Talk:Henry Ford/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Date of birth

The record for his birth in www.familysearch.org indicates a birth date of 30 June 1863, vice the 30 July stated in our article. Is there any reason to believe one date over the other? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How can we be totally sure that Henry Ford was born on 30th July 1863? Where is the proof that he was born on this date? In an article i read dated 3rd April 2008 (Cannot locate article online) It stated the 28th July 1863.

Legal or illegal immigrants

His grandfather and father emigrated from Ireland to Quebec in 1847. At some point they crossed the border to Michigan. Were they legal immigrants? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Until 1875, the US had an open-door policy toward immigration, so there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant at the time. Some detail. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really an answer. There have been legal means for immigrants to become US citizens since the Naturalization Act of 1790. During the mid-Nineteenth century there was serious bias against poor, fever-stricken, and Irish immigrants. To quote Cecil Woodham-Smith: "Dislike of foreign immigration, combined with anti-Catholic and anti-Irish feelings, resulted in riots, especially in Philadelphia and Boston, and in 1844 rioting against Catholics and Irish raged in Philadelphia for three days: many houses and a Catholic church and seminary were burned, 13 persons were killed and 50 wounded; earlier in Boston, an Ursuline convent and a number of houses had been burned." Not much of an open door. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, until 1875, all immigration into the US was legal. Dislike of foreign immigration is not equivalent to making it illegal. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Federal policy at that time was laissez-faire. State policy was quite different - both Massachusetts and New York, refused harbor to ships carrying sick passengers.

Back to the original question: did Ford's father and grandfather just walk across the border? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration

The Washington Post had an article about Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration.

While Ford's antisemitism is critically mentioned, the english language page misses notes about Ford collaborating with Nazi Germany completely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm The 'Germany' part of the international section only talks about the Germans admiring Fordism, not Ford's profit from producing arms for Hitler. Maybe some native speaker can read the WP article and make an entry on the english language pages of Ford and GM.

(Reference link taken from the German Wikipedia)

More info can also be found in this German language documentary: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=1730442568367720561&ei=d9m8SdfSJYHc2gLd2enJAQ&hl=de# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.104.86.35 (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

References

The International Jew

I think it's odd that this should be mentionned:

Henry Ford dressed up as Santa Claus and gave sleigh rides to children at Christmas time on his estate.

But not this: Henry Ford published and distributed The International Jew, a four volume set of booklets or pamphlets, in the early 1920s. No? 83.69.242.8 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Henry_Ford#World_War_II_era? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WTWAG, he should read Henry_Ford#The_Dearborn_Independent. ThuranX (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a lower level below what I was pointing to, but there's no argument.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

seemed more relevant to me to point out the section about the 1920s and the TIJ publication, than a seciton about stuff 20 years later, but that's me. ThuranX (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ford's Anti-Smoking Book of 1914

Henry Ford's book "The Case Against the Little White Slaver" (1914) should be mentioned. It is a very early publication that warns about the health risks of cigarette smoking.76.70.117.226 (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford is a great person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.11.156.11 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor POV issue.

It was so cheap at $825 in 1908. Curious as to why this mention of money does not cross reference the CPI as do two others within a few sentences. $825 in 1908 is a little over $19000 one hundred years later which doesn't buy much of a car, I know, but is it really "so cheap?" Was the T that much cheaper than other cars? If so, it should be stated. Frame of reference: I bought my first brand new car in 1977 for $4300 (just over $15k in 2008 dollars or just under $200 in 1908). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.141.40 (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think $825 was cheap in 1908 relative to the other players in the market at the time, which was a different scenario from later on. As an analogy, you could look at the price of a PC-compatible clone in the 1980s and say that it was cheap relative to the IBM PC and Macintosh, although it would not qualify as cheap when compared in constant dollars to PCs of later decades. — ¾-10 02:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The text states: "By 1916, as the price dropped to $360 for the basic touring car, sales reached 472,000.[16] (Using the consumer price index, this price was equivalent to $7,020 in 2008 dollars.)" that's VERY cheap. Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource

"Distribution of International Jew was halted in 1942 through legal action by Ford despite complications from a lack of copyright.[54] Extremist groups often recycle the material; it still appears on antisemitic and neo-Nazi websites. Such as en.wikisource, one might add. The page s:Author:Henry Ford lists the "works" without any comment as to the authorship, and problematic content. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And? What, exactly, do you seek to change about the article based on this? Ford published it under a new title, and is credited with that. ThuranX (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Any Colour you want, as long as its black

I refer you to Episode 3 of Season C of QI, in which Stephen Fry Says "There is no evidence Ford actually ever said 'Any colour you like as long as its black'". Yet we have it in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameshibbard (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to Ford's autobiography, My life and work, 1922, p. 72, where Henry Ford says,

Therefore in 1909 I announced one morning, without any previous warning, that in the future we were going to build only one model, that the model was going to be 'Model T,' and theat the chassis would be the same for all cars, and I remarked: "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."

Which, admittedly, may be revisionist on Ford's part, but he indubitably "said" it in 1922 in his autobiography, if not 1909 in real life. And the article explicitly claims he said it in the autobiography. Andrew Jameson (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

$5 a day wage

Because this "page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it," can somebody please add to the section referring to the $5 a day wages? Not everybody got those wages while working for him back then. Additional information can be found at numerous sources including http://www.nysun.com/opinion/gms-social-contract/24474/ InforManiac (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your cite does not say that "not everybody" got $5 per day wages working for Henry Ford. Rather, it mentions Ford's concurrent intrusion into his workers social lives, a subject that is covered under "Labor philosophy" in the Wikipedia article. Andrew Jameson (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about that page mentioning the intrusions into his employees' social lives. That was part of the requirement for the $5 per day wages (although that wasn't specifically mentioned in that article).

There was a news article in the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1989 that mentions not all workers got the $5 wage, but it's on the newsbank.com website, so there's a charge for "purchasing" it. You can see the beginning of the article if you scroll down after clicking on http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB95EC6F9936681&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

Another page, possibly considered to be more "controversial" by some, that mentions it can be read by clicking on http://www.reformation.org/henry-ford.html

I would gladly search for more pages that reference it, but I've been here for about an hour getting that put together for you, and the computer has been freezing up. I was getting "Unresponsive script" boxes supposedly related to Wikipedia popping up. My internet connection ended up crashing, and so I'm just sending you this material as is before it goes down again. InforManiac (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Invention of automobile

It surprised me that there is a section devoted to this. Only a misguided child could believe that Henry Ford invented the automobile. To include a section on the topic gives it a credibility it does not deserve!124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. The section headings were once <The "invention of the automobile"> and <The "invention of the assembly line"> with the quote marks being very much intentional. I think the subtle distinction was lost on some knee-jerk copyeditor who later came along and just turned it into something it wasn't meant to be by removing the "unneeded" quote marks. I will go see about doing something better (clearer) with this. — ¾-10 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just improved the text of those sections, and I changed the headings so that they clearly show, even just from a TOC skim before the reader even clicks down to the section, that it is not being claimed here that these things were invented by him. — ¾-10 01:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are great titles that you gave to those sections. They're not as misleading as the previous titles. InforManiac (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bussinness

Henry Ford created over a thousand Model T's. He could make one car in 96 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.64.254 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Turn on the semi-protection and throw away the "off" button [kiddie vandalism]

This article is certainly a good candidate for that. Every English-speaking school child on the planet takes a turn at vandalizing this one. And some non-English-speaking ones, too. — ¾-10 01:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, attempts by Ph.D.s, journalists and published historians to correct glaring omissions qualify as "vandalism" by Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.71.172 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WHAT?! Dude, this thread had NOTHING to do with any of that (antisemitism discussion). This thread was about schoolkid vandalism. It was about a period in the article's history 18 months ago when, literally, at least 5 middle school students per day were making edits like "Henry Ford was gay!!!" and I was getting tired of reverting the vandalism when other people couldn't be bothered. (If you supposedly care about the quality standard on Wikipedia, then volunteer your own time to revert schoolkid vandalism.) Apparently, your reply today to my comment made 1.5 years ago about a completely different topic qualifies as "understanding what you're looking at" by your standards.

By the way, regarding the antisemitism topic, I believe a BRIEF mention of his antisemitism DOES belong in the lede, with more details later, which is what the current stable version does in fact reflect. But seeing as how THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD, it's irrelevant. — ¾-10 02:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

henry ford in soviet union

I just wonder why in Henry's Ford biography it does not mentioned that Henry Ford sent 450 americans to work in ford factory in Russia. And most of them were arrested and died in Gulag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.100.2 (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If it said it in a biography, it would say it in the article. ThuranX (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I also thought I read it in a book ("Dancing Under the Red Star: The Extraordinary Story of Margaret Werner, the Only American Woman to Survive Stalin's Gulag"), but I must be mistaken since it's not in the article here. InforManiac (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ford company did in fact send people to the young Soviet Union to help set up industrial systems, but one key question would be what year they stopped. But I am not very well read on the subject, so the fact that I didn't read about any detentions doesn't mean much regarding whether they happened or not. Charles E. Sorensen was part of one such delegation (around 1932, if I remember right). He was curious to return later (somewhere late 1930s to early 1940s) to see how things had progressed, but he agreed with Henry Ford's advice that things were different now, and if he went, he might very well never get out again, because the Soviets would force him to stay (and, presumably, force him to choose between working on improving their industrial systems indefinitely or doing gulag time). The page range in Sorensen 1956 (pp. 193–216) is cited at Scientific management > Soviet Union. — ¾-10 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Higher wage

It makes no sense to put the $5 per day section where it is. It comes before the model T and Ford's wild success. It even comes before the discussion of the assembly line. The $5 per day wage was in response to these things. It is not currently chronological and it makes no sense to be where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.164.46.33 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The article currently leaves out one of the reasons that Ford offered a higher wage. In searching the web, it appears that the fact that paying his workers more helped him because it enabled his workers to buy his cars, has been largely excised from many articles on the web that refer to the higher wage. I know that this widespread revisionism was not the case a few years ago.

http://ondix.com/pdf/docs/essays_thesis_1071112328.pdf

In 1914 Ford astonished the business world by more than doubling the minimum wage for his workers, raising it from about $2.50 to $5. He argued that if his employees earned more, the company would sell more cars to them and reduce employee turnover.

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/feb98/asian.html

In April 1914, Henry Ford and James Couzens announced that they would pay their unskilled workers $5 a day and reduce the work day to 8 hours from 9, "because that is about the least a man with a family can live on these days," as Ford explained in an interview. Five dollars was about twice the prevailing pay scale in the auto industry at the time.

Ford added later that decent wages helped him sell more cars, in addition to gaining better, more committed workers and reducing labor attrition.Patricia Shannon (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

First, sign at the end, not the start. Second, this sarticle relies far more on books, not webpages, and I would suggest that the reason you point to isn't substantiated in the books used as references. ThuranX (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The concept that Patricia mentions is valid; we just would need the refs. The higher wage is conventionally seen as both having decreased turnover and having increased the pool of potential customers by allowing Ford employees to also be customers. Another thing that increased the pool of potential customers was the very development of the production system (assembly lines and mass production), which decreased the unit cost. This is also mentioned in the lede to assembly line. Unfortunately I lack time to search for book refs on this, but if anyone has time to do it, I am certain that some refs could be found. These ideas are interrelated as 2 sides of a coin (result = more sales, both from increasing the customers' ability to pay and decreasing the unit cost). Cheers, — ¾-10 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion of the rules Ford established and enforced for the households and home lives of employees on the $5/day program? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.71.172 (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is, in fact, discussion of that. It is in the section "Labor philosophy". It would probably be best to have a brief mention of it in the $5-dollar-day section that links down to the discussion. — ¾-10 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Updated: Improved heading structure. I merged the sections "$5 day" and "Labor philosophy" per recent talk page discussion. Upon closer analysis, I find that having 2 separate sections was merely WP:CFORKing. — ¾-10 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jews in baseball

Historians agree that Ford did not write the articles in Dearborn Independent -- and he was not known as a sports fan. The magazine itself (and subsequent historians) say the long sports article that on blamed Black Sox on Jews was written by an anonymous contributor. See Saying It's So: A Cultural History of the Black Sox Scandal by Daniel A. Nathan (1995) p 35 Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Business Principles

Henry Ford's business principles can be summarized as follows: 1) Product development

    A)  Utility: Automobiles should be practical and useful in everyday life
    B)  Durability
    C)  Simplicity of design

2) Manufacturing

    A)  Interchangeable parts: Pioneered with the cotton gin and widely used afterward
    B)  Assembly line and conveyor: He did not invent them but used them extensively
    C)  Vertical integration: Transforming raw materials into components and components into finished goods

3) Marketing

    A)  Virtuous circle: Low price --> higher sales --> lower costs --> lower price
    B)  Free publicity
    C)  Emphasis on good customer service after the sale

Drich65 (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

On mentioning HF in third person by surname alone—one concern for further discussion

This edit was a good one, but it nevertheless makes me hesitant for one reason, as follows. What do people think of the following topic? Mentioning a person in third-person reference by surname alone is the standard way of doing it; but with Henry Ford of all people, it feels dissatisfying to me, because when people see a sentence such as "Ford did this" or "Ford bought that", their brains reflexively interpret "Ford" as meaning the eponymous corporation as opposed to the man. Now, this may seem a silly worry, because the normal assumption is that within the context of reading a biographical article about the man, the reader should be trusted to understand what the intended referent is (the man). And yet ... I don't think the Wikipedia readership fits that traditional assumption. People come here skimming, and link-surfing, and reading in incomplete chunks, and not paying patient attention ... (in other words, the natural mode of reading the Web, which is quite natural, and I don't disparage it entirely—it is appropriate in general, at least until one slows down to dig deeper on a certain topic). My gut tells me that, for this article as a special case, it's better for us to have a way to make the referent explicit at most of the mentions (i.e., either the man or the corporation, as each instance dictates)—even if it simply means saying "Henry Ford" to mean the man and "FMC" to mean the corporation. We don't need to solve this overnight. Just food for thought. — ¾-10 15:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your points. I had the same concern at points, both as to confusion with the corporation and with family members, so you will note that in a number of instances I chose not to delete his first name. If you feel that there are others where it is important, I won't edit war -- I'll just defer to you and others. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Children from Other Relationships

Harry Bennett, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Bennett, is reputed to be the son of Henry Ford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.104.168 (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Associations

Henry Ford was Free Mason. Can anyone verify/cross reference this and discuss it for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.104.168 (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did in fact add that tidbit and provide a ref for it some months ago. I saw it being added and cleaned up the ref info per the Amazon listing of the book. I recall finding it mildly interesting that Harry S. Truman wrote the foreword to the book. If you sift through the article history you'll find it (don't remember how many months ago). IIRC people have completely removed it since then. IMO there's nothing wrong with having it in the article, as long as it's buried down low. Not worthy of the lede. But to scrub it out completely just further feeds conspiracy theorists. Better to leave it in there and let the world grow bored with it. My 2 cents anyway. — ¾-10 02:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Too much Jew"

The "too much Jew" comment is sourced to a documentary written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. I would ask the editor who is deleting it to therefore stop doing so, as I've requested in the edit summary, and if he has a contrary view on the issue from an RS to add that as well rather than delete the text in question. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

no it is not sourced from the film--it is sourced from a review of the movie in a popular magazine. The scholarly literature says Ford did not write it, -- just what is the exact quote from the movie, by the way--did anyone see the movie? Rjensen (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No -- the magazine mentions what is stated in the film. I've added another ref just now as well (a book).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And another newspaper that quotes the movie (quoting Ford), and another book.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And there are additional books referencing it here and here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

the problem is that Ford never wrote anything, and the article in question was unsigned. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia mantra is "verifiablity, not truth". See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. This is eminently verifiable. Multiple sources, a Pulitzer Prize writer, books published by Ivy League Presses. It meets wp standards with flying colors. As I said before, if there is a contrary statement in a reliable source that states that he did not write that, then add a sentence to that effect. BTW, I think he said/wrote it more than once, and it appears in his 1922 authorized bio as well, The amazing story of Henry Ford: the ideal American and the world's most famous private citizen; a complete and authentic account of his life and surpassing achievements, James Martin Miller, Henry Ford.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I fear that Epeefleche misses the key point. For himself was barely literate and he never wrote anything or dictated anything -- all the articles in the magazine were written by paid contributors. The Ford Motor Company published the magazine, and there is no doubt that Ford endorsed the contents in general. Other people told him what it contained. The story about baseball is so minor and trivial in comparison to the important anti-Semitism of the magazine, that its inclusion distorts the article, in its statement that Ford personally wrote the text is not stated by any of the books that Epeefleche cites. (Ford could read and write at the fifth-grade level at best-- as he testified in court euphemistically, he only read the headlines. He was not a sports fan, and the depth of the coverage of baseball would be absolutely astonishing if he really did write it). The James Martin Miller, Henry Ford is online free from Google and contains hundreds of pages of anti-Semitism churned out by the Dearfield Independent magazine.Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The key point is the half dozen refs from RSs that I have provided, the wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources and original research, the above essay on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, and the fact that given all of that what an editor "knows" to be truth does not appropriately lead to the deletion of one well-sourced sentence that is clearly relevant. (Not that I "know" that Rjensen is correct, and the Pulitzer Prize winner and the other indicated authors publishing in top-flight academic presses are incorrect). As to Rjensen's knowledge of Ford and baseball, that is neither here nor there, but is certainly belied by Ford's authorised bio, which focuses largely on baseball in two chapters. In any event, the short answer is, this is referenced in multiple high-level RSs, so it is not appropriate to edit war delete it. Feel free to add a sentence with a Pulitzer Prize writer and six refs supporting it stating that Ford did not write it if you like (but please -- no synthesis). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I always hesitate to even say anything on this topic, because I really believe that most people who read it may be incapable of not misunderstanding my intent either one way or the other. But I'm having trouble resisting. Here goes. Henry Ford was a tough old bastard who had an antisemitism problem that was based at least partly on a predisposition toward conspiracy theory. The thing about that whole deal is that it's conspicuously human. The world was (and sadly still is) full of people who are soft on such faulty thinking. But the other thing about it is that, before the 1930s, almost no one realized that being this way was a slippery slope that skitters you down toward the depths that true villains like Hitler and Himmler occupy. The word "genocide" wasn't even coined until after the Nazis had risen and fallen. Before the Holocaust, it was considered "normal" by "respectable" people for old Dad or Grandpa to be "a heck of a good guy, even though he hates blacks/Jews/Italians/Irish/INSERT_SAMPLE_OUTGROUP_HERE." There are two ways to be misguided about viewing Henry Ford through post-World-War-II eyes. One is to overvillainize him, claiming that he was a closet Nazi who would have gladly "thrown the switch to fire up the ovens" at Auschwitz. (Wrong.) The other is to try to bowdlerize or downplay his antisemitism to make it safe for hero worshippers and schoolchildren. (Also wrong.) There's no point in quibbling over whether he wrote it or "merely" tacitly approved its writing, nor in implying that the latter exonerates him; he was an antisemitic old bugger, and we may as well freely admit it nowadays. And pretending that any lack of fluent literacy (if such he did indeed lack) has anything to do with him being a forgivable old simpleton who simply didn't know what the big words meant—Henry Ford was not stupid. Quite the opposite. But neither is there any point in gussying up his "parlor antisemitism" (as I believe Harry Truman called such thinking) as some kind of "hardcore Nazism", which is what some editors come here (to Wikipedia) to do. BOTH OF THOSE VIEWS (overvilification or hagiography) ARE DISTORTIONS OF THE REALITY OF HENRY FORD. The reality is that he was one of those Archie Bunker guys about whom people used to say, "old Grandpa is a heck of a good guy, even though he hates Jews". People like that were ubiquitous in generations past, and (here's the part that many people today can't comprehend, and they think that by merely admitting this you are advocating it) it was considered "normal". Today, I wish I could say that such "dear old dads" are rare; I don't think they are (and they still come both young and old), but the difference is that today they're an "endangered species" of sorts, and they're aware that the tide has long since turned against them. And they angrily try to fight back and vilify their opponents as "commie liberals"/"PCers"/whatever. There is a battle to keep mainstream culture from slipping backward toward once again tolerating and "norming on" their reactionary thinking and intolerance. Embarrassing but true. OK, I think I have gotten this out of my system, so maybe I will go back to avoiding the topic because too many people will misinterpret me as either overvilifying or hagiographing, when in fact I am in the middle between those two, where the truth lies. — ¾-10 03:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Many interesting and (to my mind) valid points in what you have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The article should refer to an original source, not a movie. Advertising a movie is against the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.189.78 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.103.60.28, 4 July 2011

Please edit the following:

from "He was known worldwide especially in the 1920s for a system of Fordism that seemed to promise modernity, high wages and cheap consumer goods, but his antisemitism in the 1920s has been a source of controversy. "

To: "He was known worldwide especially in the 1920s for a system of Fordism; ie, a promise of modernity, high wages and cheap consumer goods. "

Reason for request:

As a history major and an avid student of America's multi-cultural society, I am unaware of any "controversy" surrounding the antisemitism of Henry Ford, nor of any deceased corporate or industrial icons. The burden of proof, so to speak, should be on the source of this unproved statement about "controversy". Also, the verbiage "seemed to promise" implies that Fordism did not achieve "modernity, high wages, and cheap consumer goods", when in fact it did. I do not care to see Mr. Ford's memory or legacy smeared by someone with a political agenda. Thank you so much for your time and attention.

99.103.60.28 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This student is experiencing the immense power of the whitewash applied by Henry Ford P R. Eddaido (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

99.103.60.28, please see the extensive talk page discussions, including the archives. Between the extremes of (1) calling him a Nazi (wrong) and (2) ignoring his antisemitism (also wrong) is a reasonable central ground of mentioning it but also not making it out to be his whole legacy. We've already ridden the waves in both directions, pushed by extremes from both ends. NPOV requires an unvarnished look at all aspects of his life, good and bad. Thanks. — ¾-10 02:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to make essentially the same responses, albeit perhaps a bit more civilly. There's a large section in the article (Henry Ford#The Dearborn Independent) that clearly explains his antisemitism and problems he faced for it at the time. As for the "seemed to promise", I'd say that the burden of proof would be on someone who wanted to claim that Fordism achieved those things (proof which is essentially impossible, since there'd be no way to tease out the effects of Fordism from other technological, social, and political changes that occurred during Ford's lifetime). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed re "seemed to promise"—I think the reason it ended up phrased that way is that Wikipedia is trying to acknowledge that Fordism never turned out to be any sort of miraculous utopian force—just a part of the larger mix of raising people's standard of living (which it truly did in many cases). But we have to avoid unduly "praising" it, because then people who are focusing on its side effects (e.g., materialism, consumerism) would accuse Wikipedia of being biased in favor of it (pro-corporate bias or whatever). Hope this explication helps. — ¾-10 16:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Famous industrialist, pacifist, antisemite, should be in the lead.

This article is a joke. The only way Ford's antisemitism could be mentioned was as a controversy. What controversy? Being an antisemite is controversial? It's not a simple fact about him? Is it not a simple well established fact that Hitler credited Henry Ford with "preserving the legacy" so to speak, with passing the torch from French 19-th century pseudo-scientific antisemitism, through Ford, to the German nascent nazional-socialismus? Did Hitler not credit Ford as a spiritual forefather of German Naziism? Yes he did. Is it not, looking back, the biggest legacy Ford left on the World, much bigger than his usage of conveyor belt and promotion of socialism?

There isn't even a section on his antisemitism, but one rather euphemistically named after a certain newspaper. A newcomer with no prior knowledge taking a glance at the lead and the contents will have no impression whatsoever of the Ford's immense importance in antisemitic movements of 20th century worldwide. How's receiving a highest Nazi award belongs to a section about newspaper exactly? It does not; it belongs to a section about Ford being a famous and most influential antisemite of the early 20th century. But apparently we're not allowed to have such named section in this article; we're only allowed to talk about newspapers, and how Ford wasn't even a writer in his newspaper - as if being a publisher is not enough.

Too many editors with agenda of whitewashing Ford and his pacifistic socialistic antisemitic endeavors obviously stood in the way of Truth finding its way into this sorry excuse for an WP article. WillNess (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitler admired Ford for his cars--and tried to emulate him via the Volkswagon. Rjensen (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of starting another prolonged diatribe (like the first section on this page), Ford's anti-Semitism has been documented beyond reasonable doubt. It needs far more mention in the article that it is presently given. At the very least, the last sentence of the lead, which stated that he was anti-Semitic, needs to be restored.

Someone said, "when people think of Ford they think of cars and industry, not anti-Semitism" -- as if that were a good thing. If Ford had just hated Jews, and kept that hate to himself, it wouldn't be worth more than a brief mention, if any mention at all. But he acted on his hate -- he did a lot of damage -- he actively promoted and encouraged anti-Semitism -- he financed the widespread distribution of a heinous fraud, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, throughout the USA -- Hitler hailed him as a founder of Naziism. Students need to know this about him; it's important historical information. I'm not suggesting anything POV, just that we state the facts as documented in valid reliable sources.

Last time this was hashed out, the politically correct faction prevailed -- but facts are facts; this information cannot be suppressed if we are to maintain any semblance of objectivity. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; and for the NPOV purists he could be called "a famous and much influential promoter of antisemitism" too. There exists a bestselling book "International Jew", with Henry Ford as its author on its title page. All the discussions of him not being an actual writer of that book are irrelevant to that fact. The central contribution of Ford to the Nazi doctrine was that he gave it grounding as supposedly scientific, rational doctrine, with this book. It surely had much bigger impact on the world than his cars business.

Of course some would argue that this book wasn't antisemitic and just a "scientific exploration" of "the Jew" and "his proclivities", much as Ford himself claims in the book's preface. WillNess (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Hitler admired Ford for his socialism, and hence his antisemitism and his cars. Or was it for his antisemitism and his socialism, and so for his cars? In any case cars came as distant third. WillNess (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitler was an autmobile addict and the Volkswagon was inspired in part by the Model T. Apart from autos, did Ford influence Hitler? --not according to the standard biographies of Hitler (Ford is never mentioned by Kershaw, Bullock or Fest) These leading scholars list hundreds of other people who did influence Hitler, but not Ford. (Kershaw and Bullock are British, Fest is German) Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ.

From Mulcahy:

"Ford’s The International Jew had been translated into German and his anti-Semitic ideas provided fertile ground for Germany’s nascent Nazi movement. Hitler owned a well-marked, personal copy of this book, had a framed photograph of Henry Ford in his office and often cited Ford, who was the only American to be mentioned in Mein Kampf:

Every year makes them [the Jews] more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence.

There is no proof that Ford ever directly gave money to Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party, but there is no doubt that Ford’s articles, available abroad through his book and Ford’s own position as a successful, powerful, influential American businessman had an effect on young Nazi sympathizers." DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A serious comment on Hitler will require a serious book on Hitler, rather than pop stuff by pop authors who don't read German--the leading RS on Hitler (like Kershaw, Evans, Fest, Bullock) do not mention Ford (apart form Hitler's interest in autos). As for Hitler's library, he owned thousands of books (but he mostly read newspapers not books). As for the Dearborn Independent, Ford indeed authorized its anti-semitism, as the article states. then he repudiated it and publicly apologized. In a very long career that covers many topics it UNDUE to classify him as an antisemite. None of the main RS give it that much emphasis. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"nascent Nazi movement" is not just one Adolf Hitler. One Adolf Hitler does not a nascent German Naziism make. Please dont change subject and please dont shift perspective.

So Henry Ford was a major disseminator of antisemitism for years, then he apologised. How nice for him. Our job is not to pass moral judgment on his persona however but to correctly represent facts of his life and legacy. And passing antisemitism on to the nascent German Naziism is one of his legacies - one could safely argue, the one that left an impact on the world much bigger than anything else he did and said. Much more than his cars. So, don't call him an antisemite; call him a major proponent and disseminator of antisemitism of the early 19th century, a major figure of the pre-WWII US and world-wide antisemitism - which is true, and massively understated in the article. WillNess (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! And who made the rule that only Germans can comment on Hitler? Never mind the fact that this is an article on Henry Ford, an American -- but if you insist on evidence from Germans, take a look at the Nuremberg testimony, which I quoted above.

We have reliable documentation, German and non-German, including Hitler's own writings, that Hitler and his followers were influenced by Ford. His antisemitism reduced him, for one of the few times in his life, to the position of apologizing -- but only because Aaron Sapiro filed a libel suit -- at that point it dawned on Ford that he was facing hundreds of similar suits if he continued to espouse his maniacal views publicly. So he said I'm sorry, and we're supposed to believe he stopped being an antisemite, and act like it never happened? I don't think so.

The damage was already done -- he had distributed the Protocols throughout the US -- he had influenced the nascent Nazi movement in Germany -- "sorry" doesn't undo any of that, and it certainly doesn't undo our obligation to document it in the article. DoctorJoeE (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources on Hitler as on all other topics, and the RS (by British, American and German scholars) show no influence of Ford on Hitler (apart from the idea of cheap automobiles). The RS historians of the Nazi movement in Germany do not show any influence by Ford. The one quote available is from a minor figure named Baldur von Schirach who did say the Ford compilation did influence him. Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how you keep insisting on shifting focus and changing subject from German Nazi movement to one Adolf Hitler (a famous cars aficionado, according to you), it is hard to assume good faith on your part from this point onward. WillNess (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

von Schirach was a Gruppenführer, and ran the Hitler Youth, and was Hitler's governor in Vienna, and he was in charge of deporting/exterminating the Viennese Jews -- and he didn't just "say" Ford influenced *him*, he swore under oath at Nuremberg that International Jew was the "decisive book" for everybody in his Nazi circle. I've already quoted reliable sources on the influence of Ford on Hitler -- and he acknowledged it himself in Mein Kampf. (BTW, please pick one section and make all your comments there, instead of switching back and forth between two, which forces the rest of us to make all of our points twice.)

The German Wikipedia didn't seem to have any problem finding sufficient RS to put together a thorough and well-cited treatment of this issue; nor did the French WP (it made their version of FA status), nor the Spanish WP . . . in fact, as far as I can tell, this WP is the only one that has dropped the ball on this issue. It makes us look silly, and in denial (at best). DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article should say that Ford influenced Baldur von Schirach. I checked the RS biographies of Hitler, Himmler, Goering and Goebbels and no biographer mentions any influence by Ford (apart from cheap autos). (Wikipedia rules say we cannot use Wikipedia as a source.) Rjensen (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

First it was WP:UNDUE . . . that argument proved specious . . . now it's not enough RS, but all the other WPs seem to have found plenty . . . what will be next? We need to stop making excuses and catch up with the rest of the world on this. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source says Ford influenced Hitler or the top Nazis. Rjensen (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep repeating that? First of all, Ford's influence on Hitler is only part of what is missing or understated in the article.

Second, the New York Times is not, in your opinion, an RS? "Hitler's admiration for the auto magnate, the New York Times reported, was made obvious by the large picture of Henry Ford on the wall beside Hitler's desk in the Brown House. In an adjoining room there was a large table covered with books, most of which were copies of the German translation of The International Jew. "

How about the Lewis biography of Ford? "In 1923, Hitler said 'We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement...We have just had his anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being circulated to millions throughout Germany.' "

Norman Cohn is certainly considered an RS: "Not only did Hitler specifically praise Henry Ford in Mein Kampf, but many of Hitler's ideas were also a direct reflection of Ford's racist philosophy. There is a great similarity between The International Jew and Hitler's Mein Kampf, and some passages are so identical that it has been said that Hitler copied directly from Ford's publication. "

Carlson (another RS) said, "Hitler also read Ford's autobiography, My Life and Work, which was published in 1922 and was a best seller in Germany, as well as Ford's book entitled Today and Tomorrow. There can be no doubt as to the influence of Henry Ford's ideas on Hitler. Not only do Hitler's writings and practices reflect The International Jew, but one of his closest associates, Dietrich Eckart, specifically mentioned the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and The International Jew as sources of inspiration for the Nazi leader...One of Hitler's lieutenants, Christian Weber, boasted that Ford would be 'received like a King' if he ever came to Munich."

And just to repeat, Ford's influence on Hitler is only part of what is missing or understated in the article. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no influence there. Ford was just about the most famous person in the world in the 1920s and Hitler (and many Germans) admired him for making cheap cars--that led to the Volkswagon promise by Hitler. That's an influence, but not the one suggested. Hitler biographers have traced the antisemitism and do not attribute any of it to Ford. For example the "Mein Kampf" quote does not mention antisemitism (it says Ford stayed away from the New York bankers, who Hitler thought were all Jews). There was no antisemitism in Today and Tomorrow. Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was indeed influential and Hitler read it in German versions before Ford reprinted it. as for "We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement..." it's the . . . that deliberately fools the read by cutting out the reference to the movement in America, not in Germany. ["We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America."] Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The more the merrier. This should definitely be mentioned in the article now that it seems to be in consensus: "Hitler saw him as leader of Fascist movement in America". Anyone with access to sources, please add this into article. WillNess (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is Carlson,JR: Under Cover: My Four Years in the Nazi Underworld of America (New York, 1943), p. 210. I'll be happy to add it, since we do seem to have a consensus (albeit grudging).

Addressing the other points, all of those assertions are WP:OR -- we, as editors, do not make assertions, only sources do. So we need to post what the sources say, and let their assertions live or die as they are, not as you interpret them.

"Unlike the traditional religious and social anti-Semitism which had flared up at various times since the Middle Ages, Mein Kampf presented a theory of racial anti-Semitism. The distinguished group of historians, including Sidney B. Fay, William Langer, and John Chamberlain, who edited the American edition of Mein Kampf, claimed that the use of racial anti-Semitism as the integral part of a political program was Hitler's "Copernican discovery." However, this harsh new philosophy was first propagated to the general public, not by Adolf Hitler, but by Henry Ford."

And one more time: Ford's influence on Hitler is only part of what is missing or understated in the article. Example: your assertion that he apologized, and that should make everything okay, "Henry Ford's anti-semitic campaign brought him so much trouble that he ostensibly backed off and declared that he was repudiating anti-Semitism and The International Jew. But Ford really just switched to using front men like Father Charles Coughlin, the father of hate radio, to promote his opinions. Father Coughlin republished, with the help of Henry Ford and his secretary Ernest Liebold, more rabidly hateful anti-Semitic literature, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. " DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

when we say "A influenced B" we mean that B changed somehow because of A. In the matter of cheap autos this did happen, as the Volkswagen example shows. In the case of Hitler's antisemitism it did not happen. Hitler was a full-fledged anti-semite before Ford and did not change in any way, as Kershaw (1998) has shown in his study of Hitler. Biographies of Coughlin show no connection between Ford and Coughlin's anti-semitism. Coughlin did not republish the Protocols. [A fellow named Smith did so after Ford died] Rjensen (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow -- denial ain't just a river in Egypt; Coughlin serialized the Protocols in Social Justice in 1938, well before Ford's death.

Can we get some others weighing in on this? If I assemble a cogent, concise, and properly-sourced synopsis of Ford's influence on Hitler (including, if true, that several major biographers made no mention of it), does anyone else object to my adding it to the article? DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Influence---DoctorJoeE has been unable to state one way in which Ford influenced Hitler -- a photo on the wall seems to be the main impact. (and neither have any RS--none find any impact or change in Hitler due to Ford, apart of course from the auto business) Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow again -- do I really need to restate all the ways I've already enumerated?

• Lewis: "We have just had his [Ford's] anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being circulated to millions throughout Germany," Hitler is quoted as saying.
• Cohn: "Not only did Hitler specifically praise Henry Ford in Mein Kampf, but many of Hitler's ideas were also a direct reflection of Ford's racist philosophy. There is a great similarity between The International Jew and Hitler's Mein Kampf, and some passages are so identical that it has been said that Hitler copied directly from Ford's publication. "
• Carlson: "Hitler also read Ford's autobiography, My Life and Work, which was published in 1922 and was a best seller in Germany, as well as Ford's book entitled Today and Tomorrow. There can be no doubt as to the influence of Henry Ford's ideas on Hitler. Not only do Hitler's writings and practices reflect The International Jew, but one of his closest associates, Dietrich Eckart, specifically mentioned the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and The International Jew as sources of inspiration for the Nazi leader."
• Mulcahy: "Ford’s The International Jew had been translated into German and his anti-Semitic ideas provided fertile ground for Germany’s nascent Nazi movement. Hitler owned a well-marked, personal copy of this book, had a framed photograph of Henry Ford in his office and often cited Ford, who was the only American to be mentioned in Mein Kampf.
• Detroit News: "Speaking in 1931 to a Detroit News reporter, Hitler said he regarded Ford as his 'inspiration.' "
• Watts: "Hitler 'revered' Ford, and proclaimed, 'I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany.' "

And once again, this is all distraction, because our larger duty is to make it clear that Ford was antisemitic, and did everything in his considerable power to disseminate his antisemitic views to the world, just as all the other WP editions have done. His influence on Hitler was only a part of that. DoctorJoeE (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Misleading allegations and falsehoods here--Hitler read "Protocols" before Ford ever heard of it. (It was written by Russian emigres). Most references are to the auto indfustry (eg: "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany." refers to Volkswagon). The photo again? Hitler owned thousands of books. Mulcahy & Cohn are not RS on german Nazis and they are refuted by Bureigh, Evans, Kershaw (who are the leading experts). Fact is antisemitism had been strong in Germany for decades before Hitler. What we have is a taste for sensationalism rather than reliable sources. "There can be no doubt as to the influence of Henry Ford's ideas on Hitler: nonsense --none of the major studies on Hitler agree with this. They mention scores & hundreds of influences but not Ford. And still no actual examples of changes in Hitler due to his reading of Ford material have been provided. The statement that "some passages are so identical that it has been said that Hitler copied directly from Ford's publication" is not accepted by any RS on Hitler--and it gives not a single example to any such identical passage. Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to dig out the references and quote you the contexts. The ones above referring to The International Jew are self-evident -- that book had nothing to do with car design or manufacture. If anyone else has the references at their fingertips, feel free to jump in anytime. And this debate (intentionally or not) is STILL steering away from the original, larger point. DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

yes dig up "Mulcahy" will you. Cohn and Carlson are not RS on Germany and are not cited by scholars. . Watts is a good scholar but gets distorted (Watts is talking about cars). What's happening is that Ford/Fordism was very influential in Germany in the 1920s on issues such as mass production and industry, and references to his influence there are misused to suggest it was his antisemitism that influenced anyone. For example, "Protocols" circulated widely in German in Germany as did hundreds of other anti-semitic tracts, newspapers and magazines. No role for Ford needed there. The Mein Kampf reference is about Ford distrusting banks (not Jews). (Ford did indeed distrust banks.) Altering sources (esp dropping key words by use of ...) is bad editing. The deeper flaw is believing gossip BECAUSE it's reflects negatively on Ford. Serious scholars demand proof before accepting the sort of gossip, rumors, forgeries & false allegations that surrounded Ford (as well as FDR and other famous people) See Watt p 507-8. Scholars--and Wikipedia--demands hard proof. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Another flaw, of course, is protecting a guilty party in the face of a mountain of evidence. Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm drawing most of this from memory, but I don't think so, and I'm going to hit the books (in all my spare time). But once again, this is a tangent from the original subject of actually documenting Ford's antisemitism in the article, as all the other WPs have. Can we get back to that subject, please? DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Again with the shifting focus on Hitler only. The book was circulated "in millions"... Was Hitler the only reader? Or were there in fact millions readers of these books, in Germany?

Did Hitler formed the German Naziism exclusively all by himself? Of course not. The decisive influence of Ford's antisemitic materials on the nascent German Naziism is the issue here. The focus on Hitler seems an (intentional?) distraction. WillNess (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

From Aufbau Vereinigung (I'm not suggesting using it as a source; I'm suggesting reusing its sources):

"According to Michael Kellogg[2] it was a vital influence on the development of Nazi ideology in the years before the Hitler/Ludendorff putsch of 1923, as well as financing the party with, for example, funds channelled from Henry Ford. It gave Hitler the idea of a vast Jewish conspiracy, involving a close alliance between international finance and Bolshevism and threatening disaster for mankind[3]. Recent research on Hitler’s early years in Vienna appears to have shown that his antisemitism was at that time far less developed than it became under these influences.[4]"

Seems to contain plenty of support for the thesis. WillNess (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler#Entry into politics says as much itself, citing same sources. (ref: The Russian Roots of Nazism White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917–1945 * Michael Kellogg, Cambridge 2005). The group, financed by Ford, "introduced Hitler to the idea of Jewish conspiracy" of bankers and bolsheviks. This would seem to be a foundational influence then. WillNess (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

historians are unanimous there was no Ford money to Nazis (and Hitler said that too). The "Protocols" is all about the Jewish conspiracy; it did influence Hitler and the Nazis; they read it (in German) before Ford put out his English edition. Antisemitism was a major influence in Germany and Austria long before 1920. Rjensen (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources used in those articles apprently say this group, financed by Ford (among others), was a major influence on German Naziism and on Hitler himself, introducing him to the idea of the bankers-&-bolsheviks conspiracy. Surely the degree of control over Germany that antisemitism held underwent some remarkable changes since the early 1920s compared to the later 1930s and 1940s. And if not, where were the gas chambers located back then?

Ford's publishing added millions of copies of Protocols onto the German markets. Millions of copies. So said Hitler himself apparently (cited here above). WillNess (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, couldn't help noticing: you wrote:

The "Protocols" is all about the Jewish conspiracy.

Only "Protocols" are in quotes. Written without quotation marks it gives an impression you're actually talking about actual Jewish conspiracy. This made me feel a little bit uncomfortable. One thing can not be denied though (?). The belief in "world-wide Jewish conspiracy" (whether we call it by an "a"-word in the article or not) was promoted with Ford's help and financing, in the US as well as in Germany, on a mass-production scale. Every Ford franchise anywhere in the US had to carry the Dearborn Independent, for example. I don't see this mentioned in the article either. WillNess (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was a pamphlet (the "" indicate it was a publication) --a forgery--prepared in 1903 that showed the Jews planned to take over the world via high finance. It reached Ford in 1920 in an English translation he published in the Dearborn Independent along with many other articles attacking Jews. The Dearborn Independent was a weekly newspaper or magazine that published a series of 92 articles (in English) attacking Jews starting on May 22, 1920 and stretching into 1922. The Watts book has a partial list on p 379. The 92 articles were reprinted as a 4-volume book "The International Jew" in 1922. Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And I thought it only purported to show this. Hmm. WillNess (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're getting back on topic -- up 'til now this discussion was a classic confirmation of Godwin's Law -- we started out talking about Ford's antisemitism, and ended up making Hitler & Nazi comparisons. The focus should be on Ford, and the inadequate treatment of his antisemitism in this article.

RE: Ford and the Protocols, let me quote a passage from A Lie and a Libel, Binjamin Segel's meticulously-researched book, which I am now reading:

"Unlike the surreptitious funders of the Protocols in Germany, Ford openly threw his reputation and his resources, both enormous, behind a major ad campaign. The International Jew cost 25 cents per volume. Five hundred thousand copies were in circulation in the United States alone. By 1928 Ford had lost nearly five million dollars on the venture. Evidently, profit was not his motive... The harm Ford did was considerable. His prestige helped make antisemitic attacks respectable in America and elsewhere. To antisemites looking for credibility, the name Henry Ford proved useful indeed. Among his sincerest admirers was Adolf Hitler, who kept a photograph of the 'heroic American, Heinrich Ford.' Ford's The International Jew continued to appear in Germany well after he asked it to be withdrawn. Theodor Fritsch refused to believe the request was sincere, claiming that it was yet more proof of the Jewish conspiracy: Jewry's money power could bring even the American millionaire to his knees."

More of Ford's antisemitic activities and their deleterious effects need to be documented in the article, IMHO. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. WillNess (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)