Talk:Ford Pinto/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Propose removal of Burgess v Ford section

I'm proposing the removal of Burgess vs Ford on grounds that it is WP:UNDUE. This section was added early in March when fewer editors were watching this talk page. This section is undue for several reasons. First, what makes the case significant was that it was an early, publicly disclosed settlement for a safety lawsuit that included a claim of "lack of (passenger side) airbags". This may make it a landmark case in terms of airbag litigation but that the case happened to involve a Pinto isn't notable. In the 1973, the year the car in question was built, virtually no cars had airbags and a passenger side mandate was 25 years away (1998). Thus the lack of airbags on the low cost Pinto wasn't notable. This is in contrast to the fuel tank controversy where the whole argument is that Ford used an unusually unsafe design. Second, in "Pinto" related historical terms the lawsuit doesn't stand out. A few articles covered the topic at the time but they focused on the airbag aspect, not that the car was a Pinto. The only recent reference to the case (Graham) mentions the Pinto only to indicate the type of car. His discussion doesn't make any claim that the Pinto was unusual. There are MANY articles that discuss the legacy of the Pinto. The fuel tank placement and the Mother Jones article discussing the "Pinto Memo" are always mentioned. This airbag case is not. At best this would merit an "other reading" type link. Springee (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it does not seem notable so far as Pinto is concerned. Greglocock (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing your section blanking at article talk before doing it this time 6 March 2016. Hugh (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Article size check: The article is currently Prose size (text only): 25 kB (4137 words) "readable prose size". The article is half the size at which the possibility of an article size issue is likely, as per our project's guideline WP:SIZERULE.

Removing noteworthy, well-referenced content seems an unusual editorial priority at this time. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Re :Article size check: The article is currently Prose size (text only): 25 kB (4137 words) "readable prose size". The article is half the size at which the possibility of an article size issue is likely, as per our project's guideline WP:SIZERULE.Hugh (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That rule-of-thumb is irrelevant here, it covers whether a (legitimately) large article should be split. Anmccaff (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing noteworthy, well-referenced content seems an unusual editorial priority at this time. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's begging the question. You are taking as a given that a generic automotive safety issue should be highlighted in an article about a single model; that's extremely debatable, except, perhaps, in an article on Ambulance chasing, in the wider sense. I come down, firmly, on the "no" side Anmccaff (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment - After glancing at this briefly, I'm inclined to agree with Greg & Spring. It is not clear to me that the Burgess lawsuit was an obvious and direct result of the fuel tank issue. It's challenging to find sources which talk about the case and the fuel tank issue together. NickCT (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

NickCT, this isn't part of the fuel system controversy section. It was added as a stand alone section. Despite accusations that don't assume good faith, I see this as a case about airbags, not a case about the Pinto. No cars had standard passenger side airbags in 1973. According to the air bag history article only the Olds Torinado offered a passenger side airbag as even an option. Again, this might make sense in terms of history of airbag laws/litigation. It doesn't make sense here, especially as a full section of the article and given the only modern mention of the case was simply stating that the car was a Pinto. Springee (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: - Ah OK. Well it might have made sense in the fuel system controversy section, if the suit had been clearly related to the fuel system. Which it doesn't seem to be.

As an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd be interested to see if we can find a single example of another WP article where a single lawsuit against a car's design is noted like Burgess is being noted here. NickCT (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That seams reasonable. I understand that we have seen the "otherstuff"[1] argument used to support adding content to a car company article even though it seemed absent from other car company articles. However, I think you are correct in this case. If a large range of automobile articles don't have such cases mentioned then it seems that editors in general haven't supported that sort of content. Project Automobile already noted that only the most significant recalls should ever make it to a car page. I would suggest we would treat lawsuits the same way. Springee (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Contended content:

A passenger in a 1975 Pinto was seriously injured in a fiery collision. On August 30, 1979 Ford was served with a civil lawsuit Burgess v. Ford alleging defects including that the Pinto was structurally unsafe and that the Pinto fuel system was defective. In November, 1983, the suit was amended to include a claim of a lack of an airbag. Air bags were not legally required at the time. The suit was settled out of court in March, 1984 for $1.8 million, the largest known airbag litigation settlement. Ford said the injuries were due to driver negligence and that the settlement was unrelated to airbags. The court granted Ford a protective order on Ford documents obtained by the plaintiff via court order. The suit was widely publicized. The Today Show broadcast a consumer protection segment on the incident. The settlement was covered on the front page of The Wall Street Journal. According to the Center for Auto Safety, the settlement was a "landmark" in establishing that a lack of airbags may be considered negligent design.

References

Sources include a noteworthy mainstream newspaper The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, two noteworthy law review journals, and a chapter by a noteworthy author John Graham in a book from the Brookings Institute edited by a noteworthy editor Peter W. Huber. This section is much more strongly sourced than most of the article, cf. Ford Pinto#1974–1978, Ford Pinto#Mercury Bobcat (1974–1980) and Ford Pinto#1974–1978. This section seems an unlikely section in which to embrace a spirited defense of our project's due weight policy.

How would you summarize these sources? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - Would you contend we go to every article about a model of car and list every notable lawsuit that model has ever caused? If not, why do that here? NickCT (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask, do you mean notable or noteworthy? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you define those words. I define "notable" in the sense that WP usually does (i.e. something is notable b/c it has been noted in reliable sources).

What do you see as the difference between notable and noteworthy? I'm not sure there is a WP definition for "noteworthy". NickCT (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You have cited essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and raised notability concerns. Are you advocating article deletion of Ford Pinto? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - Ah! Sorry for the confusion. When I said "notable lawsuit", I didn't mean "notable" in the sense that the lawsuit itself deserves its own article on WP. I meant "notable" in the sense that the lawsuit was noted in several reliable sources (perhaps the latter definition what you mean by "noteworthy"?). Ford Pinto is clearly "notable" in both senses of the word. NickCT (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

NickCT, I don't think this is going anywhere. The consensus for removal is clear. Springee (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: - Ah but why not debate for the heck of it? NickCT (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: The topic of this article talk page is the content of our article Ford Pinto, thank you. The weight due to noteworthy lawsuits in this article is proportional to weight in reliable sources, not to other automotive articles. Articles about cars with more lawsuits in reliable sources will have more article content related to lawsuits. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: - Hmmmm.... So you're saying that if we found 4 sources covering some lawsuit concerning the Honda Civic, we should mention that lawsuit on Honda Civic? NickCT (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Would a second editor please collapse the long quoted material from the article I collapsed it once per WP:RTP but the collapse was undone. Springee (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I reserve permission to refactor my talk page comments above in this thread. Thank you. May I respectfully ask, why did you not copy the contended neutral, noteworthy paragraph of content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources to the talk page for the convenience of your colleagues reading this thread, when you started this thread? It is an article talk page best practice in content disputes. Let us together focus on content. Do you feel it is unhelpful to your case for section blanking were our colleagues to see the neutral noteworthy paragraph and multiple noteworthy reliable sources? Hugh (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. Since you reserve the right I would ask that you please exerciser that right for readability. If you wish you may put the collapsed content at the end of my initial post in this section. Springee (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Support inclusion The litigation history of the subject of this article is perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the subject of this article. Our article currently states that more than a hundred lawsuits were filed and no doubt some fans of the Pinto would prefer to leave it at that; however, coverage in reliable sources, the basis of our project's due weight policy, disagree. Given the more than a hundred lawsuits, obviously providing our readers with some detail on three of the most significant is due weight WP:READERSFIRST:

1. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.: a Pinto rear-end collision, fire safety case; largest jury award in history, a significant precedent for modern fuel system safety standards;
2. Indiana v. Ford: a Pinto rear-end collision, fire safety case; 1st criminal prosecution of a corporation, 1st prosecution of a corporation for murder;
3. Burgess v. Ford: a Pinto rear-end collision, fire safety case; a significant precedent for modern airbag safety standards.

Sources for our article's summarization of Burgess v. Ford include a noteworthy mainstream newspaper The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, two noteworthy law review journals, and a chapter by a noteworthy author John Graham in a book from the Brookings Institute edited by a noteworthy editor Peter W. Huber. Noteworthy reliable sources include much more coverage of the Burgess v. Ford case than, for example, the wide variety of engines that were available in the Ford Pinto and their respective horsepowers, torques, and displacements in cubic inches and liters. The Ford Pinto is no longer in production; the significance of the Ford Pinto includes its contributions to legal precedents and automotive safety, in the areas of both fuel system safety and restraint systems. Section blanking of this section would remove five neutral noteworthy reliable sources for which no alternative summarization has been offered. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Burgess vs Ford was a front-end collision according to your page 17 WSJ article, "The suit resulted from a front-end collision...". "a significant precedent..." is begging the question. Springee (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

From the look of it, at least two of the five neutral noteworthy reliable sources are being used inappropriately, as they are evidence against the efficacy of the lawyerly feeding frenzy. Anmccaff (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The content seems to me a perfectly reasonable paraphrase of the sources; how are the sources used inappropriately in your view? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are ignoring their implications for elsewhere in the article. Anmccaff (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

What does the above excerpted content imply for elsewhere in the article? Hugh (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Page size and archiving

This page is, at the time of writing, 413,228 bytes long. This can make the page unreadable for some of our colleagues, and uneditable for others. I have therefore again tweaked the settings, to archive any section not edited in the last 30 days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I agree that the page is currently too long. However, I would suggest we just leave it at 60 days and deal with the problem for a bit longer. If need be some of the material could be collapsed. I don't think we should be trying to "defer archive" any of the topics if we set things back to 60 days. Springee (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

How are people for whom the page is too long to edit, or even read, supposed to " deal with the problem"? (Note that collapsing would do nothing to solve the issue; indeed would likely worsen it.) Why would sections not edited for over 30 days need to stay on this page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't find it too bad (not good just not too bad). However, perhaps that is because I was involved in the discussions vs because I'm reading them for the first time. I will differ to your judgment. Springee (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. I think it might be better to keep the old stuff until it is resolved, otherwise it'll all just get reposted.

Again.

And Again. Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that HughD should discuss archiving rather than unilaterally deciding which topics should hang around for what ever reason. The "Do Not Archive" tags were removed once. Why add them back without discussion and without group support? Springee (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree 100%. Actual discussion, as opposed to reiteration, seems kinda rare with him. Anmccaff (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are many stale and no longer active topics on this page that can be manually archived. You can of course do this with permission. because the page is over 75KB. And if anyone needs any of the the discussions they can link them. It's archiving and not deleting.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Anmccaff, you aren't going to change HughD's mind. Regardless, the clear consensus is for removal. What more needs to be said. Springee (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Review of frozen article -Fuel system section

Since we have graciously been allowed a breathing space....

WP:NPOV - "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

Lede OK as is.

Fuel system design

"The first federal standard for automotive fuel system safety, known as Section 301 in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, was <INTRODUCED?> in 1968, and only applied to front-end collisions at over 30 miles per hour (48 km/h)." i

"In 1970 and 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued notices regarding fuel system integrity, fuel spillage, and fire-related casualties.[" should make clear these proposals were made after the launch of the vehicle i n 1970, and wer enot law until whatever date..

"The Pinto's vulnerability to fuel leakage and fire in a 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 features were also present in its competitors.

Cost-benefit analysis

This subsection should probably be called The Pinto Memo.

"In 2007 Time magazine said the memo was one of the automotive industry's "most notorious paper trails."" Which rather ignores the point that this notoriety is based on the MJ beatup.The following para corrects that but the two need to be combined, and quit wanking on about tort law, nobody cares. This is not a lawyer's primer.

OK I'll do the rest tomorrow, SWMBO needs a hand. Greglocock (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'll second what you have said. The lack of paragraph integration is at least partially on me. I was afraid that if I edited the text of the other paragraphs my changes would be reverted. A pure addition of content avoids that issue but makes the article disjointed. I think the fuel tank placement paragraph should include some discussion of tank placement trade offs as Ford understood them at the time and perhaps discussion of the early crash tests. I'm not sure the accusatory one liner about delaying should stay as is. I think instead it should be expanded to provide a bit more context.

The cost benefit section now covers both the regulatory background and the memo. Perhaps we should change the section title to reflect both subjects. The section has an error in that it describes the memo as reviewing the cost of litigation to the car companies. Instead it discussed the societal costs as dictated by the NHTSA. Again, I think more expansion and context would be good.

Agree with respect to recall section.

The legal cases need to be expanded. Both sections lack significant detail. Of significance to the Grimshaw case would be the evidence that Ford was not allowed to include, some of the legal opinions on the verdict and punitive damages, reasons why the appellate court had such negative views of Ford's case (Schwartz specifically mentions this). Some of the material that is held up as "Ford knew" should be discussed. I have at least one new source that could be added here. The Indiana case seams to read like Ford only won because they had more money. That is inconsistent with our list of peer reviewed sources that seemed to think this case was, on it's merit and ignoring the perils of jury emotions, had basically no legal merit.

There is still plenty of material that can go in the historical analysis section. The long term impact of the case, general commentary on the misunderstandings and the way the case has become an example even though much of the public understanding, even that used as examples, is wrong. In that regard it's a bit like the idea that the Nova didn't sell in Spanish speaking countries. Springee (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

On further reading that is not a quote from Time magazine at all. It is a quote from an on line slideshow on their website called "The 50 Worst Cars of All Time", which given that the other refs we use are at least serious journalism, seems out of place. Since the basic premise is also false, that is, there is no paper trail, it seems to me this article would lose nothing by eliminating that sentence and the Time ref. Greglocock (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Greglocock, you wrote "...this notoriety is based on the MJ beatup" This point of view is overly simplistic with respect to multiple reliable sources. Factors identified by multiple reliable sources as significantly contributing to the notoriety include crashes, fires, deaths, injuries, civil lawsuits, a criminal prosecution, a press conference with Ralph Nader, the Washington Post coverage, 60 Minutes, 20/20, other media, books, an NHTSA investigation, an NHTSA finding of defect, and a recall. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

On with the show

NHTSA investigation

First sentence needs a rewrite

"Lee and Ermann noted in testing to determine in the Pinto tank design warranted a recall, the NHTSA for forewent the 1977 rear impact crash test standard and created a "worst-case" test."

How about "Lee and Ermann that NHTSA used a worst case test to justify the recall of the Pinto, rather than the regular 1977 rear impact crash test." at least it is English.

"and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem." should be "whereas back in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem."

Recall

same problem as paper trail, sensationalist quote from Time slide show mixed into an article that mostly uses serious refs. Voluntary recall needs no scare quotes.

Civil lawsuits

If you quote how many lawsuits were brought it would be at least interesting, and NPOV to list the outcomes in some summarised form. Once a deep pocketed target is established it is scarcely surprising that many suits would be filed, whatever the merits of the case, lawyers being well known for their love of a dollar.

Also Indiana v. Ford needs to be one sub section deeper. Greglocock (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Interleaving as per explicit invitation of colleague, below. We agree our article's coverage of the magnitude and impact of the civil lawsuits needs improvement. Several reliable sources attempt to summarize the number of lawsuits and their outcomes. The issue of accurately summarizing the civil actions is complicated by the wide distribution of venues, the fact that the numbers were constantly changing, and that most of the suits were settled, and settled with terms including non-disclosure. All mentions of the number of lawsuits or outcomes should be dated in-text "as of..." Certainly, our article should include the number of lawsuits and that were settled prior to or in progress at the time of the recall, which the NHTSA compelled Ford to disclose, and which the NHTSA documented in the key report, the NHTSA finding of defect. The lawsuits prior to and in progress at the time of the recall are identified by multiple reliable sources as significantly contributing to motivating the recall. Thank you. Hugh (talk)

Subsequent analysis

I don't know what this sentence is trying to say but it fails. The refs do not support the sentence.

If this section is needed at all then it might be better titled "Overall safety record of the Pinto". I think the Gladwell article includes the relevant stats.Greglocock (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Overall If any of the above are non controversial I at least would appreciate being allowed to make the edits above when the lock is lifted, without HughD's usual shotgun blasts and major surgery. I think in this case interleaved comments make sense.Greglocock (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Best of luck with that last bit! As for the subsequent part, I agree the one liner was a quote from Schwartz taken totally out of context. The same dubious edits were tried over at Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. I do think that section would be a good place to perhaps put scholar discussions that don't fit in other sections. For instance, both L&E and Schwartz note that the Pinto case is used as an example in business ethic's classes yet those classes often get the facts wrong. Danley looked at the case in terms of the issues of assigning moral blame to Ford based on the assignment of legal blame in the two notable legal cases. He basically concludes it's not reasonable in part because a criminal standard is a very high bar. In his view Ford might be morally wrong but not meet the statute of the criminal law. Conversely tort cases are often decided based on correcting harm even in cases where the company tried to do the right thing (ie a company can still be liable for harm caused by an honest mistake). It's an interesting related discussion that could fit in that last section. Anyway, I think the best way to fill up that section is let people add to it then let the editorial process decide weight. That said, I still share your shotgun concerns. Springee (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Article updates: All, I've rolled out a number of article updates. I think I got most of the changes that have been discussed over the last 30 days. I'm sure what I have isn't going to be perfect but I would ask that editors get a chance to look things over before any large scale changes are made. While progress was slow I think last February's editing work was productive in terms of reaching group understanding for the article. Springee (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I screwed up and accidentally blanked the Indiana case edits when I copied the Grimshaw edits. All is restored now. Springee (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinto name

(→‎Product development: This seems self evident given the link to the term in the sentence.)

And, of course, the naming pattern, Mustang, Bronco, Maverick...well, that last might Steer you to some Bull.... Anmccaff (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose a new section under the fuel system topic

I'm considering adding a new section to the article and wanted the input of other editors before proceeding. A significant aspect of the Ford Pinto fuel system fire story is the public understanding and news coverage. I would propose adding a section along the lines of "Media Coverage". I think this section could be located after "Fuel system design". In this section we could talk about some of the media coverage as well as material that was largely misunderstood by either the media or public. The Lee and Ermann paragraph from the into of the fire section could be removed and much of its material integrated into this new subsection. This section may also be a better place to cover material like the MJ article, the earlier article that claimed "thousands" of deaths as well as the 60 Minutes story. These were all significant stories in developing the Pinto narrative and thus worth including. It also might be a place to gather some of the material that currently sits in other article sections. Finally, I'm still not sold on the current layout. In my opinion the public perception and misunderstanding of the Pinto case are perhaps the most important aspects of the story. The details in the fuel system design and recall support that public understanding. Thus I feel the public understanding material is the most important material in the section. What do others think in this case? Springee (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: section lede of Safety section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following epigraph, a long direct quote from Lee and Erdmann (1999), and content sourced to Schwartz (1990) and Danley (2005), be included in the section lede of the "Safety issues, recalls, and lawsuits" section?

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

Hugh (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose inclusion The "Safety..." section is of course one of if not the most important sections of this article for us to get right.

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, giving entirely too much weight in the section lede to three select academic journal articles with a shared, strong, revisionist, apologist point of view. These views may be due weight later 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 placement 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

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Notice to WP:BRANDS, WP:VPM, WP:NPOVN, Talk:Ford Motor Company; update to WP:NPOVN. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC) update to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles Hugh (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) update to WP:VPM Hugh (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC) update to WP:BRANDS Hugh (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) update to Talk:Ford Motor Company Hugh (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice to editors. The content of the article section and even the title of the section are currently in not in stable form. Springee (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed RfC tag pending agreement on appropriate RfC text. Please propose the RfC so that others can verify it is a reasonable and neutral question first. In the past you have asked imbalanced questions. Also, so long as the section body text is in flux it would be inappropriate to assume that the reply to a RfC would still be relevant after body changes. Your current reasons for opposition include assumptions such as the title of the section, the purpose and/or content that should be in the section, and an inherent assumption that the content of the section is largely static.

Instead of a binary RfC we should ask for input on the scope of the lead. The length of that material may make it too long for a lead. However, the scope of the lead clearly should include discussions of the misunderstandings surrounding the facts of the Pinto case. I would propose an RfC question something like:

How much weight should be given to the discussion of the public misunderstanding of the facts of the Ford Pinto case?

I'm open to other suggestions. Springee (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have added a note regarding the stability of the related content to the RfC. I believe HughD is jumping the gun on this RfC since the content of the section is not stable.

Support with qualification I think this material could be cut down due to length. HughD's claims as to why it should not be included are based on what he wants to include in the body of the article, not an agreement between editors.

1. The content is clearly not off topic. The peer reviewed journal article which is the source of the material is perhaps the second most respected/influential academic study of the subject (the events surrounding the Ford Pinto fuel tank controversy). Author's such as Becker (a source HughD brought to the table as reliable, stated "Other scholars (Lee and Ermann 1999 and Schawrtz 1991) have examined teh accuracy of the public's perceptions regarding the facts of the case and those analyses do not need to be repeated here." Since the misconceptions and misinformation surrounding the case is encyclopedic in this case, some sort of material stating as much should be in the section lead. Note that HughD changed the section title to one that discounts the public controversy aspects of the case. That was not an agreed change.

2. Given the number of peer reviewed sources (Schwartz, Lee & Ermann, Danley, Becker) that support the view that there is a significant misunderstand of the facts of the case and that the misunderstanding had an impact in terms of public pressure on the NHTSA and the courts (Schwartz notes this) it would be totally wrong to claim the inclusion of public misunderstanding discussions is undue or lacking weight. HughD should prove this claim.

3. This is an unfair claim due to the fact that HughD radically changed the content of the section over the past few days. At the time he first removed the content from the lead it was true. As more content has been added it becomes less true. Perhaps it is valid to say it should be cut back until the content has made it to the body.

4. This is HughD's self serving opinion. He has claimed this based on consensus discussions which occurred before his arrival here on March 2nd. The editors who were participants in those discussions have not weighed in on HughD's claim of consensus against.

I think we should allow the article to become stable before answering this question. Springee (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• It is highly questionable to not notify the Project Automobile page about this RfC. I have done so. Springee (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Include. The RFC FRS bot sent me. These are reliable sources about a prominent controversy. As such, the sources should be included and excerpted if need be, and the controversy summarized in the WP:LEAD. EllenCT (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT Thank you for your comment. Of course include the sources, summarized in the body of the section, and further summarized succinctly in the section lede, but that is not the RfC question; the RfC question asks about the due weight of introducing the "Safety..." section with these three sources, the only three citations in the section lede, with extensive content drawn from these three sources, including a long, direct quote serving as an epigraph for the section. Would you please comment further? Thanks again for your participation in the feedback request service. Hugh (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: Okay, but please first tell me why you believe that the sources have a "revisionist, apologist point of view." EllenCT (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The three sources cited by the contended content in the lede of the "Safety.." section have in common that their topic is correcting popular misconceptions in the Ford Pinto story, taking down Mother Jones magazine, and rehabilitating Ford's reputation WP:RGW. These views may be due weight later in the body of the "Safety..." but are given undue weight by the contended content in the lede of the "Safety..." section. The main topic of the "Safety.." section is a neutral telling of the facts and events of the Pinto story, not correcting popular misconceptions in the Ford Pinto story. Introducing the "Safety..." section with a warning to readers that "much of what you are about to read is wrong" non-neutrally casts unwarranted doubt in our readers' minds on the many, many facts and events which are not controversial which are presented in our article. Let the facts speak; our first priority is a neutral telling of facts and events, controversies come later. Reliable sources are sufficiently in consensus on the vast majority of facts and events that a "he, said, she said" format is not warranted, even if one editor's preferred highly select sources adopt a "here's what most people think, now we will tell you what really happened" format. Hugh (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, please comment on the RfC question. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: You put "much of what you are about to read is wrong" in quotes, but that is not a quotation. Is there any statement in the excerpt being commented on which implies it? Does the statement that the excerpted, "description provides the unambiguous foundation on which the media and academics have built a Pinto gas tank decision-making narrative," imply that the description, its unambiguous foundation, or the narrative is flawed? EllenCT (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The topic of the section is the facts and events of the history of the safety of the Ford Pinto. In contrast, the contended content excerpted above from the section lede, and the sources, are very clearly about the conventional wisdom and the popular misconceptions and righting great wrongs WP:RGW: "general understanding", "popular yet largely erroneous understanding", "Conventional wisdom holds", "Additional misunderstanding surrounds", "wild and unsupported claims", etc. On Wikipedia, the popular conception of historical facts and events is a distinct topic from historical facts and events; our first priority is to the latter. Our article on George Washington does not refute the cherry tree incident in the lede. The sources may be due weight in the body of the "Safety..." section but are afforded entirely too much weight as a long prelude to the "Safety..." section. The use of these sources and a long direct quote, in the section lede of one of the most important sections of this article, however intended, reads only as a pointed attempt to cast doubts in the minds of our readers on the overwhelming majority of the facts and events, which are well-documented in a wide consensus of vast reliable sources. Will you please comment on the RfC question? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC) EllenCT, will you please comment on the RfC question? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What a load of meandering waffle. Try editing your own posts before editing articles.Thanks very muchGreglocock (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on the RfC question. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, your implication that I have not commented on the RfC question is frankly quite offensive. I most certainly have, and I stand by my original opinion especially after having read your answers to my questions. EllenCT (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ellen, as you have discovered, Hugh is merely forum shopping. He did this on the third opinion subforum as well. If you do not post an acceptable affirmation of whatever bizarro POV he is pushing then he'll attack you. Unfortunately there seems little we can do to modify his behavior by discussion, but frankly, it's not our problem, we are not his therapist. Greglocock (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I accidendently removed Gregs response; I may have had an old version up, or I may have fat-fingered something. I did not intend to nuke it. Anmccaff (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No offense was intended; I sincerely thought you might have missed the point of the RfC question (the RfC question is not regarding inclusion/exclusion of sources). Thank you again for your participation. Hugh (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is slightly odd to include a long direct quote in the section lede, but since it summarises the situation in a neutral tone, and is well reffed in its own right, it is probably better to do that than paraphrase it, which would lead some pointless waffler to argue about cherry picking. Greglocock (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the lead. The lead is meant to summarize the article. There's to the question the neutrality in this. The article in itself drives home this point. The lead as it stands now drives home the point, This requested addition is beating a dead horse.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you try again in English? "There's to the question the neutrality in this." Doesn't mean much to me. Ta Greglocock (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, at least for the section lead. This is clearly not the mainstream view; all of the sources presented are explicit that they are arguing a revisionist perspective, and make it clear they are arguing against a mainstream view they disagree with. That doesn't mean they can't be covered further down (with appropriate qualifiers and weight), but like all revisionist takes on a subject it has to be treated according to WP:FRINGE; presenting these sources as the mainstream view is both inaccurate and WP:UNDUE. I wouldn't be opposed to covering these sources elsewhere, or to giving them a sentence in the section lead, but using them (and only them!) to write the entire section lead is giving them overwhelmingly undue weight. --Aquillion (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Which material do you feel is fringe? We are talking about the strongest sources (peer reviewed scholarship and sources cited by others). That much of the public understanding is wrong doesn't make the sources that say it fringe. Conversely, it is very significant that much of what is popularly understood about the subject is at least in part incorrect. For example, the public understanding of the Pinto memo is that Ford used the calculation to decide it was cheaper to pay off the dead and injured vs fix a problem. I think the evidence that this wasn't true is clear and compelling. How would this be fringe?

Anyway, the current lead was largely written when HughD was edit warring. I'm hoping that the edit war is over and we can all discuss changes as a group. Please offer suggestions. Springee (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Speaking as an engineering student in the late seventies; the disconnect between the statistical and engineering reality, the legal view, and the popular one, was already a part of mainstream expert thought, which is what Wiki should reflect. (n.b.: this is a point of discussion, not a cite, so please, no wikilawyering about sources. (Obviously, I don't mean you by this, Springee.)) Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BU Rob13, Thank you for closing this RfC. I'm not sure I agree that there was any consensus reached. Certainly by way of a count I would say the "leave it be" editors have it. I am thinking about ways to change because I think it could be better. That said, the lead currently does summarize the body (section). I would ask that you reconsider declaring the consensus for removal. At best I see a consensus that it can be improved with no specific proposal. Thank again! Springee (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Many supporters commented that this should be included because it was reliably sourced, but they never addressed where it should be included, and they specifically failed to engage the arguments toward including it below the section lead due to WP:Summary style. The quality of arguments based on policies/guidelines was very clearly in favor of the opposition. The policies that supporters cited or made reference to (WP:RS, for instance) were not applicable to where in the article the information should appear, just toward inclusion vs. exclusion. I believe the consensus was very clear here against inclusion of the entire quote in the section lead. I would like to reiterate that my close does not address whether this quote should appear elsewhere in the articles; I did not assess consensus on that point because it was not the question posed by the RfC. ~ Rob^Talk 19:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, I understand your point about "strongest argument". However, I would ask that you modify the closure to indicate there was no consensus as clearly there was not. Springee (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not a headcount. Arguments based on policies and guidelines are given more weight, and arguments that either clearly misunderstand the question or are entirely out of line with policy. Likewise, policy-based arguments that go entirely unrefuted by the other side are especially strong and given weight accordingly. In this situation, the strength of argument and policies/guidelines are clearly on the side of the opposers, who also happened to have a very small numerical majority in the head count. That adds up to a consensus. ~ Rob^Talk 23:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, head count does mater in consensus. Furthermore, I would argue that the "summary" argument is flawed in this case. Also, the oppose don't have a headcount advantage. Those who supported removal: HughD, SerialJoe, Aquillion. Those who support inclusion: Myself, Greglocock, Anmccaff, and EllenCT. Furthermore, the Summary argument isn't that strong given that the quoted paragraph is a good summary of much of the rest of the section. The rest of the section clearly shows that there was a public misunderstanding of the facts, that the cost benefit analysis was widely misreported and misunderstood and that the media coverage was faulty. All of that (taken from the quoted passage) is supported by the subsequent subsections. If you think it could be more explicit I understand. But lets be fair when it comes to the numbers supporting or opposing and the validity of the "summary" argument. Again, I'm willing to work on the intro because I'm not convinced it's as good as it could be and it was put in at a time of disruptive editing. I again ask that "consensus" be removed because it simply isn't supported by the editor comments. Springee (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Opposing inclusion: Hugh, Serialjoepsycho, Aquillion
• Support inclusion: Springee, Ellen, Greg

Anmccaff indicated that she supported your view that the sources supporting this information are stronger, but that does not speak to the question of where the information should be included. She did not express an opinion on that.

I weighed both Ellen and Greg as weak supporters, because Ellen specifically acknowledged the summary style issue and Greg also acknowledged that it's odd to include such a long quote in the section lead. While both clearly supported the proposal, they did not have any real response to the Summary style issues, which they acknowledged were significant concerns in their discussion. In other words, they agreed that the Summary style issues were valid and could not refute them.

A quote from WP:CLOSE: "Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review ... if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself." I believe I have followed the letter and intent of that page, which is widely accepted as the appropriate way to assess consensus. You are welcome to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you believe my close is in error, and I have seriously considered your views and reviewed my close, but at this time I don't see any reason to overturn it myself. ~ Rob^Talk 00:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, even if you don't count Anmcaff as supporting inclusion (or opposing the forced removal of the quote) we have a split in headcount thus no consensus either way. I think it is very reasonable for you to stating you are closing with "oppose inclusion" based on policy arguments but we clearly do not have a consensus with, at best, a 50:50 split. I'm not asking for you to change your ultimate ruling, just remove the claim of consensus. I won't challenge your close as this isn't an issue worth that much time (and I apologize for taking up this much of your time). I'm working on updates to address the style concerns (see my recently added discussion topic below). I do hope you see my concern with the implication of "consensus" vs "policy". Thanks again and sorry to take up your time. Springee (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Springee: Ah, I see. I slightly altered the wording of the closure. I tend to equate the phrases "There is consensus for ..." and "There is no consensus against ignoring policy X by doing ...", and WP:CONSENSUS/WP:CLOSE seems to support my view of equating those. But if you're not seeking any substantive change in how my close affects the article, I have no reason not to make a slight change to save editor time. Does the alteration I made address your concerns? ~ Rob^Talk 01:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, yes, thank you. That does address my concern and I'm sorry I didn't communicate that issue more clearly the first time. I've already made changes to the intro and removed the long quote. Thanks again.Springee (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No OR Noticeboard discussion notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• And it starts again... WP:NORN accusing myself, NickCT, Greglocock and perhaps Anmccaff of being, "A strident local consensus of Ford Pinto fanboyz is pursuing, in Wikipedia voice, that the whole Pinto thingy was a dust-up created by rabble-rousing by a tiny new low-circulation anti-corporate hippy magazine from San Francisco." [2] Previous discussions that were not included in the recent filing: [3], [4], [5] and previous NORN discussion [6]. Springee (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Not cool. NickCT (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ford Pinto related material added to the History of Ford Motor Company article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All, please review the Pinto related material HughD has added to the History of Ford Motor Company article. [7], [8], [9]. Springee (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Veni. Vidi. Nuci. Anmccaff (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, please review the recently added Ford Pinto related material at Automobile_safetySpringee (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the fuel tank controversy be split off?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heavy reliance on Schwartz (1991)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the work on cleaning up the references! I would agree that Schwartz is the most heavily referenced source in this article but I think a search of scholarly articles would also show its the most significant in the eyes of scholars of the subject. The number of other articles on the subject which cite Schwartz for reliable facts or as a backdrop to their own work adds significant weight to his article as a source. I would also note this tribute article (listed in Archive #2 [[10]]) which states "Gary was one of the preeminent torts scholars of his generation. Many of his articles are staples of the literature. (See, e.g., Gary T. Schwartz, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, 43 RUTGERS L. REV. 1013 (1991).)". Since the article draws on other scholars as well as Schwartz I don't think we have what might otherwise be an WP:UNDUE weight problem. Springee (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree The article relies too heavily on one source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that the silly NPOV tag can be removed in the following circumstances

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

The neutrality of this article , and suitability of sources,has been extensively reviewed in the past. The Mother Jones based narrative has errors of fact and emphasis which are perpetuated in the media, but do not seem to have much evidence to support them where they contradict Schwartz. Perhaps you should read the Gladwell document. Greglocock (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Tag removed. The IP editor in question is yet another sock of HughD, an editor who has been indef blocked impart due to his disruptive edits here. Rehashing arguments that have already been closed in the talk archives doesn't make them stronger. Springee (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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

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

Copyright notice from source:

Copyright © 2017 HowStuffWorks, a division of InfoSpace Holdings LLC

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

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

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

The above IP editor fits the profile of the indef blocked editor HughD. Springee (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017

Please change A number lawsuits were successfully brought against Ford. to A number of lawsuits were successfully brought against Ford. 64.39.156.254 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2017

In the lead please change:

A number of lawsuits were brought against Ford.

to:

More than one hundred lawsuits were brought against Ford.

As per MOS:LEAD, the lead summarizes the body:

Approximately 117 lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents in the Pinto.

References

1. Sherefkin, Robert (June 16, 2003). "Lee Iacocca's Pinto: A fiery failure". Automotive News. Retrieved March 6, 2016. Ford customers filed 117 lawsuits, according to Peter Wyden in The Unknown Iacocca.
2. Wyden, Peter (1987). The Unknown Iacocca. William Morrow and Company. ISBN 9780688066161.

185.76.10.167 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292:, the IP editor who requested this change is likely another sock of blocked editor HughD. This article is locked because of HughD's sock edits. Springee (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost certainly a HughSock; even the wording requested is identical. Anmccaff (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Pinto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314110907/http://bsedan.org/hist25.html to http://bsedan.org/hist25.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ford Pinto/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The "Production figures" table's style and placing could be improved, I'll try to fix this myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sourcing in the "Background" section could be improved, but none of the statements there are controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector only finds the direct quotes included in the article, which are correctly quoted and referenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The "Motorsport" section is so short as to feel unnecessary. I'm not sure what it can be merged with , though. Also, having coverage from both the 1970s and the 2000s in "Reception and criticism" is jarring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass. The article isn't perfect, but it is Good. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments

Discussion with a blocked user. Almost all of this is discussed extensively in the talk archives. I'll re-check a few of the more credible points later today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning the GA review. Please examine the edit history and the talk page discussions for insight into the stability criterion and for editorial concerns of other editors. With regard to evaluating the stability of this article. please note the article is currently semi-protected. Also, the talk page of this article has a short 45 day archive period. The talk page gives a impression of stability. Please review recent archives for additional opinions of editors on the quality of this article. With regard to the good article neutrality criteria, this article has serious issues. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article non-neutrally relies too heavily on one source and its associated point of view: Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" Schwartz' point of view, over-represented by the over-reliance on this source, may be summarized (from Schwartz 1991): ... the Ford Pinto case ... can be properly referred to as "mythical." Schwartz is cited directly at least 20 times. (Meanwhile, at least one book-length treatment is ignored: Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.) The article reads as if Schwartz' point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the Ford Pinto. PrefectF (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Your ellipsis is misleading. The full sentence is "The events surrounding the controversy have been described both as a "landmark narrative" and mythical", and overall there doesn't seem to be a strong claim that the scandal was mythical. And disruption from IP editors isn't relevant to stability, especially if the article will remain semi-protected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Neutrality of coverage of the emergence of the safety issues Another area in which the article non-neutrally summarizes noteworthy reliable sources is the coverage of the emergence of the controversy. The article expresses the point of view that the safety issues of this product were largely the result of rabble rousing by Mother Jones magazine. Noteworthy reliable sources offering a more balanced perspective were deleted, including The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and 20/20. Among the first public attention to the fire safety of Ford automobiles was December 30, 1976 when columnist Jack Anderson and investigative journalist Les Whitten writing in The Washington Post said that Ford testing had revealed a fire hazard posed by the placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle in some Ford models, and that "thousands" had died or been disfigured in fires after crashes. Cullen, Francis T.; Cavender, Gray; Maakestad, William J.; Benson, Michael L. (2014). Corporate Crime Under Attack: The Fight to Criminalize Business Violence. Routledge. p. 146. ISBN 9781317523666. Jack Anderson and Les Whitten were perhaps the first to claim that Ford, despite having the technology to do so, had consciously refused to fix the potentially lethal hazard posed by the placement of the Pinto's gas tank. They began their December 30, 1976, column in The Washington Post by claiming, "Buried in the secret files of the Ford Motor Co. lies evidence that big auto makers have put profits ahead of lives." This "lack of concern," they lamented, "has caused thousands of people to die or be horribly disfigured in fiery crashes." All this, they said, was preventable: "Secret tests by Ford have shown that minor adjustments in the location of the fuel tank could greatly reduce the fiery danger." Moreover, "repositioning of the tank would cost only a few dollars more per car" - not much of a price when human lives are at stake. "In the long run," they warned, "the auto makers are saving little with this 'cost cutting'" Nine months later, these criticisms were elaborated in Mark Dowie's scathing condemnation of Ford, called "Pinto Madness." Danley, John R. (April 2005). "Polishing up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk". Business Ethics Quarterly. 15 (2): 205–236. Beyond the legal problems, Ford was taking a public relations beating...Several months before the article, Jack Anderson had written a column claiming that thousands of people were either killed or disfigured as a result of this poorly designed vehicle. Anderson, Jack; Whitten, Les (December 30, 1976). "Auto maker shuns safer gas tank". The Washington Post. Buried in the secret files of the Ford Motor Co. lies evidence that big auto makers have put profits ahead of lives. Their lack of concern has caused thousands of people to die or be horribly disfigured in fiery car crashes. Undisclosed Ford tests have demonstrated that the big auto makers could have made safer automobiles by spending a few dollars more on each car. Swigert, Victoria Lynn; Farrell, Ronald A. (1980). "Corporate Homicide: Definitional Processes in the Creation of Deviance". Law & Society Review. 15 (1): 161–182. It was not until December 30, 1976, however, that the automobile's fuel tank was brought to public attention in a syndicated editorial appearing in the Washington Post. Columnists Jack Anderson and Les Whitten alleged that: "Buried in the secret files of the Ford Motor Co. lies evidence that big auto makers have put profits ahead of lives. Their lack of concern has caused thousands of people to die or be horribly disfigured in fiery car crashes. Undisclosed Ford tests have demonstrated that the big auto makers could have made safer automobiles by spending a few dollars more on each car." On June 11, 1978, two days after Ford announced the Pinto recall, CBS televised a segment of 60 Minutes on the Ford Pinto. Host Mike Wallace opened saying, "Is your car safe? Well, if you're driving a Ford Pinto, vintage 1971 to '76, the answer seems to be: Not as safe as it could be." The report included an interview with Ford Pinto fire crash victim Richard Grimshaw, and an interview with Ford's vice president of safety, who said that the value of a human life used in cost-benefit analyses was set by the US government, not by Ford, and that the cost-benefit analysis was taken out of context. The ABC News television program 20/20 ran a segment on the Ford Pinto in June, 1978 featuring the Grimshaw tragedy. Cullen, Francis T.; Cavender, Gray; Maakestad, William J.; Benson, Michael L. (2014). Corporate Crime Under Attack: The Fight to Criminalize Business Violence. Routledge. pp. 166–167. ISBN 9781317523666. Two days after Ford declared its recall, The Pinto received national exposure again...On Sunday evening, June 11, viewers of 60 Minutes were greeted by Mike Wallace's question, "Is your car safe?" He answered, "Well, if you're driving a Ford Pinto, vintage 1971 to '76, the answer seems to be: Not as safe as it could be." He then proceeded to tell the Pinto story. Richard Grimshaw a was the first to be interviewed. The audience learned that he had been in the hospital for four months following his Pinto Burn accident, and had returned for "about 65 major surgeries."...Herbert Misch, a twenty-three year veteran and vice president of environmental and safety engineering at Ford...countered by saying that the value placed on human lives was set by the government, not by Ford, and that the memo has "been taken totally out of context..."...Like Mike Wallace, other reporters found the Pinto matter a fascinating and eminently newsworthy upperworld scandal. Schwartz, Gary T. (1990). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" (PDF). Rutgers Law Review. 43: 1013–1068. By early June, the verdict in the Ford Pinto case was in, the NHTSA hearing was pending, and segment about the Pinto on the CBS television show, 60 Minutes, was imminent. At this point, Ford decided to undertake a "voluntary" recall. Graham, John D. (1991). "Does liability promote the safety of motor vehicles?"". In Huber, Peter W.; Litan, Robert E. (eds.). The Liability Maze: The Impact of Liability Rules on Innovation and Safety. Washington DC: Brookings Institution. p. 132. ISBN 9780815720188. The television shows "60 Minutes" and "20/20" ran segments in June 1978 that brought the Grimshaw tragedy into millions of American homes. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Wallace, Mike (June 11, 1978). "Is your car safe?". 60 Minutes. CBS News. Danley, John R (2005). "Polishing Up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk". Business Ethics Quarterly. 15 (2): 205–236. Beyond the legal problems, Ford was taking a public relations beating...On 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace claimed that he found it difficult to accept that top management would sit there and say "Oh, we'll buy 2,000 deaths, 10,000 injuries, because we want to make some money." 20/20 also came out with a critical episode. PrefectF (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) @Yamla: I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment regarding PrefectF (nice HHGTG reference HughD (talk · contribs)). The Pinto article and talk page are both limited to verified accounts. This was due to a large number of IP edits that were, based on WP:DUCK, considered to be HughD IP socks. Similar text was added to the article talk page by IP editors (socks of HughD) over the past few months. Springee (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC) There's obvious quacking. I would like to read the Washington Post editorial referenced before dismissing his concerns completely. The fact that 60 Minutes and 20/20 did features on the recall after it was announced isn't particularly interesting or relevant to the article; the pending NHTSA order would be more relevant on that matter than a pending 60 minutes piece. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC) HughD caused quite a lot of headaches for the editors involved with the article. His concerns were discussed and dismissed. The article that HughD is concerned about was discussed in this talk page discussion.[[11]] Springee (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC) The excluded Washington Post article is a notable source by notable journalists, and it is an investigative journalism report, not an editorial. Mother Jones, a limited circulation specialty magazine is cited seven times in this article, while The Washington Post, 20/20, and 60 Minutes are cited not at all. According to multiple reliable sources, The Washington Post broke the story and the television shows contributed significantly to the national notoriety. The current coverage in the article is non-neutral, a non-neutral editorial bias in favor of the point of view that the Pinto safety issues were a myth promulgated by Mother Jones. PrefectF (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC) What I want to check is whether anything notable regarding the safety record happened between the first concerns about safety in 1973, and the well-publicized Mother Jones events of 1977. The fact that the source is "notable" isn't relevant, what's relevant is whether it says anything about the Pinto that isn't currently in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your commitment to reviewing some of the sources non-neutrally excluded from this article. The most notable aspect of the subject of this article is the story of the fuel system safety. The subject is notorious. How it became notorious is a noteworthy aspect of the story. When and who broke the story, The Washington Post December 1976, is noteworthy. The current article non-neutrally demonizes Mother Jones magazine in support of the mythology point of view. Who made the fuel tank a household word is noteworthy, 20/20 and 60 Minutes. Also, the timing of 20/20 and 60 Minutes reporters preparing their reports is significant to our readers understanding the "voluntary" recall. Relatively few learned of the Ford Pinto fuel system safety issues from Mother Jones. PrefectF (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC) power~enwiki, sorry you are being subjected to this. Here are some talk sections that discuss the questions being raised. Note that at this point other talk page issues including a proposal to have HughD topic blocked were being floated. [[12]]. The long passage quoted from Lee and Ernmann also discusses some of this. What is notable in the discussions wasn't a dispute that the Anderson article covered the subject first, but that the MJ article was the one that clearly kicked off both the public outcry and the news frenzy.[[13]]. Springee (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The desire to cite certain sources is completely unfounded; the WaPo article, 60 Minutes piece, and 20/20 piece are all primary sources in this context, and the secondary sources currently used are preferred. The concern that Wikipedia should cover the news coverage of the Ford Pinto safety issues as something separately notable from the safety issues themselves ... is weak but not completely frivolous. The obvious place for this would be in "Reception and Criticism". Having a brief mention/summary of the "Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation" in that section might improve the reading of that section; it's somewhat awkward the 1975-1980 period is only discussed in the other section. I don't think it's necessary for the GA review, the coverage in the "Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation" is enough to meet "Broad in its coverage". power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

And to be clear, I don't think any of PrefectF's suggestions are improvements. AFAICT there's no freely-available copy of the 60 Minutes piece, but if one existed, including it in the "External links" section would be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've switched the production table from vertical to horizontal; I think it looks better that way, but if you disagree feel free to revert it. The table should have an inline reference; I'm certain one of the references in the prose section has this data but am not 100% sure which. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Removed the motorsports section. It was longer in the past but the need to cite information made it hard to confirm all but the most limited of facts. It was easier just to remove it. Did a minor rework to the receptions section. I think it's reasonable to break the discussion of the car into reactions at the time (mostly car magazine reviews when the Pinto was new) and legacy mentions in the press (things like worst cars of all time lists etc). I'm not sure the section title is the best but I can't think of anything better. Springee (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraphs

This article should have not have passed the GA review with several unsourced paragraphs and incomplete reference formats. Please address these immediately. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I said "The sourcing in the "Background" section could be improved, but none of the statements there are controversial." The existing references clearly cover this, I didn't feel that every sentence needed an inline reference. Do the GA guidelines state otherwise? power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up the CN tags. Springee (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Pinto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100220054514/http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/108046/fifty-ugliest-cars-of-the-past-50-years.html to https://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/108046/fifty-ugliest-cars-of-the-past-50-years.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Mythical"

This language is far too strong to sources to just a single paper, especially when it clearly fails to reflect the literally any other source in the now-lengthy, extensively-cited section. The landmark status of the case is extensively well-documented and attested to; weighing Schwartz' opinion as equal to that is absurd. If you want to put it in the section's lead, find a second source saying the same thing, or at least a secondary source quoting Schwartz on that aspect and backing it up. As WP:RS says, Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. I'm not suggesting removing him entirely (although the paragraph and mention in the lead is still somewhat WP:UNDUE), but the "mythical" quote in particular is a personal opinion without any backing anywhere else and is inappropriate for the lead of an entire section. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Schwartz's Pinto article is a seminal look at the legal issues associated with the Pinto case. It has been cited by a number of other academic sources as well as being described as a staple of tort literature. (Gary was one of the preeminent torts scholars of his generation. Many of his articles are staples of the literature. (See, e.g., Gary T. Schwartz, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, 43 RUTGERS L. REV. 1013 (1991).) [[14]]). Given the prominence of Schwartz's work in this area I think it's entirely appropriate to keep it in the section lead. Schwartz does explain why he sees the case as mythical and I wouldn't be opposed to replacing the word with text expressing why he used that word. Springee (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

We've seen one dimwit thrown out of wiki due, in part, to his enthusiasm for suppressing the Schwartz paper. I suggest you resist the temptation to go down that path. However your recent edit seems like a good approach. Greglocock (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on Aquillion's edit I moved the intro to Schwartz into the paragraph in question and added the context behind the "mythical" claim. Springee (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

I'm not exactly sure of the best title (yet), which is why I didn't put a tag on the article. However, this is certainly worthy for discussion.

When looking at Category: Business ethics cases and Category:Product safety scandals, the content related to Ford Pinto fuel system fires is noteworthy enough to warrant its own article (if there is one for Ford Explorer tires, definitely so...). Along with this specific content being worthy of its own space, it takes up a large portion of the overall Ford Pinto article and a split would allow for both this content to grow on its own and for a better focus on the actual automobile. (While similarly presented, the handling issues of the Chevrolet Corvair take up a smaller proportion of its article).

Any thoughts? --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting articles on cars is a difficult thing to do, and that is one reason why my instrincttive reaction is usually "don't do it". It is, frankly, easy to do it in a hurry and to lose quality and information along the way. BUT on this occasion there is a pretty clear and obvious split that can be made. Provided you and / or others doing the work will have the time to do the thing carefully then, yes please. Go ahead. The precedents and arguments you briefly cite are appropriate: I think you can make the case. I would support the split as proposed. Success Charles01 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to oppose. I'm not saying I can't be persuaded but I don't think the Firestone/Explorer analogy is perfect. I agree that both the Pinto excluding the fuel system fires and the controversy around the fuel system fires both have enough content to be their own articles. The question is are they better as stand alone articles or combined? I don't think the current article is too long for a single article per Wiki guidelines. Unlike the Explorer/Firestone case, the Pinto car lasted only one generation and the fuel system fire was limited solely to that generation. By comparison, the Explorer has had four major generations with updates inside of those generations. The tire controversy only applied to the first generation vehicles, not all Explorers. Additionally, the controversy did apply to other vehicles that used the tires since it was a combination of a weakish tire + a low recommended tire pressure with little margin for loss of pressure that resulted in the tire failures. So even though the problem was largely associated with the Explorer, it wasn't 100% confined to the Explorer. Finally, this example involved Ford + Firestone rather than Ford alone. Thus trying to package the Explorer-Firestone topic solely inside of the Explorer article is more problematic since it's not a perfect overlap. As for the Corvair analogy, it's more direct (single model, issue applies only to the single model) but it never really got the legs the Pinto fire cases got. Again, just because I don't accept that the Explorer-Firestone analogy is valid doesn't mean I think no case could be made for splitting. I think the best case for splitting would be we have new, good content to add to the Pinto article and it simply becomes too long. SteveCof00, did you have new sources/information? Springee (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You misrepresent the Firestone issue. The Explorer was fine on the tires from the original factory. Firestone then started building tires at a different factory, and these failed. Greglocock (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going from memory. Either way, both the Explorer and tire articles are long so a split is almost mandated based on length alone. Springee (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting things (setting the Firestone tire analogy aside for now), I think that a split is useful/notable because this is a significant case of the relationship of cost-benefit analysis and business ethics. While Ford had analyzed the potential costs of developing a safer fuel tank design, the company felt the cost of the upgrade was not financially beneficial. Statistically, the Pinto would go on to roughly match (or better) the safety record of its 1970s counterpart, with rear-end fatal collisions involving fire being among the rarest kinds of accidents. However, these involved over 100 lawsuits against Ford (involving the first time an automobile manufacturer faced homicide charges). While I do concede that my primary interest is in the automobile itself, the fuel system issue is certainly worth expanding further; as far as sources and references, over half of the nearly 150 sources of the entire Ford Pinto article are dedicated to the fuel system issue. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I do get that a lot of people have used this case as an example in business ethics classes. However, it appears that, in at least some cases, the business school classes had the facts wrong. Anyway, I would suggest adding the material here first and the looking at a split if the article gets too long. Springee (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak Support - The fuel tank section already reads as a separate article. Come up with a good title and you can probably get a few more editors on your side.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential title

Going with WP naming conventions, I'm deciding on Ford Pinto fuel tank design issue to suggest for a title when splitting the article. Taking the split on a different scope altogether, the end result (of the design issue) could be used for the title 1978 Ford Pinto fuel tank recall. At the very least, I'm not looking to use "scandal" or "controversy" in a title; doing so implies NPOV issues.

Thoughts? --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

What about "Ford Pinto Fires". It's simple and I think people who have any background on the subject will understand. This is not an endorsement of the split. Springee (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)