Talk:Ford Pinto/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposed editorial direction: set the record straight on false narratives in popular sources

@Aquillion: Thank you very much for your engagement in this article. Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm proud of my contributions to the progress in the organization and sourcing of a difficult section of this article, the fire safety.

I agree we should hope the section on "fire safety" should stabilize, but I anticipate an attempt at a major rewrite once the edit lock is removed. The edit lock has been helpful in that through talk page discussion above we now have a clearer idea of a proposed editorial direction. The major evidence for this proposed editorial direction is in article space, please see the preface inserted into the lede of the "fire safety" section, immediately before the edit lock, warning our readers that much of what they think they know about the Pinto story is incorrect, inserted with an edit summary "Restoring section lead material to the top of section. This material highlights what the section does/will contain:"

Scholarly work published in the decades after the Pinto’s release have offered summations of the general understanding of the Pinto and the controversy regarding the car's safety performance and risk of fire. Lee and Ermann summarized the popular yet largely erroneous understanding of the issues surrounding the Pinto and related fires.

Conventional wisdom holds that Ford Motor Company decided to rush the Pinto into production in 1970 to compete with compact foreign imports, despite internal pre-production tests that showed gas tank ruptures in low-speed rear-end collisions would produce deadly fires. This decision purportedly derived from an infamous seven-page cost-benefit analysis (the "Grush/Saunby Report" [1973]) that valued human lies at $200,000. Settling burn victims’ lawsuits would have cost $49.5 million, far less than the $137 million needed to make minor corrections. According to this account, the company made an informed, cynical, and impressively coordinated decision that "payouts" (Kelman and Hamilton 1989:311) to families of burn victims were more cost-effective than improving fuel tank integrity. This description provides the unambiguous foundation on which the media and academics have built a Pinto gas tank decision-making narrative.

Additional misunderstanding surrounds the actual number of fire related deaths related to the fuel system design, "wild and unsupported claims asserted in 'Pinto Madness' and elsewhere",[31] the facts of the two most significant Pinto related legal cases, Grimshaw vs Ford Motor Company and State of Indiana vs Ford Motor Company, the applicable safety standards at the time of design, and the nature of the NHTSA investigations and subsequent vehicle recalls.

References

Other strong evidence for this proposed editorial direction is here at talk above in article talk:

I did consider, independent of your suggestion, a chronological telling. I don't think that is the best way because many of the important events are occurring at the same time but don't come together until, for lack of a better term, later in the story. Instead I suggest we follow the pattern of much of the scholarship. Start with noting that there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding then go forward with a structure not unlike the one we have.

It is clear that the preface material was the first instalment of a planned major rewrite of this section, which abandons a chronological organization and abandons a neutral telling of dates, facts, and events in favor of a popular mythology v. scholarship, point/counterpoint organization. The consensus of multiple reliable sources is to be abandoned for a very few, select "scholarly" "strong" sources with an closely aligned point of view.

As we know, righting great wrongs is not an appropriate editorial direction for a Wikipedia article. The role of a Wikipedia article is not to address false narratives in sources. Our job is to make sure there are no false narratives in our article, that's all. Neither is the role of this article is to exoneration the Pinto.

Last month above on this talk page, you and NickCT eloquently advocated for the basic principle of Wikipedia editing in which we endeavour to present facts first, and significant points of view later. NickCT added a "subsequent analysis" subsection. I thought we had a consensus on this approach. I believe the appropriate place for a brief summarization of recent scholarship is the "subsequent analysis" subsection, not the lede of the "fire safety" section. Some stuff definitely happened, no matter what recent "scholarship" says.

This article needs the support of you and others on a neutral, chronological organization of dates, facts, and events, followed by points of view and opinions and analysis. Please comment on this proposed editorial direction. I know well walls of text can be exhausting. An occasional very few words from you and others could make an impact. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to wipe my feet. I just stepped in a lot of BS. It's funny that now that you have changed the content you demand that we freeze it. You did this without consulting with other editors. When I asked you to discuss I was given blow off answers. The article was locked because of your 3RR violation (6RR in one day!). I think it makes more sense to follow the lead of the best scholarly sources on the subject in terms of presentation. You are free to present what you think are the best. While you are at it, please let us know if you agree that 27 is a reliable figure (per the question you have dodged several times) and please prove that you have actually have Lee and Ernmann by answering my previous question. Springee (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the Center for Auto Safety a RS?

Information from the Center for Auto Safety [[1]] has been cited several times in the article for fact. The actions and information provided by the center should be viewed skeptically. The organization is not impartial. They worked with Mother Jones to create a political storm around the Pinto issue. They worked together on the discredited "Pinto Madness" article. One specific claim cited to C4AS is that between the time the NHTSA recall had been issued (June 9, 1978) and repair parts were available (September 15, 1978) 6 more people had died in Pinto fires after rear impact. That is an interesting claim given that the NHTSA said that only 27 people had died as a result of rear impact fires over the 6 years from 1971 to 1977 (Schwartz, page 1030). The article contains a number of other questionable claims. Given the group is an advocacy organization, not a reliable new service nor a peer reviewed source it should not be treaded as reliable. WP:RS, [2] wou;d apply.Springee (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Center for Auto Safety is an advocacy organization? um, because they advocate for, auto safety? so they are not a reliable source??? Hugh (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC) The Center for Auto Safety, Mother Jones (magazine), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conspired to discredit the Pinto? Have I got that right? Hugh (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

After the recall, but before parts were made available, six more people died in Pinto fires.

• "Ford Pinto Fuel Tank". Center for Auto Safety. November 13, 2009. Retrieved March 5, 2016. Recall notices were mailed in September, 1978 and parts were to be at all dealers by September 15, 1978. However, between June 9, 1978, and the date when parts were available to repair the estimated 2.2 million vehicles, six people died in Pinto fires after a rear impact.
• Spear, Gillian (June 18, 2013). "Take that back: Famous recalls, from Tylenol to Toyota". NBC News. Retrieved March 5, 2016. Three people died before the recall and six died in Pinto fires during the time following the recall but before the parts to repair the vehicle were made available.

Our article's claim of 6 more fatalities during the recall is sourced to multiple reliable sources. Is NBC News also wrong? Do you have a source that contradicts this? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hugh, you should know better. C4AS is an advocacy organization and the "article" to which you refer it self published. That means it's reliability should be considered suspect, especially if it conflicts with other reliable sources. Do you deny that it seems odd that the NHTSA found only 27 examples of rear-impact fire deaths in Pintos yet Nader's group, claims 6 in only 3 months? That rate would suggest 24 deaths in 1978 alone. That seriously conflicts with the NHTSA numbers. Remember that at the Indiana trial both the defense and prosecutor agreed with the NHTSA's numbers. That NBC offered the same numbers (no source cited) means little. Becker, the scholarly source you brought to the table, and one that cites the quality of both Schwartz and Lee and Ermann's work notes the degree to which the media got things wrong. In fact one of the central issues of the Pinto fire story is the degree to which misinformation has taken over the story and clouds the truth. If you bother to read Becker it becomes clear that there is a lot of misinformation and the press gets much of it wrong.

Here is another example of C4AS getting it wrong. They claimed their original Pinto petition (1974) "languished". That wasn't the case. In fact it was investigated and the NHTSA found that there was no cause of action based on the data. (Graham chapter in "The Liability Maze: The Impact of Liability Law on Safety and Innovation"). This is a very reasonable conclusion given that the Pinto's overall safety record turned out to be better than average for small cars and average for the industry. As Schwartz and others say the recall was in response to a wave of consumer complaints promoted by the media attention. It was not based on real numbers.

The C4AS article also is presenting the MJ article, an article it had a hand in creating, as reliable fact.

In 1977, Mark Dowie of Mother Jones Magazine using documents in the Center files, published an article reporting the dangers of the fuel tank design, and cited internal Ford Motor Company documents that proved that Ford knew of the weakness in the fuel tank before the vehicle was placed on the market but that a cost/benefit study was done which suggested that it would be "cheaper" for Ford to pay liability for burn deaths and injuries rather than modify the fuel tank to prevent the fires in the first place. Dowie showed that Ford owned a patent on a better designed gas tank at that time, but that cost and styling considerations ruled out any changes in the gas tank design of the Pinto.

It has been shown that without a doubt the Pinto Memo was not a memo used during the design of the car (the car was already in production) and that it was generalized to the industry and in response to the NHSTA. It was not used to make engineering design decisions (Schwartz and other show this). To claim the memo discussed tort payments is flat out false and one of the examples of Mother Jones inventing material to create controversy.

The RS rules already say we should question a self published source and now we have highly questionable statistics and false claims. Basically it isn't a reliable source and thus can only be used as an opinion in the article. Springee (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. Focusing on content, are you saying you do or do not have a reliable source which contradicts the above content in our article sourced to the Center for Auto Safety and NBC News? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry reading is hard for you. Yes, the NHTSA disagrees. The rest of the material which was too hard for you to read went on to point out other inaccuracies in the article. Anyway, RS rules say we can only use it for opinion, not fact. Springee (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a citation and excerpt which contradicts the above contended content. Thank you. What is your basis in policy or guideline for saying we can only use NBC News for opinion? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, we can't use NBC News either since it contradicts reliable sources (ie NHTSA data). Springee (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction. Please provide a citation and an excerpt of the source that you feel contradicts NBC News. Is it your original research that contradicts NBC News or a reliable source? If there is in fact a contradiction, perhaps we can accommodate both sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that such an obvious contradiction escapes you. The A4CS source is not reliable per WP:RS. The NBC article is a short blurb and also should not be treated as reliable. The fact that so few sources support the claim and the fact that it would conflict with the well establish 27 over half a decade is too much to overlook. We can simply give the claim no weight or we can include it with a note that it conflicts with the reliable sources on the mater. Remember, this is the same group that claimed 500 people will die because of this defect. A claim that proved to be grossly inaccurate. Springee (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a citation and an excerpt from the source you feel contradicts the Center for Auto Safety and NBC News. Is there some problem? It seems like a simple request. Did you notice how above in this thread when you challenged content I copied the content and references and excerpts to the talk page for the benefit of talk page participants? Thank you in advance. As I understand it, your assertion that the Center for Auto Safety and NBC News are incorrect is based on your original research, a sort of probabilistic reasoning, your assessment of how likely it is that the Center for Auto Safety and NBC News might be correct. Have I got that right? Help yourself: please provide a citation and an excerpt with sufficient context that your colleagues may assess their level of agreement with your conclusion; maybe the community will agree with you. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is a case where we'll have to document the disagreement in the sources rather than obviously siding with one or the other. I can sympathize with the "this says that those sources are wrong!" issue, but the fact is that it's a huge part of the Pinto's reputation and history (as we can see from the fact that most of the sources disputing it are clearly written from the perspective of refuting the conventional wisdom or mainstream narrative -- which shows that the narrative they're disputing is mainstream and high-profile, and clearly can't be entirely excluded.) What we can do is try to document what each of the conflicting sources say in as neutral a tone as possible. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to handle it is to drop the claim. As you said, when we zoom out it's not a big deal, that is it isn't an encyclopedic sort of statement. Most sources say nothing about these "6" victims. What value do it add? Lee and Ermann do note that the June to September delay is quite understandable as Ford had to try to compile a list of owners. An issue with the goose chase HughD has created is many strong sources won't bother with some of the lesser claims. Also, since we have no way to date the claim we can't tell if it was made after the strong sources were written. The NBC article was written in 2013. The C4AS article page has a 2009 copyright date but no article specific date. If we assume the article was written in 2009 then it post dates the strong sources. It is very questionable to include such an unimportant claim, one that flies in the face of accepted evidence just because a biased source and a click bait article mention it. I would pose that this would be a great time for HughD to show he is interested in a reasonable discussion and let this factoid drop from the article.

The problem with accepting the "mainstream" is that the mainstream view isn't well researched or documented. Rather there is strong evidence that it was sensationalized. The actual scholarly work that attempted to answer, what really happened, doesn't support the mainstream narrative. That is very important. That is why NickCT and I had discussed the idea of a two part controversy section. One part would discuss the case as it is generally understood, the other would focus on the scholarship that has said the general understanding of the case is wrong and here is the evidence. I was working on such a change off line.

As for C4AS, I stand by the view that they can not be treated as a RS. Remember they are a party to the issue and we have evidence that their claims conflict with scholarly sources.

We understand you do not like the content. We understand you feel it would be best to exclude it. Everything in every Wikipedia article is not in most sources. Why is it so hard for you to lay out for your colleagues why you feel the source is contradicted, or are you off of that? Now NBC News is click bait? Is it your proposal that mainstream media sources be excluded from this article, in favor of peer reviewed journal articles, or in favor of just Schwartz, Lee, and Erdman? Your impression of scholarship is based on your impression of a small selection of sources with an aligned viewpoint. Ford is a party, should we also exclude from this article all statements by Ford? How about

According to the Center for Auto Safety and NBC News, after the recall, but before parts were made available, six more people died in Pinto fires.

In-text attribution as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Let's trust our readers to decide whether or not to trust the Center for Auto Safety and NBC News. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please justify the addition based on WP:WEIGHT given there is clear evidence that the number of deaths has been wildly overstated by groups associated with A4CS and Nader. Springee (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You see the invisible hand of Ralph Nader everywhere in this story, including NBC News? Hugh (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"we can't tell if it was made after the strong sources were written" Let me guess, the "strong sources" are Schwartz 1990 and Lee & Erdman? All sources before 1990 on the Ford Pinto are unreliable, since they could not possible benefit from Schwartz' scholarship? Hugh (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the hyperbole in check. It doesn't make your case stronger. It's a simple question. Why, if this is such an important fact, do we not see it in any of the news articles, even the inflammatory ones, from 1978 or 1979? No, the first time we see such a claim in 2009 and then a few years later when a lazy NBC editor copies the claim from the C4AS. It's a dubious, inflammatory and yet insignificant claim, why include it? You were bold in adding it. Now accept that others are not happy with it's inclusion and move on. Perhaps we should rewind... do you accept the ~27 deaths number from the NHTSA as correct. If no, do you think the actual number was over 100? Springee (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

NBC News is one of the world's most prestigious news organizations; what is your evidence that the NBC source was due to a lazy editor copying from the Center for Auto Safety? Please share. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree that 27 is a reliable estimate for the number of Pinto deaths (at the time the estimate was made)? If not, what source should we consult for an alternative value? Springee (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The broader question of death and injury numbers coverage in Wikipedia

Our articles has so far managed a reasonable telling of the Ford Pinto events, conspicuously without death or injury numbers. To that extent the post-recall fatalities number "6" lacks context. I suspect the numbers may be controversial. Minimally, we should have one or two sentences, summarizing the widely-reported numbers from the NHTSA determination, a government agency report which consolidates figures from Ford and the NHTSA, as a sort of base jumping off point, in the NHTSA subsection. I ask we please not interrupt the chronological narrative of events with more recent disputation of the numbers at that point in the article. Further, I would suggest we do not present forecasts or extrapolations from anyone, not NTHSA, not Ford, not lwyers, not academics; not worth it, stick to actual numbers. No numbers in Wikipedia voice; all numbers attributed in text. Later, in the "subsequent analysis" subsection, one or two sentences summarizing more recent post hoc analysis of the numbers. Thank you. Hugh (talk)

I think we should present the scholarly accepted value, 27 as of the time it was estimated. I think it is worth noting the other estimates that have been offered. Certainly the wildly overstated claims from Mother Jones should be mentioned because they impacted the public understanding. Springee (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Now HughD, imagine if you had tried to do some research on the subject. Here is half of the 6. They were the 3 girls in the Indiana case. [[3]], [[4]]. Rather than use low quality sources such as the ones you currently have, I would suggest searching for high quality sources. Note, I'm not convinced this factoid is important to the article. The Indiana part, yes, not the 6 during the period. Anyway, I will see if I can get a copy of the latter from my law library. An interesting point about the 3. As Schwartz points out the NHTSA, in concluding 27 fatalities as of 1977 did not note how many of those were in rear impacts at speeds faster than 30 MPH. As of 1973 all Ford cars met the original 20 mph proposal. Impacts over 30 mph may not have been survivable regardless of the design changes. Speed of impact was a critical point in the Indiana trial since a speed over 30 MPH (there is good evidence that the impact was at 50 mph) would mean the recalled parts had no impact on the outcome. This is a point that we should add to the article when discussing the 27 number. From Schwartz:

Evidence that does count against the Pinto was compiled by NHTSA in considering the recall. In crash-testing, NHTSA compared the Pinto to the Chevrolet Vega, often regarded (along with the Gremlin) as having the least safe gas tank of the other subcompacts for sale in America. In this process, the Pinto consistently flunked tests that the Vega was able to pass.61 Yet, even if this comparative crash-testing is acknowledged, the question of the flammability of the Pinto remains ultimately empirical.62 According to the Mother Jones article, as of 1977, somewhere between 500 and 900 persons had been killed in fires attributable to the Pinto's unique design features;63 Jack Anderson, in a column about the Pinto that had appeared several months before the Mother Jones story, had referred to "thousands of people" either killed or "horribly disfigured."64 In the 60 Minutes segment on the Pinto, Mike Wallace expressed the view that he found it "difficult to believe that top management of the Ford Motor Company is going to sit there and say, 'Oh, we'll buy 2,000 deaths, 10,000 injuries, because we want to make some money or we want to bring in a cheaper car.' "65 These are, indeed, numerical estimates that give statistical substance to the claim that the Pinto was a "firetrap." The NHTSA investigation, however, lent no support to such estimates. Relying on a variety of external sources (including Ford), NHTSA indicated that it was aware of thirty-eight instances in which rear-end impact on Pintos had resulted in fuel-tank leakage or fire; these instances, in turn, resulted in twenty-seven deaths and twenty-four nonfatal burn injuries.66 The NHTSA report also incorporated the data internally provided by NHTSA's own Fatal Accident Reporting System ("FARS"), which had begun operation in 1975. FARS data showed that from January 1975 through the middle of 1977, seventeen people had died in accidents in which Pinto rear-end collisions resulted in fires. 67 In comparing NHTSA's figure of twenty-seven deaths for 1971~77 with the FARS figure of seventeen for 1975-77,68 one should keep in mind that the number of Pintos on the road was increasing every year in a cumulative way.

The NHTSA figure of twenty-seven fatalities hence seems roughly in the ballpark by way of suggesting the number of people who had died in Pinto rear-end fires. In setting forth this number, however, NHTSA made no effort to estimate how many of these deaths were caused by the Pinto's specific design features. Many fire deaths undeniably result from high-speed collisions that would induce leakage even in state-of-the-art fuel systems;69 moreover, cars in the subcompact class generally entail a relatively high fatality risk.70 Yet the NHTSA report did not compare the performance results of the Pinto to the results of other cars then on the road, including other subcompacts.

This information SHOULD be in the article. It is very significant that the large number of predicted deaths never materialized. It goes against a popular misconception about the car. I'm open to suggestions as to how to incorporate it but it's very significant that the high death tolls attributed to the Pinto design did not pan out. The deaths that were recorded, possibly including those in the Indiana case, may not have been survivable even if the pre-1977 cars met the 1977 30 mph standard.

I know you want to discount and even belittle the Schwartz article but I would suggest you read all 50+ pages and the footnotes. It will help you understand why the article is widely cited and perhaps the most authoritative work on this subject. Regrettably Lee and Ermann is not readily available to those who don't have research library access. I don't recall if Danley was available without access or not. Springee (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't need a list of the 6 names before we can include the content. NBC News said 6. That's good enough for Wikipedia. We don't need to recreate NBC News' work. We are not investigative reporters, we are editors. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised to hear you would now like to draw more content from your nemesis Mother Jones. May I ask, were you perhaps planning to rebut Mother Jones in this article, perhaps at some length? If so, I'm not sure it's worth it. Hugh (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read Schwartz and Lee & Erdman. I agree they have their place. I used Schwartz for some citation of facts. I also used other peer reviewed articles, and you should, too. I strongly agree with earlier commenting editors on this talk page that Schwartz and Lee & Erdman are not central and they do not rise to the weight of pushing out other content or sources such as those published before 1990. Hugh (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to hear your views on the editorial discipline I proposed above, that we endeavour not to interrupt the concise chronological telling of facts and events with more recent analysis and commentary; the basic idea of facts and events first, then opinions. The lengthy preface you insisted on inserting in the lede of the "fire safety" section, the sense of which is: "by the way, everything you are about to read has been shown to be incorrect" has me concerned that you plan to recast each subsection in Schwartz/Lee/Erdman approved terms. Schwartz and Lee and Erdman are subsequent analysis and the place for modest content drawn from Schwartz and Lee and Erdman is the "subsequent analysis" subsection. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Might you be willing to propose some hopefully concise content on the death/injury counts? Right now all we have is the 6. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

But you do need to show that the content is worth including wp:weight. "Nemesis"? When did I say anything as stupid as that? Deliberately presenting the statements of others out of context is WP:UIC Since you claim to have read Lee and Ermann do us all a quick favor, tell us what the quote on the bottom of page 32 says.

Anyway, as for the MJ rebuttal, I would have assumed you read my posts here prior to following me to this article. The basic flaws have already been covered.

I did consider, independent of your suggestion, a chronological telling. I don't think that is the best way because many of the important events are occurring at the same time but don't come together until, for lack of a better term, later in the story. Instead I suggest we follow the pattern of much of the scholarship. Start with noting that there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding then go forward with a structure not unlike the one we have.

Since the degree to which popular understanding of the Pinto controversy so great, one of the most important facets to cover is the myths and misunderstandings. That is exactly why I put the L&E quote in the section lead. The lead needs to make it clear that much of the popular understanding is wrong. That doesn't mean there aren't origins to the material but the way the material has been presented created a false narrative of events. Why should we draw heavily on the information presented by Schwartz and Lee and Ermann? Rossow offers a good answer (emphasis mine):

The paper draws on many sources but most heavily on 1) an article by the late Gary Schwartz [1], a former law professor well-known in the legal profession as a leading scholar of tort law (his Pinto article has been cited as a “staple of the literature” [2]), and 2) a publication by Matthew Lee and David Ermann [3], professors of sociology. Unlike many people writing about the Pinto case, Schwartz, Lee and Ermann carefully examined the factual claims of the conventional account. They read trial transcripts, NHSTA documents, and related books, newspapers, and magazine articles. They interviewed NHSTA managers and engineers, Ford executives and engineers—including harsh critics and whistleblowers who had publicly criticized Ford—plaintiffs and defense attorneys, and safety consultants. They found that, in Schwartz’ rather dry description, “several significant factual misconceptions surround the public's understanding of the case.” The purpose of the present paper is to describe the Pinto case and point out commonly held factual misconceptions, so that the reader can make an informed judgment about the accuracy of the conventional account of the Pinto case.

Do you agree that there are several significant factual misconceptions surrounding the public's understanding of the case?

If you want a concise death count proposal go ahead and propose it. Springee (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"That is exactly why I put the L&E quote in the section lead. The lead needs to make it clear that much of the popular understanding is wrong." In the subsections under "fire safety," we shouldn't say anything that was later proven wrong, and we won't, and we don't, so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to having a warning label going into this section. Sources may have a "false narrative," but our article may not and does not. We are not here to correct false narratives in sources, sorry. There is nothing in our article that justifies a warning label preface. No Wikipedia article section should have a preface that says to our readers, "btw, this stuff was thought correct historically but is now known to be wrong." If something is wrong, I say, let's not say it. Simple! From your comments it seems to me you have a narrative in mind that you really, really want to write, based on your preferred sources. It sure seems to me like you want to right the great wrongs of Ralph Nader and Mother Jones. Schwartz, Lee, Ermann, and you all have in common the same tone, which is, roughly "this whole Pinto thing is overwrought, but I'm your guy to straighten it out, listen to me, I'll tell you what really happened." This tone may be acceptable in an academic paper but not in Wikipedia. For example, we can paraphrase extensively from Mother Jones, and then rebut it with scholarship, or we can simply agree not to emphasize wrong stuff, or at least not say wrong stuff in Wikipedia voice. For another example, we don't need to go into a detailed explanation of how Ford never actually decided to deliberately market an unsafe car, because we don't say the Ford deliberately decided to market an unsafe car. We are not obligated to summarize the back and forth of all the controversy in all of the hundreds of books and papers written on this product and the trials. Don't waste our reader's time. I am grateful to you for explicitly stating your intention to junk the chronological narrative for a compare and contrast, popular mythology vs. facts, point/counterpoint organization, but that is not an improvement. I am saddened that you decline to take the opportunity of this edit lock to propose more specific content proposals. Hugh (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Do you accept that the 27 number is the best estimate?

2. You said you have read Lee and Ermann, an article not available openly on the web, what does the quote on the bottom of page 32 discuss?

3. Why is it important to include trivial negative factoids in detail such as the styling opinions of a financial news source yet we should avoid mentioning that the facts of the Pinto case are largely misunderstood even though the MOST significant scholarly works on the subject note the key importance of such misunderstandings? Those misunderstandings not only affect what people think today but also impacted the course of events we are discussing! Many sources emphasize the misunderstanding hence it should have significant WEIGHT in this article. Sources that emphasize the misconceptions: Schwartz, Lee and Ermann, Danley, Becker, Rossow, to some extent NPR [[5]], to some extent Gladwell [[6]], Finley [[7]], since you like click-bait list articles, [[8]], to some extent NYT [[9]]. I'm sure I can find more. There are PLENTY of articles, and certainly the most important ones on the subject that note the misconceptions. Thus it absolutely is an important part of the discussion. I'm sorry you wish to suppress such information. Springee (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course many sources emphasize misconceptions; so much has been written about the Pinto story, and no one is going to publish as article that says "my co-authors and I agree with everything in prior literature." When sources express controversy, we summarize the controversy, but later. Our first priority is to not say anything in our article that the consensus rejects later. Sure, sources differ, but let me ask you: what does our article say in Wikipedia voice that is later contradicted? Best I can tell, nothing. And if there were, what say we simply fix it. Therefore, I believe there is no justification for your warning label in the section lede of "fire safety." We shouldn't come out of the gate screaming "controversy!" It's a poor organization. Some stuff happened. First, let's say what happened. Hugh (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

When the most reliable scholarship on the subject starts by saying the general understanding is flawed we start our section the same way. I'm sorry you "don't like that". Springee (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Summing objections: The Center for Auto Safety link should not be used as a RS in this article for the following reasons. First, it is a PRIMARY source as the center was directly involved with events surrounding the Pinto Controversy. This does not according to policy eliminate the source as RS but it places great restrictions and comes with cautions. However, this primary source is offering a narrative of events, that is an interpretation, not a list of facts thus I don't believe it falls under the policy exclusion for primary sources. Second, it is a self published source offering an interpretation of events and offered with out naming an author. Thus [WP:UGC] applies. Together these should exclude using the Center for Auto Safety as a RS. This shouldn't significantly alter much of the article content as in most (all?) cases where the Center is used as a source, other secondary sources are available. Springee (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary documents are not excluded as sources from Wikipedia. Please see WP:PRIMARY. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Center for Auto Safety source is not a primary source. The Center for Auto Safety source is not "close to an event." The Center for Auto Safety source is an essay written by the Center for Auto Safety summarizing events of decades ago. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ford is also "directly involved with events surrounding the Pinto controversy." Would you also support not using any statements by Ford?

The Center for Auto Safety source includes facts and events. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Center for Auto Safety is not a blog and it is not user-generated content, it is a page on an organization website. The Center for Auto Safety is a recognized expert in automotive safety. WP:UGC does not rule out this source. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The content may be attributed to the Center for Auto Safety in-text in an abundance of caution and in recognition that some may have concerns of possible bias as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The content is also sourced to NBC News.

Thank you Hugh (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Was the Center for Auto Safety a participant in the Pinto Controversy? Yes, they petitioned the NHTSA, they worked with MJ to write the article, they helped drum up public outrage that put political pressure on the NHTSA. That makes them a participant and thus Primary.

Is the article using Ford as a source? No. Statements by Ford are relayed by secondary sources.

The facts and claims of the Center for Auto Safety are not readily verifiable by others or in cases where they are the other source should be cited instead. Per PRIMARY

The center is not a blog but it is still a self published source. WP:UGC does apply.

Rather than attribute to the center, the preferred option is to find other sources. This is not hard in the case of any of the references currently in the article. I've already provided a better source for the 6 death claim. NBC News isn't it. Springee (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Safety Issues section as it stands

Just a list of the most obvious problems in the frozen version, ranging from structure to content to typos. I'm doing this from memory so refs may be wrong.

intro

Typo lies->lives

Fuel tank design

The Pinto's vulnerability to rear-end collision was exacerbated by reduced rear "crush space," a lack of structural reinforcement in the rear, and an "essentially ornamental" rear bumper. These are of course typical for designs at the time. NHTSA chief quote belongs here as a direct rebuttal.

This content has numerous reliable sources and needs no direct rebuttal. The content is about rear-end collisions and the 1980 former NHTSA head testimony in defense of Ford is about overall safety so it is not a direct rebuttal. The former NHTSA head testimony in defense of Ford is in our article in the "criminal prosecution" section where it has context. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsnse as usual. GL

Third para has nothing to do with Fuel tank design, it should have a separate title something like The Pinto Memo or less helpfully Cost Benefit Analysis.

We agree we should not imply that the CBA was a design document through the section organization of our article. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC) We agree the CBA is due a subsection. Thanks. Hugh (talk)

So you agree, it needs a separate section. GL

Widening public awareness Terrible title. The final sentence spin needs an observation that this notoriety is based on the MJ narrative.

We agree the consensus of vast RS is that the MJ article was the key event in the notoriety. We can move Time's characterization of the CBA to the CBA subsection. We agree on the section heading. Rather than rename this section, may I suggest we collapse this section under the subsequent "NHTSA investigation" and the CAS petitions and the MJ article will read as events leading up to the NHTSA investigation. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree that is a better place for it. Disagree with collapsing sections. GL

NHTSA investigation cn for transmission thing, it's in L&E I think. first sentence needs sorting "The next day" needs to be changed to "The day after Nader's press conference..."

Recall Add Gladwell analysis showing that the recall action had no significant effect on safety.

We agree a brief post hoc characterization of an evaluation of the impact of the recall would be a good addition, perhaps here, or in "Subsequent analysis." I'm not sure Gladwell is the best source for this. Can you please be more specific about where in Gladwell? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No, because you are not going to waste any more of my time. GL

Lawsuits First sentence needs numbers not 'some', and how many failed, etc Second para - goes on far too long about the jury's punitive damages, which were massively reduced on appeal.

Yes, the jury's punitive damages award was later reduced, by the trail judge, and the reduction was upheld on appeal. Plaintiffs never get the full jury award. The jury's punitive award is highly noteworthy as widely reported as the largest jury award of its kind in history. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

More nonsense GL

Criminal prosecution Nothing obvious

Subsequent analysis ref 82 does not support the sentence as written, if the excerpt is correct. ref 32 is broken, and from memory does not support the sentence as written either. Gladwell makes the point that fires in pinto were about average, it was only by drilling down to rear enders +fire that Pinto stands out.

With your kind leave I will intersperse for convenience, thank you. Thank you for your careful read and for proposing concrete edits during this edit lock. We agree this section needs work. We agree that the article needs a clear statement, easily supported by multiple rs, that the Pinto overall may not be more or less safe/unsafe than, say, other passenger cars, its class, and/or close competitors; and makes the distinct from rear end impact fires. I agree the current refs in this section maybe are not best for this. Ref 32, to Schwartz, is broken because I was in the midst of converting it to Harvard in anticipation of facilitating drawing more content from this ref; it is an easy fix, but maybe needs to be removed. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be polite but largely incapable of answering a straight question or making a coherent point. Thank you Greglocock (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that everything else is fine, but those are the obvious points. Greglocock (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the above:

The previous section title was more appropriate, "Fuel tank controversy". The current title implies a significant safety defect which is at best a point of contention. It also downplays that there is a lot of controversy related to the fuel system. I think something related to "Fuel System Integrity Controversy" might be better but I'm open to suggestions. Remember that anyone looking at the Contents block will see the subheadings so there is no reason to have a heading that just combines several subheadings.

The "Fuel tank design" title should probably be made a bit more general since technically the issue had more to do with crush space and the fuel filler neck. The issue wasn't the tank per se. The content of this section could probably be split into two sections. One would discuss the proposed regulations and Ford's response to comment vis-a-via the regulations. This would also be a good time to discuss the crash test work Ford and others were doing to establish reliable crash test standards and things like Ford's voluntary, internal goal of meeting the original 20 mph proposed standard by 1973. As either a second section or as the later part of this section the actual design of the Pinto and the Pinto specific crash tests could be discussed. If all this is in one section then the section heading would have to indicate both relevant standards and fuel system design. I will review the articles I've printed to see if they offer an answer. Memo can be discussed here to say what it was and how it didn't impact the car's design. The section should also mention that cost benefit analyses were standard and expected when dealing with government regulations.

The "Widening" title should be changed back to the earlier title. The old title accurately captured the point that this became a controversy, not just the public gaining factual knowledge of the subject. I'm not sure about putting the 1974 NHTSA petition in this section. That wasn't really public knowledge. It is good information but I think I would add it to a NHTSA + recall section. It also is significant that the actual accident data of the time didn't support a recall action. The current section just says the NHTSA was petitioned. OK, to what end? The C4AS says the NHTSA let the request languish. That isn't the case as it was reviewed and found to not be actionable (that might not be the exact term). The MJ article is clearly the flash point of public awareness. The fact that MJ and the C4AS coordinated a DC press conference is important as is that this and other follow on reports (60 Minutes for example) created a public outcry and pressure on the NHTSA. Also worth noting is the comment by L&E that articles allied with the alarmist views gained traction while those that were credible but contradictory did not (L&E pg 41). This is significant because 1. many of the alarmist views have since been shown to be wrong or overblown, and 2. because it helps to explain why there is so much misunderstanding of the subject. Memo should be mentioned here to note that it was widely misrepresented as part of the design decision process.

NHTSA section -> merge with recall section. This is where we should cover both the 1974 investigation and the 1977 investigation. The results of the investigations go here of course. It is also important to note that there was a great deal of pressure on the NHTSA to do something given the public outcry and the accusations from MJ and others that the NHTSA was in the pockets of the industry. The "fiery" crash test was setup to ensure failure. Rather than testing the car to the newly established 1978 standard, a non-standard "worst case" test was conducted (L&E provide details). The way the deck was stacked against the Pinto is significant and should go here. The above supplements the material already in the section.

Recall section -> merge with NHTSA: The "6 people died" one liner either needs to be given context or removed. A single inflammatory comment has no place in an encyclopedic article. The retrospective Time article comment really seems like a throw away. It doesn't need to be given much weight and should be better integrated in the narrative. I may have more thoughts on this later.

Closing for now, more thoughts on the subsequent sections later. Springee (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Continuing:

Lawsuits This section is actually not too bad. The first sentence is an appropriate opening but the last phrase mentioning compensatory and punitive damages is unnecessary given the next paragraph. I think the discussion of the large damage awards, etc is appropriate for this section. The section does have some examples of OVERCITE. The opinion of the appellate court as presented is prejudicial as is. We either need to remove it or include the comment that Schwartz made noting that the appellate court was required to view the evidence in a light most detrimental to Ford [10]. The wording could be cleaned up a bit. No one cares that it was the 4th circuit appeals court, just that it was a CA appeals court. The impact of the bad publicity on the case has been noted by Schwartz, L&E. Becker, Danley and others. It should be mentioned here as well. That Ford was not allowed to present the car's overall safety record has also been mentioned by a number of sources and thus should be given WEIGHT. Finally, the logic of the court should be clearly in the voice of the court, not WP.

Criminal Trial Again we have OVERCITE issues here. No reason to note that Ford was found not guilty 6 times. The background is a bit wordy and the word "explode" should not be used. The credible accounts of the accident to mention fire but no explosion. The mention of the budget difference is perhaps inflammatory but probably not. The problem is it implies Ford only won because they could spend more. It doesn't review the merits of Ford's case. Epstein and others did address the merits of the actual legal case and note that, given the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" the odds of getting a conviction were always a long shot (my summary of his views, not his words). Also it should be noted that some of Ford's legal team felt they didn't bring their A game to the Grimshaw case. They weren't going to take that risk this time (Becker is the source here). A Ford manager (forgot name, it's in Becker) noted that in this trial Ford was able to do a better job presenting their case. When the trial was over the Pinto lawsuits also ended (according to the interview in Becker). Finally, since we mention the case is a landmark case (it was) we also might include opinions on the outcome. Becker seems to view the long term impact of the case as mixed. That material may be worth including. I'm not sure that the low point statement is worth keeping. If kept it should not be the closing of the paragraph given that Ford was found not guilty.

Subsequent: Since much of the material that might have been put here when this section was discussed in February may be moved to other sections now, I think this is a work in progress section. Springee (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

May I ask, what do you mean when you say "much of the material that might have been put here when this section was discussed in February may be moved to other sections"? What material? What other sections? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Before you came here we had discussed a way to organize the controversy section. It was going to start with a "popular understanding" section then have a "retrospective" section. NickCT setup the current setup. The issue I have with the current setup is IF all of the retrospective material were confined here then I have the same concerns as Greglocock. So material such as "people thought the memo meant X but it was actually about Y" should probably just be put in the various sections (see my proposals above). Thus there is less content for this section. Perhaps this section is best used to sum up the views of the significant scholars who have studied the case. I don't mean used the case as a back drop for an ethics discussion, but really studied the thing. So, for example, we could summarize the Schwartz, L&E, Becker etc conclusions in this section. Springee (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please review Talk:Ford_Pinto#Sectioning_Compromise.3F. In February, most of us thought it a breakthrough when a consensus was achieved on this talk page on what is actually a very fundamental idea on Wikipedia: we are careful to separate facts & events from opinions & interpretations; further, we endeavour to neutrally present facts & events before opinions & interpretations. Our colleague NickCT, working on behalf of the consensus, introduced some subsection headings, including significantly a "Subsequent analysis" section. This principle is so fundamental that it is actually surprising that experienced editors might dissent. Do I understand from your comments you dissent from this consensus? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike you, I was a party to the discussion with NickCT. If he has an issue with my edits he is welcome to tell me. As for the rest of your comment, we will have to agree with Greglocock. Springee (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

May I clarify, your understanding of consensus: a completely non-controversial consensus, concerning the basic editorial principle of the segregation of facts & events from opinions & analysis, a consensus developed on this talk less than a month ago, in your view only applies to you, if the parties to that consensus are willing to continuously remind you of it? 05:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion, make it. Springee (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD please do not interleave comments it is deprecated behavior and you can and will get pulled up for it, as I have in the past. I can rarely understand your logic at the best of times. Greglocock (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Newly added "other lawsuits" section

HughD, welcome to this article. Please be sure to use the talk section to discuss your changes and their reasons. Your "other lawsuits" section has questionable content. I think lawsuits other than Grimshaw and the Indiana criminal case are probably out of place here as not encyclopedic with respect to the Pinto. That said, the content of this section seems to be either be OR or just in error. The section only has 3 citations, all at the end. It would be more helpful if they were in line. The WSJ article is behind a paywall so I can't verify it's content. However, the other two sources do not support the section. The book cites page 158. that page/section does talk about airbags but does not mention the Pinto. The Pinto is mentioned elsewhere and in relation to the gas tank issues. The same applies for the Pepperdine Law Review article. It mentions the Pinto only in a footnote and not with respect to the car's lack of airbags.

Also, the "Emergence of controversy" section incorrectly describes the cost benefit analysis. However, that is in a section which needs revision by current consensus. Good call on the dead references and the copyright section! Springee (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The lawsuit mentioned in this section is not encyclopedic with respect to the Pinto. In the case in question a passenger in a Pinto was injured in a severe impact. Unlike the Grimshaw case, this one has not been notably associated with the Pinto. In the case Ford was sued for not including airbags in the Pinto. Unlike the gas tank fire case where there are claims Ford had poor tank protection and made choices to save money, in this case the issue was that the Pinto (like virtually all cars of the time) had no airbags. Since that wasn't a unique feature of the Pinto it makes the Pinto just the car that happened to be there. It is notable that cited sources are from shortly after the incident and from a time when airbags were still not standard. This is much different than the fire cases where articles from just a few years back still discuss the Pinto fires. Because the case is not notable with respect to the car it shouldn't be included in the car's article. It would be more appropriate in an article about the legislative history of airbags in cars. An "also see" from the article to such a topic could be added to this article. Springee (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course this content is relevant to the Pinto. In addition to fuel system safety, the Pinto had a key role in the implementation of air bags in modern automobiles. Multiple noteworthy reliable sources make the association, include the front page of The Wall Street Journal, the ABA Journal, another law journal, a book by noteworthy liability experts, and many others, available upon request. Please do not section blank to delete noteworthy reliable sources without proposing an alternative summarization. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the talk page discussion. Can you find any sources that claim it was significant that the Pinto didn't have an airbag? Many sources note the significance of the Pinto's fuel system design. The lack of an airbag in a 1973 Pinto is not a significant fact related to the car. We should ask, "would we create this article to discuss this part of the topic?" I would say no [[11]]. You argue for inclusion based on DUE but I don't believe that applies here since this isn't a case where we are talking about a minority view. It's just a case of is this lawsuit significant to the legacy/history of the car. No, it isn't. Your sources are all old (about the time of the lawsuit) or in the one case mention the Pinto only because it happened to be the car related to the case. None of your sources are claiming Ford was somehow unique or negligent in not including airbags in car made in the mid 70s. Again, I would suggest this could be useful information in an airbag specific article but it is largely off subject here thus removal is the correct editorial action. Previous editorial consensus was too not include a long list of lawsuits and instead stick with the two that have remained significant in the literature over time. The one you added clearly has not. That said, I will let others weigh in. Please maintain a civil tone and remember that it is better to try to justify changes such as this as you make them rather than only doing so reluctantly after the fact. Springee (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources are about the Pinto. This article is about the Pinto. The content summarizing the sources is about the Pinto. Of course a Pinto is 95% the same as every other car, your personal interpretation of our project's due weight that this article may only include content that is somehow uniquely related to some unique design feature of the Pinto has no basis in policy or guideline. The content is reliably sourced, noteworthy, and due weight. At 2700 words this article is about half of article length concern guidelines, kindly do not attempt a split without clear consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article about the Pinto and should be limited to notable things about the car. Your reference to NPOV doesn't apply. In this case because no one is claiming the material you added is or is not neutral or reliably sourced. It's a question of scope. Furthermore, those articles aren't primarily about the Pinto, at least not the airbag parts. They are about the legal question of any car company not including an airbag given the assumption (at the time) that such systems were ready for use in the 1970s. If you wish to include material covering airbag controversies perhaps it should first be added to the [airbag] article. The Pinto is clearly, associated with the fuel tank fires as well as things like the "Pinto memo". Find any article written after 1990 claiming that the Pinto had a significant influence on the laws related to airbags, tort cases related to airbag etc. The only recent reference you have mentions the Pinto as the car associated with an early airbag case. It doesn't note that it was significant that the car was a Pinto. In short, the lawsuit material you added is not a notable legacy of the car. Springee (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD Question about recent changes to the recall section: This recent edit [12] says that it would cost Ford $100m to recall 16 million cars. Ford made ~ 3.2 million Pintos. Were they planning on recalling each car 3 times? Springee (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

NickCT, Greglocock, 842U, Aquillion, I'm pinging you to see what you think of the new lawsuit section added to the article. I think aside from HughD and myself you are the only ones to edit the page in the last month. Is this content notable in terms of the Pinto? It seems to me that the case in question isn't specifically about the Pinto but the Pinto, like all cars of the time, had no airbags. Certainly with historical hindsight that airbag case has not had a significant impact on the legal system or the public continence like the gas tank fires have. If we do think the content is notable enough to include then I certainly think it needs to be cleaned up. Anyway, looking for the views of others. Springee (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Greglocock and Aquillion, since you have both weighed in, what do you think this airbag lawsuit section? I feel like given the reams of paper discussing the Pinto this one is at best given too much weight in the article. My feeling is that in historical terms the case isn't associated with the Pinto and isn't worth keeping. Springee (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• This section should be cut down or simply removed. It currently contains false claims. The "front page" of the WSJ was actually page 17. (Ford Settles Lawsuit Over Accident Victim For $1.8 Million Total

By AMAL NAG Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Wall Street Journal (1923 - Current file); Mar 16, 1984; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Wall Street Journal pg. 17). The ABA article discussed the case only in terms of one of several cases involved in the larger issue of airbags and seatbelt litigation in the late 70s and early 80s. Again, that is was a Pinto wasn't significant, that it was an airbag suit was. The Liability Maze also discussed the case but only in context of the larger supplemental restraint issue. Unlike the fuel tank fire controversy which specifically focused on the Pinto, this is an airbag topic that happens to involve a Pinto. Springee (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit: fix two broken citations

Fix citation number 32 by changing two invocations of named reference Schwartz_1990 to

<ref>{{harvnb|Schwartz|1990}}</ref>

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hugh (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Motorsports section

Does anyone object to moving the motorsports section to before the controversy section? It seems odd to have it at the very end of the page. Springee (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What controversy section? Hugh (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC) The main problem with the "Motorsports" section is not its location within section order, it is the absence of verifiable sources. Hugh (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, perhaps you should give people a chance to fix the dead links in due time. Several editors are avoiding the topic due to your aggressive editing and edit warring. Others are dealing with the parts of the article that you have been unilaterally changing. Springee (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

March 11th edits

I've restored the previous Fuel Tank Controversy title. It was changed without consensus. I've also moved the airbag lawsuit paragraph back to a separate section. The Pinto fuel tank fires is a very notable, perhaps the most notable aspect of the car. Since it is a complex issue it should have its own section with various subsections. The Pinto's involvement in airbag litigation is not a notable aspect of the car. This should be clear in reading the sources for the airbag paragraphs. The sources talk about the significance of litigation in forcing car companies to include airbags. They don't talk about the Pinto's design as significant or unusual in this regard. Springee (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add more material to several of the other sections. Given some of the new section headings I may add a media/publicity type section. My edit time will be limited over the next several days so these may be edits done next week.Springee (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• PEACOCK language. This recent edit [[13]] is an improper attribution. It is one thing to say "Lee and Ermann said ..." but the rest of the edit such as mentioning that one of the authors of a peer reviewed and cited work was a grad student is a clear attempt to imply a negative spin. Springee (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reordering of sections

The grouping of the fire litigation cases together seems to confuse the narrative of the Pinto case. I not sure I support this change. The previous structure needed some grouping work but it makes sense to discuss Grimshaw before the recall as it was occurring at around the same time as the NHTSA's second investigation. I am open to the views of longer term editors on this mater. However, an argument can be made that much of the MJ and other material colored the Grimshaw case and it may be OK to present this first. {[U|HughD}}, you have asked others to propose such changes, please do the same before adding 40 more edits... before lunch. Springee (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant placement of discussion of public misconceptions in "Cost benefit analysis" section

The several sentences discussion of the public conception of Ford's cost-benefit analysis memo is off-topic in a section on the facts and events of the safety history of the Ford Pinto. On Wikipedia, the conventional wisdom on historical events is a distinct topic from historical events. Wikipedia is not a forum for righting great wrongs WP:RGW, including great wrongs in popular conceptions. At best, a discussion of popular misconceptions might be due weight in a separate section such as "Subsequent analysis," as per the consensus of February. Ford's cost-benefit analysis memo was written in 1973, the subject of the source of this content is a court case decided in 1978 (Grimshaw), and the source itself was written in 1990, it is subsequent analysis. Our first priority in the "Cost benefit analysis" section is a neutral, chronological telling of facts and events; interpretation can come later; this distinction is fundamental to Wikipedia editting and should not be controversial. This diatribe in the history section is pointed and a distracting disservice to our readers. Kindly remove or move this content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit: remove off-topic, undue section epigraph from "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits"

Content proposed for removal or relocation:

Scholarly work published in the decades after the Pinto’s release have offered summations of the general understanding of the Pinto and the controversy regarding the car's safety performance and risk of fire. Lee and Ermann summarized the popular yet largely erroneous understanding of the issues surrounding the Pinto and related fires.

Conventional wisdom holds that Ford Motor Company decided to rush the Pinto into production in 1970 to compete with compact foreign imports, despite internal pre-production tests that showed gas tank ruptures in low-speed rear-end collisions would produce deadly fires. This decision purportedly derived from an infamous seven-page cost-benefit analysis (the "Grush/Saunby Report" [1973]) that valued human lies at $200,000. Settling burn victims’ lawsuits would have cost $49.5 million, far less than the $137 million needed to make minor corrections. According to this account, the company made an informed, cynical, and impressively coordinated decision that "payouts" (Kelman and Hamilton 1989:311) to families of burn victims were more cost-effective than improving fuel tank integrity. This description provides the unambiguous foundation on which the media and academics have built a Pinto gas tank decision-making narrative.

Additional misunderstanding surrounds the actual number of fire related deaths related to the fuel system design, "wild and unsupported claims asserted in 'Pinto Madness' and elsewhere",[31] the facts of the two most significant Pinto related legal cases, Grimshaw vs Ford Motor Company and State of Indiana vs Ford Motor Company, the applicable safety standards at the time of design, and the nature of the NHTSA investigations and subsequent vehicle recalls.

References

Discussion

1. The content is off-topic in this section lede of "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits" The topic of the section is a neutral, chronological telling of the facts and events of the history of the safety of the Ford Pinto, with an emphasis on fire safety. The content and references in the contended content are about the "popular understanding" and the "conventional wisdom" of the story. On Wikipedia, the popular understanding of events is a separate topic from events. Our first priority is a neutral telling of events. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to correct great wrongs in the conventional wisdom. WP:RGW
2. The content is non-neutral and undue, given entirely too much weight to just three sources with a shared, revisionist, apologist point of view. These views may be due weight in the article, but not as the epigraph of the "Safety..." section. WP:DUE
3. The content does not summarize content in the subsections of the section. MOS:LAYOUT
4. The content is contrary to a talk page consensus of a few weeks ago, 13-14 February. Please see Talk:Ford_Pinto#Sectioning_Compromise.3F above. The consensus was a very straight-forward re-commitment to the fundamental editorial principle that we endeavour to keep facts and events separate from opinions and interpretation, and present facts before analysis. Working on behalf of the consensus, a subsection "Subsequent analysis" was added to the "Safety..." section. WP:CONS

The "Safety..." section is of course one of if not the most important sections of this article for us to get right. This is probably the most important outstanding editorial issue in this article at this time.

This proposed edit is basically an undue of this edit performed immediately before the current edit protection, with an edit summary of "Restoring section lead material to the top of section. This material highlights what the section does/will contain."

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The editors who were involved in the consensus discussion can speak for themselves. The scholarship on the subject emphasizes the misunderstandings and myths surrounding the case. Please justify why we should deviate from the most reliable scholarly sources on the subject. The section title was unilaterally changed by you. The material clearly fits under the old section title, "Fuel tank controversy". The claim "apologist" reflects your own bias, not the bias of the sources. Perhaps we should allow the editors who were involved in the consensus to weigh in before you unilaterally remove material. An immediate removal when the article is unlocked would look like a continuation of the edit issues that resulted in the page lock [14] Springee (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We need further talk page discussion if an active editor is not on board with the fundamentals of neutrality, such as the editorial distinction between facts and opinion, and if an active editor believes they are above consensus. Please reconsider so we can can move forward. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've considered it further. Your change in section heading implied a unilateral change in scope. Now that you have unilaterally changed the scope you are telling others they are no longer within scope. You previously tried that on the Chicago-style politics page. Sorry, if other editors who have been involved in the page want to object they are free to do so. Incidentally, you have not answered my question that was meant to verify that you have actually read Lee and Ermann. Should we take that to mean that you haven't? Springee (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, Why did you move the material given there was not consensus? This is a continuation of your unilateral changes to the article and edit warring. Springee (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request for a Third Opinion on this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined). Third Opinions, like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution are available only after thorough talk page discussion, which generally means back-and-forth giving serious consideration to the issues raised by the parties in the dispute. That has not yet occurred here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC) (3O volunteer) (Not watching this page)

Section heading: "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits"

Please see edit 7 March 2016 by Aquillion. Your colleagues agree "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits" is the appropriate heading for this section. We understand you feel the whole Ford Pinto safety story was merely a misunderstanding concocted in the public mind by Ralph Nader and Mother Jones magazine. However, some stuff did happen, regardless of your personal opinion: deaths, injuries, a federal investigation, the largest recall in history, a hundred lawsuits, the largest jury award in history, and a criminal prosecution are not a "controversy." These events could be consider a "controversy' only from an extremely pointed, non-neutral point of view. Please do not edit war to cast these events as a "controversy." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not a consensus and you are misrepresenting an edit to make that claim. Aquillion was reducing the length of the section heading. I previously restored the heading that {[U|NickCT}} used when creating the section. The section should be exclusive to the fuel tank fire related issues since that is a significant part of the Pinto's legacy. There clearly is controversy associated with the Pinto. I agree we can choose a different term other than "controversy" but the section should be clearly and exclusively for material related to the fuel tank controversy. Additionally the title should be one that conveys an understanding that there is misunderstanding regarding the Pinto case. To be clear, you changed the subject heading unilaterally.

I have tried a new title which should address your concerns about the word "controversy". "Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation" It makes it clear that this section is about the fuel system (tank) not other safety issues. It avoids the word controversy. It does not imply that the design was or was not safe by the standards of the day (the car's record indicates it was). Personally I would prefer NickCT's section heading as it was agreed upon by the group at the time. Springee (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The section title that grieves you so was not contributed by me. Hugh (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the edit where you unilaterally made the change [15]. Springee (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• HughD, when referring to the 1.5 million car recall in the article you have changed the text from one the the largest to the largest. It was the largest at the time but is no longer the largest. I think it would be fine (and probably an improvement over "one of" to say "largest at the time" or similar. Springee (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent analysis: proposed summarization of Schwartz

University of California Los Angeles law professor Gary T. Schwartz, writing in a review of the Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. verdict in 1990, said the "core of the Pinto story' was

Consider now, however, the combination of a stronger bumper, a smooth (bolt-free) differential, and the addition of both hat sections and horizontal cross-members. This combination of design changes clearly would have improved the Pinto's safety to some appreciable extent. According to the evidence, the overall cost of this combination would have been $9; and it makes sense to assume that these items were turned down by Ford in planning the Pinto primarily on account of their monetary costs. It is plausible to believe, then, that because of these costs, Ford decided to not to improve the Pinto's design, knowing that its decision would increase the chances of the loss of consumer life.

• Schwartz, Gary T. (1990). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" (PDF). Rutgers Law Review. 43: 1013–1068.

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do you mean for this to be the full content of the subsequent analysis section? It would seem you are selectively quoting if so. You certainly left out a lot of material when limiting Schwartz's extensive discussion down to just that little bit. In short that would be a grossly poor summary of Schwartz. The subsequent section should also include L&E, Danley, Becker and any other source that reviewed the controversy in hind sight. Springee (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The block quote above makes it sound like Schwartz thinks Ford should be condemned for their design. Danley notes the problems with assigning moral blame based on judicial blame. Beyond that, Schwartz clearly does not see the car as dangerous or defective by the standards of the day. From the article conclusion:

Schwartz Conclusion

CONCLUSION From what I have been able to learn, as for safety the Pinto was a car that was neither admirable nor despicable. Its overall fatality rate was roughly in the middle of the subcompact range; its record was better than the subcompact average with respect to fatalities-with-fire; yet for the quite small category of fatalities-with- rear-end-fire, its design features apparently gave it a worse-than- average record. Hence, there was nothing clearly wrong in subjecting Ford to liability for harms resulting from that latter category of fires. The punitive damage award in the Ford Pinto case is, however, much more difficult to justify. To a large extent it rested on the premise that Ford had behaved reprehensibly when it balanced safety against cost in designing the Pinto. However, the process by which manufacturers render such trade-off design decisions seems not only to be anticipated but endorsed by the prevailing risk-benefit standard for design liability. Accordingly, the Pinto jury's decision that punitive damages were appropriate- a decision that was affirmed by the trial judge and the court of appeal-raises serious questions about the operational viability of the risk-benefit standard itself.202 The questions relate to the way in which that standard requires that a monetary value be placed on life itself. More precisely, it requires the jury to review the adequacy of the valuation that was implicit in the defendant's design decisions. For Calabresi, a tragic choice is one that requires that "we put a price 'On things we desperately would like to treat as priceless."203 The problem of manufacturers' design liability is not, as a matter of first-order determinations, inherently tragic. Tort law could endorse a rule of no design liability (so long as proper warnings are given) or even a rule of strict design liability (as several scholars have recently recommended). 204 Neither of these rules would raise any issue of life value. It is only because tort law has chosen a negligence-oriented risk-benefit test for design liability that the law seemingly requires the jury to place a monetary value on life. Of course, as a practical matter the· jury can avoid this tragic choice: it can neglect the manufacturer's defense of monetary-cost justification and rule that the manufacturer's design is in fact de- fective. The prospect of such rulings builds a strict liability tilt into what is otherwise a negligence liability standard. At first, this tilt seems so inconsistent with the theory behind that standard as to suggest a crisis of sorts within the administration of design defect law. It proves possible, however, to characterize that administration in a somewhat more charitable way-as an implicit technique for combining certain advantages of negligence liability with certain advantages of strict liability. The current situation, then, is not especially satisfactory; neither, however, is it necessa- . rily deplorable. In further considering the jury's response to the liability issue in cases like Grimshaw, it is tempting-and not necessarily wrong-to interpret that response as embodying in part a populist (or pre-populist) public distrust of major corporations. In fact, however, the jury's instinct in favor of liability is in a way consistent with a basic market analysis, which indicates that the sale of products like the Pinto does not fully comply with economic norms, inasmuch as purchasers generally lack knowledge of specific 'hazards that inhere in the products' designs. Furthermore, the confidentiality of Ford's life-affecting design choices is an important part of the ethical dimension of the Pinto case myth. This assessment suggests approaching the case from the perspective of the products liability doctrine of failure to warn. Indeed, the warning idea seems implicit in the consumer expectations standard that the Grimshaw jury applied. It turns out, however, that under current products liability practices many manufacturers are not obliged to give informed-choice warnings. This Article therefore advimces for purposes of discussion a regulatory proposal that could provide auto consumers with the aggregate safety information they most clearly need while avoiding the practical problems that have understandably discouraged implementation of a tort-oriented warning duty. To wrap up, it makes sense to say if the Ford Pinto case did not exist, law professors would need to invent it: for the case raises essential issues about both the form and the substance of modern products liability doctrine.

There is a lot more than can be taken from Schwartz but to use just one subsection as the retrospective conclusion is not at all correct given that Schwartz starts by saying that thanks to the misunderstandings of the case it has reached a mythical status. Additionally, the follow on work of Lee and Ermann points out some issues with Schwartz analysis. They note that going into the design and even after the early crash tests the Ford engineers didn't see any issues with the design, and not for willful ignorance. Given the car's overall performance it's clear that the engineers made a reasonable set of social trade-offs in the design process. However, as Prof Viscusi noted in a Stanford Law Review article, when it comes to juries it's hard for them to balance the victims they see before them with a rational design trade off [16]. Springee (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised at your reaction to the above proposed content from Schwartz. Your favorite author, explicitly distilling the Pinto story down to four concise sentences. Shouldn't this be the first content we draw from Schwartz? How is it "a grossly poor summary of Schwartz"? It is his own summary of himself. You don't like it because he says he thinks the Grimshaw jury verdict was plausible? Hugh (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Where did the "facts first, then interpretation" "rule" come from?

HughD, there is no consensus to change the narrative presentation to "facts first, then interpretation". This was a justification used to move several large bodies of text. Previously you wanted a pure chronological presentation, now you are making changes based on some other claim. That is certainly disruptive. Also, it's bad enough when you tag a number of passages as "OR", especially when it turns out your tags are incorrect. If you think something is OR, or not properly cited then tag it and give editors more than 24 hours to actually fix the (supposed) problem. Sometimes the concerned editor is away from Wikipedia. Deleting large passages that YOU feel should be tagged without discussion or sufficient time for other editors to correct the problem is disruptive. You have now been notified to discuss such sweeping changes here before making them. Springee (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. It is genuine progress on this talk page that you explicitly state your confusion on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia editors are expected to be vigilant in distinguishing facts and events from opinions and interpretation. We are asked by policy to avoid asserting opinions as facts. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Coming from someone who confuses the facts as presented in a trial with what actually happened that is pretty funny. Thanks very much again, that was bloody hilarious. Thanks Thanks again thanks. I think there's a phrase for that. Oh yes, Passive aggressive. Thanks Greglocock (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)