Talk:William Clay Ford Jr.

Too positive?

this article is way too positive. it needs a npov. hardly one bad thing was mentioned, such as the recent layoffs.

First of all, we are all deeply saddened by the massive layoffs underway at Ford Motor Company and General Motors, and the cascading job losses anticipated at businesses that support them directly and indirectly - everything from major auto parts suppliers, to local restaurants and caterers which provide meals to the autoworkers. The Ford Motor Company article does discuss the layoffs in a fair and objective manner. There are many factors that led to the layoffs, and to drop them at the feet of the Chairman of the Board would hardly be NPOV.

"Neutral point of view" does not mean "find some dirt and smear it around to take the glare off some of the positive shine". NPOV does not mean add some negativity to "balance" it if someone thinks it is otherwise "too positive". An article can be fully "positive", and still be neutral, as long as it is "just the facts". NPOV avoids both "He is such a fantastic guy that I think he should be King of the World" and "He is a heartless beast who fired 30,000 good hard working employees while he lives in his luxiurious mansion in Ann Arbor" - NPOV does not mean "have both to keep it balanced". Now - it is possible that someone may truly believe one or the other of those views, but neither of them belong in an encyclopedia. That said, you are more than welcome to add relevant facts you feel should be added about Mr. Ford, as long as they are neutral and independantly verifiable (either as common knowlege, or provide authoritative reference links). Just try to stay on topic - Bill Ford the Man - and not necessarily dwelling on the unfortunate events at the Ford Motor Company. If you do, then other wiki-editors may revise, revert, or delete your edits. Also if you strongly feel that some remarks posted by other editors might not be very neutral (perhaps such as the comparison between Jacques Nasser (money and power) and Bill Ford (people and tradition) - then feel free to edit accordingly. Just avoid blanking out entire sections of text without very good reason - such edits may be considered vandalism, and will probably get reverted, and can possibly get you blocked from future editing.

Wikipedia does not need more slash-and-dash negativity - just a basic neutral balanced knowledge base that will stand the test of time. There are plenty of blog sites available for the other stuff. -- T-dot 11:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lord. Mr. Ford may well be an extraordinary individual, but the article reads like an hagiography (or more to the point, a press release). There are far more subtle ways to convey the positive estimation of an individual, without sounding so asslickingly sycophantic. The article, as it stands, is an embarrassment and -- IMHO -- needs a complete rewrite. And T-dot, with respect, the latter portion of your post sounds like an attempt to intimidate.

This bio is totally ridiculous, "then bust me down to private" give me a break. I will give him credit in trying to protect the family business and legacy, but reading this bio makes him sound like some hero. The bottom line is Ford is in serious trouble and if I were a vegas odds maker I would say it is 10 to 1 that Ford will file for bankruptcy in the next 24 months. So let's not sugar coat these bios please. I lot of pain is happening at Ford, massive layoffs, huge junk debt loads, and product that is simply not selling well in North America. I believe Ford would be more effective bringing in a third party manager and stay on as Chairman. Either way this bio will be rewritten once the outcome of Ford is definitive, and I doubt it will be as rosy.

No need to feel intimidated. The point being made was that the Wikipedia is routinely attacked by "vandals" - who usually do not register or log in with recognizeable traceable screen names, but instead operate from behind anonymous IP addresses - and then engage in vandalism wars. Common attack modes used are deleting large segments of text, or perhaps replacing it with "you all suck!!" or vulgar/obscene remarks. And thus for example - on occasion Mr. Ford's page has been vandalized, perhaps by disgruntled former employees, or fans of Chevy, or the occasional "environmentalist whacko" - who's agenda seems to be to publicly but anonymously berate Mr. Ford personally for continuing to sell SUVs. As a result, registered Wiki-editors and -administrators tend to closely monitor new contributions, especially those posted by editors with anonymous IP addresses, on topics of particular interest to them - and quickly editing or reverting that which they might consider to be hostile, un-encyclopedic, non-NPOV, etc. This is common practice in the Wiki-world, and I was only pointing out the process. Please feel free to edit Mr. Ford's page if you feel it is "asslickingly sycophantic" and not in compliance with Wiki policy. But as the Wikipedia says clearly and in bold print on any "edit this page" tab: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Apologies in advance if that, again, "sounds like an attempt to intimidate". --T-dot 11:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just deleted the 'Rouge Plant' anecdote, as there is no source. Same thing for the comment about donating some compensation to charity. A few other places I placed tags requesting sources. I agree with the anon poster that this is borderline hagiography. Some sources would greatly mollify my concerns.--George 01:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I undeleted and added a citation for the 'Rouge Plant' anecdote. The URL points to an excerpt from the book, Bill Jr. Is “Ford Tough”Jvandyke 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is way too positive. If you want to read the other side, go to Jacques Nasser's biography. And read the difference. It's as if nobody wants to criticize the Ford family.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.232.245 (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Outdated?

A banner at the top of the article says that it is outdated and that there is more information about this available about this claim on the talk page. I can't see anything related to it being outdated on talk. Is the banner still valid, or should it be removed? If it is outdated then do people have a view about what changes are needed? Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Clay Ford Jr.. 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/20150310133421/http://www.hotchkiss.org/alumni/Accomplishments.aspx to http://www.hotchkiss.org/alumni/Accomplishments.aspx

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) 19:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Clay Ford Jr.. 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/20060503164430/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=22465 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=22465

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) 08:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)