Talk:Ford Pinto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Thrifting

Iacocca had a policy known as "Thrifting", the act of economizing a cars design to increase profit. This may help explain the pintos early design problems. Iaccocas' plan called for a car waighing 2000 lbs for $2000.00. I once owned a 78 Pinto, waighing 2700 lbs, the difference being additional quarter panel supports, stronger rear fram members, and a plastic shield installed between the gas tank and the diffrential. Mine had the 2.3 coupled to a C-3 automatic and was an outstanding performerrandazzo56

I removed the paragraph about the Firestone/Bridgestone tires. Totally irrelevant to this article. BTW, I drive a 1975 Mercury Bobcat SW daily that has over 600,000 miles on it. It has become a very rare car these days. -Elaich 06:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1971 to 1981

The Pinto was sold from 1971 through 1981. Major changes were made to the Pinto in 1974 as part of the Mustang II project. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

2010 Ford Pinto

References, anyone? It's mentioned in the article.WKPDX 03:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

The Pinto, along with the Yugo, AMC Gremlin, AMC Pacer, and chevy vega, enjoys a reputation of being an American symbol for a "cheap economy car" or "cheapness", and the Pinto has made its way into popular culture because of this. Also, its reputation for being unsafe is frequently lampooned. Examples include:

Charlie's Angels

Silence of the Lambs

I'm not sure how, in either of these productions, the car's "cheapness" or unsafe design is "lampooned." Other references are a bit more obvious.

In a Nash Bridges episode aired in 1996, the superstitious character played by Barry Bonds hires Nash and Joe to recover his Pinto, which was taken from him by an angry girlfriend. The Pinto blows up from a fuel leak (after being driven through a wall).

Best example is in the Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker comedy film Top Secret where an East German police jeep hits the back of a Ford Pinto so lightly the bumper reverberates with a high pitch "ting!", but the Pinto subsequently explodes. Kransky 14:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also a scene in Fight Club that is a reference to the Ford Pinto scandal--67.86.120.246 (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Evils of Amoral Companies"??

Just a question about neutrality:

Is it ok to take a value judgement about the morality of cost cutting affecting safety? Perhaps it would be better to say somethingl like....the narrative about the obligations manufacturers have to maintain the saftey of their products. Perhaps even chaning narrative to debate, because there are two sides to the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.210.150 (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Colors

With the initial introduction of the Ford Pinto, the available colors were given counter-culture names. I only remember two, but they were "I Am Curious, Yellow" and "Statutory Grape". Ford had some trouble because of the names, particularly the "Statutory Grape", and abandoned the names in subsequent years.

Does anybody remember any of the other names?TCav (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just found some more: "Anti-Establish Mint", "Bring 'Em Back Olive", "Last Stand Custard", "Counter Revolutionary Red", "Three Putt Green", and "There She Blue". Does this sound right?

From http://www.mercurystuff.com/1970_ford_colors.php TCav (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Scandal section revision

This section contradicts itself, in my opinion. It's great that there are multiple sides presented here, but their respective presentation sounds very biased. I'm not sure if the scandal was unjustified or not, however, I cannot seem to find any reliable sources (besides the paper 'linked') that say it is likely that it was blown out of proportion. I'm not sure why the template was added, also, so I'm not sure which side there had weasels words, however, both sides seem to have issues.

I personally feel that the argument for the scandal being very blown out of proportion needs to be verified as noteworthy, and the argument for the company being an evil killing machine toned down a bit. Nigtv (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Typical wiki problem. We have a major source (the Mother Jones article) that is very POV, and misleading - it quotes the memo as if it was part of the Pinto program. We also have a good source that the majority of editors don't like that picks holes in the MJ source. So you get a rather schizophrenic article. Greglocock (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick potential COI flag... the above editor has declined to declare he works for Ford. Note I'm not casting aspersions or questioning his expertise, but nor should any possible COI be hidden. Cards on the table, people. 90.198.51.107 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Two year old vandalism: Stylist of the Pinto -- not vandalism after all

In this edit, information was introduced to the article by an anonymous editor who only edited the Ford Pinto article, that the stylist for the Pinto was one Robert Eidschun (b. 1938).

Just going through he article and cleaning it up, it's clear there are no outside sources to verify this. In fact, there seems to be a lot of information to suggest that Bob Thomas aka Robert McGuffey Thomas see this styled the Pinto.

From Robert Walter Eidschun:

The outside source that is cited above includes only Bob Thomas' own words, given during an interview, with no independent verification... In fact, my father, Robert Emil Eidschun (born 1938) indeed designed the Pinto -- largely at our home in Livonia, Michigan, and I remember his doing it. I was very young at the time but I remember his doing it in a studio that he built in the basement of our house. In addition, I have some of his original sketches to prove it, as well as his own personal photos of the clay models that were made based on his sketches. The various claims made by Bob Thomas and others for the design of the Pinto are misleading, as those folks were involved in managing the design process or had designed elements of the Pinto that were ultimately rejected. (This is consistent with Bob Thomas' own words during his interview, if it is read carefully and with some knowledge of the design process.) But Robert Eidschun's design was eventually chosen in its entirety. Perhaps I should post scans of his sketches and the photos he took of the clay models?

I don't have much of an instant opinion on the provenance of the Ford Pinto design, but what you write makes sense to me. Provided you are sure that you wish to release them to the public domain (and I cannot see why you should not: but folks sometimes have their reasons) it would in any case be fascinating to see some of your father's Pinto sketches on wikipedia. pictures of the clay model(s) too if that's doable. If you do decide to upload them, you need to get yourself a wiki identity first, and then (preferably) upload them to wikipedia commons, so that they can be used for wiki-entries in languages other than English. Please also include 'Category:Ford Pinto' when you upload. Otherwise noone will ever find the images, which rather detracts from your attempt to share them with the rest of us. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charles, this is Robert Walter Eidschun. I just received a very long email from my father, who gave me a wealth of details concerning the design process, including the role of Bob Thomas, who my dad said was a great guy, by the way. But my father needs to complete his "story", then I need to distill it down. Also, he's now digging through his own archive, looking for additional drawings and photos. I'll be back in touch when I'm ready to create a kind of "essay with illustrations". The photos are 8" x 10", but some of the drawings are large format vellum, and so I'm going to have to find a high quality, large format scanner. But that shouldn't be a problem, given that I'm in Rochester, New York, home of Xerox and Kodak.

Hi Charles, this is Robert Walter Eidschun again. Concerning your question about the Rochester Athletic Club, please email me at reidschun at yahoo dot com. I really don't know my way around Wikipedia and so ordinary email is the best way for me to communicate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.31.237 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to follow the previous conversation (for example, where it says above "From Robert Walter Eidschun:" Who was this written to? Who has verified this conversation? If this anywhere near true, it needs to be sourced, not via anecdotal email communication to a Wikipedia discussion page, but rather through a wp:ns, where the information is vetted for accuracy. Perhaps Mr. Eidschun and his son might interest a journalist in the story of the Pinto basement studio design? 842U (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazil poor sales urban legend

I've read numerous times that the car did not sell well in Brazil due to the name being a crude Portuguese slang word. I've also read that this is a myth. This may be worthy of research and inclusion on the Brand blunder page.--T1980 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case

I second the motion to substantiate sources such as this. I and others in related forums for years have never seen any substantive proof of this memo or it's contents. In reference is the following statement:

"The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case

Gary T. Schwartz, 43 Rutgers L. Rev. 1013 (1991)

The case of the Ford Pinto, and its alleged tendency to explode in rear-end collisions, provided the occasion for what is universally hailed as our product liability system's finest triumph. Everyone knows that Ford engineers realized the car was defective but decided (in a smoking-gun memo unearthed by trial lawyers) that it would be cheaper to pay off death claims than to change the design. There’s just one problem: what "everyone knows" turns out to be false."

Please make note in the article that the referenced item needs substantiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.38.103 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article quoted frompointoflaw.com is not a news source. It is an opinion site and the exploding gas tanks were verified in a court of law with a n award of 6 million dollars. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

To all Portuguese speakers out there?

Isn't it true that the aforementioned car means cock in Brazillian slang? Thus making sales, marketing etc of the Pinto nigh impossible in S.America....and a great snigger for schoolboys everywhere!!

Never mind the Mitsubishi Pajero.

Maybe thats what inspired the cars name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 07:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Explaining the update

For the most part, this page does not hurt for much in terms of information. However, in the context of automotive articles here, it was left behind in terms of layout (while focusing on other things, i guess?), so that is what has been reconstructed and fixed up. There still are more than a few holes here in terms of the changes that were made to the car over the years in terms of its production that weren't just safety related.

It may be ugly, but it still represents a significant chapter of automotive history. That's why this article needs some attention. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Ford Pinto Memo" link

The contents of the Gary Schwartz law review paper make it pretty clear that the link used for the "Ford Pinto Memo" is to a pretty specious page with a professor's factually incorrect, hearsay account of the memo. I'm not sufficiently Wikipedia-savvy to know the best way to fix it, but it really needs a better source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.85.249 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The paper was published by the Rutgers Law Review, which is now clearly presented in the article. The reader is free to vet the source further, but the Rutgers Law Review would more than likely qualify as a reliable source. 842U (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

---

842U- The edit I inserted, which you deleted restored the balanced argument that actually appears in the Law Review article. If you've read it, the paper states that the myth is not about the actual accidents, the "myth" regards only the memo. The material you deleted even includes the specific pages in the article with that information. Everything you pulled out results in the page mischaracterizing the article as stating that the Pinto was not a hazard. The article points out that while in rear end collisions the Pinto was only the third deadliest vehicle on the road, when it came to rear end collisions, the Pinto was far and away the deadliest, and moreover that Ford was aware of this. The current write up distorts what the law review says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetius41 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The Schwartz paper is both consistently mischaracterized in this article, and given WP:UNDUE weight

Though it touches on the point, the Schwzartz paper was, first of all, not primarily about how dangerous the Pinto was (or was not); numerous editors to this article have tried to portray it as some sort of vindication for Ford. This is not the case. Primarily, it is about public perception of the case and about how it changed the nature of tort law (particularly by revealing that juries were increasingly uncomfortable with decisions that set a clear dollar value to human life, something that had been previously commonplace.) While it dismisses some of the more extreme characterizations of the Pinto's danger, its full verdict is more nuanced. Quoting its summary here (emphasis mine):

It is now time to sum up. The strong claim that the Pinto was a firetrap entails a misconception. To be sure, the Pinto did contain a design problem that was non-trivial and to some extent distinctive. Even so, the number of fatalities that resulted from that design problem is a minor fraction of the fatality estimates relied on by those who present the "firetrap" chracterization. Moreover, when all vehicle fire fatalities are considered, the Pinto turns out to have been less dangerous than the average subcompact and only slightly more dangerous than the average car. Indeed, when occupant fatalities from all highway causes are considered, the Pinto performed respectibly. Yet even if the general portrayal of the Pinto as a firetrap should be rejected as false, a limited core of the firetrap myth seems fair enough: the Pinto's record in rear-end fire fatalities was not only much worse than the all car average but was apparently somewhat worse than the record of most (though not all) of its subcompact competitors.

The key thing to understand here is that the Schwartz paper is fundamentally about the Pinto is popular culture -- about its perception and the mythology that has built up around it. It in no way challenges the recall or the results of the lawsuit against it (indeed, at the end it explicitly states that both were the correct choice.) As such, I feel that the paper is being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article -- one point of commentary in an ongoing public discourse on the mythology surrounding the Pinto does not deserve the level of dramatic significance that this paper has been given in the lead, nor does it particularly warrant its own section. The point that the Pinto is not the firey deathtrap hell-car of popular imagination is well-taken, but the paper isn't, fundamentally, as important or revelatory as the article makes it out to be. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good Greglocock (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mere inclusion of information does not constitute UNDUE WEIGHT, regarding the inclusion of the Schwartz Study — especially when, say, The New York Times considers the study relevant. Christopher Leggett, Professor Palmiter at Wake Forest University cites the study in his Negligence/efficiency Abstract. The Times Herald-Record considered the study relevant to a discussion of the Pinto. But oddly, you want readers to instead rely on your above interpretation of the Schwartz Study. Why suggest the point is that UNDUE WEIGHT was given to the study and then give the give Schwartz paper NO WEIGHT? When actually, nothing in the article before your exorcism told the reader the Schwartz study was more important than anything else or what weight to give the study. What is interesting is that you completely eliminated the Schwartz study from the article — as if it didn't even exist — leaving only one side of the "controversy" represented in the article... and resulting in a more than curious NPOV. 842U (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Giving a single paper an entire section and focusing on it in the lead is giving it undue weight -- compare to, say, devoting an entire paragraph in an article to a single hit-piece on a politician, or a single press release about a product. In order to give it that sort of attention, it has to be shown that it's actually that important to the subject. The Mother Jones piece, say, is extremely infamous and widely-cited, so it deserves a fair amount of coverage -- though even it isn't mentioned in the lead or given its own section. This paper isn't noteworthy in and of itself. That doesn't mean that the things it says can't be included in the article -- it can be used as a citation for facts and figures, say -- but making it the centerpiece of the way the Ford Pinto (or the controversy surrounding it) is described is giving it more weight than it's due. You could argue that it should have had more impact than the Mother Jones article, or that it's better-researched, or whatever; but those things aren't Wikipedia's decision. In terms of its overall importance to the subject, its impact is comparatively low. (I'm not saying it couldn't be given a bit more mention than I excised it to -- a sentence or two in a broader, more comprehensive section on its impact in popular culture, say -- but an entire section or a specific mention in the lead is way too much.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"The paper isn't noteworthy" you say? The New York Times noted it. How does including it and giving it a section make it a centerpiece? Who says the impact of the paper is "comparatively low?" Can you cite a source for that? It appears fairly easy to find references to the Schwartz Pinto study. Are we certain it is more or less important than the Mother Jones article? Controversy is often touchy, but by definition it includes two sides. And frankly, the legacy of the car includes both. 842U (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times notes it as an example that despite its reputation, 'some people have defended' the Pinto, which effectively presents its opinion as WP:FRINGE. It is not encyclopedic to present fringe opinions as equal; 'two sides' is not a valid argument. Instead, we must present the topic according to the balance of coverage it has received in reliable sources. Unless you have some other source, it is clear from the NYT ref that the coverage the Schwartz paper has received is marginal in comparison to the controversy as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment in popular culture the Pinto is known as a deathtrap yada yada as per the Mother Jones beatup. In reality, in hindsight, it was nowhere near as dangerous as MJ made out, being more or less line-ball with similar products. A wiki article does not have to give weight to one of those two arguments on the basis of media coverage, it has to give equal weight to both viewpoints (or ideally meld them into one neutral article). If this article was called Ford Pinto Fuel Tank Controversy then things would be different. Incidentally, cost benefit analysis is widely used when considering safety today, the naivety of the jury is the issue, not the cynicism of CBA. Greglocock (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the final paragraph of the introduction, which made it sound like the Schwartz paper itself has affected the car's legacy, which it hasn't. I feel the Pinto controversy itself would be a good topic for a Wikipedia page if somebody else feels like starting one. As for how the Schwartz paper is currently presented in the article, I don't feel as if it's being given undue weight, though I do feel like the fuel tank controversy section should be given a rewrite with more information, like perhaps why the Pinto's fuel tank was prone to rupture. Just my $0.02. ObtuseAngle (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Obtuse, the article actually presently describes the primary factor in the Pinto's fuel tank problem: the differential bolts. Take a look, it's right there. Otherwise, how do you and I measure what has affected a car's legacy? The answer: it doesn't matter. It matters that notable, and recent sources include the include the Schwartz study when discussing the car's legacy, e.g., The New York Times, or the Times Herald-Record. That said, I like your mods to the intro, though I might trim some of the sheer verbage. 842U (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a grievous use of an unverified study. Where are the numbers and how were they arrived at ? It has been included in this article like it was destroying a myth that did not exist. The Pinto's bumper was at best decorative, the ability of the gas tank to explode was not just based on it's position but its vulnerability structurally. By allowing this simplistic comparison to other cars with a similar tank you create a false impression of structural equality, The Schwartz article is not in proper context. 98.149.114.34 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Schwartz paper has been vetted, and found acceptable by notable sources including the editorial staff of the New York Times. Can you provide some notable sources that support your contentions? In the meantime, Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. 842U (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided makes no mention of vetting it; it merely notes that the Pinto (despite its reputation) has a few defenders, though in that context it is clearly presenting the position as WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice my edits were reverted a while ago with little explanation. Again, we can mention the Schwartz paper (as, indeed, my version does), but devoting more than a sentence or two to it without more references as to its significance is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. We cannot describe the design flaw as "alleged" because we have no sources that dispute it -- the Schartz paper also says that it was a design flaw; as far as I can tell, all reliable sources agree that there was a flaw, and nobody disagrees, so reducing this to vague 'critics' is using WP:WEASEL words. There is some debate over the seriousness of the flaws and their aggregate effect, but none over the fact that they existed. You also removed the popular mechanics ref (which, again, supports the fact that the Pinto had serious design flaws), as well as the mention of the case's importance in the study of business-ethics, which was well-cited and is important to the Pinto's legacy (in fact, at this late date it is a big part of what makes the care noteworthy.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the controversy

The facts and sources surrounding the case are cited -- and either side could claim the other side is cherry picking. Wikipedia is NOT the place to try a legal case -- if that's your specialty. This is NOT the place to aggrieve personal loss, if that's your specialty. This is a place to lay out both sides of the controversy in a non-contentious way. And the lede is definitely not the place to highlight non-neutral points about the gas tank controversy. 842U (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument since you are deleting information that presents the balance in the Schwartz article and leaving in only the information that creates a misperception that the article says the car was relatively safe. The article specifically states that the car was comparable in terms of overall accidents, but--and these are the key points--it was the leader of deaths in rear-end collisions, and that Ford had prior knowledge of this. There is no evidence that the VW or Toyota knew that their cars had an easily correctable defect. This makes the Pinto situation unique, and the Schwartz article does not gloss over that. Rather it states that the commonly cited information about the Ford memo and the $200,000 valuation of human life was a myth. The current wording of the page cherry picks data to frame the Schwartz article as saying that the Ford was as safe as the average other car on the road. That is not what Schwartz wrote. I do not need to try the case because Ford already lost it. Now you are trying to create a revisionist version of the facts present in that case, and misusing Schwartz's article to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetius41 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, this has been rehashed here many times. The point is that Schwartz's paper was part of what characterized the Pinto's legacy -- and it did so in a largely less incitive way than MJ, going so far as to say the case wasn't as clear cut as the Mother Jones reports and that the Pinto was less dangerous than the average subcompact. Please step back and view the article from a less legalistic viewpoint. In the meantime, remember to indent your comments here, to sign your comments, and to engage in discussion here, rather than edit warring by reverting the article repeatedly. You might want to review the discussion history here, keeping in mind that we are not here to argue, but to cooperate and create an article together that reflects an overall neutral point of view. In the meantime, thanks for caring about the subject matter of the article. 842U (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the main source for the structure of the exploding rear end part of this article, the Mother Jones investigation, is a pretty POV place to start from. The confusion about the cost benefit analysis memo merely adds to a lack of clarity. perhaps it needs to go in a separate section, so that the valid criticisms are separated from the irrelevant. Greglocock (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The importance of the Mother Jones' article to the history of the controversy is attested to in several sources, eg. here; of course, sources like that also provide perhaps better sources for the mechanical issues behind the failure. We have no such sources ascribing any particular importance to the Schwartz paper, merely sources noting that it exists. (One source, discounting the examiner WP:NEWSBLOG.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, since it wasn't explicitly mentioned -- there are several other sources that describe the Pinto's flaws; we don't rely exclusively on Mother Jones. (As I said above, the Schwartz paper itself acknowledges them.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please provide a cite for your claim that the Schwartz paper has characterized the Pinto's legacy. I cannot find any; the NYT mentions it by saying that yes, a few people who defend the Pinto exist, but that phrasing makes it clear that it is describing Schwartz' opinions as WP:FRINGE, not as a defining part of its legacy. Likewise, the Examiner ref cites it as something strange and unusual -- a "wow, isn't it weird to see this paper that goes against popular opinion?" sort of thing (and, now that I've actually tracked it down, the Examiner ref is to a WP:NEWSBLOG, while the Examiner itself isn't really a WP:RS even when we aren't citing its blog, and is blacklisted on Wikipedia besides, so I don't think we can use it as a source.) Neither of those support the characterization of the paper as a core part of the controversy; both treat it as an interesting piece of trivia, possibly worth looking at but not a defining part of the Pinto's legacy (in fact, the Examiner article specifically says the paper doesn't reflect the Pinto's popular legacy.) We can mention it here, definitely, but we absolutely cannot devote an entire section to it or treat it as if it is a major defining paper without sources specifically describing its importance. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The main thing is to avoid giving the Schwartz paper WP:UNDUE weight. We can mention it, yes, because it has received offhand mentions in larger articles about the controversy, but even the NYT ref makes it clear that it's viewpoint is marginal -- it mentions it in one paragraph, saying "The Pinto has its defenders" (a phrasing which makes it clear that the Schwartz paper is considered a relatively WP:FRINGE viewpoint.) Devoting an entire section to it or treating it as a dramatic, landmark development the way the article did is not supported by the sources. I strenuously object to devoting more than a single sentence to it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2nd updates - no mention that the Ford Pinto memo was actually nothing to do with the Pinto case. No mention that cost benefit analysis (deaths per million dollars) was, and is standard practice in USA. This article reads like an attack page. Greglocock (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this happens from time to time. The article had remained stable for years before the arrival of an editor, who despite previous discussion, sees fit to give the article a point of view about the controversy. Please do us all a favor and see if you concur that an example of the page history from a while back such as this such as this edit from November isn't closer to neutral on the subject. Let's see if we can regain a consensus that keeps the Wikipedia article from being an attack piece. 842U (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The article clearly isn't an attack piece; the issue is that there is too much attention being paid to one study, which doesn't really seem to be particularly noteworthy. We can mention that there is some controversy (and we do), but clearly devoting an entire section to one study is giving it WP:UNDUE weight absent evidence that it really is that noteworthy, which doesn't seem to be present. Indeed, going by the other references, Schwartz' conclusions are firmly WP:FRINGE views. Beyond that, you haven't explained why you object to discussing the case's importance in the field of business ethics -- this is something several sources discuss, and a quick Google Books search shows how much attention it's attracted there (although fortunately we don't have to rely on that; most of those books go out of their way to specifically state that the Ford Pinto case is a landmark case in the field of business ethics.) Looking over those books, not one of them seems to mention Schwartz' paper or his opinions, which reinforces the fact that giving him more than a sentence or two is clearly according him undue weight; as far as I can tell, his paper has had exactly one mention in a non-blog news source, and that was in passing, in a "some people disagree with the common consensus" sense. That is not sufficient to give it the weight you are trying to do here. We can (and do) mention that some disagreement exists, but we can't devote an entire section to one otherwise-obscure paper reflecting the personal opinions of a single legal scholar in the face of an overwhelming consensus against his views. Beyond that, his paper doesn't actually disagree with what's present in the article; the current text is careful to limit itself to what is actually known (the design flaw, which was proven in court and which no one, not even Schwartz, contests; the history surrounding it and the lawsuit, and its major significance to business ethics.) Schwartz condemns the perception of the car as a "flaming hell-trap", which is well-taken (even if, as I've said, his opinion in this matter isn't noteworthy enough to give it more than a sentence or so); but he doesn't actually dispute the core issues that we're talking about here. Nothing in the article, for instance, actually says that the Pinto was more dangerous than other cars in its class (and we note that he claimed otherwise); we just note that it had a design flaw which Ford was aware of, that it was successfully sued as a result of that flaw, and attracted a great deal of attention as a result, eventually becoming an infamous business-ethics case. All of these things are well-cited and uncontroversial; again, not even the Schwartz paper disputes any of these facts. He merely feels that Ford should not have been subjected to such severe penalties because he believes that many of the practices that so outraged the popular imagination were commonplace. He's free to feel that way (and we do mention his opinion), but that doesn't outweigh the massive amount of coverage that the car has gotten elsewhere, nor does the simple fact of his dissent from the popular consensus make him automatically noteworthy enough to give him the kind of attention you're asking for. --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Also, as another aside, in your edit restoring the extended section on the Schwartz paper, you said that it was "well-cited and stands on its own." As I said above, this is not true. It has no reliable sources aside from the Schartz paper itself; the only other source is a blog, which per WP:NEWSBLOG are not such reliable sources, and which only accords the Schwartz paper a single lone mention in terms that imply the author considers it a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, saying "The Pinto has its defenders..." The only other cite in that section is Schwartz himself. We can mention the paper (I am not suggesting omitting it entirely), but these sources are not enough to justify devoting an entire section to it. There are numerous books covering the Ford Pinto case from a business-ethics standpoint; if Schwartz' opinions are as significant as you claim, it should be easy to find many sources referencing them. I tried, and could find nothing at all. Regardless, I didn't remove any sources; I merely reduced the weight we accord Schwartz' views, since I feel it is clear that they are a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, with nobody else reflecting them and only a bare mention in a single news-blog (in a context that I feel unequivocally implies that Schartz' stance defending the Pinto is a fringe viewpoint.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the Gladwell article

Could those editors who have problems with the use of the Gladwell article please describe here why it is factually incorrect or should not be used as an RS? Greglocock (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems with Mother jones article

1) the Pinto memo was nothing to do with fuel tanks, it was an attempt to quantify the benefit of a proposed rollover law 2) 'hundreds' of deaths did not result from pinto rear end fires 3) the $11 fix actually made no difference to the statistical accident and death rate in Pintos - its ineffectiveness was one reason it wasn't fitted earlier 4) pinto's rear end structure was very similar to that of its competitors Greglocock (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Remember, raising problems with a source ourselves is WP:OR. What you can do is find other reputable sources which report on those issues and cite those; but I'll point out that in the current form, this article doesn't actually rely on the Mother Jones article itself for anything beyond citing it as a major development in breaking the story. As one of the most famous business-ethics cases in history, this has a huge amount of coverage, so it's easy to find other sources that have gone over the issue in depth. Now, if you feel that almost all of those are wrong (or that they're all just following the Mother Jones article), there's not much we can do; the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to document what the preponderance of reliable sources say (as well as any noteworthy fringe or alternative viewpoints), not to correct them. This isn't the place to rehash the Pinto's safety record itself. --Aquillion (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Additionally, you're not quite right about the Ford Pinto Memo (I assume you're taking this from Schwartz' paper again?) It was about the danger of fuel-system fire and the cost-benefit analysis related to preventing them; but it was primarily focused on a cost-benefit analysis for preventing fuel-tank fires from rollovers rather than rear-end collisions. More importantly (again, if you're going off of Schwartz' paper), note the next sentence, where he says To be sure, the document added the thought that "analysis of other portions of the proposed regulation would also yield poor benefit-to-cost ratios. I don't think there's any credible source that says that it has "nothing to do" with the issue the way you're claiming, and only one or two sources (out of an extremely broad coverage) that imply even as much as he does. Beyond that, he isn't criticizing the Mother Jones article specifically there, he's discussing the legal applicability of the memo in the Grimshaw case (where, indeed, it was ruled inadmissible.) Again, this shows the danger of relying so heavily on a single source. The Mother Jones article cites it as proof of the type of cost-benefit analysis Ford was making with regard to the danger of fuel-system fires; the heavy coverage of it as a failure in corporate ethics supports their reading. It also means that, thankfully, we don't have to rely on their article; I agree that it would be a mistake to rely too heavily on any one paper or article, but as I said, the only thing we really cite it for is when mentioning what it specifically said, with in-text attribution, as the publication that broke the story. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

as it stands the article is OK, but every once in a while some enthusiast reads the MJ article and takes it as gospel, and starts rewriting the article. Greglocock (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a recent attempt to have the Wikipedia article stand in for the Mother Jones article.842U (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

In other words, there is a real ongoing effort to have the article reach the same conclusion as the editor -- note that many of the sources cited for so called landmark business ethics case are blind, unavailable for facile verification. It's important to remember that controversies by definition have different points of view, and the responsibility in unbiased jouralism is to present information and sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions. The attempt again has been to remove the "other side of the story" to leave a narrow, Mother Jones viewpoint.842U (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The page cites numerous different sources; Mother Jones is actually only cited when it is mentioned specifically as the publication that broke the story. You can easily find those business ethics sources on Google Books, if you're inclined, and preview them there; many of them explicitly state that the Ford Pinto memo is a major case study in business ethics, and all of them support the opinion that the Schwartz paper is a WP:FRINGE (or at least minority) perspective. That doesn't mean we can't use it! I'm not deleting it entirely from the article; it gets mentioned, the fact that the Pinto has defenders gets mentioned, and so on. But it is not a majority viewpoint, and presenting it as an the established conclusion rather than as a voice of dissent is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. See also WP:VALID; it is a violation of NPOV to treat all 'sides' in a controversy as if they are equally valid. The Schwartz paper simply doesn't represent the consensus among reliable sources on the Pinto and its history. --Aquillion (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The early section of Lee and Erdmann illustrate a large number of issue with the MJs article. I think a case could be made to take the MJ article to the reliable source noticeboard and ask if it should be treated like a reliable source or as unreliable "in fact". It is a critically important source in terms of the public understanding of the Pinto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.115.3 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ford Pinto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120127080303/http://www.safarix.com/0130991635/ch12 to http://www.safarix.com/0130991635/ch12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Estimates of Pinto safety

I suggest that the best way of resolving the difficulties with undue weight are to list he various sources, and their estimates, here, and discuss them, here. It is very much a work in progress

Source	Location	Claimed sfaety in source	averaged safety per million vehcile miles	Header text
Mother jones	Example	"Hundreds of deaths"	Example	Example
Ford Internal	http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lament	"1.9% fatatlity rate compared with 1.9% fatatlity rate for competitiprds"	Example	Example
NHTSA 1965	Example	Example	Example	Example
Schwartz	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example

No, that won't work. We have to place weight on each aspect of the topic according to its weight in reliable sources; therefore, each study that covers the Pinto as dangerous or as a case of corporate wrongdoing without highlighting the aspects that the Schwartz paper thinks are important weighs against it. You cannot say "Schwartz states this fact, and nobody else references it at all, therefore it should be made the centerpiece of the article"; if almost nobody else mentions it at all, then Schwartz' opinion that those statistics are the key to the story is his WP:FRINGE view and cannot be given central billing in the article (though it deserves a mention.) Note that the article text doesn't actually state that the Pinto was less safe than other cars in its class; it merely states that the Pinto had design flaws that were widely-criticized, which is true (and which the Schwartz paper, broadly, does not dispute.) We can cite the fact that the Schwartz study and the Ford internal study highlighted the statistics you're concerned with, but it is undue weight to place excessive emphasis on its relevance -- most coverage focuses on the fact that, for instance, the Pinto rolled out with a potentially-lethal design flaw that Ford was aware of; on the fact that it (at least appeared) to do this based on a financial calculation related to the number of deaths that it would cause, and so on. The fact that some sources have discussed this from other angles and have taken different perspectives on the overarching story is worth covering, but it is also WP:UNDUE to take that framing and make it the focus of the entire article; you can't say "yes, dozens of articles and business ethics textbooks and huge amounts of coverage have discussed it in one way; but I have one study that disagrees with a few factual points, so we must make those disagreements the crux of the article." We can cover them (and do); but we cannot use it to determine the overarching structure of how each aspect of the topic is covered. See the NPOV policy on balancing aspects for the relevant policy; essentially, the issue isn't whether Schwartz is right, the issue is the weight each reliable source gives to different aspects of the controversy. Across all sources, the weight given to his perspective is clearly minimal -- it is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. We can discuss it (and the article does; it even references it in the lead.) But we cannot structure the entire discussion of the topic around it, or present it as a viewpoint that carries weight equal to the majority view. For an encyclopedia article, our goal is to reflect the coverage in reliable sources according to the weight those sources give each aspect of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As an example, for the weight issue, here are some sources from the article that do not seem to give any weight to Schwartz' view:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6700/top-automotive-engineering-failures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks/

http://www.forbes.com/2004/01/26/cx_dl_0126feat.html

http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657866,00.html

http://www.autonews.com/article/20030616/SUB/306160770/lee-iacoccas-pinto:-a-fiery-failure

https://hbr.org/2011/04/ethical-breakdowns

http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30006460/wood-dynamicsofbusiness-post-2003.pdf

Weiss, Joseph W. (May 8, 2014). Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. p. 345.

Birsch, Douglas (October 25, 1994). The Ford Pinto Case.

This isn't even remotely complete (especially not from the business ethics standpoint), but it covers a wide range of extremely high-profile reliable sources. You might argue that those sources are wrong; you might argue that they should read the Schwartz paper, that they ought to be paying more attention to the aspects of the Pinto's history that Schwartz highlights and thinks are important. Certainly I'm not arguing that we should exclude Schwartz' opinions entirely based on that! But I think it is clear from going over the sources that his take on the issue does not reflect the mainstream; it is WP:FRINGE among reliable sources that have covered it, and Wikipedia is not the correct place to try and reveal the truth by ignoring that mainstream view or by giving Schwartz' paper weight equal to everyone else who has ever commented on the issue. As it stands, the majority of the article's take on this aspect of the Pinto's history must reflect the consensus among reliable sources, which generally doesn't take Schwartz' perspective. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

TLDR, here's one description of the scwartz paper, somehow I doubt that Forbes or Popular Mecahics will ever be described as landmark articles- "Here are the deaths per million vehicles for 1975 and 1976 for the best-selling compact cars of that era, compiled by Gary T. Schwartz in his landmark law-review article “The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case”:"

Incidentally the poular mex article says " Reports range from 27 to 180 deaths as a result of rear-impact-related fuel tank fires in the Pinto, but given the volume of more than 2.2 million vehicles sold, the death rate was not substantially different from that of vehicles by Ford's competitors. "

Greglocock (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it says that... in one sentence at the end, while noting that none of this changes the overarching damage the Pinto did to Ford's reputation. It also says that "...arguably the most dangerous fuel tank of all time was the rear-mounted vessel installed on the 1971 through 1976 Ford Pinto. It's possibly the best example of what happens when poor engineering meets corporate negligence", and most of the article is written along those lines. My point is that your interpretation (that those overarching death statistics completely vindicate Ford and are a decisive part of the story) is not borne out by most coverage. Even the Schwartz paper itself doesn't actually support the way you're interpreting it -- it does say (in a footnote) that the Pinto's overall safety record is average, but it concedes that Ford was actually liable, notes that the design flaw and danger were real, and describes it in extensive detail. ("The key problem, however, with the behind-the-axle location was that it rendered the gas tank more vulnerable in the event of a rear end collision. The vulnerability of the gas tank was increased by other design features..." It goes on to list the same design flaws highlighted by everyone else, acknowledging all of them as real.) It says that the Pinto performed badly in initial crash tests and continued to perform badly afterwards. Furthermore, while it says that the Pinto's overall statistics are typical, "When the prosecution's expert utilized FARS data to focus on rear-end fire fatalities, the results no longer cast the Pinto in a favorable light. These data showed that Pintos, while comprising 1.9% of the auto population, were responsible for 4.1% of all such fatalities." Summarizing, it says that "While this memorandum hardly supported any claim that the Pinto was a major highway hazard, it did suggest that the Pinto's record in this particular class of accidents was worse than the relevant industry average". And summing up its conclusion, the Schwartz paper says "Yet even if the general portrayal of the Pinto as a firetrap should be rejected as false, a limited core of the firetrap myth seems fair enough". You are taking one aspect of this one paper out of context and giving it extreme WP:UNDUE weight, then giving the paper itself WP:UNDUE weight because it says (in a footnote!) the one thing you feel is most important to the Pinto's history. But almost no sources (not even the Schwartz paper itself) support your assertion that the Pinto's overall safety record relative to other cars is that important; again, Schwartz mentions it only in a footnote. The Pinto's overall safety record, after all, is not what most sources are focusing on; they are focusing on the increased danger of fires from rear-end collisions, which is factual and not contested by a single reliable source. I've said all this above. Whether this was (for instance) offset by a lower risk of other kinds of risks or whatever is not relevant; the general coverage of the Pinto is that the fuel tank in particular was flawed in a way that made it unusually dangerous, that Ford was aware of this flaw, and that it did not correct it despite being aware of it. The Schwartz paper agrees with all of these facts. It takes a slightly different perspective in attacking some of the myths it says have arisen around the Pinto, but overall, this perspective is WP:FRINGE, and your focus on its footnote about the Pinto's overall safety record is giving WP:UNDUE weight to one aspect of what the paper says even beyond that. --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point almost anything written about the Pinto can be done with hindsight. The historical accident records presented by Schwartz are very compelling evidence that the overall design performed similarly to other small cars of the time. But that is just one source. If it's the only source then I would suggest it be accepted as is since it came from a highly cited, peer reviewed paper. If a second source shows otherwise then that source should also be included. I do think it is wrong to claim anything in the Schwartz paper should be considered fringe. Again, given the paper was peer reviewed and cited by a large number of other peer reviewed papers it is unlikely to contain fringe information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.115.3 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The article cites numerous other sources. The central issue, though, as I've said repeatedly, is one of weight; it is ultimately only one paper, one whose conclusions disagree with those of most other sources. Mentioning it in a sentence or two is fine. Devoting an entire section to it or mentioning it specifically in the lead is clearly giving it WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Any paper is ultimately one paper. So that's a stupid argument. It is a peer reviewed paper that is referred to by two other RS. I note you have completely nuked the Schwartz paper from the article. That is not reasonable. Greglocock (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't generally devote entire sections to individual papers, though, or devote them to the lead; a paper which has only been cited twice isn't exactly the groundbreaking, definitive thing it was portrayed as in some revisions. Like I said, I wouldn't be opposed to devoting a sentence or two to it, but certainly no more than that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to reinstate a compromise (mentioning the Schwartz paper -- even giving it an entire section and referring to it in the lead). I just don't feel that we can devote an entire section to it, or weight its conclusions equal to the entire rest of the topic. And it's important to be cautious about what it says -- it does not deny that the Pinto suffered from design flaws, so presenting those flaws as a "controversy" rather than as a fact is a WP:TONE violation. We have to present facts as facts; nobody disputes that the Pinto suffered design flaws that led to potential fire dangers, or that Ford released it despite knowing those flaws after a cost-benefit analysis. Even the Schwartz paper merely takes issue with the popular view of the Pinto as a uniquely-dangerous deathtrap, which doesn't disagree with what the other sources in the section say. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that the compromise in the lead held, but either way, please don't restore the entire section devoted to one paper. Devoting an entire section to it is WP:UNDUE by any reasonable standard. --Aquillion (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: - Ditto. And frankly I'd go further. Even mentioning the paper in the lead seems WP:UNDUE. There are thousands of scholarly sources about the Pinto out there. Highlighting one reeks of some kind of POV push. NickCT (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a bit more discussion here? As I've said, I'm not opposed to covering it to some degree, but it seems like absolutely any change is getting reverted to restore the section. We need to work out a compromise that we can all deal with, or discuss how much weight each aspect should get; I maintain that, while the paper is clearly worth mentioning (we have an entire paragraph for it still even in the version I prefer!), devoting a section to it or presenting it in the lead as something that decisively changed the Pinto's reputation goes beyond what the sources support and is generally giving it WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with UNDUE is that the Scwartz paper summarises a lot of primary sources about the ACTUAL performance of Pinto neatly, and counteracts the UNDUE way this article is written that takes the mother jones article as gospel. Greglocock (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The page only references it directly once, with an inline citation making it clear that it's reporting the paper's opinions. But the Mother Jones article is clearly more important than the Schwartz paper -- every single cite in that section talks about it, often in depth. So we report on that heavy coverage and what those sources are saying, giving equal weight to one. The Schwartz paper is one of the many sources that have commented on the Mother Jones paper's allegations, and we talk about it with appropriate weight. Again, as I said above, it's also important to be clear on what the Schwartz paper does and doesn't say; it doesn't contest that the Pinto had liabilities that led it to have an increased risk of rear-end fatalities, it doesn't contest fact that Ford was aware of these flaws, and it agrees that this left Ford open to liability. It contest some of the mystique that has grown up around the Pinto -- the image of the car as an exploding deathtrap -- but I don't think the current section falls into that; and, again, literally a third of the text in the current section is still devoted to the Schwartz paper and its conclusions. It just isn't so major an event in the Pinto's history that we can devote an entire section to it. The Mother Jones paper (for the better or worse) clearly is, as we can see from the fact that people are still writing large amounts about it thirty years later. If you think the Mother Jones paper is completely wrong (something that, again, not even Schwartz says -- he mostly takes issue with the people who have built up a mythology of the Pinto later on, not with Mother Jones directly), this isn't the appropriate place to try and correct that; our job is to represent the discussion among reliable sources with weight appropriate to the prominence each voice has in that discussion. The Schwartz paper totally deserves a mention there, but it is silly to suggest that it deserves a weight equal to the Mother Jones paper, given that paper's extreme impact and the relatively few sources that discuss the Schwartz paper at all. --Aquillion (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is not just about Mother Jones Pinto accusations, it is about the entire story on Safety of the Ford Pinto, and as such it should balance between the ethical case stirred up by MJ's distorted predictions and fabrications, and the actual in service performance. What was the point of fitting the 11 dollar fix if it didn't change the accident rate?. MJ's fabrications weren't born out in practice as Schwartz makes clear. The current para on Schwartz has a very mealy mouthed intro sentence and carries on in the same spirit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Pinto&oldid=686407729 Greglocock (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The article isn't about the Mother Jones paper, but the section is about the Pinto's design flaws and the resulting lawsuits. As far as those go, the Schwartz paper is only a comparatively small part of the story; lending it increased weight if it simply because you feel that it's right or because you want to equalize "both sides" is a violation of WP:VALID. That said, I'll point out that the Mother Jones article itself is only mentioned in a single paragraph, which is (for the record!) smaller than the one devoted to the Schwartz paper. But beyond that, if you have issues with the wording, we can work on them. What part of the paragraph devoted to the Schwartz paper do you feel is mealy-mouthed? I'm not opposed to rewording it. I just object to devoting an entire section to it or making it a focus point in the lead; I'm not convinced that it has enough secondary coverage to show that it's that significant. --Aquillion (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it's come up again, I'll reiterate what I've said above; I feel that the paper is worth mentioning, but that devoting an entire section to it is clearly undue. And I object to structuring the section based on it (eg. calling it a "fuel tank controversy"), since for the most part the history is not hugely controversial at this point. Schwartz' points are well-taken but don't actually contradict most of the rest of what's in the section; he addresses some of the mythology that has grown up around the car (eg. the myth of the 'exploding car') but doesn't dispute the basic facts covered in the rest of the section regarding the design flaws, the fact that Ford knew about them and was therefore likely liable, and so on. Some people are treating it like an expose that blows the whole history wide open, and all else aside that's simply not what it says; likewise, structuring the entire section as "Mother Jones vs. Schwartz" is silly when there's extensive coverage from numerous other sources that confirm the basic outline of the history. We don't need to lean so heavily on one source at this point. Also, since this seems to have become an extended slow-motion revert-war and I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with the discussion, it might be worth considering an WP:RFC on the topic to ask for outside opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the Schwartz article

Could those who find the Schwartz paper problematical as an RS please identify their issues here? Greglocock (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't object to citing it, but I think that it clearly gives it WP:UNDUE weight to treat it as anything other than one paper among the large amount of commentary that this issue has gotten; devoting an entire section to it or citing it specifically in the lead is clearly giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Nobody is removing it entirely; but it clearly cannot be given an entire section or a specific highlight in the lead. I also feel that its conclusions are sometimes misrepresented here (it doesn't dispute the basic outline of the flaws, Pinto's awareness of them, or the fact that this opened Pinto up to liability.) It is absolutely worth a sentence or two, but I have not seen anyone give a reasonable argument why it should have an entire section devoted to it or used to set the structure of the entire article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've said again, we can (and do) cover the paper, giving it appropriate weight; but we cannot word the lead as though it is central to the entire discussion. There is not enough support for the idea that it deserves that kind of weight. It is mentioned, yes. But putting in the lead as "...a later study examining actual incident data that concluded the Pinto was as safe as, or safer than, other cars in its class" is treating its release as a landmark aspect of the Pinto's history, and there is no evidence for that. It is one piece of commentary among countless others. "Some people have defended the Pinto, with one study concluding that the Pinto was as safe as or safer than other cars in its class" is an entirely accurate summary of the situation, isn't it? What do you object to about that wording? --Aquillion (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• • We can certainly give both sides of the controversy in both the lead and the article. Without both sides, there is no coverage of the actual controversy. Instead, there's a repeated attempt to eliminate a noted source that has been well-vetted -- and in turn offer only a popularist viewpoint, as propogated by a for-profit magazine.842U (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Some people have defended the Pinto, with one study concluding that the Pinto was as safe as or safer than other cars in its class"is an entirely accurate summary of the situation, isn't it?" is false -that is, there are more than one study saying the Pinto was in line with its competitors). Sorry about that. . In fact there is very little evidnce that Pinto was an unsafe design, or that the 11 dollar fix actually helped. Greglocock (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is the second study? The version you reverted to specifies one in particular, so it still doesn't work. --Aquillion (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Something to consider with the Schwartz article is that is was released in a peer reviewed journal. The claims in the article contain a large number of sources. Ideally the Wiki article would link directly to those source when ever possible. The Schwartz article clearly has academic traction as Google Scholar shows it to have been cited 232 time.

It is also noteworthy that Lee and Erdmann's peer reviewed journal article confirms many of the thing said in the Schwartz's paper through their own research on the subject. In particular Lee and Erdmann illustrate a number of misconceptions about the public understanding of the Pinto case and note that the common knowledge understanding was so well rooted that it was frequently repeated as fact by generally reputable sources (See Lee and Erdmann starting on page 31). Lee and Erdmann is cited 57 times.

Perhaps it would be worth while to compile a list of sources used in the section in question and then look at their relative weight then decide how much focus each should get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.115.3 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The "Pinto Memo", Jan 2016 the article confuses the purpose of the memo

I know the memo has been discussed before but I'm honestly not totally up on why things were changed over several years of this article. The article currently reads like Mother Jones states that the Pinto Memo was a cost benefit analysis that specifically applied to the development of the Pinto. This has been shown to be one of the great misunderstandings of the Pinto. I would like to change how that section reads and how the Memo is introduced but I want to get some feedback from editors who have been involved with this article first. Certainly by now we should have more than sufficient evidence to state that the memo was related to the whole auto industry of the US (12.7 million cars per year was more than even GM was making at the time) and the numbers as well as estimates were not related to the Pinto project at all. Springee (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So long as I'm commenting, there is also an issue with how the legal cases are presented. It isn't clear that Ford saw any "defect" in the design when the car was first released. We should not use WP voice to state what is in reality an accusation that is not agreed upon in the reliable literature on the subject. They did decide to take a wait and see approach to design changes related to the as of yet unknown impact standards. Ford's decision to both settle and to agree to a "voluntary recall" were heavily impacted by the PR nightmare the company was facing.

I tend to agree with the view that we shouldn't highlight the Schwartz paper as it's own section. However, as there are more sources that agree with Schwartz we probably should just mix the information from Schwartz and the other sources into the article as appropriate.

Finally, and this is off the Memo subject, the media about the car should probably be separated into a few subsections. The reviews of the car when it was released shouldn't be conflated with the historic retrospectives such as that by Forbs. Those retrospectives as much judge the legacy of the legal and PR battles as the car itself. Also, when the car is cited as one of the worst cars of all time (with just cause) the reasons should be explained. It's not one of the 50 worst because it say handled badly or was notably unreliable by the standards of the day. As I recall from previous reads of the "worst" articles in question it was the damage the car did to Ford's legacy that made it bad. Kind of like how the Corvair is a "bad" car for GM because of the Nader affair. Not because the Corvair was particularly unsafe, unreliable or bad in just about any other way for the time. Anyway, again I'm commenting here hoping for some group feedback before I make any article level changes Springee (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Detailed production changes.

Since no one seems interested in supplying accurate and detailed info about year to year production changes and features, I have consulted my private collection of Ford Pinto brochures from 1971-1980 and Mercury Bobcat brochures from 1974-1980 to better complete this page. Watchdevil (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Consider being very careful in this regard. Try not to introduce minutae or Fancruft that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. In other words, not all information is deemed relevent for a Wikipedia article, and if you have any question that consult the relevant automotive portal to which the article belongs.842U (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Since accurate and detailed information is not desired and appreciated I will no longer contribute time any energy to make sure articles are worthwhile. Watchdevil (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate production details

The article has inaccurate production details stated and the inaccurate and does not even have a notation where such erroneous information came from.

It is inaccurate that the Pinto's all glass hatch replaced the metal framed hatch. The all glass hatch was an option as stated in the 1977-1980 Ford Pinto factory brochures. A metal framed hatch remained standard.

It is also inaccurate that all Mercury Bobcat wagons were called Villager. Only the woodgrain bodyside wagons were given the Villager name as stated in all the 1975-1980 Mercury Bobcat factory brochures. The Villager was eqivalent to the Pinto Squire Wagon with woodgrain bodysides. Regular wagons without woodgrain bodysides carried no special name.

Also, the 1979 Pinto facelift is stated to have square headlamps. The last time I checked a square had an equal length on each side. The H6054 sealed beam headlights the Pinto and Bobcat used for 1979-80 were 5"x7" rectangular, which is the proper term for referring to any standardized rectangular sealed beam headlamp.

The facelift for 1977 was the first significant restyling of the front end of the Pinto with it's urethane flexible shovel nose. Taillamps were redesigned as well.

Watchdevil (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Schwartz Paper - WP:UNDUE

The repeated inclusion of the Schwartz Paper as a source and the undue emphasis placed on that source has been brought up on this talk page as an issue by multiple editors again and again and again and again. It's been re-inserted and edit warred over and over again by User:842U and User:Greglocock in what's a pretty disturbing example of WP:OWNership behavior. If this continues, I'm really going to have to consider reporting this. You're pretty obviously in violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV here. Are you guys somehow related to this Schwartz character? Is that why you're unduly emphasizing the source? NickCT (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The vaguely denigrating assertion, calling Schwartz a "character", hurts your credibility here -- especially when you have zero reason to actually suggest anyone here has a relationship to Schwartz. You've since suggested that you meant that Schwartz is "not unknown" -- but you not only didn't say that, Schwartz is actually rather "quite well known." Let's keep this conversation respectful. And no, I have no dog in the Pinto fight. I'm not related to Schwartz, don't work in the industry (including the legal industry) and have no conflict of interest. It's clear that extremely difficult to measure when a source has undue weight -- but your repeated reversion of the article has been tendentious and divisive. Nonetheless, deleting the references to Schwartz in the face of his academic background, his citations by other sources, including the New York Times, and noted legal scholar Walter Olsen -- suggest the pot may be calling kettle black. Especially combined with a tone and approach that suggests a willingness to strong-arm the conversation. Please refrain from vague comments that can be easily construed as divisive, and please refrain from strong-arming. Let's move this discussion to a more civil tone. 842U (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to read that in 1993, Walter Olson, the Wall Street Journal's noted legal scholar and senior fellow at the Cato Institute cited Schwartz's study when he wrote that " "remarkably, even the affair of the "exploding" Ford Pinto--universally hailed as the acme of product liability success--is starting to look like hype."

I had just added this to the article, before you again reverted the article, without taking into account event further evidence that Schwartz's paper and viewpoints merit inclusion. Your comments above make it clear that you are basing your judgment of Schwartz on your personal opinion, and not the evidence. Please restore the article as it last included references to Schwartz in both the introduction and the section on the controversy. Thanks.842U (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@842U: - Perhaps you're not familiar familiar with the Cato Institute, but it's not the kind of place to cite in defense of your own neutrality.

re "your judgment of Schwartz on your personal opinion," - What are you talking about? If I read any article which dedicated such a large portion to a single source like you're doing here, I would question it. Regardless of the topic of the article or the paper. If you don't see the WP:UNDUE issues here you really need to sit down and examine your understanding of WP:BALANCE.

If you want to include this material I suggest you RfC or straw poll the topic to try and demonstrate support for it. If you like I can help you generate a balanced and neutrally worded RfC. NickCT (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored that the CATO Institute is nonetheless a credentialed, noted association, that editorial board of the Wall Street Journal saw fit to include Walter Olson's article, and that Olson's other credentials are noteworthy and significant, including publication in the New York Times and testifying before Congress. The Pinto article includes the Pinto Myth precisely because it offers noteworthy, credentialed balance to the controversy. It seems you only want to include the information that supports the single point of view the Mother Jones article posited. And while you argue for balance, you suggest that by eliminating a counter-balancing viewpoint from the article, you create balance? Yes, let's also get an administrator to take a look at the article now and with the Schwartz paper. And what makes you think Schwartz was "a character?" 842U (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@842U: - "credentialed, noted association" does not equal WP:NPOV. It does not mean they will give WP:DUE weight to things.

What POV in Mother Jones? I'm not citing Mother Jones or relying on it for anything. I'm not even sure which article you're referring to.

You can certainly offer the "counter-balancing" viewpoint offered in the Schwartz paper. What you can not do is devote an entire subsection or paragraph in the lede to a single source. Especially on a highly notable topic like this one. There are thousands of articles and sources out there covering the Pinto. Schwartz's is one.

"a character" is a simple term for an unknown person. NickCT (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this. We can present the perspective of the Schwartz paper; but we have to give it appropriate weight, relative to what we give other sources in that section. Note that the actual Mother Jones article, while it has far more coverage in secondary sources than the Schwartz paper, only directly gets two sentences, which describe what it claimed in neutral language; everything else is cited to other sources. I'd be totally fine with giving a similar sentence or two neutrally summarizing what the Schwartz paper says as one of the numerous followups to that article, but devoting an entire section to it and framing it as equal in weight to everything else that has ever been written about the Pinto combined is overwhelmingly WP:UNDUE. Additionally, I have major concerns that 842U's preferred version seriously misrepresents what the Schwartz paper does say -- even Schwartz doesn't deny that there were serious design flaws in the Pinto, or that Ford was liable, both ethically and legally; yet it is being used to downplay all of those things. However, given the intractable length of this dispute, we might want to consider pursuing some sort of dispute resolution. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, let's find out if other people regard MJ and the Schwartz papers as RS. Personally I think this article takes the thrust of its tone from the original MJ articles, which were long on exaggeration and short on fact. Greglocock (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do report this, to whoever you think will care. The continual complete deletion of the Schwartz paper and the arguments it makes leaves this article in a very one sided (and frankly stupid) condition, as it swallows the MJ rabble rousing line holus bolus. Quick summary why the MJ article is wrong:The memo did not refer to this case. The $11 fix didn't work. The Pinto was at least as safe as its competitors, overall, as it had positive qualities in other areas that offset the statistically higher rates of deaths from rear end collisions. MJ wildly exaggerated the number of deaths and injuries. Greglocock (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aquillion and Greglocock: - I'm a bit confused by the parallel being drawn between MJ and Schwartz. What facts are we attributing to MJ that's seen as balancing? NickCT (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

MJ is a pretty dubious source. It shouldn't be relied on as the sole source for any information. NickCT (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a great deal of focus on the credibility of the Schwartz paper, which is valid -- but misses another point. Even though the Mother Jones article was based on specious hyperbole, it's hard to say the article didn't affect the legacy of the Pinto. And it's fairly clear from even a cursory search that not only was Schwartz well-credentialed (the LA Times called him a "nationally recognized scholar of personal injury cases and other forms of tort law" in his 2001 obituary) but his work is cited frequently by other notable sources (Malcom Gladwell, Walter Olson, The New York Times, etc.) and it is typically brought up as a counterbalancing point, just as it is being brought up here. After much of the dust had settled on the Mother Jones article and the original Ford lawsuits, but after Schwartz offered counterbalancing points (about the Memo, the number of deaths, about the relative safety of the Pinto compared to other cars of its day), his work is routinely cited -- not only on the merits (that Malcom Gladwell, Walter Olson, The New York Times, etc are known to consider because of their own status and credibility) precisely to give balance and credence to the idea that controversies have two sides. So it's hard to argue that the legacy of the Pinto wasn't affected by the Schwartz paper, when the countervailing pattern is to cite his work whenever the Pinto is brought up in an important context.842U (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@842U: - You're cherry picking. Do a basic search on the Pinto Scandal. How many links do you have to go through before you see a single mention of Schwartz? 10? 20? 100? 200?

Claiming the Schwartz source is somehow different than the others is dubious. I think it's more likely that you're simply sympathetic to his viewpoint and so you're over-emphasizing his paper in your mind. NickCT (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Problems with article 12 feb version

Article reads:

...after an article in Mother Jones. The article said that Ford was aware of the design flaw, was unwilling to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of repairs (Ford estimated the cost to be $11 per car) against the cost of settlements for deaths, injuries, and vehicle burnouts . The document became known as the Ford Pinto Memo

This is false, the CBA did not refer to rear end collisions, it referred to rollover. Here it is, bottom of first page http://www.autosafety.org/uploads/phpq3mJ7F_FordMemo.pdf

So what evidence did MJ actually have for " Ford ... decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits"  ?

I realise this is an accurate summary of what MJ says but MJ were wrong. therefore it needs to be pointed out.

Incidentally by 1978 NHTSA were TELLING car companies to use a risk benefit analysis, the exact methodology the memo discusses.

Greglocock (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Greglocock: - Fair enough. We should point it out. Do you have a secondary source that makes your point about Mother Jones so that we can avoid WP:OR concerns? NickCT (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many eg P120 in http://academic.udayton.edu/lawrenceulrich/How%20Shall%20We%20Know%20If%20Our%20Products%20Are%20Safe.pdf Sentence begins "It is important to emphasize.." Greglocock (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Greglocock: - Did the MJ article actually point to "rear end" collision risk as opposed to generic "design flaws"? The current wording in our article doesn't make it clear whether the MJ expose was specifically talking about the "rear end" issue.

If the MJ article specifically focused on rear end collisions, I think it would be fine to use your source to point out that MJ's article may have misinterpreted Ford's original cost/benefit report. NickCT (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If you read the MJ article it is such a muddle it is hard to tell, but here's the quote "...internal Ford memorandum. This cost-benefit analysis argued that Ford should not make an $11-per-car improvement that would prevent 180 fiery deaths a year. (This minor change would have prevented gas tanks from breaking so easily both in rear-end collisions, like Sandra Gillespie's, and in rollover accidents, where the same thing tends to happen". So they are confusing a study which talks about a hypothetical $11 fix, and rollover, with the rear end collision cases. In actuality the cost of the fix for rear end collisions was lower, but so was the rate of injury and death, than the examples used in the memo. The MJ article is a fine piece of rabble-rousing mud-slinging, but is far too frothy mouthed to take seriously. Greglocock (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I think Mother Jones should not be used as a RS for facts in this article at all. They got far to many things wrong. MJ is an important source to help people understand the public perception of the case but should NOT be used as reliable source of facts. Schwartz IS a reliable source of fact in the case. This view is supported by both the type of research he conducted, especially given that he was doing the work with historical hindsight. His work is also enforced by other academic who looked at the issue after the fact for various reasons. For example, John R Danley writes in "Polishing up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk" Business Ethics Quarterly:

Unfortunately, as Gary Schwartz has painstakingly documented in "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case," this received wisdom is largely a fable built upon misconception and misinformation. While relying heavily upon Schwartz's documentation and analysis in an effort to correct many of the more misleading misunderstandings, the primary purpose here is to examine the impact of such a reassessment on ascriptions of Ford's moral responsibility, and to take that opportunity to examine the broader issues involved in the logic of moral blame in cases such as this.

...

A convenient point for departure is to address what may well be the most egregious distortion of fact involved in the Pinto case - the wild and unsupported claims asserted in "Pinto Madness" and elsewhere that hundreds or thousands of deaths resulted from this design.

The careful nature of Schwartz's basic research means that when the WP article wants to report on the facts of what happened with the Pinto fires and all that is SHOULD be relying on Schwartz and should treat MJ and the other early reports that repeated the MJ claims as news articles that drove public perception but have since been found to be incorrect. In a real sense the later works (not just Schwartz) should be given every bit as much weight as any sources discussing the fire related controversy Springee (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Schwartz RS

[[1]]

Have at it. Greglocock (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite some of the arguments tendered at the RS discussion, and for the record, the article has not recently given a "huge" portion of the article to Schwartz paper; it explains the Schwartz paper and why it's meaningful to the controversy. It does not give an entire paragraph in the lead to the Schwartz paper, rather one paragraph in the lead cites four factors affecting the legacy of the Ford Pinto:

The Pinto's legacy was affected by 1) media controversy and 2) legal cases surrounding its fuel tank safety, 3) a recall of the car in 1978, and 4) a later study examining incident data, concluding the Pinto was as safe as, or safer than, other cars in its class. The Pinto has been cited as a noted business ethics case.

The article has not most recently had "a subsection" devoted to the Schwartz paper, but rather is formatted as a sub-subsection -- granting the Schwartz Paper a part of a section, but giving it no mention in the table of contents. This makes it more important to mention in the lead, otherwise it is buried in the article (i.e., no mention in the lead, no mention in the table of contents, the article subjugating a cogent and reliable argument pertaining directly to the subject of the article, the Ford Pinto.

Most recently the article was reverted repeatedly to completely remove ANY mention of the Schwartz paper (e.g., right now). So even though the Schwartz paper is notably cited in post-litigation reporting (and it's no more cherry-picking to find these references, than it is cherry-pick them out of a Wikipedia article). The Schwartz paper was cited by noted legal scholar Walter Olson, has been cited in the New York Times numerous times, and was cited by noted author Malcom Gladwell. There has been an extremely careful and concerted effort to find a balance on this issue. And clearly it has little to do with the reliability of Schwartz as a source.842U (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• I replied to the RSN discussion. Schwartz is clearly an authoritative source on this subject. I noted two other academic articles that enforce that view, this is particularly true of the basic data collection and the exposures of public misunderstandings of the case which were likely due to Mother Jone's reporting on the subject. Springee (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Springee: - On a philosophical note; after read up on this issue I'm not sure I'd call it a "public misunderstanding" as much as it was perhaps a "mis-perception". Ultimately there was a real danger presented by the fuel tank (few sources deny that), and the public understood this. That said, the public probably perceived the level of danger and risk to be significantly greater than it probably was. NickCT (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Outside Help

Can we please get some outside, administrator help on the article. It's turning into a warring match again.842U (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be useful to propose edits here before adding them to the article? Springee (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@842U: - Go here to request page protection. Before you do that though, it might be worth considering that our edits are moving closer together. It appears to me like we're moving towards consensus through WP:BRD. NickCT (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: - re "Would it be useful to propose edits here before adding them to the article? " - Works for me. NickCT (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)