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)

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)

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)