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)

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)

Turn on the semi-protection and throw away the "off" button

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Ford and Unions: addition

I wanted to add to the union section a quote from Ford himself. But I can't cause it's locked. If someone has editing privileges, here's my addition. He said that the UAW would organize Ford "over my dead body." I like that quote because it adds flavor, explains things like the Battle of the Overpass and contrasts with his later giving in to the union after pleading from Clara Ford. Here's a cite: [1] ,though I'm sure you can find plenty more. So somebody able to do so work that quote in somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.240.121 (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Brave New World

I don't want to change anything without checking it well, but I'm pretty sure the "Ford" in Brave New World is a corruption of Sigmund Freud, not a reference to Henry Ford.