Talk:Henry Ford/Archive 2

message: Whether Wallace is a "scholar" or not is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on whether the factual statements in the book are correct. It so happens that I've read the Wallace book, and in no way, shape or form can that book be described as a "conspiracy theory" or Wallace described as a "conspiracy theorist." The book describes no "conspiracy," and even if it did that would not detract from the fact that this is a reliable verifiable source by a notable investigative reporter, publisher by a major publisher (St. Martin's Press). The book is detailed, factual and amply sourced and footnoted. You have not pointed out as much as one incorrect factual statement in that book but instead have slung mud. If the quoted sections (re the court testimony, for instance) are factually inaccurate and contradicted by other sources,  say so. Don't just smear Wallace and throw around invective. That's irresponsible. 
I repeat: do not remove the quoted sections from Wallace unless those sections are inaccurate and/are contradicted by another source. Don't just hack it out with a meat cleaver and put "crap" or some other nonsense in the edit summary. Doing that would be vandalism.--Mantanmoreland 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah and there's the point.  I don't dispute the facts (one way or the other).  The important thing is to include facts from scholarly sources.  It helps maintain the credibility of the article.  If you don't think credibility is an important issue here at Wikipedia, you're in for a surprise.  There's a whole lot of us here who really don't want folks to say "you can't trust Wikipedia, their sources are a joke."  Rklawton 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether or not you consider Wallace to be a conspiracy theorist isn't relevant (it's actually your POV, original research, and it doesn't belong here).  What matters is what reliable sources have to say about the quality of his work.  Rklawton 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "original research" to have actually read a book cited in an article. That's known as "knowing what you talk about."--Mantanmoreland 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original research to read a book and conclude for yourself from that book whether or not the author is a conspiracy theorist.  It's not original research, on the other hand, to read and report what his reviewers have had to say.  Rklawton 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you're entitled to hold any opinions you wish on original research or whatever, and they can be as ridiculously at variance with Wikipeida policy as you wish, just don't trot them out to justify unwarranted deletions from the article. --Mantanmoreland 02:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, you haven't been able to show how any of my edits are at variance with policy whereas Rjensen was able to cite chapter and verse where your edits worked directly against the goals of this project.  Rklawton 02:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've repeatedly pointed out to you how your edits border on vandalism and are utterly unjustified, how your edit summaries and characterizations of the book are inflammatory and inaccurate, and how you don't appear to have any knowledge of the book in question whose cites you have ham-handedly sought to suppress. My patience in trying to explain these basic policies is at an end. I am not going to continue this pointless discussion which I frankly don't think you take very seriously.--Mantanmoreland 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not delete the Max Wallace materials 

message: The German language version of the Nazi medal's article does not list Rooney as a recipient.  It's my understanding he received a "similar" medal.  To me, similar does not mean "same."  On the other hand, the German article list of foreign recipients may not be complete.  It makes no claim one way or the other.  It might be interesting to clear this up - or at least check that the Post article says Rooney specifically received this medal.  If verified, I'll go update the German language article.  Rklawton 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coolio, thanks.  Rklawton 02:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rooney

message: :glorifying or making heroes out of Nazis is a very poor policy and Wiki should not do that. I suggest that to link one of the most famous American heroes to Nazis helps to glorify the Nazi image.   Rjensen 23:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's POV pushing, and you should know better.  History is what it is.  Rewriting history is a bad idea.  Now, if you want a fake hero, that's a different story - one worthy of elementary school textbooks.  The lesson to people today:  "those who write history will not whitewash your life.  You will be held accountable for the bad as well as the good."  More people need to think about this as they make their choices in life.  Ford helped America, and he also hurt a lot of people.  The graphic image of the swasticas on his medal illustrate this point.  I wish more policy makers would think about how their actions will be viewed in the future than about the votes they'll garner today.  At any rate, the image needs to stay.  The compromise size is fine.  Rklawton 00:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No honestly, Ford is one of the most recognized and heroic figures of the 20th century. Saying (falsely) that he inspired Hitler's hatred of Jews takes the blame off Hitler. The article as it stands removes the guilt from Hitler and puts it on Ford. that is false and it is nasty. (The major biographies of Hitler do not say he got his antisemitism from Ford--how ridiculous--he grew up in two major centers of antisemitism (Vienna and Munich). It was  Ford's autos that influenced him, as in Volkswagen, and that is why he gave Ford a medal. Might as well get history right--which is unlikely if editors rely on weak sources. For example the most important and detailed biography of Hitler (Ian Kershaw, vol 1 Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris (2000)) does not have "Ford" in the index. Rjensen 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said, the roots of Hitler's bigotry are well established and don't include Ford.  But that has nothing to do with the image at hand.  Hitler admired Ford; Ford admired Hitler and refused to return his medal.  Ford made a serious mistake sticking up for the Nazis, and this must not be whitewashed.  Delete all the alleged Ford-related roots of Hitler's bigotry you want, but keep the image as a true reminder and a warning to all.  Ford spent years fighting his image as a bigot, yet he supported the Nazis.  Please tell me that in the articles about America's western expansion you at least allow mention that the U.S. Government might have been a wee bit wrong in some of its actions.  Rklawton 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  washing away Hitler's guilt  

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Henry Ford]] 

message: "The Ford family has its origins in western England - the family was evicted from their land in Somerset and 'planted' in Ireland." 
This is probably true, but is it really that neccesary to put it up there(maybe a footnote)? The "eviction" probably took place around the 16th century  300-400 years before he was born. Superdude99 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford origins

message: Tried to add Fordism to the "see also" stuff, but couldn't because this is a protected page. Anyone care to do this for me? I'd appreciate it.
Doing it now, thanks.  --BenBurch 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Addition

message: Some editors unwittingly are taking the neo-Nazi line that Hitler and Ford were kindred souls. Experts on Hitler reject that nonsense, which is why we have silly mistaken statements by people like Curcio who took his stuff from an old popular bio of Ford. Curcio is a very poor source. We need to use the best scholarship like Kershaw, whose 1700 pages on Hitler finds zero reference to Ford's influence. I  do not think out editors are intentionally taking the neo-Nazi line but they need to realize what's happening. (note some have added Nazi insignia to the article too). Rjensen 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a personal attack. You're also in violation of 3RR. I'm going to ask you to self-revert your violating edits, and provide better scholarship than 'I like my guy over all the others in the article' when removing major sections. Further, your edits serve to whitewash Ford's antisemetic behaviors, which is diametrically opposed to the light you paint yourself in when proposing that those reverting your whitewash are neo-nazis. ThuranX 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not personally attacking editors who seem to be acting in good faith, based on very poor and unreliable sources. The elaborate attention to Hitler and to Nazi insignia is false history--NOT supported by any of the hundreds of studies of Hitler or Nazi Germany.  (I did elaborate searches on the Hitler literature to show this.) Glorifying Hitler and the Nazis violates Wiki rules and cannot stand. The result is to glorify or exculpate Hitler by making Nazi antisemitism seem to be caused by a leading American. Someone even pasted in some Nazi regalia in the article. The article covers Ford's antisemitism in depth using many reliable source (which I in fact added). Rjensen 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you call all those who reverted your edits 'Neo-Nazis'. That's a personal attack. Phrasing it with 'I'm not saying you're a neo-nazi if you revert me, but if the shoe fits..." doesn't negate your personal attack. Further, you've been rebuked multiple times for exactly this set of edits in the past, as evidenced above. I again recommend that you revert yourself, go cool off, and come back when you can stop elevating your hero, and his interpretation of fact above all the other citations of fact.  It's been covered before that Ford DID know what his paper was publishing, that his attitudes were clear, and that Hitler DID in fact draw on Ford's writings. This whole situation comes off as nothing more than you retrying something you were caught doing before, in the hope that as some time has passed, no one will notice. Stop removing valuable content which relates the effects of Ford on Hitler with this minority view that one of the richest industrialist anti-semites in the country was totally ignored by the biggest, most pwoerful anti-semite in Europe. ThuranX 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think people who link Hitler and Ford are doing a disservice to history. Specialists on Hitler's antisemitism have looked at hundreds of sources and none claim that Hitler was seriously influenced by Ford's antisemitic ideas or writings. (Hitler grew up surrounded by antisemitism in Austria and Bavaria--the mayor was a leading anti-Semite.) Ford, as the article explains, approved of the antisemitic content but did NOT actually originate any of the ideas or do any of the writing). Kershaw finds no influence re antisemitism. (Hitler was infatuated with automobiles, and that's why he had Ford's portrait in the 1920s.) Bad history gives serious distortions and we do not want the article to glorify Hitler or say he was a product of Detroit. That's false and plays into the neo-Nazi hands. I repeat again I think the editors who fell for this line of thought were NOT neo-Nazis, but  rather they just did very poor research and fell for pop history that is bad quality--none have cited any major books on Hitler, for example. How can Wiki make statements about Hitler with ZERO reliable sources?? Rjensen 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, numerous editors confronted you on just these claims before. You're rehashing old news. Stop, revert, and move on. This is ridiculous. Nowhere does the article claim Ford made Hitler an antisemite. NOWHERE. You're just looking for excuses to absolve Ford of his anti-semitism, and it's effects beyond America's borders. As cited above, Hitler lifted parts of Ford's writings for Mein Kampf. That's clear signs of influence. I've alerted other editors from the previous series of debates on this, in the hopes that like last time, if enough editors actually repeat all the things they said last time, you will understand that Wikipedia will not permit biased minority view scholarship to become prevalent here. Further, your continued ad hominem attacks 'neo-nazi', 'disservice to history', need to stop, or I'll be inclined to dismiss all of what you say. You've yet to demonstrate anything discrediting the information which rebuttted you the last time you tried this. Then, as now, youv'e got nothing to refute Crucio but 'I like my guy better'. That's NOT grounds for good edits. ThuranX 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: people seem to be shouting when they should be footnoting. yes Ford was antisemitic. No, he did NOT support Hitler: Who claims that??? Hitler and many others admired Ford for his autos. BenBurch claims his grandparents talked to Hitler about this??? just what did Hitler tell them? He should read any of many serious biographies of Hitler or studies of Nazi Germany. They discuss the roots of Hitler's antisemitism in depth and they do NOT say Ford was involved. We have one fringe popular writer from decades ago versus hundreds of recent scholars. Rjensen 07:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PROVE IT --BenBurch 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kershaw proves it. please read that book. (or look at Amazon.com and search the 2 volumes for FORD, as I did. Zero results. then look at words like JEWS = 153 pages in volume 1 alone. Kershaw examines Hitler's antisemitism in depth, as have others, and finds hundreds of influences, but not Henry Ford. (Hitler did not read English anyway). Rjensen 16:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh. That's a great argument. HItler didn't read english anyway. One, prove it. Two, prove there were no translations of Ford's writings into German that Hitler could've had access to. ThuranX 17:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * You need to PROVE that this is not a reliable source.  Do that and it goes.  You have to prove your case as you are making the assertion.  Was this source self-published, for example?  Is there scholarly criticism of this source?  That is your burden if you want to rehabilitate Ford and Hitler, but I wonder why you would want to whitewash Ford and Hitler???  Both were SCUM. --BenBurch 17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, please avoid attacking either the editor or the subject directly, and focus on the edits at hand. RJensen, Ben's point is still valid. You've done nothing to discredit the scholarship of the cites extant before your recent bout of edits. In fact, you've done NOTHING new since the last time you tried this, and the fact that you're providing no new evidence to support your edits does look a bit like agenda pushing. Before I go so far as to state that's what you're doing, I'm asking you, one last time, to please bring evidence discrediting the research of all the cites you're removing, and evidence that Kershaw is truly 'the only definitive biography'. That's definitely source-bias, and it's not a good idea. It, like much of what you've done, is really coming off as 'I like this guy better, so he's right'. Please don't sink to saying 'no, He's right so I like him better.' It's flat and not clever, and it does nothing to support your case. Focus on specific issues of scholarship and research. thank you. ThuranX 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which cites does Thuranx have in mind? Rjensen 17:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh don't play coy, i've already explained. This is ridiculous. You act like you're the only knowledgable person here till I call you on it, now you play ignorant. I'm tired of this, you've done it before, and were stopped. You've brought nothing new to this, beyond the hopes that after a few months, no one will notice. Your continued refusal to actually debunk the existing authors and cites suggests that you can't. ThuranX 18:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's ridiculous to write about Hitler without any sources except your grandfather's memory. The Hitler experts reject this mythology, and so should wiki. Rjensen 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then PROVE That?  With cites to an RS-V source.  That is all anybody here is asking you to do. Why is that so difficult for you to comply with? BenBurch 18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BenBurch needs to realize that editors have to prove statements that are made. He has never cited any serious book on Hitler but instead relies on stories he heard from his grandparents. Wiki rule is to ERASE statements not based on reliable sources. Unless we learn more about his grandparents we have to consider their memories as unreliable as far as encyclopedias go. Rjensen 18:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop it.  You know what you have been asked to do is totally proper.  If you cannot provide cites to support you position then your position is untenable.  I am not relying on the memories of my uncles and aunts, I am relying on the citation that you say is invalid.  Well, if it is invalid you should be able to provide a scholarly or at least RS source that SAYS so!  Do that. BenBurch 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's try to be civil. I cited Kersdhaw to show that scholars do not consider Ford to have been a major influence on Hitler. BenBurch cited only his family memories to the contrary. Rjensen 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was civil.  Cite your source that attacks the RS of the current source.  PERIOD.  If you cannot do that, the matter is closed. Move on.  BenBurch 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: {edit conflict} This is pointless. RJensen can't support his side and edits. He wo't be able to refute the scholarship of Curcio and the other author he's removed. He won't, he can't, and he doesn't even try, beyond 'Curcio isn't good enough, but my guy is because I say he is.' He continues to rely upon the volume of writing (two volumes) as evidence that Kershaw is the best, but verbosity isn't a measure of accuracy or reliability. I'm done with this, and, BenBurch, I suggest that this might be a case for AN/I. RJensen's retort to all of this is that those opposing him are saying Ford made Hitler, which no one has done, and which the article did NOT state. Instead, the article actually stated that Ford's writing was ONE influence upon hitler, an influence so strong that Hitler lifted, paraphrased, and quoted Ford in Mein Kampf. This was coverdd at length last time you tried this. YOu refuse to answer any of these points. You keep changing topics and tactics. This is not a debate. This is an encyclopedia. You cannot refute the citations already present, so you cannot change them.It's that simple. Stop your edits here, RJensen. ThuranX 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My poasition is that Ford did not have a major influence on Hitler and the Nazis (apart that is from automobiles). I support it with Kershaw's 2 volume biography of Hitler. Hitler mentioned Ford in one sentence (re Ford's famous battle against Wall Street). Fact is Ford was barely literate and never wrote a sentence and so Hitler never read a word of Ford's. To say otherwise requires a little proof, of the sort that grandfather's memories will not suffice. Rjensen 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what BenBurch said. He didn't CITE his relatives. He said you're ignoring way too much. I want a cite that Ford was illiterate, ofr one. For two, I want proof that all the authors already cited aren't worth using. Three, I want proof that Ford never dictated, or hired and worked with ghostwriters. Four, I want proof that nothing Ford wrote was translated into German. You've been asked for all this too many times. I"m done 'debating' this. You will either provide proof or leave. Beyond this, I'll just revert anything you do here until you can provide actual answers. ThuranX 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thuranx has no cites for his notions about Hitler. Where do they come from?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies for not signing.  We cannot allow this article to be a vehicle for glorifying or exculpating Hitler and Naziism -- and we can't allow bad research with mystery sources to control a major artile like this. all statements in Wiki must have reliable sources. Let me explain that it not necessary to footnote a blank line.  Rjensen 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: {Edit conflict}This is your second personal attack against me. Revert it or strike it through, or else I wil go  to AN/I and all other necessarry steps to have you blocked for PA. You continue to be aggressive and hostile to all editors, while NOT providing the answers requested. ThuranX 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: STOP! BenBurch admits his family memories are NOT WP:RS in his comment. Attacking him with sarcasm like this is a cheap shot. he knows it, and if you read it through, he's making a point by citing the common-man beliefs as regard Ford's behavior, from commono-men contemporaneous to Ford's actions. Knock off the cheap shots and focus on the fact that RJensen was already once rebuked for this behvaior, and now has come back after a few months to try again with nothing new to help his side.ThuranX 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-Nazi history 

message: Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power 1919-1933 by James Pool and Suzanne Pool (The Dial Press, 1978) pp 111, 129: -
From http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_06.htm :
Also see: 
* http://members.tripod.com/~Chaplain1/ford.html
*Okay - Now what do you have to say about the connection between Ford and Hitler, User:Rjensen? BenBurch 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Ford-Hitler sources

message: "at Gorky, a city later renamed to Nizhny Novgorod"
should be changed to
"at Gorky, as Nizhny Novgorod was then known as"
68.4.37.196 05:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request edit 

message: I deleted a sentence from the sidelights section about Ransom Eli Olds being the inventor of the assembly line for cars.. Not true. No moving assebly line at Oldsmobile before Ford had the first one in 1913.  Olds though, was first in mass production of one single car model, when he started production of the Oldsmobile Curved Dash  in 1901. Where the low limit of mass production lies can be debated, of course - but Curved Dash was the best seller in the world of cars for some years, until Oldsmobile changed to expensive cars & Ford got his buissness rolling. 
Ford started experimenting with moving assembly line with one part of the engine, the flywheel magneto wich included many parts bolted together. He may have been inspired by practices in the weapons industry, of which I have no expertice. Hepcat65 11:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assembly line 

message: I added a quote on Henry Ford's belief in reincarnation to the sidelights section. The quote can be found on the net, like here http://groups.msn.com/Jewishorg/reincarnation.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=2780&LastModified=4675348494079049553 and probably also in the archives at the San Francisco Examiner.
His belief that he was a soldier killed in the battle of Gettysburg is found in several sources, for example in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Distant-Thunder-Michigan-Civil-War/dp/1932399038 (A Distant Thunder; Michigan in the Civil War, by Richard Bak)Hepcat65 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry's beliefs 

message: Just wanted you to know I use Wikipedia often.  It has definately been a lot of help for school.  Although most of my teachers will not let me list it as a cite, it gives me lots of information to sort through and pull out so that I can find other supporting documentation without going thru a bunch of mess.  However, when I did look up Henry Ford today, I was hoping to find some information on him regarding his development of the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan.  I didn't see any.  This information could be helpful and interesting to those that only know of his automation inventions.  Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.73.170.7 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Ford Hospital 

message: I added a paragraph at the end of the Dearborn Independent section withs facts proving that Henry Ford was in good terms with many of the Jews he knew personally. I took these informations from the excellent book by Robert Lacey "Ford: The Man And The Machine". But before somebody point that out, in the book it says that when he was eighty years old he was shown a movie of the Nazi concentration camps and couldn't cope with what he saw and had a heart attack. If he was 80 years old that would make that event happen in 1943, two years before the end of the war... In the book it really says he was 80 years old but I have the french version of the book, maybe it's a translation error, what I suspect is that this event happened but must have taken place after the war when he had been 83 or 84 years old... Maybe someone with the english version could check, maybe the author meant that he was in his eighties not 80 years old exactly... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.55.113.84 (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Ford and the Nzi concentration camps movie 

message: The reference for the quote is a copy of his book hosted at Gutenberg which for some reason uses "colour" throughout. Does anybody in the US have a hard copy that they can check to see what the spelling is? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For whatever reason the 1922 copy from Doubleday, and the reprint currently sold at Amazon, are using British spelling for "color". The Wiki entry on Frank Nelson Doubleday being an Anglophile could explain why the book used British English spelling. It is not how American publishers would spell that word even in that day, nor Mr. Ford, and even his company prints it properly as "color" on it's website -- http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=3233 (which that paragraph in question doesn't cite as a source, though the content clearly comes from it). FResearcher 04:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A commercial for his product fails WP:RS, and may well have been copy-edited for American consumers; and your determination of which way means spelling it 'properly' is WP:OR. By your own admission, both the citation and the reprint edition give "Colour". Thus, we've got consensus to leave it as the citation reads, which is colour. ThuranX 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the link again. That is not a commercial, that's a press release which can be used as a resource Wikipedia:Citation_templates (go down to the cite template for press releases). This is an American automobile inventor, and that is his company. And goto here for a reference in the differences between British and American spelling,American and British English spelling differences. This is why the inquiry, and correction, as it's unusual to have an American quoted in British English claiming it's a source, as Mr. Ford wouldn't have written it that way, nor his own company. FResearcher 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation given, as well as an alternate YOU mentioned, use COLOUR. As that's the quote of the citation, it stands. It is OR to make determinations about how Ford would spell. Further, it's reasonable to see the press release as being edited for an American audience.  ThuranX 16:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, this is a discussion page, not a soccer match. Behave appropriately and not shout. Secondly, there's a problem when a book that mixes both American English and British English spelled words -- the proof reader was apparently asleep. Went back and searched and found that "labor" was spelled "labour", but common British English spellings "lorry" for truck, and "tyre" for tire were not used, so this wasn't a British publication. The issue is the quote you provided is a typo, and typos aren't appropriate in encyclopedias, otherwise it'll look like a 6 year-old wrote it. A "[sic]" after colour will suffice, since clearly the 'book' was inproperly proof read for spelling errors for it's intended audience. This does happen, and when it does "[sic]" is employed. FResearcher 08:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any customer can have a car painted any...

message: Please change the intro to this page it is very specific. it should tell a general brief history not his whole life
Johnsome
:The intro is fine. It gives the high notes, including some specific examples to support those notes, but avoids excess detail. if you have some suggestions, please post them here. ThuranX 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page introduction 

message: :Image:Timehenryford.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Timehenryford.jpg