Talk:Ford Pinto

Should the fuel tank controversy be split off?

It seems to me there are really two stories with the Pinto. There is the car and then there is the "Pinto case". Hugh was right to suggest that the legal issues surrounding the car are (at least for some readers) more significant that what engine options were offered. The fuel system section is now about half the article. The total article length isn't too long but the content seems to split nicely along those lines. A split "Pinto case" article could also absorb the Grimshaw v Ford article as the one is a key part of the other. A split article might also allow for more discussion of some of the legal, moral and ethical questions that surround the case. For example, Danley's academic paper looks at the question of can we reasonably assign moral guilt to a company based on a legal case and and works this question in terms of the two big Pinto legal cases. Such information might be interesting in terms of a "Pinto case" article but is too far afield for the current article (IMHO). Anyway, wanted to put out feelers on this subject. Springee (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Support, to a point Although I'm not sure what kind of article it would spawn, I think that something like this is worth considering. While I do concede that while this is one of several vehicles to have a legal controversy involved in its legacy, as it stands now, the legal content related to the fuel system is starting to overtake the content related to the actual vehicle itself. To improve this article from above C-Class, there needs to be a better sense of balance between the two issues. For those interested in the Ford Pinto/Mercury Bobcat vehicles, a "main" or "see also" link for the legal content would be of great benefit; both sets of content would be able to develop/thrive separately. I just am not sure where the article would go, or if it would pass muster as a notable article (I hope so). --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 07:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral. I can see the case for splitting; I can also see this becoming a POV fork, where the legal article takes facts-at-law to be actual facts, and that never ends well. Anmccaff (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been open for 10 days. If we don't get any strong supporters in another 10 days I would suggest dropping the suggestion because I don't think anyone is going to champion the effort needed to make the change happen. Springee (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I support this primarily because the content legal controversy has seemed to taken on a life of its own within the article; there still needs to be an article about the car itself in there somewhere as well. --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 09:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Close with no action. We didn't have strong support for the change and no champions for the effort. I think that settles the issue. Springee (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on Schwartz (1991)

This seems to rely heavily on one article from 1991 (16 of the 128 citations are at least oblique references to the article in question, Schwartz 1991). Does that potentially indicate a problem? I'm new to Wikipedia from a contribution standpoint, but that would raise serious red flags in my mind.

In particular, the second half of the "Subsequent Analysis" section is drawn exclusively from three pages (Citations 6, 127 and 128 as I'm writing this).

I also can't seem to find what "Schwartz 1991" refers to. Is this just my inexperience, or are there shenanigans at play? Is there supposed to be a link to http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf (the first Google result for Schwartz 1991 pinto as of this typing)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F558:1000:18:E92D:5E32:9ED2:24F3 (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's the correct PDF. The reference formatting on this page was malformed, so Schwartz 1991 wasn't linking to where it was supposed to. I have no comment on if it's overused, though. clpo13_(talk) 23:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions. Statements get challenged with s. Many of us do not have the luxury of finding different literature to support statements, so we rely on what we have, ie the Schwartz article. Scott Adams observed that a typical Democrat tactic is to challenge the source of statements rather than their accuracy, but Wiki merely requires that statements are verifiable in reliable sources. Previous editors have attempted to winnow the list of acceptable reliable sources for this article (ie get Schwartz chucked out) they failed. I specifically introduced Gladwell as a source because he repeats the arguments from Schwartz, and the wiki hive mind can't argue with St Malcolm. There can be a problem if an article becomes single sourced, fewer than 20% seems no big deal to me. Also note that many of tertiary sources are quoting MJ or Schwartz. There is no shenanigans, but that is the document in question. It linked from the ref in the article when I tried it, perhaps you don't understand how they work. Click on Schwartz 1991, then click on the link to the paper. Greglocock (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Greglocock: at the time the IP posted their question, clicking Schwartz 1991 didn't work. I fixed it, though, along with some other Harvard ref errors. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on cleaning up the references! I would agree that Schwartz is the most heavily referenced source in this article but I think a search of scholarly articles would also show its the most significant in the eyes of scholars of the subject. The number of other articles on the subject which cite Schwartz for reliable facts or as a backdrop to their own work adds significant weight to his article as a source. I would also note this tribute article (listed in Archive #2 [[1]]) which states "Gary was one of the preeminent torts scholars of his generation. Many of his articles are staples of the literature. (See, e.g., Gary T. Schwartz, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, 43 RUTGERS L. REV. 1013 (1991).)". Since the article draws on other scholars as well as Schwartz I don't think we have what might otherwise be an WP:UNDUE weight problem. Springee (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree The article relies too heavily on one source:

Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" (PDF). Rutgers Law Review. 43: 1013–1068.

1. Schwartz is cited in support of at least 19 statements in the article (currently note numbers 6, 45, 50, 54, 57, 62, 71, 72, 73, 81, 90, 100, 102, 104, 111, 112, 116, 128, and 129).
2. Schwartz is cited with in-text attribution 5 times.
3. One footnote in Schwartz is cited in support of 3 statements in the article (currently note number 6)!
4. Additionally, Schwartz is cited indirectly when a closely related sympathetic source, Lee and Ermann 1999, cites Schwartz (currently note numbers 61, 70, and 88).
5. Schwartz's article in a law journal is cited more heavily in this article than the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and at least one book-length treatment is ignored by the article:

Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.

Schwartz and Lee and Ermann are related in that they advance Schwartz's thesis:

... the Ford Pinto case ... can be properly referred to as "mythical."

The article is non-neutral in its over-reliance on Schwartz and Lee & Ermann, as it over-represents the point of view that the issues with the Ford Pinto safety were unfounded, undermining the portions of the article that endeavor to present a neutral summarization of facts as reflected in the breadth of available reliable sources. This editorial issue is so severe that the article reads as if the Schwartz/Lee/Ermann point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the subject of this article.

2602:304:CC61:8BD0:D1CD:EE2E:8F0:9BDF (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto.htm/printable. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 2602:304:CC61:8BD0:B188:9DD0:BDD4:A79 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright notice from source:

Copyright © 2017 HowStuffWorks, a division of InfoSpace Holdings LLC

2602:304:CC61:8BD0:B188:9DD0:BDD4:A79 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Predates 2017. Anmccaff (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The material was sourced to another publication, which appears to be PD for these purposes. Both the Wiki piece and the "Howstuffwork" are cribbing from the NHTSA. Anmccaff (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)