Talk:Ford N-series tractor

NAA section removed

The entire NAA section was ripped from here, as such, it's been removed. --Sable232 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

After some rather heated edit-warring, User:174.130.54.221 has finally stated that they are the copyright holders - see User talk:174.130.54.221 -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case, but they have to explicitly release the content under the WP:GFDL, see WP:COPY for further info. – B.hotep •talk• 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just commenting here for info - didn't realise they were still reverting. I've added a comment to the editor's Talk page, pointing them over here again -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping they were going to come over here and see my message (it wasn't really directed at you, I'm sure you're quite capable :) ). – B.hotep •talk• 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all of my copyrighted material and do not want it to be part of Wikipedia anymore. I do not wish to contribute to Wikipedia since it is obviously not appreciated after I added a lot of information and then I'm told that I'm vandalizing Wikipedia. Please look back at my history. I do not vandalize Wikipedia, never have, never will. All I did was contribute good information. Please do not add this content back on. It is copyrighted by me and you do not have my permission to use it. No wonder Wikipedia is so screwed up with all the misinformed people editing it. When someone tries to edit and put good information that is factual nobody wants it. Then fine. I will contribute no more. Thanks for ruining a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.54.221 (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry you've chosen to do that. People do appreciate your efforts and contributions, but Wikipedia has to have very careful procedures for including copyrighted material on the site - even if it is your own material, it still needs to be explicitly released for re-use according to the GNU Free Documentation License. This is no attempt to offend or insult you, or to dismiss your efforts. But the rules have to be very carefully formulated to protect against people who are less scrupulous than your good self. We can't just accept someone saying "It's my material, so I can copy it here", because it's impossible for anyone at Wikipedia to confirm that you are who you say you are - anyone could register here at Wikipedia, say they are the author of your web site, and steal and republish all your material. And that's one reason why we need verifiable evidence from the source of the material that we can use it, not from the Wikipedia account of the editor claiming it's theirs and doing the copying (even if in real life they really are the same person). I do hope you will understand, and will reconsider and follow Wikipedia's approach to using copyright material. (Copied to your talk page too) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this troll is the copyright holder... the website says its proprietor is in Illinois, yet this IP resolves to Pennsylvania.

I also don't believe the serial number thing the IP deleted is copyrightable (whether on not it should be here anyway is debatable though). --Sable232 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

NAA section

This section has been moved to a separate article as this was a new tractor with very few parts carried over from the N-series and is actually more closely related the 600 series and other later numbered tractors. The infobox was added to make the article more similar to other tractor-related articles. Nyth83 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I too saw the recent removal (undoing of Nyth83's edits) without any explanatory edit summaries. I did not know, without spending time to closely investigate, whether this was well-founded or ill-founded, so I had to assume good faith and let it pass. But I support undoing it if Nyth83 knows the details of whether it is desirable (which I did not know) and if the editor does not explain better. Please explain here at Talk or in edit summaries when you are wiping out whole chunks of content. — ¾-10 23:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed Nyth83's edits because he obviously doesn't know that the NAA is still an N Series tractor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.111.231 (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The NAA in most definitely NOT an N-series tracter. It was a new design and shares very few parts with the N-series. It share more parts with the 600 series tractorts which were derived from it. Nyth83 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Quote: In late '52 Ford introduced the new NAA series tractor for '53 which marked the end of 8N production. 1953 was Ford's 50th anniversary so the new tractor was called the Golden Jubilee in celebration of that event. The NAA - Jubilee had a more powerful overhead valve engine, live hydraulics, and redesigned front sheet metal with the "cyclops" medallion in the center of the hood. It was slightly taller, longer, and heavier than the 8N.. Also see this video: The New Ford Tractor 1953. The tractor also had an all-new overhead valve engine vs the sidevalve engine in the N-series. Nyth83 (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Also this quote from oldfordtractors: The 600 series was basically the 134 cubic inch NAA with a few updates. You certainly can't claim that the 600 series tractor was part of the N-series. Nyth83 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Check out this page Parts Catalog. The NAA is in the same catalog as the the 600, 700, and 800 series and the 9N, 2N and 8N are in a different catalog. Nyth83 (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nyth83 you are incorrect. The NAA is still considered to be an N Series tractor even though it is quite different than the other N Series tractors. Note the N in the Model that is why it is an N Series tractor. A lot of people do not know that Ford considered the NAA an N Series tractor. You can deny it all you want, but the NAA is still an N Series tractor! Visit N Tractor Club and you will see that they show the NAA as an N Series Tractor. Look right on the home page. Read the models they have listed as N Series Tractors.

N Tractor Club 98.21.111.231 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Nyth83, Did you bother to read the video description of that YouTube video you linked to me? This one: The New Ford Tractor 1953. Read the whole description. The guy calls the NAA an N Series tractor several times in the description! You can deny it all you want, but the NAA is still an N Series tractor! 98.21.111.231 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fan clubs and blogs are not reliable sources. The youtube guys commentary actually contradicts the content of the video itself. Nowhere did ford ever claim that the NAA was an improved version or continuation of the N-series. The video states that it is an all new tractor. Furthermore, Ford use the 'N' designation in models through the 1960s. The 600 series was designated the NCA, The 700 series was the NCB, the 800, NDA and the 900, NDB. By your logic, all of these tractors should be included in this article also. If you provide reliable third party sources that Ford considered the NAA to be a model N-series tractor (9N, 2N, 8N), then we can consider editing the article to reflect that. Until such time, please refrain from adding information that reflects Personal Research or POV opinions. Nyth83 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the fan pages. I removed most of the external links per WP:FANSITE #11 Nyth83 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I added two references. Quote from the first one by Thomas A Farrell, president, Dearborn Motors Corporation:

We are tremendously pleased that Ford decided to bring out this entirely new tractor on the occasion of its 50th Anniversary celebration.

and from the second reference:

The new tractor, marking the 50th anniversary of the Ford Motor Company, not only is more powerful, but larger and heavier that the popular Model 8N whick it replaces, the company announced.

So, no question that Ford did not consider it just another newer version of the N-series. Besides, for legal reasons, they probably wanted a completely clean break from Ferguson and his TO20 copycat tractor. Nyth63 02:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

1929 or 1939?

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/002/7/7/2774-fordson-fordson-n.html claims a production run since 1929, with yearly production figures. Lastdingo (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC) "Standard Catalog of Farm Tractors 1890-1980" (on google books) states that tests with "Fordson N" tractor were done in 1930 already. I suppose the production began in 1929.Lastdingo (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Fordson Model N was a different tractor from the Ford N-Series of 9N, 2N, 8N. That's why the hatnote at top of this article: This article is about the N-series tractors of 1939–1952. For the earlier Fordson model N tractor, see Fordson tractor. For the car of 1906-1908, see Ford Model N. The Fordson Model N was built from 1927 through at least 1942 (not sure how long after that), and it was always a Ford of Britain model, although it was also widely exported. The Ford N-Series of 1939-1952 was principally American, although it was also widely exported. — ¾-10 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Information about agreement with Harry Ferguson not very clear

The nature of the agreement between Ford and Harry Ferguson could be made clearer

Ferguson's successful tractor demonstration led to a handshake agreement with Ford in 1938, whereby Ford would manufacture tractors using the Ferguson three-point hitch system.[1]

Ford Motor Company invested $12 million in tooling to finance Ferguson's new distribution company.[2] The investment resulted in the production of the 9N tractor which was introduced on June 29, 1939

and

Henry Ford passed leadership of his company to grandson Henry Ford II in 1945. By 1946, the younger Ford discovered that, despite its success, the Model N lost Ford Motor Company over $25 million in six years.[1] He reacted by forming Dearborn Motors in November 1946, which took over tractor distribution from Ferguson.

I'm assuming this means that part of the deal was that Ferguson's company would also distribute the tractors, but if that was the case, I think the text ought to state it more explicitly.

Another slight issue here is that the two last sentences in the first quoted section don't quite make sense. I mean, how exactly does investment in a *distribution* company lead to production? Also, it would probably be better to say "Ford Motor Company invested $12 million in tooling for Ferguson's new distribution company", as the current text might seem to suggest that the tooling did the financing, which I assume was not the case.

81.191.184.223 (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

These are good points about the need to write the info more clearly. I lack time to work on it right now but may return sometime. In brief sketch, some of the answers follow. The 1938 Henry Ford–Harry Ferguson agreement is famous within the tractor history and collecting avocation as "the handshake agreement". (Granted that "famous within an avocation" is kind of like "big in Japan" or "world famous in New Zealand". :-]) As the name implies, it was an oral agreement concluded by handshake rather than a signed, written contract. By 1945 it famously degraded (famously within the avocation), and Ford Motor Company and the Ferguson company then spent the next 5 or 10 years building and selling competing lines of tractors and implements and arguing about alleged patent infringement. For Henry Ford in 1938, the oral nature of the agreement was to be an example to others of his view that entrepreneurs could and should do great deals based on the talent and integrity of the people involved and forgo all the lawyering up. It was not just Henry's idea but an important theme in American culture. But Henry wanted to exemplify it. Related were other American passions like we don't need no complex accounting, no complex debt or financing, no legal mumbo-jumbo, no ass-covering, no bureaucracy, and so on. They are all admirable ideals, but the reason why the handshake nature of the deal became notorious is all the reasons about human nature that make "get it in writing or you haven't got anything" an unavoidable fact of life. The original deal was that Ford would build the tractors and wholesale them to Ferguson, and Ferguson and the Sherman brothers would run a distribution company. The article text needs some work because the millions of investment by Ford into production tooling was not direct investment into Ferguson's company, it was internal reinvestment into Ford that was supposed to bring an ROI to Ford (which it did not do while Ferguson was the distributor; at some points Ford was losing money on each tractor). But when Ford under Henry Ford II split up with Ferguson around 1947, Ferguson sued because he claimed the agreed terms had been violated. Anyway, as I said, maybe more article development when time. — ¾-10 17:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)