Talk:Ford Motor Company/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ford company founders

According to www.tplex.org (the website for the Ford Piquette plant where the first Model Ts were produced) there was a co-founder Alexander Malcomson, who left the company in 1906. Shouldn't this be mentioned (similarily to Ronald Wayne, the third co-founder of Apple Inc, re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Wayne )?

Also referenced in the Wikipedia entry for Alexander Macomson (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Malcomson ) as follows: "Malcomson and Ford agreed to form a company, Ford & Malcomson, to develop a new automobile" and "On June 16, Ford, 1903, Ford and Malcomson was officially re-incorporated as Ford Motor Co." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.105 (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting info at the article for Alexander Y. Malcomson. Looks to me like you're right that he should be mentioned in this article's sections on the early history. Probably one or two sentences would do it. Interested readers could click through for more details. I'll try to find time to do this soon (as I guess the semi-protection will keep you from editing via IP address). Thanks for the tip. — ¾-10 04:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ford Focus

My name is Sonja Jaszczyszyn. I bought a 2007 Ford Focus 6 months ago. I would like to know why a belt has to be replaced when the car has only 38400 kms. on it. I wanted a reliable car to drive, not one that needs work on it after only 6 months. I am very disappointed in the Ford product. Sincerly Sonja Jaszczyszyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.74.156 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Ford fan forum or a mechanics forum. This is a discussion page about improving the quality of writing abut the Ford Motor Company. You would be better off trying to find an internet forum in your local area.

Put more simply, we're writers, not mechanics. Even supposing Wikipedia answered such questions (generally they do not), the advise you would get would not be reliable. --Falcadore (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ford Falcon Wagon (Australia) ceased production.

Global Markets | Asia Pacific second paragraph

As well as the LWB Fairlane/LTD, Ford Australia has also axed the Falcon station wagon.

References:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/62251/ford-falcon-wagon-to-be-retired-by-june

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/46057/ford-falcon-wagon-facing-the-axe-mondeo-wagon-and-territory-to-carry-the-load — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.98.86 (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

I need to add an link to this document that will redirect the viewers to Ford India private Limited page. Can you permit me to edit as above.

Krish4646 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You provide us with the link, and then someone decides if it is a viable link. CTJF83 14:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fix typo

Under the subsection: All-electric vehicles

There is a heading labeled:

Current and planned Ford hybrid electric vehicles

which should read:

Current and planned Ford electric vehicles

or

Current and planned Ford All-electric vehicles

Ford Maverick

Ford Maverick are introduced in 1970.

Hitory error

History section links Ford to Cadillac,

"Henry's first attempt under his name was the Henry Ford Company on November 3, 1901, which became the Cadillac Motor Company on August 22, 1902." Va7cdw (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• That is correct. Henry lost control of the company and it became Cadillac. Rmhermen (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I reorganized the paragraph, though, as the sentences seem to have gotten out of order. Rmhermen (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

also nothing about Ford's close Nazi connections either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012

In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "20th Century" section, it now reads: "Later Ford realized it would be better if he manufactured all of his company's automotive parts himself instead of using parts from aftermarket sources which lead to the production of the assembly line."

Please change the word "lead" to "led", at the 8th word position from the end of the sentence. This is such a common mistake, of course not detectable by any "spell checker", because "lead" is spelled correctly, but it simply is not the correct word to use in this context. Eleighton (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting it NtheP (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Beyond the spelling fix, the sentence's content is misguided as well. It is true that Henry Ford sought vertical integration in the 1910s and 1920s, most famously exemplified by the River Rouge plant's design and capabilities. However, the move away from vendor-sourced parts was not a cause (per se) that led to development of the assembly line. Ford would have wanted an assembly line regardless of whether his parts came from vendors or from in-house departments. I'll go tone this down. — ¾-10 01:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Car company articles

Hi. I've no problem with your changes to the text of Ford Motor Company just now, but have reverted your changes to section order. Company articles have a fairly standard heading/order structure of Name, History, Operations, Products (and services), Corporate affairs/governance, Corporate social responsibility, Environmental record, Sponsorships which it is good to follow in order to maintain consistency and quality across the project. Although by no means every company article follows this exact formulation, if you look at 100 major company articles, across sectors, and across different home nations, you will find it widely and increasingly followed.

I understand that there are issues with recentism in the Ford Motor Company history section. However in my view some of the post-2000 content should probably be moved to the history of Ford Motor Company article, and perhaps coverage of pre-2000 history expanded.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I understand the heritage of Ford is important, can compromise. As a major corporation, the Ford article should have a focus on the corporate side too though.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. It depends what you mean by the 'corporate side' though. Details of current senior management are no more 'corporate' than operations and products in my view. The article order I have listed above isn't my invention, but I do strongly favour it for its consistency and logic.

Putting the history section at the top is something that is actually standard for non-corporate organisations too. Placing the current senior management at the top is non-standard, but is also very recentist and in my view undue. The individuals at the top change fairly frequently, they are important of course but rather less so than what the company actually produces, or its physical operations. Non executive directors are in fact pretty trivial even to the current operations of the company. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I should add, very disappointing that you are attempting to impose this change through edit-warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Best to assume good faith, since the edit was reasonable. Appreciate the consideration. The last paragraph of history is really recent results, so as long as the corporate info isn't buried too far down, I suppose its ok either way. The article should have a cohesive corporate presenation. Put history on top. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of good faith, but of trying to force changes which have been reverted for good reasons. I don't doubt that we are both committed to improving the article.

A few points:

1. If you wish to include financial results in with senior management, that section should in my view be renamed to the standard 'Corporate affairs', with sub-headings 'Senior management' and 'Financial results'. Financial results are probably best put into a table but this can always be done later.

2. 'Global' is wholly unnecessary in the 'Operations' heading - why do you keep adding this?

3. Why do you wish to remove financial services from the products and services section? I see no logic for this, they are a key part of the company's offerings. And what is the problem with the very standard and descriptive heading 'Products and services'?

4. Why are you so keen for this article not to follow the very standard approach of 'Corporate governance/affairs' coming after Operations and Products? Rangoon11 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 are fine. The continents are global, not sure why you don't like that, but its fine either way. The corporate term is executive management, then senior. 4. Its a business/corporate article, the entity is the head.Thomas Paine1776 (talk)

Great re 1, 2 and 3 and I appreciate your flexibility. Re 4 the point is that the whole article is about a corporation and that there is a pretty well established section order for articles on companies. A company has many elements e.g. what it produces, its facilities, its brands, its history, its environmental record, its financial results, its ownership structure, its workforce and yes its senior management, including executive management. Firstly I would stress that the order of the article contents shouldn't be seen as a hierarchy of importance. For example 'Name' almost always goes top, but I would not say that this is more important that the entire history of the organisation. I do however see a logic to it going first, and respect this in order to maintain project-wide quality.

There is a fairly well devloped order for articles of different types, which is highly beneficial as it ensures consistency across what is a vast project. For corporate articles the standard order is as I described above. University articles generally take the order Name, History, Campus, Organisation and administration, Academics, Student life, Notable people. The order does not mean that Campus should be viewed as more important than Academics (and indeed whether one is more important than another is a purely subjective issue anyhow).

Sorry if I appear overly formalistic but I edit a lot on company articles and am always pained by their generally low quality, which is letting down the whole project. For a very highly read article like Ford Motor Company (4,000+ hits a day) to not be in the standard format sets a bad example and lets down the project. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. Also interested in company articles. The format can fit the company, there is no predetermined/established order for for companies on wikipedia. Burying the corporate info and results in a corporate article is not what the project is about. The present flow is much better since motorsports follows products. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect there is a standard format - look at 100 major company article and you will see it - and there is one for a reason. You might view the current senior management as being of great importance, someone else - say a Greenpeace member - might regard the environmental record as being of far great importance, and wish to put that at the top of the article. My own view is that it is completely subjective, and ultimately meaningless, to try to assess which is more 'important'. A large benefit of a consistent article format is that it removes those issues through a standard structure, and one which is not based on a POV about the hierarchy of importance of different topics relating to the subject. A reader can easily find what they want using the contents, and the articles are in any case not particularly long.

Re History, this article is about Ford Motor Company over its entire lifetime (as is every company main article). Of course for very old companies or companies with very eventful histories, a separate article for History can make sense to prevent the main article from being overwhelmed by that section. Even then though it is still important that the main article addresses the entire history, albeit in a abridged form.

We must also avoid recentism. The current history section of this article has too much detail on post 2000, and too little on the 20th century, in my view. Equally, although financial results do have a place, it is recentist to provide great detail about the last couple of years of financial results, but nothing about earlier results. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The present article has the proper balance. The wiki project on companies says that the history section should be weighted more about the present company than the past. That's why there is a sub article for the past. The wiki project on companies also says that there should be a section on corporate governance or affairs. Financial results for a normal time period of corporate reporting are important and are not what is meant by recentism on wikipedia. The earlier results are covered in the history section, so the article has it correct.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see where it says in the companies project guidelines that the history section of a company article should be weighted to the present (and bear in mind also that other sections will be naturally weighted more to the present, such as Corporate affairs and Operations, so the History section has an important role in providing historical context across the piece). In any case the project, and its guidelines, seem to be in something of a state of neglect (like many company articles themselves!). Yes I completely agree with a Corporate affairs section, and with the inclusion of financial info, my issue is with the section order however. I cannot see any good reason why this article should deviate from the most commonly used section order. Perhaps sleep on it as we are now starting to go round in circles a bit. Please bear in mind however that my sole motivation is to ensure project-wide consistency.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding history section for companies it says, "The article should be primarily about the history of the surviving company." Nevertheless, there is a sub article for past history, sub-articles are there so that primary articles do not become too large. The Ford article appears to have a proper balance since it has a sub-article for history. The order can fit the company, there is no predetermined/established order for companies on wikipedia. The wiki project for companies says a corporate article should have a section on corporate governance or affairs and stock/financial info. The present order is much improved since it flows from products to motorsport. Corporate affairs and financial results are important to readers of corporate articles, they know that Ford makes cars and trucks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error in the second section "lifegaurd"

^^^^^

 Fixed  Stepho  talk  23:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2013

Ford hopes to sell around 8.5 million cars by the end of 2015

71.59.91.231 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Such a claim needs a reference to back it up. Also, it is very much like WP:CRYSTALBALL gazing. Better to leave it out.  Stepho  talk  05:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Closing request. Rivertorch (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Change of Executive.

There is an article titled 'Elena Ford' which tells of Elena holding an executive position in Ford Motor Company. It seems proper to include all information here which pertains to her position with FoMoCo and to remove it from her biographical article except for a link to this article. For references, I beleive FoMoCo must have press releases anouncing her apointment etc. and I will try to find them. Also, if she is not among the top level executives, there might be superior officers which should be named ahead of her. RCNesland (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Biographies always include details on people's occupation. Why wouldn't they? Rmhermen (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of Benz

Horst-schlaemma has added the following to this article and to the Ford Model T article:

After the first modern automobile was already created in the year 1886 by German inventor Carl Benz (Benz Patent-Motorwagen), more efficient production methods were needed to make the automobile affordable for the middle-class.

I'm not complaining about the need for more efficient production methods. However, there is a 22 year gap between the Benz and the Model T. The Benz was a tiller-steered tricycle design that was a huge advance in its time but was completely outdated by the time of the Model T. Practically all other cars after 1900 were closer to the Model T than to the Benz. Which makes the first half of the addition irrelevant.  Stepho  talk  13:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

His revert comment said "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU9wTnif40M obviously it is not." I assume the relevant part of the video is when the US president wrongly refers to the US as "the nation that invented the automobile". I'm Australian, not American (even says so on my user page), so I'm not sure why that video was directed to me. His user page strongly hints that he is Germanic, so perhaps a bit of over-enthusiastic flag waving is involved here. For the record, I'm neutral in any Germanic vs American arguments - I only seek the truth.  Stepho  talk  14:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

To avoid any accusations of flag-waving I want to point out that I'm neither German nor American, but President Obama was closer to the truth than Horst-schlaemma seems to think, because the first patent application for a four-wheeled "modern" motor vehicle was filed by an American, George B. Selden, in 1879. Unfortunately for him he kept adding things to his design so the patent wasn't granted until 1895, which is why he's not commonly accepted as the inventor of the automobile. So I'd say that both the US and Germany have the right to claim that they invented the car, Benz got his patent approved first but Selden's four-wheeled motor vehicle with a steering wheel had more in common with modern cars than Benz' tiller-steered tricycle had. As for the passus added by Horst-schlaemma I agree with Stepho-wrs, it doesn't belong in this article. Thomas.W (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This ain't about flag waving. As you mentioned, there indeed is a gap of 2 decades between the two. The relevant connection here is, that after the widely recognized invention of the car by Benz, only the Ford Model T led to an efficient, affordable mass-produced product. It's a connection failed by many journalists even, who'd claim the automobile was "invented" by Ford or similar statements. So the purpose is giving a connection from the invention until the first widely accepted mass-market product in just one sentence here. I think that's a fair and valid addition to be made. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The article didn't say Ford "invented" the automobile. Besides, the time betweeen the introduction of Benz car and Ford's T was one of big advancements for the industry in general and the automotive in particular. The direct "connection" which you try to imply is original research, unless you add a reliable source where such connection is expressly mentioned. Otherwise, this paragraph can certainly be considered unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll retract the flag waving bit.

I'm happy with the claim that Benz invented the modern automobile. Selden was a better lawyer than an engineer and used much legal wrangling to claim things that he didn't invent himself. My problem is whether a mention of such early cars (eg pre 1890) is useful at all in this article. Benz's vehicle was a tricycle, with a tiller, tall buggy wheels and no roof. But 20 years later we have 4 wheel vehciles, proper wheels, proper chassis with a proper body with a roof. The time gap is too much.

The new addition of Ford inventing the assembly line is also wrong. Eli Whitney made the first modern one in 1797. Ford was initially reluctant to use it and had to be convince by his managers. But after it was proven to work he developed it further. As one guy said, "Ford didn't invent the assembly line but he did sponsor it".  Stepho  talk  07:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Europe transit production at Southampton Plant

Transit production at Southampton Plant finished July 2013Eatcows (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Rmhermen (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Manufacturing/assembly facilities at North Fremantle, Western Australia

The building in Stirling Highway, Fremantle, Western Australia (in the suburb of North Fremantle) was a Ford manufacturing or assembly facility but does not rate a mention in the page. I do not recollect what was produced there but a friend tells me the building design is exactly the same as the Ford building in Geelong (Australia) where he used to work - right down to the type of palm trees at the front. The building was taken by the Matilda Bay Brewing Company after Ford ceased operations in Western Australia. Matilda Bay have now moved out and the building is vacant (as at 12-28-2013). Hearsay says that Ford assembled tractors there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaec (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I from Perth too but I don't remember that (although it's quite possible). Do you have some form of reference from a book, magazine, newspaper or similar ?  Stepho  talk  21:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

Andy.W25215 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Premium Auto Group

At one time Ford had purchased Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo etc. and formed its Premium Auto Group. The article makes NO mention of this part of the company's history? What gives? 842U (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

they are mentioned in the lead. Rmhermen (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

You guys need to mention on the article that it is NOT a GM or Chrysler rival. 198.228.216.157 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not done. You've been told Yahoo answers is not a reliable source already. To continue this course of editing is disruptive. Please stop. Tiderolls 17:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But WP:BLP and WP:RS did not say anything about Yahoo Answers or another Q&A site. It's not even a social networking site. ;) 198.228.216.157 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Sites do not have be named directly; their lack of oversight will determine their reliability. You can take your debate to WP:RS to attempt a change in consensus, but I doubt your point will gain any traction. Tiderolls 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing

For some reason, a glitch prevents me from editing this page. The page "Ford" can be edited, but this page is restricted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AutomodileDealer (talk • contribs)

@AutomodileDealer: It has been protected because of frequent vandalism. To edit you need to either fill out an edit request (see below), or wait until you become autoconfirmed. Thomas.W ^talk 16:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a valid request for an edit. Marking it answered so others don't bother looking at it. Meters (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Alan Mulally

He is no longer at Ford. Mark Fields is the new top guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.93.88 (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for the tip! I already fix it (at least in the infobox). Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

Please change spelling of "occasionlly" to "occasionally" in the Oceania section. 136.8.33.71 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Info is needed on Ford's assistance with the development of the automobile industry in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s to the 1930s

Ford Motor Company played a major role in the development of the Soviet automobile industry from 1929 to the 1930s. In particular, there was very close cooperation between Ford and GAZ since 1929, whereby the same design as the Ford Model A was produced as the GAZ-A. It is a very important historical development in relation to Ford's influence in Eastern Europe.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014

Can anyone fix the years for the Ford logos (old Ford logo: 1927-1960; current Ford logo:1960-present).--67.100.127.41 (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 67.100.127.41 (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done. The last one in the article is the 2003-present logo, not the 1961 or 1976 ones.[1]. Rmhermen (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014

Dear "established user"

Subject/headline: Research fordSQUID added Please add in the History/20th century section the text posted between the two delimiting markers XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

Thank you

In 1908 Ford introduced the first engine with a removable cylinder head, in the Model T. In 1930, Ford introduced the Model A, the first car with safety glass in the windshield. Ford launched the first low priced V8 engine powered car in 1932.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX The creation of a scientific laboratory in Dearborn, Mich. in 1951, doing unfettered basic research, lead to Ford’s unlikely involvement in Superconductivity research. In 1964 Ford Research Labs scored a key breakthrough with the invention of a superconducting quantum interference device or SQUID. XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Ford offered the Lifeguard safety package from 1956, which included such innovations as a standard deep-dish steering wheel, optional front, and, for the first time in a car, rear seatbelts, and an optional padded dash. Ford introduced child-proof door locks into its products in 1957, and in the same year offered the first retractable hardtop on a mass-produced six-seater car. The Ford Mustang was introduced in 1964. In 1965 Ford introduced the seat belt reminder light.

HRDVinc (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Rmhermen (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Ford Motor Company Research Lab

It would be nice to have a separate paragraph on the Research Lab of Ford Motor Company. As mentioned in the previous section, SQUID was one very important invention by that Lab - but not the only one - explicitly in the field of metal-insulator-metal junctions essential, and highly cited research in that field was performed e.g. http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.17.1139 .... --DAsia (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ford dealer in Garden City, New York, ca. 1930-1945

The Ford dealership picture in this box is most likely from 1954 or 1955. The blue car on the right is a 1954 Ford. The red car on the left is a 1951 Ford, the yellow and blue ones in the middle are also 1949-1951 Ford models. The Red car second from the right is a Mercury from between 1951 and 1954.

The picture caption should be changed from "Ford dealer in Garden City, New York, ca. 1930-1945" to "Ford dealer in Garden City, New York, ca. 1954"

Tapzz (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapzz (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Misquote

"It is described by Forbes as "the most important industrial company in the history of the United States."[4]

Above is the last sentence of the first paragraph. Upon following URL to the linked article and scanning through it for this phrase,I found that the whole article was about General Motors, and in fact the phrase was in the Editor's note, used to describe General Motors; "Editor’s Note: Lots of people–including President Obama–have trumpeted their role in the success of the government-backed turnaround plan that saved General Motors, the most important industrial company in the history of the United States." (http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2013/10/30/how-general-motors-was-really-saved-the-untold-true-story-of-the-most-important-bankruptcy-in-u-s-history/)

This is a phrase taken very much out of context and misquoted. I think it would be right to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clte14a (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it. It was added by a banned user. Oddly it always linked to an article on GM but, in 1 1/2 years, no one (including me) noticed. Rmhermen (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor minor typo

"The creation of a scientific laboratory in Dearborn, Michigan in 1951, doing unfettered basic research, lead to Ford's unlikely involvement…" The verb ought to be "led", not "lead" (the former is past tense; the latter is present tense, or a metal). Luskwater (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I fixed it. — ¾-10 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

Why does the controversy section have a relatively minor issue regarding an emissions system in the 1973 that is nearly identical to a similar paragraph in the General Motors page. Yet at the same time the article doesn't mention really big controversies such as the Ford_Hunger_March or the Ford Pinto fire controversy. Regardless of ones thoughts that Ford did or didn't do something wrong with the Pinto, the fact of the mater was it was a land mark case in public awareness of auto safety and tort law. It clearly had an impact that far exceeds that of just a single car. It would really be good to have some sort of guidelines as to what should be seen as a controversy worth mentioning. Springee (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also point out that the Firestone tire - Explorer roll over issue is not covered in the controversy section. Really, way cover such minor issues vs the hugely public Firestone recall?

• Having received no feedback from others I removed the remaining two controversy items and thus the section heading. This does not mean I think the section should go away but as I said above, the listed controversies were minor when placed against the history of a company that has been around for a century and is also one of the most significant as well as largest industrial concerns of all time. I've added a project automobile discussion topic here [2] with the hope that we can come up with a standard across all auto mfr sites. Springee (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ford Motor Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011195651/http://media.ford.com:80/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26326 to http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26326
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060928123506/http://www.rtknet.org/new/tox100/toxic100.php?database=t1&detail=1&datype=T&reptype=a&company1=&company2=9201&chemfac=fac&advbasic=bas to http://www.rtknet.org/new/tox100/toxic100.php?database=t1&detail=1&datype=T&reptype=a&company1=&company2=9201&chemfac=fac&advbasic=bas

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ford Motor Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011195651/http://media.ford.com:80/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26326 to http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26326
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060905080604/http://www.freep.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006603290456 to http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006603290456
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309211834/http://www.ford.com:80/aboutford/microsites/sustainability-report-2006-07/env.htm to http://www.ford.com/aboutford/microsites/sustainability-report-2006-07/env.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016

Gay — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallDJasmin (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011195651/http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26326 to http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=26326

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Ford Pinto section lede of the Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section . 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" 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

Please comment at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC update: Ford Pinto section lede of the Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. To date, this request for comment has broadened the discussion by bringing two (2) new editorial voices to the discussion. Please join the discussion at Talk:Ford_Pinto#RfC: section lede of Safety section. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A question of balance

Hi. I don't have strong views about automobile issues, but notice that the main Ford and GM articles say very little about vehicle recalls and safety problems, and seem to talk more about corporate promotional activities pertaining to sponsorship of numerous events, funding of sports facilities, and car racing. Don't we need more of a balance? regards, Johnfos (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Have added tag flagging this issue. Johnfos (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is some material that could be added (see my comments here [3]) however, I think the tag was unnecessary in this case. It also carries an implication that may not be justified. For example, while I think the Pinto controversy is significant enough to warrant inclusion, I would take exception to claims that the Pinto had a major safety defect (the historical record wouldn't support such a claim). In the case of the Pinto, it, in retrospect, is not notable for deaths or injuries as compared to other cars of it's class, but rather it's notable for the PR issues related to the car, changing the public perception/awareness of auto safety, and the way it changed how Ford and likely other car companies would handle similar situations in the future. Springee (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: It appears that no consensus for the move as proposed is emerging. Consider RfD for the redirect "Ford" (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Ford Motor Company → Ford – WP:COMMONNAME. SSTflyer 05:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support as per the nominator and also as per Talk:Ford Australia#Requested move 31 May 2015. "Ford" already directs to Ford Motor Company. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• To me in England the original, and still the main, meaning of "ford" is still Ford (crossing). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose but not strongly In some cases such as FCA vs Chrysler I think the legal name is somewhat convoluted. I don't think that applies here. Yes, most call it Ford in context of cars but "Ford" is a relatively common name and a verb. As such I would suggest we keep it as Ford Motor Company and use the disambiguation feature to make sure someone who is interested in crossing the river doesn't end up in Dearborn. Springee (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As above, although this is a company name that is fairly common, there are other common contexts for the same word that are not uncommon. In other words, let's stick with a disambiguation page in this context too (I like the river-crossing example, why make things more confusing?) --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 11:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support - it already has primary topic, so WP:CONCISE should control here. Red Slash 16:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support , as primary topic. If this were a dictionary-like entry, I'd think the issues raised are enough to block the page moving. However, this is an encyclopedia, so the point we should determine is if one of the topics is more relevant than the others. A quick Google search gives more results for the car manufacturer Ford than for any of the other entries. Ford (crossing) has about 200 daily views against a counting in excess of 4,000 for Ford Motor Company. There's no reason to think people will go to Dearbon, we can include a disambiguation hatnote... --Urbanoc (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. See old move discussion: Title_-_move_to_Ford. Rmhermen (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment interesting, I didn't know this was discussed before, thanks for bringing that up. However, consensus can change, and I don't see on that old debate clearly strong arguments from either side to say the issue can't be revisited. In any case, there's no strong consensus for any solution at the moment, so a move would be difficult... --Urbanoc (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support already redirects here. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv.
• Oppose, and Ford should not redirect here but to Ford (disambiguation); the word ford and the name Ford are too ambiguous to treat any request for that string to automatically pertain to FMC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and instead move Ford (disambiguation) to the base title. Ford is a common surname, of which at least Henry Ford and Gerald Ford are prominent. Mr. Appleyard already alluded to Ford (crossing), which is probably the topic of "long-term significance." -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

politics and anti-usa moves

Ford moving all production of small cars from U.S. to Mexico, announced during Trump election cycle (though long in planning?).

www.usatoday.com/.../ford-moving...mexico/90354334/

USA Today 4 days ago - DETROIT — Ford Motor said Wednesday it is shifting all of its U.S. small car production to Mexico, a development that drew fresh criticism from ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you give a full URL. That fragment isn't enough.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Is a bike company worth adding to the history section?

It seems to me that the involvement of Ford with some bikes in San Francisco isn't of sufficient weight to include in the history section of the article. It's probably questionable in other sections and I would be inclined to remove it but I'm asking here first. I would cite issues with both weight and RECENT. Thoughts? Springee (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

I would like to add the fact that Ford's brother made a buisness today known as Mercury LukeH21 (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this article is about the Ford Motor Company, not Henry Ford, so it is the wrong article. Moreover, Henry Ford had 2 brothers, which of them are you referring to?
More importantly you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2016

92.24.197.27 (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ford Motor Company. 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/20130305135302/http://pricinginsider.carsdirect.com:80/2013/02/27/2013-ford-fusion-energi-fuel-economy-pricing-and-release-date/ to http://pricinginsider.carsdirect.com/2013/02/27/2013-ford-fusion-energi-fuel-economy-pricing-and-release-date/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130304012451/http://insideevs.com:80/february-2013-plug-in-electric-vehicle-sales-report-card/? to https://insideevs.com/february-2013-plug-in-electric-vehicle-sales-report-card/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212180838/http://media.ford.com/article_download.cfm?article_id=27379 to http://media.ford.com/article_download.cfm?article_id=27379
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206054304/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/dec08sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/dec08sales.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826033739/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=31604 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=31604
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902084030/http://media.ford.com:80/article_display.cfm?article_id=33704 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33704
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123110331/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec12sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec12sales.pdf

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) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

Add [Category:Plug-in hybrid vehicle manufacturers] to the "See Also" section. Ford produces two plug-in hybrid vehicles: C-Max Energi Fusion Energi

313-matt (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 313-matt 313-matt (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Already done - This category is present on the page. -- Dane ^talk 00:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Europe section, Sierra

The comments in the European section regarding the introduction of the Ford Sierra are while factually correct, somewhat misleading, saying that it was "massively popular just about everywhere it was sold". This implies the vehicle was an instant success. The popularity was relative, and certainly in the UK, sales were initially well below expectation, and well below the levels enjoyed by it's predecessor, the Cortina. Although the Sierra sales did improve as time went on, it lost a lot of the market share the Cortina constantly achieved, mainly to the Vauxhall Cavalier. I'm not sure what the situation in the rest of Europe, but this was certainly the case in the UK.

Patrickblue (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole section is full of weasel words. As per WP:WEASEL, feel free to tone it down a notch into something that looks more like an encyclopaedia instead of a Ford fan club meeting.  Stepho  talk  01:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Could somebody change "| foundation = {Start date and years ago|1903|6|16}" to the Start date and age template, so that it's "| foundation = {Start date and age|1903|6|16}"?

173.73.218.206 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? It isn't a person who ages. Rmhermen (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Per template and because Template:Start date and years ago it redirects to Template:Start date and age anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.218.206 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: {{Start date and years ago}} redirects to {{Start date and age}}, so either would work. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

2602:304:685D:B5C0:38FA:9BA2:DB2:F99E (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

grammar errors need to fix

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

2602:304:685D:B5C0:38FA:9BA2:DB2:F99E (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

its mot right the second para its now changed Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017

Change these source links back from:

• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB123902308085992679.html
• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704067504575304951455734906.html
• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB107880303676250060.html
• https://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

To:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123902308085992679.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704067504575304951455734906.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB107880303676250060.html
• http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

112.168.249.191 (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Changed the first three source links respectively to

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123902308085992679
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704067504575304951455734906
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB107880303676250060

and the fourth was changed to http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2017

24.97.253.174 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The logo in The article is trademarked and needs premission from ford to add please remove and email ford before re adding it

See File:Ford Motor Company Logo.svg#Licensing — Andy W. (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sales-apedia...?

Looking at some Mustang related articles here, there is some content that could only have been written by the Ford Marketing Department or some die-hard gear-head pony-car fans with a serious Mustang fetish and absolutely no clue as to what an impartial, properly written encylopedia is. What a farce. - ^theWOLFchild 01:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2017

I, Pododonnell100, would like to add content to Ford Motor Company. More specifically, the information about Ford in Europe. I would like to add information on where Ford of Europe was founded (Cork, Ireland) and about how Henry Ford & Sons manufactured the same cars as Ford of Britain at the start of the Europe section of the article.,.,.,.,.,.,.,../ just put after -until the late 1960s.-

in brackets " ~ [[|Ford of Ireland|Henry Ford & sons Ltd]]~ assembled the same cars as Ford of Britain using Knock-down kits at its Cork Marina assembly plant in Cork Ireland.". you can word it differently if you would like.

~Henry Ford & sons Ltd is not yet made but is in the process of being made.~

   Thank you,
  pododonnell100

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ford Motor Company. 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/20101214140027/http://corporate.ford.com/doc/2009_annual_report.pdf to http://corporate.ford.com/doc/2009_annual_report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070527004144/http://sport.independent.co.uk/motor_racing/article20376.ece to http://sport.independent.co.uk/motor_racing/article20376.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220181830/http://sport.independent.co.uk/motor_racing/article1998877.ece to http://sport.independent.co.uk/motor_racing/article1998877.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060204185203/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=22474 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=22474
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pricinginsider.carsdirect.com/2013/02/27/2013-ford-fusion-energi-fuel-economy-pricing-and-release-date/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://insideevs.com/february-2013-plug-in-electric-vehicle-sales-report-card/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33704

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) 16:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2018

please remove the word as from the very top as it does not make sense because it is the first word its bellow the "Ford" redirects here. For other uses, see Ford (disambiguation). thing 72.73.116.89 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 11:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Lineup section

I think that there should be a section of the article that lists the Ford lineup.Minecraftr (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2018

59.100.173.184 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection

I'm requesting unprotection for this page. Super Mario Guy (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Racing engines

@Jackdude101:, why would we call out the DFV based Cosworth engines as not part of Ford's Indy car racing engines but include them in the F1 total? The relationship between Ford, Cosworth and those motors was the same in each series. I would suggest we handle them the same way in both sections. If I recall my history (and I can check at least one reference later) Ford commissioned the motors so it's not quite right to totally strip Ford's involvement from them. Springee (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Springee:, I'll adjust the IndyCar figure accordingly. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Ford"

The use of "Ford" is under discussion, see Talk:Ford (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 August 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ford's listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ford's. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

The Ford logo at the top pf the page is an outdated logo that started being used in 2003 around Ford's 100th anniversary. The new Ford Motor Company logo is a flat, traditional design. Colinusmc85 (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The logo as used on Ford's corporate investor relations site has the same shaded appearance as the one shown on the current image. I'd think they'd use their current official logo there if anywhere, so please provide a reference that shows something different. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This may be off-topic, but I’m not sure where to report errors in the article on Ford. The introduction lists Ford as having been incorporated in June of 1903, but then the founding date is also listed as June 1903. This does not make any sense as companies are almost never founded and incorporated on the same date. They are usually founded much earlier or at least somewhat earlier. Claudesoph (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ford Fund

Just copy-edited some bits from from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=848677612 by User:Sdunham6. I had also found https://michronicleonline.com/2017/06/22/ford-motor-company-fund-drives-social-mobility-in-detroit-neighborhoods/ and https://michronicleonline.com/2017/06/27/ford-motor-company-fund-michigan-womens-foundation-host-empowerher-summit/, may squeeze those in somewhere as well. (or someone else can as I may forget) Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Photocopy of the original Ford Fund Press Release provided by Ford Fund

Hoping this photocopy can be used as citation within Ford Fund on that Henry Ford II started the philanthropic arm. Sdunham6 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Sdunham6

@Sdunham6: thanks, but such material requires a valid license to be hosted on Commons. Is this a press release? Did you photocopy it yourself? Can you photocopy the whole document? (a part at the bottom is missing and the staple suggests there may be more pages) You can go to c:File:Ford Fund original release-1.jpg and click "Upload a new version of this file" to upload the full page, other pages can be uploaded as new files using c:Special:UploadWizard. Alexis Jazz (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a deletion request for this on Commons, but I don't see a copyright notice on this so probably can be kept. Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ford, like all the big AutomobileCompanies is Metric

...why is there no mentioning of that? The Cars get constructed in the Metric System and nowadays even with Metric Wire Sizes.

Sorry my english isnt the best.

Lucamon97 (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The question as I see it is: why is it that important for a generic encyclopedia? We don't mention details on assembling methods in any car manufacturer article. If you have reliable sources (as books or journal articles) discussing extensively this and saying that is especially relevant for Ford, you can be bold and add it to the article. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

however...

Semi-protected edit request, 15 October 2019

In 4. Operations, Europe there are lot of errors in the description where which cars are built: Elsewhere in continental Europe, Ford assembles the Mondeo range in Genk (Belgium), Fiesta in Valencia (Spain) and Cologne (Germany), Ka in Valencia (Spain), Focus in Valencia (Spain), Saarlouis (Germany), and Vsevolozhsk (Russia). Transit production is in Kocaeli (Turkey), Southampton (UK), and Transit Connect in Kocaeli (Turkey).

Correct would be: Elsewhere in continental Europe, Ford assembles the Mondeo, S-Max, Galaxy and Kuga in Valencia (Spain), Fiesta in Cologne (Germany), Focus in Saarlouis (Germany), Ecosport and Puma in Craiova (Romania). Transit production is in Kocaeli (Turkey), Southampton (UK), and Transit Connect in Kocaeli (Turkey).

Sources:

Mondeo, S-Max and Galaxy's production moved production from Genk to Valencia: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/business/international/ford-pays-a-high-price-for-plant-closing-in-belgium.html

Kuga in Valencia: https://www.presseportal.de/pm/6955/3790188

Ecosport in Craiova: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/feu/ch/de/news/2017/10/12/ford-startet-produktion-des-neuen-ford-ecosport-in-rumaenien--.html

Puma in Craiova: https://www.automobil-produktion.de/hersteller/wirtschaft/ford-will-mit-puma-werk-craiova-voll-auslasten-223.html

The Ka is simply not sold anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.194.97 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the Transit mention because it's also in the next paragraph (not your fault but of previous edits). Thanks!. --Urbanoc (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

In the third paragraph the phrase "it was close to bankruptcy" should be removed. The phrase is vague and the cited reference does not support the claim. 71.190.32.22 (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The source suggests that though, right? :) Aasim 09:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Ford" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ford. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Ford until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

UK HQOverlordnat1 (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A minor quibble but it seems strange that the words ‘headquarters’ or ‘HQ’ don’t appear in this article or theDenton one to describe the Denton Technical Centre, as this clearly seems to be what the centre is, surely?Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)