany, where no less a personage than Adolf Hitler read and admired them." Hitler, fascinated with automobiles and Ford's views on labor and Jews, hung Ford's picture on his wall; Ford is the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf. Steven Watts wrote that Hitler "revered" Ford, proclaiming that "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany, and modeling the Volkswagen, the people's car, on the model T." Henry Ford also gave annual birthday gifts of 50,000 deutsch marks to Adolph Hitler.

What exactly is "nonsense" about this to you? Why do you not think that it is relevant? It definitely seems notable to the U.S. news media, as several major newspapers have run articles on it. What sources make you believe that Ford's influence on Hitler is not important? Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The summary of my reply before :Read all the talk apge that has gone before, stands. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have -- and I definitely don't see any form of consensus. I see a long-running dispute that has come nowhere close to resolution. Also you need to keep in mind that consensus can change. The information I added is well-sourced, notable, and written in neutral language. And the title of the section does not reflect the subject matter accurately -- it contains info on things besides the Dearborn Indpendent. Anti-Semitism is not a loaded word to use for someone with anti-Semitic views. Nazi is used an insult by people, but calling Joseph Goebbels a Nazi is not POV or biased. It's just a fact. And it is a fact that Ford was a vocal anti-Semite. I also found nothing disputing the fact that he refused the medal. Just more sources claiming that he accepted it. Do you have ANY sources, or just a strong desire for history to be written a certain way?Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, you don't listen to the consensus that is here. First, the page was stable for a long time, so the onus is NOT on me to defend it, but on you to present a case for change, which you have failed to do, except for logical fallacy appeals. To assert anti-semitism brings out massive fighting on the page, look and see. It has LONG been consensus to LEAVE it as 'The Dearborn Independent', and leave it for the reader to decide, esp. given the denials and historical examinations. The award to the GM guy is thoroughly irrelevant, and the Iron cross award is already IN the article at the level of examination it needs, given that Ford never accepted it. Now, until you can explain why any of the chagnes you seek should be implemented, refrain from edit warring. ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, you don't listen to the consensus that is here. -- as I've said, it doesn't seem like consensus has every been reached. Consensus involves more than just your opinion. It involves a discussion between all parties involved using sources and rational arguments -- neither of which you have presented, and both of which I have.

First, the page was stable for a long time, so the onus is NOT on me to defend it, but on you to present a case for change, which you have failed to do, except for logical fallacy appeals. -- I have presented my case for change, and you have not responded to any of my logical arguments and have instead appealed to emotional opinionated remarks. I don't recall any "logical fallacies" that I've made -- could you point one out? Or is it just a fallacy to write about things that you want to pretend didn't happen for whatever reason? I've already clearly presented why I think this needs to be changed, I have sources to back it up, and I've given several good reasons (good to me and several major newspapers and books written on the subject, at least) why I think the information is verifiable notable and important to the discussion. You have presented none of these sorts of things. For instance, you keep saying that Ford never accepted the medal: Find a source that shows that this is the case. I am not saying that it's not possible that he rejected the medal. But as long as I've got several valid sources telling me that he accepted it, that's what I'm going to believe, not an angry, emotional Wikipedia editor who I've never met. So you need to present a case for why it shouldn't be changed, in light of the sources that I've presented, and my reasons for changing it. If not, I suppose the best thing to do would be to seek some form of mediation, because it is impossible for me to discuss this with you if you will not respond to anything I've said, or give valid reasons for removing everything I write.

The award to the GM guy is thoroughly irrelevant I agree -- that was not my addition. I think that was there by someone, who like yourself, is trying to minimize Henry Ford's involvement with the Nazi party, by saying something to the effect of: "Oh, it's OK -- because all kinds of American business executives were getting awards from the Nazis." -- I am in complete agreement and throw in my vote for the removal of discussion of GM executives getting Nazi medals. This article is about Henry Ford. I just want to talk about the Nazi medals he got.

Iron cross award is already IN the article at the level of examination it needs, -- maybe that's why you're so confused -- nobody ever said Ford got an Iron Cross, because he didn't. He got the Grand Cross of the German Eagle. Is that what you were missing?

Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the 'german cross', but it was is in the article in a manner sufficient to prevent the long discussions and edit warring from continuing. that's your proof of consensus. All parties agreed on the state of the article. Further, Hitler's opinion of Ford is largely irrelevant and 'guilt by association'. Ford's antisemitic acts are clearly documented, without placing WP:UNDUE weight on them. He was foremost an entrepreneur and auto magnate, and his social policies secondary.

And no, you haven't given any logical reasons, you've accused me of whitewashing, which is ironic, and shows you've read some of the archives, but only to learn effective tactics. However, beyond accusations of bad faith on my part, and some guilt by association edits suddenly showing up on the page, you've given little in the way of convincing arguments relevant to this article. handwaving Fearmongering about how modern people get harrassed is not a legitimate argument; its' a direct violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. We write neutral articles, and allow the reader to form their own conclusions. You also stated "Just because the truth is uncomfortable, does not make it not neutral." This suggests you feel your version of the truth is right, and the article is wrong. Please read WP:TRUTH and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article has, as another editor has pointed out, long been stable in this form, and he doesn't agree with your edits. That he says he won't revert isn't a sign of overt support in light of his other comments. Social activism goes on other websites. Try Conservapedia, they may be more in line with your thinking.

This suggests you feel your version of the truth is right, and the article is wrong. -- It's not my version of the truth. It's the truth according to all of the reliable sources I put with it to back it up. You are the one who has been making up your own version of the truth, such as when you held, up until your previous post, that Ford had never accepted the medal. This was a "fact" that you just made up because it was convenient for you. I had sources to back up that he did get the medal. You didn't even know the name of the medal, because you haven't done any real research on it.

shows you've read some of the archives, but only to learn effective tactics. Wrong. I read the archives, because you said that I was missing something there, and that I should read them. And I wasn't missing anything. I looked to make sure of this, to be fair to you. You said that consensus had been reached there when it hadn't.

Social activism goes on other websites. Try Conservapedia, they may be more in line with your thinking. -- This has nothing to do with social activism. It has to do with the telling of a notable piece history as it actually happened -- according to my reliable sources.

We write neutral articles, and allow the reader to form their own conclusions. -- yeah me too. What did I write in the article that was my own conclusion? Nothing. I just put facts that were supported by reliable sources. The fact that Henry ford was close enough to Hitler to send him 50,000 marks a year and got a prestigious award from the Nazi party is just a fact. I made no conclusions about this in the article. All I said was that it happened, and put sources to back it up. The only unbased opinion that is being put down here is yours -- namely "I don't think this is important, so it's not going to go here.". So maybe you need to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- I'm not putting this here because I "like it". I'm putting it here because it is a notable fact that has been discussed in several major national newspapers and books, and is not in the article.

Further, Hitler's opinion of Ford is largely irrelevant and "guilt by association". -- once again, you already made this bad analogy once, with your comment about Bush and Ahmenijad. Reread my response there. I don't feel like typing it out again for you.

Ford's antisemitic acts are clearly documented, without placing WP:UNDUE weight on them. -- one of them -- namely his relation to the Dearborn Independent -- is clearly documented. And personally, I do believe that it has undue weight on it -- I think that it could easily be shortened to about 2 paragraphs, and provide all of the important information. The explanation as it is, should go into it's own article, where it can be covered in more detail, in my opinion. And I think that the information I have should go in this article, since all of it is notable and well-referenced (according to Wikipedia guidelines, not yours).

handwaving ... fearmongering ... logical fallacies ...not a legitimate argument -- you keep using these weasel words to try to convince me that you are right about this. But although you keep repeating them over and over and over, I'm personally not buying it. For the same reason that I didn't believe your claim that Ford never got a medal from the Nazis -- because you haven't backed it up. Show me some of my logical fallacies (something on the order of your faulty analogy with Bush would do) -- please.

The article has, as another editor has pointed out, long been stable in this form, and he doesn't agree with your edits. -- And you know what -- I was just fine with the other editor, because he discussed it with me. And I was willing to take his opinion into account, and decided not to put anything about Ford's relation to the Nazi party or his anti-Semitism in the intro, even though I personally feel like it is important enough to be there. Instead, I put it in a section related to Ford's anti-Semitic beliefs. But what you've done is deleted facts (which were sourced), claimed they weren't true (which they were), told me that there was proof that they weren't true in the archives (which there wasn't), and generally resorted to ad-hominem attacks and loaded language, instead of backing up anything you've said (except to say that you don't think it belongs.)

Personally, I'm sick of wasting my time writing these long response to you, because you aren't discussing anything in a reasonable manner (probably because you don't have enough factual information to do so effectively, as your earlier comments suggest). I'm going to try to find some form of moderation to deal with this. Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I have discussed this. You premised your changes in blaming antisemitism now on him. "I believe that it is very notable to Jewish people who, to this day, still have to put up with racial stereotypes and ridiculous racist myths which were widely propagated in the works that he published ..." That's SOAPBOXing and pushing a POV here. It's really that simple. No one here is hiding his anti-Jewish activities, but we aren't going to put them front and center in the article, when that's NOT what he's most known for, thus a violation of UNDUE. We're not going to label it 'Anti-Semitism' because that creates excessive controversy and edit warring here, and without the words, it's quite clear what his views were, for any reader who bothers to read them. I have explained to you that this is all well trod ground, but you're not listening. I can't help that, and it's not worth my time to fight with an editor with a political agenda, like assigning blame for modern anti-semitism. ThuranX (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You premised your changes in blaming antisemitism now on him. -- Wrong. I premised my changes based on the fact that they were notable, backed by reliable sources, and written in neutral language.

we aren't going to put them front and center in the article, -- I understand that, which is why the last edit of mine that you deleted was down in the section on anti-semitism and not front and center.

We're not going to label it 'Anti-Semitism' because that creates excessive controversy and edit warring here, and without the words, it's quite clear what his views were, for any reader who bothers to read them. -- I wanted to name the section "Anti-Semitism & The Dearborn Independent", because it was about both, not just the latter.

I have explained to you that this is all well trod ground, -- And I have explained to you that this doesn't matter -- consensus has not been reached on it. Sometimes a lot of trodding has to be done to reach consensus. ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

When no one fights about a page anymore, when all parties are satisfied enough with a page to leave it be for months on end, it has consensus. this is not Rocket Science. You stated that your purpose in this was because people still experience anti-semitism. That's SOAPBOXing. This is also not rocket science, and exists completely aside from whatever sources you find that you feel trump the extant reliable sources and allow you to excoriate and bloviate ad nauseum in the article. Until you can present actual reasons to massively increase the anti-semitism section, it isn't going to be a change with consensus, and you need consensus before re-adding the material. The heading will stay neutral, unless you are offeringto RE-fight all the battles about it to push your POV. You clearly either didn't read all the talk that went before, or just don't respect other editors. Long worked sections that finally get consensus really do not need activists stirring up trouble, just to make a POINT. ThuranX (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keeping this brief to avoid the drama. This shouldn't be in the intro. When people think of Henry Ford they think of cars and automatic conveyor belts, not anti-semitism. He isn't Adolf Hitler and just because this is documented doesn't mean this is important enough to mention in the lede. He is mostly notable because of founding his company and the way he had it operate, he wouldn't be notable as an anti-semite if he wasn't already notable for his cars. ThemFromSpace 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I am willing to accept it not being in the lead -- my last edit did not attempt to put it there. I feel like people have given valid reasons for that, and I don't like it, but I understand that people don't feel it belongs. What I don't feel is valid is not putting it in the article at all -- I don't understand why his newspaper alone has such an enormous amount of space (several large paragraphs) dedicated to it, yet I can't add in five sentences about something that is equally notable and important and sourced. I would rather shorten the newspaper discussion and add in more facts. Let me reiterate I am not trying to put it in the intro anymore. See my above comments for further explanation.Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I think a well-cited mention of it in the article is valid, especially if it discusses how its been recieved in the world. You have to be careful to remain within the spirit of WP:UNDUE but it deserves a passing mention. ThemFromSpace 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor, in his arguments above, is proving unfit as an editor. It is bizarre that an historian, professional or otherwise, would resist publicizing previously suppressed historical facts to stay aligned with popular belief. The purpose of educational articles is to introduce facts that are not commonly known. Who visits here to reaffirm that Henry Ford built cars? Does that enrich? As the article contains a major section on Henry Ford's antisemitism, it is fitting that the introduction should mention it - introductions summarize the rest of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.171.171 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this is no longer an issue of the info being in the intro, let's move any further discussion to a new topic, if need be. This topic (which I started) is cluttered beyond readability. Thank you. Belasted (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry's anti-semitism would be a fact of his biography and none of our business IF he was not the one who actually CREATED hitler by financing his operations in the early stages of "development". Many historians attribute hitler's success to two individuals - henry ford and joseph stalin. Being associated with this company is hardly irrelevant in understanding an individual's character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lruss (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That would require incredible amounts of citation, in numerous WP:RS to even consider its inclusion herein. Blaming Ford for Hitler would ignore many, many other factors in his rise to power. By that amount of connections, we could blame Calvin Coolidge's isolationist tendencies, or Hoover's do-nothing reactions to the worldwide depression, for Hitler. ThuranX (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford is Author and publisher of documents that created far more anti-Semitic and racist tendencies that all of Gobbles Propaganda did over eight years, that can be seen in admiration of top Nazis plus it was the inspiration for numerous Nazi propaganda movies. Henry Ford should not go down in History as a "prominent American industrialist, supporter of workers' welfare and pacifism". Plus "mass production of inexpensive goods coupled with high wages for workers." is like saying Jesus is credited with mass production of inexpensive food from a single fish and bread for workers. Henry Ford is one of Americas greatest contributors to anti-semitism trough the publication of The International Jew weather you like it or not. And if wikipedia wont realize that fact into the inro that means that I have to learn wikipedia and join Charlie Chaplain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvNQiF89Pek and do something about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.93.251 (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For Christ sake sign your comments. To that unsigned comment, I've never heard; and i've studied WWII and Nazi Germany for many years, him being such a big player at all. Keep in mind GM also was awarded from the nazis. Henry Ford was the creater of the assembly line which revolutionized the automotive industry, creating his own steel factory was unheard of in his time. "prominent American industrialist, supporter of workers' welfare and pacifism" is an understatement. Yeah sure Jesus, assuming you're Christian; can be credited for the mass production of bread, but that pales in comparison to the revolutionization of the worlds industry, no offense to Jesus intended if one happens to be Christian as the bible stated he did many other feats. Religion should not be apart of automobile purchasing. Henry Fords anti-semitism should be stated in the page, but not in the introduction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeralLynX (talk • contribs)

Since the last round of argument about this (2009 with one anon add-on in 2010), the stable version has been settled on one short line at the end of the lede, "... but his antisemitism in the 1920s has been a source of controversy." It's good to have this there, because it doesn't pour on undue emphasis and yet, importantly, it proves to cranks and crackpots that no one is trying to "cover up" the antisemitism by "scrubbing away all mentions of it [from the lede]." I think it's best just to leave it as-is. I agree with you that those who want to just totally vilify him are off-base. We have to present all of his life, good and bad, in the context of the pre-Holocaust era. — ¾-10 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I think the compromise here is a bad one. The reason why is the title "Dearborn Independent" gives no hint of what the section is about. Could we take a cue from German Wikipedia? It divides the material into two sections:

• 3 Publizistische Tätigkeit und Antisemitismus (Publishing activities and antisemitism)
• 4 Henry Ford und der Nationalsozialismus (Henry Ford and Nazism)

Obviously, German Wikipedia has cause for a different focus, but German Wikipedia is very thorough and well-cited.

French Wikipedia gets a star for a "model Article." It says: 7 Une idéologie controversée (A controversial ideology) 7.1 Controverses autour de ses affaires avec le régime nazi (A controversial author and his affairs with the Nazi regime) 7.2 Antisémitisme présumé (Antisemitic opinions) 7.2.1 The International Jew (the International Jew) 7.2.2 Dearborn Independent (The Dearborn Independent)

Or howabout Spanish wikipedia (also a model article)? 6 Antisemitismo

English is the ONLY wikipedia article not to use this headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalFailure (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you that the *heading* about the Dearborn Independent should include the word "antisemitism". As for the article's *lede*, it needs to be kept as-is. It is at a brief, understated compromise that works without being messed with regularly by one faction or the other. As for the *heading* excluding the word "antisemitism", I wouldn't doubt that you're right that the English Wikipedia is the only one among de,en,es,fr that is holding out on that. (We could also go check a dozen other Wikipedias, too, but why bother, your point stands true.) This holding out on the English Wikipedia is driven by a stubborn conviction among some members of our Wikipedian community that feels that putting the word "antisemitism" in the heading overemphasizes the villainy of Henry Ford, or the degree of proof that his own views drove the content of the Dearborn Independent. I think it's obvious to most cynical, realist-minded people today that the paper's name was a joke, because whatever other influences it may have been independent of ("Big City Jewry from back East" being my guess of what it meant to imply), it was very much *not* independent of Henry Ford's editorial hand, although Ford claimed that it was. The main reason why I am satisfied with the current version despite that one bone that was thrown to the stubborn faction regarding the heading itself is that we finally got to an article version that people would stop messing with and batting back and forth constantly, but yet it *does* contain the antisemitism truth if anyone bothers to read it. Anyone who reads the article will get all the facts (which certainly take most of the supposed hagiographic worthiness out of the true identity of Henry Ford).

I also want to explicate here something about the difference between American and European culture that helps explain the stubbornness of some American Wikipedians about avoiding any emphasis that they consider undue. They are on guard (maybe too defensively on guard) against letting "agendas" be pushed on Wikipedia, and they have viewed some of the changes and reversions to this article over the years as "pushing an agenda" that is some cross between (as *they*, not I, would view it) (1) Trying to paint Henry Ford as an advocate of the Final Solution (which is false—he was an antisemitic old bastard, but not a genocidal one); (2) trying to push a "liberal, PC view" as understood specifically through the lens of American culture and politics of recent decades, where American conservatives imagine that American liberals want to take away American pride regarding anything good about America, and want to tear down the reputations of any American achievers of big things. They see efforts on Wikipedia to cover the bad points about famous Americans "a little too prominently" as some "liberal" attack on American values. So for example, they acknowledge that Thomas Jefferson had interracial sex with his slave Sally Hemings, but they clearly have this attitude of "yeah, but if you dwell on discussing it too much, then you're obviously just trying to rain iconoclasm down on American history and bury its good points under a mountain of discussing the hypocritical points." And they acknowledge that Henry Ford was antisemitic, but they point out that "if you try to paint Henry Ford up as a genocidal Nazi then you're obviously just trying to rain iconoclasm down on American history and bury its good points under a mountain of bad." One has to appreciate this cultural context in which edit wars between American Wikipedians sometimes take place. Personally, I agree with you that changing this one heading would not be pushing any agenda, it would merely be avoiding the appearance of apologist excusing or denial. — ¾-10 15:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So let's modify that heading already, shall we? This article has had that apologist/excuse/denial appearance way too long. Yes, the facts are in there -- but I wouldn't know to look under "Dearborn Independent" to find them; would you? That deceptive heading creates the appearance of an attempt to bury those facts, even if that wasn't the intent (and frankly, I think it was). DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is the problem. the Dearborn Independent issue was a minor epsiode in Ford's career. He did not write or even read any of the articles--he DID allow some of his people to publish them under his name in the early 1920s. He then stopped it and publicly apologized. Hitler biographers do not assign any importance to Ford's influence on Hitler (apart from the idea of cheap autos, which Hitler did like). Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I beg to differ. Guilty people and their apologists always plead ignorance ("I didn't know anything about Watergate!"), but Ford knew exactly what he was doing. As a well-sourced entry states in the article, "...that Cameron would have continued to publish such controversial material without Ford's explicit instructions seemed unthinkable to those who knew both men. Mrs. Stanley Ruddiman, a Ford family intimate, remarked that 'I don't think Mr. Cameron ever wrote anything for publication without Mr. Ford's approval.' "

The assertion that Ford had no influence on Hitler or his subordinates is even more ridiculous.

From Mulcahy:

"Ford’s The International Jew had been translated into German and his anti-Semitic ideas provided fertile ground for Germany’s nascent Nazi movement. Hitler owned a well-marked, personal copy of this book, had a framed photograph of Henry Ford in his office and often cited Ford, who was the only American to be mentioned in Mein Kampf:

'Every year makes them [the Jews] more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence.'

There is no proof that Ford ever directly gave money to Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party, but there is no doubt that Ford’s articles, available abroad through his book and Ford’s own position as a successful, powerful, influential American businessman had an effect on young Nazi sympathizers."

Example: Baldur von Schirach, who ran the Hitler Youth and sent sent 65,000 Viennese Jews to the ovens, testified under oath at Nuremberg:

"The decisive anti-Semitic book I was reading and the book that influenced my comrades was...that book by Henry Ford, The International Jew. I read it and became anti-Semitic. The book made a great influence on myself and my friends because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success and also the representative of a progressive social policy."

If Ford had kept his bigotry to himself, you might be able to make an argument for WP:UNDUE -- but he acted on his hate -- he did a lot of damage -- he actively promoted and encouraged anti-Semitism -- he financed the widespread distribution of a heinous fraud, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, throughout the USA -- Hitler hailed him as a founder of Naziism. Students need to know this about him; it's important historical information -- and they can't find it when it's buried under a seemingly-unrelated heading in this article.

Even if WP:UNDUE (or any other WP rule) did apply, as the MOS states repeatedly, Wikipedia has no rigid rules. No policy should be enforced zealously if the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article. Improving this article takes priority over any WP rule or policy. We need to join the rest of the world on this if we are to maintain any semblance of objectivity. DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain this: if i write "Henry ford" to the Search-folder, I got myself redirected to this article and notice that I'm reading an article with antisemitism on the first chapter of the intro. Then I click myself to the Discussion-page and then go back to the article and notice that intro has changed again. Now antisemitism is mentioned at the end of the intro, not the first chapter of it. Why does the article change?--188.67.230.161 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Turn on the semi-protection and throw away the "off" button [kiddie vandalism]

This article is certainly a good candidate for that. Every English-speaking school child on the planet takes a turn at vandalizing this one. And some non-English-speaking ones, too. — ¾-10 01:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, attempts by Ph.D.s, journalists and published historians to correct glaring omissions qualify as "vandalism" by Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.71.172 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WHAT?! Dude, this thread had NOTHING to do with any of that (antisemitism discussion). This thread was about schoolkid vandalism. It was about a period in the article's history 18 months ago when, literally, at least 5 middle school students per day were making edits like "Henry Ford was gay!!!" and I was getting tired of reverting the vandalism when other people couldn't be bothered. (If you supposedly care about the quality standard on Wikipedia, then volunteer your own time to revert schoolkid vandalism.) Apparently, your reply today to my comment made 1.5 years ago about a completely different topic qualifies as "understanding what you're looking at" by your standards.

By the way, regarding the antisemitism topic, I believe a BRIEF mention of his antisemitism DOES belong in the lede, with more details later, which is what the current stable version does in fact reflect. But seeing as how THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD, it's irrelevant. — ¾-10 02:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth

The record for his birth in www.familysearch.org indicates a birth date of 30 June 1863, vice the 30 July stated in our article. Is there any reason to believe one date over the other? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How can we be totally sure that Henry Ford was born on 30th July 1863? Where is the proof that he was born on this date? In an article i read dated 3rd April 2008 (Cannot locate article online) It stated the 28th July 1863.

Legal or illegal immigrants

His grandfather and father emigrated from Ireland to Quebec in 1847. At some point they crossed the border to Michigan. Were they legal immigrants? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Until 1875, the US had an open-door policy toward immigration, so there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant at the time. Some detail. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really an answer. There have been legal means for immigrants to become US citizens since the Naturalization Act of 1790. During the mid-Nineteenth century there was serious bias against poor, fever-stricken, and Irish immigrants. To quote Cecil Woodham-Smith: "Dislike of foreign immigration, combined with anti-Catholic and anti-Irish feelings, resulted in riots, especially in Philadelphia and Boston, and in 1844 rioting against Catholics and Irish raged in Philadelphia for three days: many houses and a Catholic church and seminary were burned, 13 persons were killed and 50 wounded; earlier in Boston, an Ursuline convent and a number of houses had been burned." Not much of an open door. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, until 1875, all immigration into the US was legal. Dislike of foreign immigration is not equivalent to making it illegal. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Federal policy at that time was laissez-faire. State policy was quite different - both Massachusetts and New York, refused harbor to ships carrying sick passengers.

Back to the original question: did Ford's father and grandfather just walk across the border? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

African Americans

I hear from other places that Henry was the biggest hirer of African Americans at that time (although I always thought it was Pullman, who hired the most).

Did Henry Ford hire blacks? and what kind of positions did he put them in? Did he also pay them enough to buy one of his cars too??? I can't find much information on this, and I am not even sure if he even hired black people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.134.156 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

henry ford in soviet union

I just wonder why in Henry's Ford biography it does not mentioned that Henry Ford sent 450 americans to work in ford factory in Russia. And most of them were arrested and died in Gulag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.100.2 (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If it said it in a biography, it would say it in the article. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I also thought I read it in a book ("Dancing Under the Red Star: The Extraordinary Story of Margaret Werner, the Only American Woman to Survive Stalin's Gulag"), but I must be mistaken since it's not in the article here. InforManiac (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ford company did in fact send people to the young Soviet Union to help set up industrial systems, but one key question would be what year they stopped. But I am not very well read on the subject, so the fact that I didn't read about any detentions doesn't mean much regarding whether they happened or not. Charles E. Sorensen was part of one such delegation (around 1932, if I remember right). He was curious to return later (somewhere late 1930s to early 1940s) to see how things had progressed, but he agreed with Henry Ford's advice that things were different now, and if he went, he might very well never get out again, because the Soviets would force him to stay (and, presumably, force him to choose between working on improving their industrial systems indefinitely or doing gulag time). The page range in Sorensen 1956 (pp. 193–216) is cited at Scientific management > Soviet Union. — ¾-10 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration

The Washington Post had an article about Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration.

While Ford's antisemitism is critically mentioned, the english language page misses notes about Ford collaborating with Nazi Germany completely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm The 'Germany' part of the international section only talks about the Germans admiring Fordism, not Ford's profit from producing arms for Hitler. Maybe some native speaker can read the WP article and make an entry on the english language pages of Ford and GM.

(Reference link taken from the German Wikipedia)

More info can also be found in this German language documentary: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=1730442568367720561&ei=d9m8SdfSJYHc2gLd2enJAQ&hl=de# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.86.35 (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Higher wage

It makes no sense to put the $5 per day section where it is. It comes before the model T and Ford's wild success. It even comes before the discussion of the assembly line. The $5 per day wage was in response to these things. It is not currently chronological and it makes no sense to be where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.46.33 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The article currently leaves out one of the reasons that Ford offered a higher wage. In searching the web, it appears that the fact that paying his workers more helped him because it enabled his workers to buy his cars, has been largely excised from many articles on the web that refer to the higher wage. I know that this widespread revisionism was not the case a few years ago.

http://ondix.com/pdf/docs/essays_thesis_1071112328.pdf

In 1914 Ford astonished the business world by more than doubling the minimum wage for his workers, raising it from about $2.50 to $5. He argued that if his employees earned more, the company would sell more cars to them and reduce employee turnover.

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/feb98/asian.html

In April 1914, Henry Ford and James Couzens announced that they would pay their unskilled workers $5 a day and reduce the work day to 8 hours from 9, "because that is about the least a man with a family can live on these days," as Ford explained in an interview. Five dollars was about twice the prevailing pay scale in the auto industry at the time.

Ford added later that decent wages helped him sell more cars, in addition to gaining better, more committed workers and reducing labor attrition.Patricia Shannon (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

First, sign at the end, not the start. Second, this sarticle relies far more on books, not webpages, and I would suggest that the reason you point to isn't substantiated in the books used as references. ThuranX (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The concept that Patricia mentions is valid; we just would need the refs. The higher wage is conventionally seen as both having decreased turnover and having increased the pool of potential customers by allowing Ford employees to also be customers. Another thing that increased the pool of potential customers was the very development of the production system (assembly lines and mass production), which decreased the unit cost. This is also mentioned in the lede to assembly line. Unfortunately I lack time to search for book refs on this, but if anyone has time to do it, I am certain that some refs could be found. These ideas are interrelated as 2 sides of a coin (result = more sales, both from increasing the customers' ability to pay and decreasing the unit cost). Cheers, — ¾-10 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of the rules Ford established and enforced for the households and home lives of employees on the $5/day program? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.71.172 (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is, in fact, discussion of that. It is in the section "Labor philosophy". It would probably be best to have a brief mention of it in the $5-dollar-day section that links down to the discussion. — ¾-10 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Updated: Improved heading structure. I merged the sections "$5 day" and "Labor philosophy" per recent talk page discussion. Upon closer analysis, I find that having 2 separate sections was merely WP:CFORKing. — ¾-10 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The International Jew

I think it's odd that this should be mentionned:

Henry Ford dressed up as Santa Claus and gave sleigh rides to children at Christmas time on his estate.

But not this: Henry Ford published and distributed The International Jew, a four volume set of booklets or pamphlets, in the early 1920s. No? 83.69.242.8 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Henry_Ford#World_War_II_era? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WTWAG, he should read Henry_Ford#The_Dearborn_Independent. ThuranX (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a lower level below what I was pointing to, but there's no argument.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

seemed more relevant to me to point out the section about the 1920s and the TIJ publication, than a seciton about stuff 20 years later, but that's me. ThuranX (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford's Vision for the future

Henry Ford was a huge advocate of cannabis. There is alot of websites with material proving this youtube.com even has videos of Henry Ford taking a sledgehammer to his Hemp Plastic Car without damage. Henry Ford intended for all vehicles to run on Hemp because he knew the environmental dangers of oil, he even grew his own Hemp illegally until he died to use as fuel for his vehicles because he refused to by oil products. Henry Ford also advocated Hemp's use in fuel for vehicles and electricity, and uses to build entire homes, nutritional value and thousands of other uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.105.155.5 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sites you refer to are marijuana advocacy websites run by people with obvious agendas, not reliable sources for anything but a cheap dime bag. Bring us some scholarly articles, we can discuss the matter. ThuranX (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford was a promoter of soy not cannabis. Source: Ford, The Men

and the Machine by Phillip Lacey. There is a photo of him using an axe on the soy body car. By the way, he was older by then and got the axe turned around and sliced through the trunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.150.39 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1941 video of Ford's car plainly talks about using hemp and sisal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.52.49 (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ford's Anti-Smoking Book of 1914

Henry Ford's book "The Case Against the Little White Slaver" (1914) should be mentioned. It is a very early publication that warns about the health risks of cigarette smoking.76.70.117.226 (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford is a great person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.11.156.11 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor POV issue.

It was so cheap at $825 in 1908. Curious as to why this mention of money does not cross reference the CPI as do two others within a few sentences. $825 in 1908 is a little over $19000 one hundred years later which doesn't buy much of a car, I know, but is it really "so cheap?" Was the T that much cheaper than other cars? If so, it should be stated. Frame of reference: I bought my first brand new car in 1977 for $4300 (just over $15k in 2008 dollars or just under $200 in 1908). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.141.40 (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think $825 was cheap in 1908 relative to the other players in the market at the time, which was a different scenario from later on. As an analogy, you could look at the price of a PC-compatible clone in the 1980s and say that it was cheap relative to the IBM PC and Macintosh, although it would not qualify as cheap when compared in constant dollars to PCs of later decades. — ¾-10 02:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The text states: "By 1916, as the price dropped to $360 for the basic touring car, sales reached 472,000.[16] (Using the consumer price index, this price was equivalent to $7,020 in 2008 dollars.)" that's VERY cheap. Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource

"Distribution of International Jew was halted in 1942 through legal action by Ford despite complications from a lack of copyright.[54] Extremist groups often recycle the material; it still appears on antisemitic and neo-Nazi websites. Such as en.wikisource, one might add. The page s:Author:Henry Ford lists the "works" without any comment as to the authorship, and problematic content. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And? What, exactly, do you seek to change about the article based on this? Ford published it under a new title, and is credited with that. ThuranX (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Any Colour you want, as long as its black

I refer you to Episode 3 of Season C of QI, in which Stephen Fry Says "There is no evidence Ford actually ever said 'Any colour you like as long as its black'". Yet we have it in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshibbard (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to Ford's autobiography, My life and work, 1922, p. 72, where Henry Ford says,

Therefore in 1909 I announced one morning, without any previous warning, that in the future we were going to build only one model, that the model was going to be 'Model T,' and theat the chassis would be the same for all cars, and I remarked: "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."

Which, admittedly, may be revisionist on Ford's part, but he indubitably "said" it in 1922 in his autobiography, if not 1909 in real life. And the article explicitly claims he said it in the autobiography. Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Invention of automobile

It surprised me that there is a section devoted to this. Only a misguided child could believe that Henry Ford invented the automobile. To include a section on the topic gives it a credibility it does not deserve!124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. The section headings were once <The "invention of the automobile"> and <The "invention of the assembly line"> with the quote marks being very much intentional. I think the subtle distinction was lost on some knee-jerk copyeditor who later came along and just turned it into something it wasn't meant to be by removing the "unneeded" quote marks. I will go see about doing something better (clearer) with this. — ¾-10 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just improved the text of those sections, and I changed the headings so that they clearly show, even just from a TOC skim before the reader even clicks down to the section, that it is not being claimed here that these things were invented by him. — ¾-10 01:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are great titles that you gave to those sections. They're not as misleading as the previous titles. InforManiac (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

$5 a day wage

Because this "page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it," can somebody please add to the section referring to the $5 a day wages? Not everybody got those wages while working for him back then. Additional information can be found at numerous sources including http://www.nysun.com/opinion/gms-social-contract/24474/ InforManiac (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your cite does not say that "not everybody" got $5 per day wages working for Henry Ford. Rather, it mentions Ford's concurrent intrusion into his workers social lives, a subject that is covered under "Labor philosophy" in the Wikipedia article. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about that page mentioning the intrusions into his employees' social lives. That was part of the requirement for the $5 per day wages (although that wasn't specifically mentioned in that article).

There was a news article in the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1989 that mentions not all workers got the $5 wage, but it's on the newsbank.com website, so there's a charge for "purchasing" it. You can see the beginning of the article if you scroll down after clicking on http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB95EC6F9936681&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

Another page, possibly considered to be more "controversial" by some, that mentions it can be read by clicking on http://www.reformation.org/henry-ford.html

I would gladly search for more pages that reference it, but I've been here for about an hour getting that put together for you, and the computer has been freezing up. I was getting "Unresponsive script" boxes supposedly related to Wikipedia popping up. My internet connection ended up crashing, and so I'm just sending you this material as is before it goes down again. InforManiac (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bussinness

Henry Ford created over a thousand Model T's. He could make one car in 96 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.64.254 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jews in baseball

Historians agree that Ford did not write the articles in Dearborn Independent -- and he was not known as a sports fan. The magazine itself (and subsequent historians) say the long sports article that on blamed Black Sox on Jews was written by an anonymous contributor. See Saying It's So: A Cultural History of the Black Sox Scandal by Daniel A. Nathan (1995) p 35 Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Too much Jew"

The "too much Jew" comment is sourced to a documentary written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. I would ask the editor who is deleting it to therefore stop doing so, as I've requested in the edit summary, and if he has a contrary view on the issue from an RS to add that as well rather than delete the text in question. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

no it is not sourced from the film--it is sourced from a review of the movie in a popular magazine. The scholarly literature says Ford did not write it, -- just what is the exact quote from the movie, by the way--did anyone see the movie? Rjensen (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No -- the magazine mentions what is stated in the film. I've added another ref just now as well (a book).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And another newspaper that quotes the movie (quoting Ford), and another book.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And there are additional books referencing it here and here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

the problem is that Ford never wrote anything, and the article in question was unsigned. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia mantra is "verifiablity, not truth". See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. This is eminently verifiable. Multiple sources, a Pulitzer Prize writer, books published by Ivy League Presses. It meets wp standards with flying colors. As I said before, if there is a contrary statement in a reliable source that states that he did not write that, then add a sentence to that effect. BTW, I think he said/wrote it more than once, and it appears in his 1922 authorized bio as well, The amazing story of Henry Ford: the ideal American and the world's most famous private citizen; a complete and authentic account of his life and surpassing achievements, James Martin Miller, Henry Ford.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I fear that Epeefleche misses the key point. For himself was barely literate and he never wrote anything or dictated anything -- all the articles in the magazine were written by paid contributors. The Ford Motor Company published the magazine, and there is no doubt that Ford endorsed the contents in general. Other people told him what it contained. The story about baseball is so minor and trivial in comparison to the important anti-Semitism of the magazine, that its inclusion distorts the article, in its statement that Ford personally wrote the text is not stated by any of the books that Epeefleche cites. (Ford could read and write at the fifth-grade level at best-- as he testified in court euphemistically, he only read the headlines. He was not a sports fan, and the depth of the coverage of baseball would be absolutely astonishing if he really did write it). The James Martin Miller, Henry Ford is online free from Google and contains hundreds of pages of anti-Semitism churned out by the Dearfield Independent magazine.Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The key point is the half dozen refs from RSs that I have provided, the wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources and original research, the above essay on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, and the fact that given all of that what an editor "knows" to be truth does not appropriately lead to the deletion of one well-sourced sentence that is clearly relevant. (Not that I "know" that Rjensen is correct, and the Pulitzer Prize winner and the other indicated authors publishing in top-flight academic presses are incorrect). As to Rjensen's knowledge of Ford and baseball, that is neither here nor there, but is certainly belied by Ford's authorised bio, which focuses largely on baseball in two chapters. In any event, the short answer is, this is referenced in multiple high-level RSs, so it is not appropriate to edit war delete it. Feel free to add a sentence with a Pulitzer Prize writer and six refs supporting it stating that Ford did not write it if you like (but please -- no synthesis). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I always hesitate to even say anything on this topic, because I really believe that most people who read it may be incapable of not misunderstanding my intent either one way or the other. But I'm having trouble resisting. Here goes. Henry Ford was a tough old bastard who had an antisemitism problem that was based at least partly on a predisposition toward conspiracy theory. The thing about that whole deal is that it's conspicuously human. The world was (and sadly still is) full of people who are soft on such faulty thinking. But the other thing about it is that, before the 1930s, almost no one realized that being this way was a slippery slope that skitters you down toward the depths that true villains like Hitler and Himmler occupy. The word "genocide" wasn't even coined until after the Nazis had risen and fallen. Before the Holocaust, it was considered "normal" by "respectable" people for old Dad or Grandpa to be "a heck of a good guy, even though he hates blacks/Jews/Italians/Irish/INSERT_SAMPLE_OUTGROUP_HERE." There are two ways to be misguided about viewing Henry Ford through post-World-War-II eyes. One is to overvillainize him, claiming that he was a closet Nazi who would have gladly "thrown the switch to fire up the ovens" at Auschwitz. (Wrong.) The other is to try to bowdlerize or downplay his antisemitism to make it safe for hero worshippers and schoolchildren. (Also wrong.) There's no point in quibbling over whether he wrote it or "merely" tacitly approved its writing, nor in implying that the latter exonerates him; he was an antisemitic old bugger, and we may as well freely admit it nowadays. And pretending that any lack of fluent literacy (if such he did indeed lack) has anything to do with him being a forgivable old simpleton who simply didn't know what the big words meant—Henry Ford was not stupid. Quite the opposite. But neither is there any point in gussying up his "parlor antisemitism" (as I believe Harry Truman called such thinking) as some kind of "hardcore Nazism", which is what some editors come here (to Wikipedia) to do. BOTH OF THOSE VIEWS (overvilification or hagiography) ARE DISTORTIONS OF THE REALITY OF HENRY FORD. The reality is that he was one of those Archie Bunker guys about whom people used to say, "old Grandpa is a heck of a good guy, even though he hates Jews". People like that were ubiquitous in generations past, and (here's the part that many people today can't comprehend, and they think that by merely admitting this you are advocating it) it was considered "normal". Today, I wish I could say that such "dear old dads" are rare; I don't think they are (and they still come both young and old), but the difference is that today they're an "endangered species" of sorts, and they're aware that the tide has long since turned against them. And they angrily try to fight back and vilify their opponents as "commie liberals"/"PCers"/whatever. There is a battle to keep mainstream culture from slipping backward toward once again tolerating and "norming on" their reactionary thinking and intolerance. Embarrassing but true. OK, I think I have gotten this out of my system, so maybe I will go back to avoiding the topic because too many people will misinterpret me as either overvilifying or hagiographing, when in fact I am in the middle between those two, where the truth lies. — ¾-10 03:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Many interesting and (to my mind) valid points in what you have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The article should refer to an original source, not a movie. Advertising a movie is against the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.189.78 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Business Principles

Henry Ford's business principles can be summarized as follows: 1) Product development

    A)  Utility: Automobiles should be practical and useful in everyday life
    B)  Durability
    C)  Simplicity of design

2) Manufacturing

    A)  Interchangeable parts: Pioneered with the cotton gin and widely used afterward
    B)  Assembly line and conveyor: He did not invent them but used them extensively
    C)  Vertical integration: Transforming raw materials into components and components into finished goods

3) Marketing

    A)  Virtuous circle: Low price --> higher sales --> lower costs --> lower price
    B)  Free publicity
    C)  Emphasis on good customer service after the sale

Drich65 (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

On mentioning HF in third person by surname alone—one concern for further discussion

This edit was a good one, but it nevertheless makes me hesitant for one reason, as follows. What do people think of the following topic? Mentioning a person in third-person reference by surname alone is the standard way of doing it; but with Henry Ford of all people, it feels dissatisfying to me, because when people see a sentence such as "Ford did this" or "Ford bought that", their brains reflexively interpret "Ford" as meaning the eponymous corporation as opposed to the man. Now, this may seem a silly worry, because the normal assumption is that within the context of reading a biographical article about the man, the reader should be trusted to understand what the intended referent is (the man). And yet ... I don't think the Wikipedia readership fits that traditional assumption. People come here skimming, and link-surfing, and reading in incomplete chunks, and not paying patient attention ... (in other words, the natural mode of reading the Web, which is quite natural, and I don't disparage it entirely—it is appropriate in general, at least until one slows down to dig deeper on a certain topic). My gut tells me that, for this article as a special case, it's better for us to have a way to make the referent explicit at most of the mentions (i.e., either the man or the corporation, as each instance dictates)—even if it simply means saying "Henry Ford" to mean the man and "FMC" to mean the corporation. We don't need to solve this overnight. Just food for thought. — ¾-10 15:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your points. I had the same concern at points, both as to confusion with the corporation and with family members, so you will note that in a number of instances I chose not to delete his first name. If you feel that there are others where it is important, I won't edit war -- I'll just defer to you and others. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Children from Other Relationships

Harry Bennett, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Bennett, is reputed to be the son of Henry Ford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.104.168 (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Associations

Henry Ford was Free Mason. Can anyone verify/cross reference this and discuss it for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.104.168 (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did in fact add that tidbit and provide a ref for it some months ago. I saw it being added and cleaned up the ref info per the Amazon listing of the book. I recall finding it mildly interesting that Harry S. Truman wrote the foreword to the book. If you sift through the article history you'll find it (don't remember how many months ago). IIRC people have completely removed it since then. IMO there's nothing wrong with having it in the article, as long as it's buried down low. Not worthy of the lede. But to scrub it out completely just further feeds conspiracy theorists. Better to leave it in there and let the world grow bored with it. My 2 cents anyway. — ¾-10 02:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

The English immigration to Ireland statement must be incorrect, Henry Ford's grandfather was named Patrick O'hern, not the least bit English. Although it could be possible that hsi fathers other side was English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeralLynX (talk • contribs)

Edit request from 99.103.60.28, 4 July 2011

Please edit the following:

from "He was known worldwide especially in the 1920s for a system of Fordism that seemed to promise modernity, high wages and cheap consumer goods, but his antisemitism in the 1920s has been a source of controversy. "

To: "He was known worldwide especially in the 1920s for a system of Fordism; ie, a promise of modernity, high wages and cheap consumer goods. "

Reason for request:

As a history major and an avid student of America's multi-cultural society, I am unaware of any "controversy" surrounding the antisemitism of Henry Ford, nor of any deceased corporate or industrial icons. The burden of proof, so to speak, should be on the source of this unproved statement about "controversy". Also, the verbiage "seemed to promise" implies that Fordism did not achieve "modernity, high wages, and cheap consumer goods", when in fact it did. I do not care to see Mr. Ford's memory or legacy smeared by someone with a political agenda. Thank you so much for your time and attention.

99.103.60.28 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This student is experiencing the immense power of the whitewash applied by Henry Ford P R. Eddaido (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

99.103.60.28, please see the extensive talk page discussions, including the archives. Between the extremes of (1) calling him a Nazi (wrong) and (2) ignoring his antisemitism (also wrong) is a reasonable central ground of mentioning it but also not making it out to be his whole legacy. We've already ridden the waves in both directions, pushed by extremes from both ends. NPOV requires an unvarnished look at all aspects of his life, good and bad. Thanks. — ¾-10 02:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to make essentially the same responses, albeit perhaps a bit more civilly. There's a large section in the article (Henry Ford#The Dearborn Independent) that clearly explains his antisemitism and problems he faced for it at the time. As for the "seemed to promise", I'd say that the burden of proof would be on someone who wanted to claim that Fordism achieved those things (proof which is essentially impossible, since there'd be no way to tease out the effects of Fordism from other technological, social, and political changes that occurred during Ford's lifetime). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed re "seemed to promise"—I think the reason it ended up phrased that way is that Wikipedia is trying to acknowledge that Fordism never turned out to be any sort of miraculous utopian force—just a part of the larger mix of raising people's standard of living (which it truly did in many cases). But we have to avoid unduly "praising" it, because then people who are focusing on its side effects (e.g., materialism, consumerism) would accuse Wikipedia of being biased in favor of it (pro-corporate bias or whatever). Hope this explication helps. — ¾-10 16:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Famous industrialist, pacifist, antisemite, should be in the lead.

This article is a joke. The only way Ford's antisemitism could be mentioned was as a controversy. What controversy? Being an antisemite is controversial? It's not a simple fact about him? Is it not a simple well established fact that Hitler credited Henry Ford with "preserving the legacy" so to speak, with passing the torch from French 19-th century pseudo-scientific antisemitism, through Ford, to the German nascent nazional-socialismus? Did Hitler not credit Ford as a spiritual forefather of German Naziism? Yes he did. Is it not, looking back, the biggest legacy Ford left on the World, much bigger than his usage of conveyor belt and promotion of socialism?

There isn't even a section on his antisemitism, but one rather euphemistically named after a certain newspaper. A newcomer with no prior knowledge taking a glance at the lead and the contents will have no impression whatsoever of the Ford's immense importance in antisemitic movements of 20th century worldwide. How's receiving a highest Nazi award belongs to a section about newspaper exactly? It does not; it belongs to a section about Ford being a famous and most influential antisemite of the early 20th century. But apparently we're not allowed to have such named section in this article; we're only allowed to talk about newspapers, and how Ford wasn't even a writer in his newspaper - as if being a publisher is not enough.

Too many editors with agenda of whitewashing Ford and his pacifistic socialistic antisemitic endeavors obviously stood in the way of Truth finding its way into this sorry excuse for an WP article. WillNess (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitler admired Ford for his cars--and tried to emulate him via the Volkswagon. Rjensen (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of starting another prolonged diatribe (like the first section on this page), Ford's anti-Semitism has been documented beyond reasonable doubt. It needs far more mention in the article that it is presently given. At the very least, the last sentence of the lead, which stated that he was anti-Semitic, needs to be restored.

Someone said, "when people think of Ford they think of cars and industry, not anti-Semitism" -- as if that were a good thing. If Ford had just hated Jews, and kept that hate to himself, it wouldn't be worth more than a brief mention, if any mention at all. But he acted on his hate -- he did a lot of damage -- he actively promoted and encouraged anti-Semitism -- he financed the widespread distribution of a heinous fraud, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, throughout the USA -- Hitler hailed him as a founder of Naziism. Students need to know this about him; it's important historical information. I'm not suggesting anything POV, just that we state the facts as documented in valid reliable sources.

Last time this was hashed out, the politically correct faction prevailed -- but facts are facts; this information cannot be suppressed if we are to maintain any semblance of objectivity. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; and for the NPOV purists he could be called "a famous and much influential promoter of antisemitism" too. There exists a bestselling book "International Jew", with Henry Ford as its author on its title page. All the discussions of him not being an actual writer of that book are irrelevant to that fact. The central contribution of Ford to the Nazi doctrine was that he gave it grounding as supposedly scientific, rational doctrine, with this book. It surely had much bigger impact on the world than his cars business.

Of course some would argue that this book wasn't antisemitic and just a "scientific exploration" of "the Jew" and "his proclivities", much as Ford himself claims in the book's preface. WillNess (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Hitler admired Ford for his socialism, and hence his antisemitism and his cars. Or was it for his antisemitism and his socialism, and so for his cars? In any case cars came as distant third. WillNess (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitler was an autmobile addict and the Volkswagon was inspired in part by the Model T. Apart from autos, did Ford influence Hitler? --not according to the standard biographies of Hitler (Ford is never mentioned by Kershaw, Bullock or Fest) These leading scholars list hundreds of other people who did influence Hitler, but not Ford. (Kershaw and Bullock are British, Fest is German) Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ.

From Mulcahy:

"Ford’s The International Jew had been translated into German and his anti-Semitic ideas provided fertile ground for Germany’s nascent Nazi movement. Hitler owned a well-marked, personal copy of this book, had a framed photograph of Henry Ford in his office and often cited Ford, who was the only American to be mentioned in Mein Kampf:

Every year makes them [the Jews] more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence.

There is no proof that Ford ever directly gave money to Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party, but there is no doubt that Ford’s articles, available abroad through his book and Ford’s own position as a successful, powerful, influential American businessman had an effect on young Nazi sympathizers." DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A serious comment on Hitler will require a serious book on Hitler, rather than pop stuff by pop authors who don't read German--the leading RS on Hitler (like Kershaw, Evans, Fest, Bullock) do not mention Ford (apart form Hitler's interest in autos). As for Hitler's library, he owned thousands of books (but he mostly read newspapers not books). As for the Dearborn Independent, Ford indeed authorized its anti-semitism, as the article states. then he repudiated it and publicly apologized. In a very long career that covers many topics it UNDUE to classify him as an antisemite. None of the main RS give it that much emphasis. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"nascent Nazi movement" is not just one Adolf Hitler. One Adolf Hitler does not a nascent German Naziism make. Please dont change subject and please dont shift perspective.

So Henry Ford was a major disseminator of antisemitism for years, then he apologised. How nice for him. Our job is not to pass moral judgment on his persona however but to correctly represent facts of his life and legacy. And passing antisemitism on to the nascent German Naziism is one of his legacies - one could safely argue, the one that left an impact on the world much bigger than anything else he did and said. Much more than his cars. So, don't call him an antisemite; call him a major proponent and disseminator of antisemitism of the early 19th century, a major figure of the pre-WWII US and world-wide antisemitism - which is true, and massively understated in the article. WillNess (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! And who made the rule that only Germans can comment on Hitler? Never mind the fact that this is an article on Henry Ford, an American -- but if you insist on evidence from Germans, take a look at the Nuremberg testimony, which I quoted above.

We have reliable documentation, German and non-German, including Hitler's own writings, that Hitler and his followers were influenced by Ford. His antisemitism reduced him, for one of the few times in his life, to the position of apologizing -- but only because Aaron Sapiro filed a libel suit -- at that point it dawned on Ford that he was facing hundreds of similar suits if he continued to espouse his maniacal views publicly. So he said I'm sorry, and we're supposed to believe he stopped being an antisemite, and act like it never happened? I don't think so.

The damage was already done -- he had distributed the Protocols throughout the US -- he had influenced the nascent Nazi movement in Germany -- "sorry" doesn't undo any of that, and it certainly doesn't undo our obligation to document it in the article. DoctorJoeE (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources on Hitler as on all other topics, and the RS (by British, American and German scholars) show no influence of Ford on Hitler (apart from the idea of cheap automobiles). The RS historians of the Nazi movement in Germany do not show any influence by Ford. The one quote available is from a minor figure named Baldur von Schirach who did say the Ford compilation did influence him. Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how you keep insisting on shifting focus and changing subject from German Nazi movement to one Adolf Hitler (a famous cars aficionado, according to you), it is hard to assume good faith on your part from this point onward. WillNess (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

von Schirach was a Gruppenführer, and ran the Hitler Youth, and was Hitler's governor in Vienna, and he was in charge of deporting/exterminating the Viennese Jews -- and he didn't just "say" Ford influenced *him*, he swore under oath at Nuremberg that International Jew was the "decisive book" for everybody in his Nazi circle. I've already quoted reliable sources on the influence of Ford on Hitler -- and he acknowledged it himself in Mein Kampf. (BTW, please pick one section and make all your comments there, instead of switching back and forth between two, which forces the rest of us to make all of our points twice.)

The German Wikipedia didn't seem to have any problem finding sufficient RS to put together a thorough and well-cited treatment of this issue; nor did the French WP (it made their version of FA status), nor the Spanish WP . . . in fact, as far as I can tell, this WP is the only one that has dropped the ball on this issue. It makes us look silly, and in denial (at best). DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should say that Ford influenced Baldur von Schirach. I checked the RS biographies of Hitler, Himmler, Goering and Goebbels and no biographer mentions any influence by Ford (apart from cheap autos). (Wikipedia rules say we cannot use Wikipedia as a source.) Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

First it was WP:UNDUE . . . that argument proved specious . . . now it's not enough RS, but all the other WPs seem to have found plenty . . . what will be next? We need to stop making excuses and catch up with the rest of the world on this. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source says Ford influenced Hitler or the top Nazis. Rjensen (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating that? First of all, Ford's influence on Hitler is only part of what is missing or understated in the article.

Second, the New York Times is not, in your opinion, an RS? "Hitler's admiration for the auto magnate, the New York Times reported, was made obvious by the large picture of Henry Ford on the wall beside Hitler's desk in the Brown House. In an adjoining room there was a large table covered with books, most of which were copies of the German translation of The International Jew. "

How about the Lewis biography of Ford? "In 1923, Hitler said 'We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement...We have just had his anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being circulated to millions throughout Germany.' "

Norman Cohn is certainly considered an RS: "Not only did Hitler specifically praise Henry Ford in Mein Kampf, but many of Hitler's ideas were also a direct reflection of Ford's racist philosophy. There is a great similarity between The International Jew and Hitler's Mein Kampf, and some passages are so identical that it has been said that Hitler copied directly from Ford's publication. "

Carlson (another RS) said, "Hitler also read Ford's autobiography, My Life and Work, which was published in 1922 and was a best seller in Germany, as well as Ford's book entitled Today and Tomorrow. There can be no doubt as to the influence of Henry Ford's ideas on Hitler. Not only do Hitler's writings and practices reflect The International Jew, but one of his closest associates, Dietrich Eckart, specifically mentioned the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and The International Jew as sources of inspiration for the Nazi leader...One of Hitler's lieutenants, Christian Weber, boasted that Ford would be 'received like a King' if he ever came to Munich."

And just to repeat, Ford's influence on Hitler is only part of what is missing or understated in the article. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no influence there. Ford was just about the most famous person in the world in the 1920s and Hitler (and many Germans) admired him for making cheap cars--that led to the Volkswagon promise by Hitler. That's an influence, but not the one suggested. Hitler biographers have traced the antisemitism and do not attribute any of it to Ford. For example the "Mein Kampf" quote does not mention antisemitism (it says Ford stayed away from the New York bankers, who Hitler thought were all Jews). There was no antisemitism in Today and Tomorrow. Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was indeed influential and Hitler read it in German versions before Ford reprinted it. as for "We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement..." it's the . . . that deliberately fools the read by cutting out the reference to the movement in America, not in Germany. ["We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America."] Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The more the merrier. This should definitely be mentioned in the article now that it seems to be in consensus: "Hitler saw him as leader of Fascist movement in America". Anyone with access to sources, please add this into article. WillNess (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is Carlson,JR: Under Cover: My Four Years in the Nazi Underworld of America (New York, 1943), p. 210. I'll be happy to add it, since we do seem to have a consensus (albeit grudging).

Addressing the other points, all of those assertions are WP:OR -- we, as editors, do not make assertions, only sources do. So we need to post what the sources say, and let their assertions live or die as they are, not as you interpret them.

"Unlike the traditional religious and social anti-Semitism which had flared up at various times since the Middle Ages, Mein Kampf presented a theory of racial anti-Semitism. The distinguished group of historians, including Sidney B. Fay, William Langer, and John Chamberlain, who edited the American edition of Mein Kampf, claimed that the use of racial anti-Semitism as the integral part of a political program was Hitler's "Copernican discovery." However, this harsh new philosophy was first propagated to the general public, not by Adolf Hitler, but by Henry Ford."

And one more time: Ford's influence on Hitler is only part of what is missing or understated in the article. Example: your assertion that he apologized, and that should make everything okay, "Henry Ford's anti-semitic campaign brought him so much trouble that he ostensibly backed off and declared that he was repudiating anti-Semitism and The International Jew. But Ford really just switched to using front men like Father Charles Coughlin, the father of hate radio, to promote his opinions. Father Coughlin republished, with the help of Henry Ford and his secretary Ernest Liebold, more rabidly hateful anti-Semitic literature, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. " DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

when we say "A influenced B" we mean that B changed somehow because of A. In the matter of cheap autos this did happen, as the Volkswagen example shows. In the case of Hitler's antisemitism it did not happen. Hitler was a full-fledged anti-semite before Ford and did not change in any way, as Kershaw (1998) has shown in his study of Hitler. Biographies of Coughlin show no connection between Ford and Coughlin's anti-semitism. Coughlin did not republish the Protocols. [A fellow named Smith did so after Ford died] Rjensen (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow -- denial ain't just a river in Egypt; Coughlin serialized the Protocols in Social Justice in 1938, well before Ford's death.

Can we get some others weighing in on this? If I assemble a cogent, concise, and properly-sourced synopsis of Ford's influence on Hitler (including, if true, that several major biographers made no mention of it), does anyone else object to my adding it to the article? DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Influence---DoctorJoeE has been unable to state one way in which Ford influenced Hitler -- a photo on the wall seems to be the main impact. (and neither have any RS--none find any impact or change in Hitler due to Ford, apart of course from the auto business) Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow again -- do I really need to restate all the ways I've already enumerated?

• Lewis: "We have just had his [Ford's] anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being circulated to millions throughout Germany," Hitler is quoted as saying.
• Cohn: "Not only did Hitler specifically praise Henry Ford in Mein Kampf, but many of Hitler's ideas were also a direct reflection of Ford's racist philosophy. There is a great similarity between The International Jew and Hitler's Mein Kampf, and some passages are so identical that it has been said that Hitler copied directly from Ford's publication. "
• Carlson: "Hitler also read Ford's autobiography, My Life and Work, which was published in 1922 and was a best seller in Germany, as well as Ford's book entitled Today and Tomorrow. There can be no doubt as to the influence of Henry Ford's ideas on Hitler. Not only do Hitler's writings and practices reflect The International Jew, but one of his closest associates, Dietrich Eckart, specifically mentioned the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and The International Jew as sources of inspiration for the Nazi leader."
• Mulcahy: "Ford’s The International Jew had been translated into German and his anti-Semitic ideas provided fertile ground for Germany’s nascent Nazi movement. Hitler owned a well-marked, personal copy of this book, had a framed photograph of Henry Ford in his office and often cited Ford, who was the only American to be mentioned in Mein Kampf.
• Detroit News: "Speaking in 1931 to a Detroit News reporter, Hitler said he regarded Ford as his 'inspiration.' "
• Watts: "Hitler 'revered' Ford, and proclaimed, 'I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany.' "

And once again, this is all distraction, because our larger duty is to make it clear that Ford was antisemitic, and did everything in his considerable power to disseminate his antisemitic views to the world, just as all the other WP editions have done. His influence on Hitler was only a part of that. DoctorJoeE (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Misleading allegations and falsehoods here--Hitler read "Protocols" before Ford ever heard of it. (It was written by Russian emigres). Most references are to the auto indfustry (eg: "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany." refers to Volkswagon). The photo again? Hitler owned thousands of books. Mulcahy & Cohn are not RS on german Nazis and they are refuted by Bureigh, Evans, Kershaw (who are the leading experts). Fact is antisemitism had been strong in Germany for decades before Hitler. What we have is a taste for sensationalism rather than reliable sources. "There can be no doubt as to the influence of Henry Ford's ideas on Hitler: nonsense --none of the major studies on Hitler agree with this. They mention scores & hundreds of influences but not Ford. And still no actual examples of changes in Hitler due to his reading of Ford material have been provided. The statement that "some passages are so identical that it has been said that Hitler copied directly from Ford's publication" is not accepted by any RS on Hitler--and it gives not a single example to any such identical passage. Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to dig out the references and quote you the contexts. The ones above referring to The International Jew are self-evident -- that book had nothing to do with car design or manufacture. If anyone else has the references at their fingertips, feel free to jump in anytime. And this debate (intentionally or not) is STILL steering away from the original, larger point. DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

yes dig up "Mulcahy" will you. Cohn and Carlson are not RS on Germany and are not cited by scholars. . Watts is a good scholar but gets distorted (Watts is talking about cars). What's happening is that Ford/Fordism was very influential in Germany in the 1920s on issues such as mass production and industry, and references to his influence there are misused to suggest it was his antisemitism that influenced anyone. For example, "Protocols" circulated widely in German in Germany as did hundreds of other anti-semitic tracts, newspapers and magazines. No role for Ford needed there. The Mein Kampf reference is about Ford distrusting banks (not Jews). (Ford did indeed distrust banks.) Altering sources (esp dropping key words by use of ...) is bad editing. The deeper flaw is believing gossip BECAUSE it's reflects negatively on Ford. Serious scholars demand proof before accepting the sort of gossip, rumors, forgeries & false allegations that surrounded Ford (as well as FDR and other famous people) See Watt p 507-8. Scholars--and Wikipedia--demands hard proof. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Another flaw, of course, is protecting a guilty party in the face of a mountain of evidence. Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm drawing most of this from memory, but I don't think so, and I'm going to hit the books (in all my spare time). But once again, this is a tangent from the original subject of actually documenting Ford's antisemitism in the article, as all the other WPs have. Can we get back to that subject, please? DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Again with the shifting focus on Hitler only. The book was circulated "in millions"... Was Hitler the only reader? Or were there in fact millions readers of these books, in Germany?

Did Hitler formed the German Naziism exclusively all by himself? Of course not. The decisive influence of Ford's antisemitic materials on the nascent German Naziism is the issue here. The focus on Hitler seems an (intentional?) distraction. WillNess (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

From Aufbau Vereinigung (I'm not suggesting using it as a source; I'm suggesting reusing its sources):

"According to Michael Kellogg[2] it was a vital influence on the development of Nazi ideology in the years before the Hitler/Ludendorff putsch of 1923, as well as financing the party with, for example, funds channelled from Henry Ford. It gave Hitler the idea of a vast Jewish conspiracy, involving a close alliance between international finance and Bolshevism and threatening disaster for mankind[3]. Recent research on Hitler’s early years in Vienna appears to have shown that his antisemitism was at that time far less developed than it became under these influences.[4]"

Seems to contain plenty of support for the thesis. WillNess (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler#Entry into politics says as much itself, citing same sources. (ref: The Russian Roots of Nazism White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945 * Michael Kellogg, Cambridge 2005). The group, financed by Ford, "introduced Hitler to the idea of Jewish conspiracy" of bankers and bolsheviks. This would seem to be a foundational influence then. WillNess (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

historians are unanimous there was no Ford money to Nazis (and Hitler said that too). The "Protocols" is all about the Jewish conspiracy; it did influence Hitler and the Nazis; they read it (in German) before Ford put out his English edition. Antisemitism was a major influence in Germany and Austria long before 1920. Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources used in those articles apprently say this group, financed by Ford (among others), was a major influence on German Naziism and on Hitler himself, introducing him to the idea of the bankers-&-bolsheviks conspiracy. Surely the degree of control over Germany that antisemitism held underwent some remarkable changes since the early 1920s compared to the later 1930s and 1940s. And if not, where were the gas chambers located back then?

Ford's publishing added millions of copies of Protocols onto the German markets. Millions of copies. So said Hitler himself apparently (cited here above). WillNess (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, couldn't help noticing: you wrote:

The "Protocols" is all about the Jewish conspiracy.

Only "Protocols" are in quotes. Written without quotation marks it gives an impression you're actually talking about actual Jewish conspiracy. This made me feel a little bit uncomfortable. One thing can not be denied though (?). The belief in "world-wide Jewish conspiracy" (whether we call it by an "a"-word in the article or not) was promoted with Ford's help and financing, in the US as well as in Germany, on a mass-production scale. Every Ford franchise anywhere in the US had to carry the Dearborn Independent, for example. I don't see this mentioned in the article either. WillNess (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was a pamphlet (the "" indicate it was a publication) --a forgery--prepared in 1903 that showed the Jews planned to take over the world via high finance. It reached Ford in 1920 in an English translation he published in the Dearborn Independent along with many other articles attacking Jews. The Dearborn Independent was a weekly newspaper or magazine that published a series of 92 articles (in English) attacking Jews starting on May 22, 1920 and stretching into 1922. The Watts book has a partial list on p 379. The 92 articles were reprinted as a 4-volume book "The International Jew" in 1922. Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And I thought it only purported to show this. Hmm. WillNess (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're getting back on topic -- up 'til now this discussion was a classic confirmation of Godwin's Law -- we started out talking about Ford's antisemitism, and ended up making Hitler & Nazi comparisons. The focus should be on Ford, and the inadequate treatment of his antisemitism in this article.

RE: Ford and the Protocols, let me quote a passage from A Lie and a Libel, Binjamin Segel's meticulously-researched book, which I am now reading:

"Unlike the surreptitious funders of the Protocols in Germany, Ford openly threw his reputation and his resources, both enormous, behind a major ad campaign. The International Jew cost 25 cents per volume. Five hundred thousand copies were in circulation in the United States alone. By 1928 Ford had lost nearly five million dollars on the venture. Evidently, profit was not his motive... The harm Ford did was considerable. His prestige helped make antisemitic attacks respectable in America and elsewhere. To antisemites looking for credibility, the name Henry Ford proved useful indeed. Among his sincerest admirers was Adolf Hitler, who kept a photograph of the 'heroic American, Heinrich Ford.' Ford's The International Jew continued to appear in Germany well after he asked it to be withdrawn. Theodor Fritsch refused to believe the request was sincere, claiming that it was yet more proof of the Jewish conspiracy: Jewry's money power could bring even the American millionaire to his knees."

More of Ford's antisemitic activities and their deleterious effects need to be documented in the article, IMHO. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. WillNess (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Mother's foster parent's name

The article says Ford's mother's foster parent's name was O'Hern. In her book "The First Henry Ford: A study in Personality and Business leadership", Anne Jardim on page 174 in Chapter 5 references "Accession, 592", there stating the name to be Ahern. Mother's maiden name in this reference is spelled "Litegotte". I must note that later in the same reference, Ford spells coal as "cole" so the differences may be due to Ford's misspelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WithGLEE (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)