Talk:Henry Ford/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Anti-Semitism

in in I could be wrong, but I want some degree of consensus for this, as the article has been in its current state without the anti-Semitism in the intro for a long time. I'm reverting the last edits that included this info in the intro, pending consensus. I have a feeling that consensus about this has already been made in the archives and hopefully someone who's been here longer will tell us about this. Jrtayloriv, don't be mad at me. I, like you, am a huge fan of human rights, including those of Jews. But I just don't believe that info belongs in the intro. Belasted (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

First, just to save people the trouble of having to dig through the article's History, here is a copy of what I was proposing to add to the intro:

Ford was also a very vocal anti-semite, who owned an anti-Jewish newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, and published the book the International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, as well as numerous other anti-Semitic articles. Adolf Hitler deeply admired Ford, and said to a Detroit reporter: "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration". Ford also received Nazi Germany's highest civilian award, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle.

I personally do feel like this should be in the intro, or at least deserves brief mention there, followed by a more detailed section in the main text of the article. It sheds a lot of light on Ford's character, which gives people a more accurate lens through which to interpret the rest of the information in the article. A man's wealth and economic activities are only one aspect of his life: his cultural achievements, if they have a large impact, are equally important. For instance Bill Gates has his philanthropy work mentioned twice in the intro to his article. Ford's antisemitic literature was so influential and widespread that it is still found on most major anti-Semitic sites to this day.

What are your reasons for not including this in the intro? Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I don't personally feel that his anti-Semitism was one of his most notable achievements. I could be wrong, I don't really know the history that well. My problem is that this is a big deal to add to the intro and this article has been the way it is for a long time. I feel that more people need to be involved in the discussion before you make such a change. However, as I am fairly ignorant of the issue, I will not revert your edit if you add the info back. If other people have a problem with it, then they can let their voices be heard. Belasted (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is very notable to Jewish people who, to this day, still have to put up with racial stereotypes and ridiculous racist myths which were widely propagated in the works that he published such as "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the book that I mentioned in the proposed addition to the Introduction ... It will also help readers understand the motivations for some of his other activities like the car factories he ran in Nazi Germany using Jewish slave labor. For now, I am going to put it back up, until I hear from other people who believe that it is not appropriate.Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted out all the new anti-Semitism nonsense. This was long discussed and consensus built. Leave the article neutral. As it now stands, we know that ford approved the printing of the Protocols in the DI, but he did not accept the cross, so its' awarding is irrelevant to the man. It'd be akin to Achmedinijad giving Bush an award for hating Jews, and Bush not accepting it. Fomenting trouble doesn't make the attempt notable. ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the same as "Ahmadinejad giving Bush an award for hating Jews" -- incorrect analogy. The difference is that Bush and Ahmadinejad are not friends and business partners.

Without getting all angry, and calling my edits "nonsense" -- why don't we discuss it. I personally felt that I was being neutral. Just because the truth is uncomfortable, does not make it not neutral. I sourced everything I said. From you, I heard a lot of accusations, loaded words, etc -- but no sources, other than your opinion that it is "nonsense". Could you be more specific. I didn't realize that Ford didn't accept the cross -- all the sources I've found said that he did. Do you have a source for that. I'll trust you for now, and assume that he didn't. So that would leave us with (with the medal removed while I look for a source that contradicts my other sources saying that he accepted the medal.):

Adolf Hitler deeply admired Ford, and said to a Detroit reporter: "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration". Vincent Curcio wrote of Ford's publications that "they were widely distributed and had great influence, particularly in Nazi Germany, where no less a personage than Adolf Hitler read and admired them." Hitler, fascinated with automobiles and Ford's views on labor and Jews, hung Ford's picture on his wall; Ford is the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf. Steven Watts wrote that Hitler "revered" Ford, proclaiming that "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany, and modeling the Volkswagen, the people's car, on the model T." Henry Ford also gave annual birthday gifts of 50,000 deutsch marks to Adolph Hitler.

What exactly is "nonsense" about this to you? Why do you not think that it is relevant? It definitely seems notable to the U.S. news media, as several major newspapers have run articles on it. What sources make you believe that Ford's influence on Hitler is not important? Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The summary of my reply before :Read all the talk apge that has gone before, stands. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have -- and I definitely don't see any form of consensus. I see a long-running dispute that has come nowhere close to resolution. Also you need to keep in mind that consensus can change. The information I added is well-sourced, notable, and written in neutral language. And the title of the section does not reflect the subject matter accurately -- it contains info on things besides the Dearborn Indpendent. Anti-Semitism is not a loaded word to use for someone with anti-Semitic views. Nazi is used an insult by people, but calling Joseph Goebbels a Nazi is not POV or biased. It's just a fact. And it is a fact that Ford was a vocal anti-Semite. I also found nothing disputing the fact that he refused the medal. Just more sources claiming that he accepted it. Do you have ANY sources, or just a strong desire for history to be written a certain way?Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, you don't listen to the consensus that is here. First, the page was stable for a long time, so the onus is NOT on me to defend it, but on you to present a case for change, which you have failed to do, except for logical fallacy appeals. To assert anti-semitism brings out massive fighting on the page, look and see. It has LONG been consensus to LEAVE it as 'The Dearborn Independent', and leave it for the reader to decide, esp. given the denials and historical examinations. The award to the GM guy is thoroughly irrelevant, and the Iron cross award is already IN the article at the level of examination it needs, given that Ford never accepted it. Now, until you can explain why any of the chagnes you seek should be implemented, refrain from edit warring. ThuranX (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, you don't listen to the consensus that is here. -- as I've said, it doesn't seem like consensus has every been reached. Consensus involves more than just your opinion. It involves a discussion between all parties involved using sources and rational arguments -- neither of which you have presented, and both of which I have.

First, the page was stable for a long time, so the onus is NOT on me to defend it, but on you to present a case for change, which you have failed to do, except for logical fallacy appeals. -- I have presented my case for change, and you have not responded to any of my logical arguments and have instead appealed to emotional opinionated remarks. I don't recall any "logical fallacies" that I've made -- could you point one out? Or is it just a fallacy to write about things that you want to pretend didn't happen for whatever reason? I've already clearly presented why I think this needs to be changed, I have sources to back it up, and I've given several good reasons (good to me and several major newspapers and books written on the subject, at least) why I think the information is verifiable notable and important to the discussion. You have presented none of these sorts of things. For instance, you keep saying that Ford never accepted the medal: Find a source that shows that this is the case. I am not saying that it's not possible that he rejected the medal. But as long as I've got several valid sources telling me that he accepted it, that's what I'm going to believe, not an angry, emotional Wikipedia editor who I've never met. So you need to present a case for why it shouldn't be changed, in light of the sources that I've presented, and my reasons for changing it. If not, I suppose the best thing to do would be to seek some form of mediation, because it is impossible for me to discuss this with you if you will not respond to anything I've said, or give valid reasons for removing everything I write.

The award to the GM guy is thoroughly irrelevant I agree -- that was not my addition. I think that was there by someone, who like yourself, is trying to minimize Henry Ford's involvement with the Nazi party, by saying something to the effect of: "Oh, it's OK -- because all kinds of American business executives were getting awards from the Nazis." -- I am in complete agreement and throw in my vote for the removal of discussion of GM executives getting Nazi medals. This article is about Henry Ford. I just want to talk about the Nazi medals he got.

Iron cross award is already IN the article at the level of examination it needs, -- maybe that's why you're so confused -- nobody ever said Ford got an Iron Cross, because he didn't. He got the Grand Cross of the German Eagle. Is that what you were missing?

Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the 'german cross', but it was is in the article in a manner sufficient to prevent the long discussions and edit warring from continuing. that's your proof of consensus. All parties agreed on the state of the article. Further, Hitler's opinion of Ford is largely irrelevant and 'guilt by association'. Ford's antisemitic acts are clearly documented, without placing WP:UNDUE weight on them. He was foremost an entrepreneur and auto magnate, and his social policies secondary.

And no, you haven't given any logical reasons, you've accused me of whitewashing, which is ironic, and shows you've read some of the archives, but only to learn effective tactics. However, beyond accusations of bad faith on my part, and some guilt by association edits suddenly showing up on the page, you've given little in the way of convincing arguments relevant to this article. handwaving Fearmongering about how modern people get harrassed is not a legitimate argument; its' a direct violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. We write neutral articles, and allow the reader to form their own conclusions. You also stated "Just because the truth is uncomfortable, does not make it not neutral." This suggests you feel your version of the truth is right, and the article is wrong. Please read WP:TRUTH and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article has, as another editor has pointed out, long been stable in this form, and he doesn't

agree with your edits. That he says he won't revert isn't a sign of overt support in light of his other comments. Social activism goes on other websites. Try Conservapedia, they may be more in line with your thinking.

This suggests you feel your version of the truth is right, and the article is wrong. -- It's not my version of the truth. It's the truth according to all of the reliable sources I put with it to back it up. You are the one who has been making up your own version of the truth, such as when you held, up until your previous post, that Ford had never accepted the medal. This was a "fact" that you just made up because it was convenient for you. I had sources to back up that he did get the medal. You didn't even know the name of the medal, because you haven't done any real research on it.

shows you've read some of the archives, but only to learn effective tactics. Wrong. I read the archives, because you said that I was missing something there, and that I should read them. And I wasn't missing anything. I looked to make sure of this, to be fair to you. You said that consensus had been reached there when it hadn't.

Social activism goes on other websites. Try Conservapedia, they may be more in line with your thinking. -- This has nothing to do with social activism. It has to do with the telling of a notable piece history as it actually happened -- according to my reliable sources.

We write neutral articles, and allow the reader to form their own conclusions. -- yeah me too. What did I write in the article that was my own conclusion? Nothing. I just put facts that were supported by reliable sources. The fact that Henry ford was close enough to Hitler to send him 50,000 marks a year and got a prestigious award from the Nazi party is just a fact. I made no conclusions about this in the article. All I said was that it happened, and put sources to back it up. The only unbased opinion that is being put down here is yours -- namely "I don't think this is important, so it's not going to go here.". So maybe you need to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- I'm not putting this here because I "like it". I'm putting it here because it is a notable fact that has been discussed in several major national newspapers and books, and is not in the article.

Further, Hitler's opinion of Ford is largely irrelevant and "guilt by association". -- once again, you already made this bad analogy once, with your comment about Bush and Ahmenijad. Reread my response there. I don't feel like typing it out again for you.

Ford's antisemitic acts are clearly documented, without placing WP:UNDUE weight on them. -- one of them -- namely his relation to the Dearborn Independent -- is clearly documented. And personally, I do believe that it has undue weight on it -- I think that it could easily be shortened to about 2 paragraphs, and provide all of the important information. The explanation as it is, should go into it's own article, where it can be covered in more detail, in my opinion. And I think that the information I have should go in this article, since all of it is notable and well-referenced (according to Wikipedia guidelines, not yours).

handwaving ... fearmongering ... logical fallacies ...not a legitimate argument -- you keep using these weasel words to try to convince me that you are right about this. But although you keep repeating them over and over and over, I'm personally not buying it. For the same reason that I didn't believe your claim that Ford never got a medal from the Nazis -- because you haven't backed it up. Show me some of my logical fallacies (something on the order of your faulty analogy with Bush would do) -- please.

The article has, as another editor has pointed out, long been stable in this form, and he doesn't agree with your edits. -- And you know what -- I was just fine with the other editor, because he discussed it with me. And I was willing to take his opinion into account, and decided not to put anything about Ford's relation to the Nazi party or his anti-Semitism in the intro, even though I personally feel like it is important enough to be there. Instead, I put it in a section related to Ford's anti-Semitic beliefs. But what you've done is deleted facts (which were sourced), claimed they weren't true (which they were), told me that there was proof that they weren't true in the archives (which there wasn't), and generally resorted to ad-hominem attacks and loaded language, instead of backing up anything you've said (except to say that you don't think it belongs.)

Personally, I'm sick of wasting my time writing these long response to you, because you aren't discussing anything in a reasonable manner (probably because you don't have enough factual information to do so effectively, as your earlier comments suggest). I'm going to try to find some form of moderation to deal with this. Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I have discussed this. You premised your changes in blaming antisemitism now on him. "I believe that it is very notable to Jewish people who, to this day, still have to put up with racial stereotypes and ridiculous racist myths which were widely propagated in the works that he published ..." That's SOAPBOXing and pushing a POV here. It's really that simple. No one here is hiding his anti-Jewish activities, but we aren't going to put them front and center in the article, when that's NOT what he's most known for, thus a violation of UNDUE. We're not going to label it 'Anti-Semitism' because that creates excessive controversy and edit warring here, and without the words, it's quite clear what his views were, for any reader who bothers to read them. I have explained to you that this is all well trod ground, but you're not listening. I can't help that, and it's not worth my time to fight with an editor with a political agenda, like assigning blame for modern anti-semitism. ThuranX (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You premised your changes in blaming antisemitism now on him. -- Wrong. I premised my changes based on the fact that they were notable, backed by reliable sources, and written in neutral language.

we aren't going to put them front and center in the article, -- I understand that, which is why the last edit of mine that you deleted was down in the section on anti-semitism and not front and center.

We're not going to label it 'Anti-Semitism' because that creates excessive controversy and edit warring here, and without the words, it's quite clear what his views were, for any reader who bothers to read them. -- I wanted to name the section "Anti-Semitism & The Dearborn Independent", because it was about both, not just the latter.

I have explained to you that this is all well trod ground, -- And I have explained to you that this doesn't matter -- consensus has not been reached on it. Sometimes a lot of trodding has to be done to reach consensus. ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

When no one fights about a page anymore, when all parties are satisfied enough with a page to leave it be for months on end, it has consensus. this is not Rocket Science. You stated that your purpose in this was because people still experience anti-semitism. That's SOAPBOXing. This is also not rocket science, and exists completely aside from whatever sources you find that you feel trump the extant reliable sources and allow you to excoriate and bloviate ad nauseum in the article. Until you can present actual reasons to massively increase the anti-semitism section, it isn't going to be a change with consensus, and you need consensus before re-adding the material. The heading will stay neutral, unless you are offeringto RE-fight all the battles about it to push your POV. You clearly either didn't read all the talk that went before, or just don't respect other editors. Long worked sections that finally get consensus really do not need activists stirring up trouble, just to make a POINT. ThuranX (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keeping this brief to avoid the drama. This shouldn't be in the intro. When people think of Henry Ford they think of cars and automatic conveyor belts, not anti-semitism. He isn't Adolf Hitler and just because this is documented doesn't mean this is important enough to mention in the lede. He is mostly notable because of founding his company and the way he had it operate, he wouldn't be notable as an anti-semite if he wasn't already notable for his cars. ThemFromSpace 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I am willing to accept it not being in the lead -- my last edit did not attempt to put it there. I feel like people have given valid reasons for that, and I don't like it, but I understand that people don't feel it belongs. What I don't feel is valid is not putting it in the article at all -- I don't understand why his newspaper alone has such an enormous amount of space (several large paragraphs) dedicated to it, yet I can't add in five sentences about something that is equally notable and important and sourced. I would rather shorten the newspaper discussion and add in more facts. Let me reiterate I am not trying to put it in the intro anymore. See my above comments for further explanation.Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I think a well-cited mention of it in the article is valid, especially if it discusses how its been recieved in the world. You have to be careful to remain within the spirit of WP:UNDUE but it deserves a passing mention. ThemFromSpace 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor, in his arguments above, is proving unfit as an editor. It is bizarre that an historian, professional or otherwise, would resist publicizing previously suppressed historical facts to stay aligned with popular belief. The purpose of educational articles is to introduce facts that are not commonly known. Who visits here to reaffirm that Henry Ford built cars? Does that enrich? As the article contains a major section on Henry Ford's antisemitism, it is fitting that the introduction should mention it - introductions summarize the rest of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.171.171 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this is no longer an issue of the info being in the intro, let's move any further discussion to a new topic, if need be. This topic (which I started) is cluttered beyond readability. Thank you. Belasted (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry's anti-semitism would be a fact of his biography and none of our business IF he was not the one who actually CREATED hitler by financing his operations in the early stages of "development". Many historians attribute hitler's success to two individuals - henry ford and joseph stalin. Being associated with this company is hardly irrelevant in understanding an individual's character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lruss (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That would require incredible amounts of citation, in numerous WP:RS to even consider its inclusion herein. Blaming Ford for Hitler would ignore many, many other factors in his rise to power. By that amount of connections, we could blame Calvin Coolidge's isolationist tendencies, or Hoover's do-nothing reactions to the worldwide depression, for Hitler. ThuranX (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford is Author and publisher of documents that created far more anti-Semitic and racist tendencies that all of Gobbles Propaganda did over eight years, that can be seen in admiration of top Nazis plus it was the inspiration for numerous Nazi propaganda movies. Henry Ford should not go down in History as a "prominent American industrialist, supporter of workers' welfare and pacifism". Plus "mass production of inexpensive goods coupled with high wages for workers." is like saying Jesus is credited with mass production of inexpensive food from a single fish and bread for workers. Henry Ford is one of Americas greatest contributors to anti-semitism trough the publication of The International Jew weather you like it or not. And if wikipedia wont realize that fact into the inro that means that I have to learn wikipedia and join Charlie Chaplain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvNQiF89Pek and do something about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.93.251 (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For Christ sake sign your comments. To that unsigned comment, I've never heard; and i've studied WWII and Nazi Germany for many years, him being such a big player at all. Keep in mind GM also was awarded from the nazis. Henry Ford was the creater of the assembly line which revolutionized the automotive industry, creating his own steel factory was unheard of in his time. "prominent American industrialist, supporter of workers' welfare and pacifism" is an understatement. Yeah sure Jesus, assuming you're Christian; can be credited for the mass production of bread, but that pales in comparison to the revolutionization of the worlds industry, no offense to Jesus intended if one happens to be Christian as the bible stated he did many other feats. Religion should not be apart of automobile purchasing. Henry Fords anti-semitism should be stated in the page, but not in the introduction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeralLynX (talk • contribs)

Since the last round of argument about this (2009 with one anon add-on in 2010), the stable version has been settled on one short line at the end of the lede, "... but his antisemitism in the 1920s has been a source of controversy." It's good to have this there, because it doesn't pour on undue emphasis and yet, importantly, it proves to cranks and crackpots that no one is trying to "cover up" the antisemitism by "scrubbing away all mentions of it [from the lede]." I think it's best just to leave it as-is. I agree with you that those who want to just totally vilify him are off-base. We have to present all of his life, good and bad, in the context of the pre-Holocaust era. — ¾-10 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the compromise here is a bad one. The reason why is the title "Dearborn Independent" gives no hint of what the section is about. Could we take a cue from German Wikipedia? It divides the material into two sections:

• 3 Publizistische Tätigkeit und Antisemitismus (Publishing activities and antisemitism)
• 4 Henry Ford und der Nationalsozialismus (Henry Ford and Nazism)

Obviously, German Wikipedia has cause for a different focus, but German Wikipedia is very thorough and well-cited.

French Wikipedia gets a star for a "model Article." It says: 7 Une idéologie controversée (A controversial ideology) 7.1 Controverses autour de ses affaires avec le régime nazi (A controversial author and his affairs with the Nazi regime) 7.2 Antisémitisme présumé (Antisemitic opinions) 7.2.1 The International Jew (the International Jew) 7.2.2 Dearborn Independent (The Dearborn Independent)

Or howabout Spanish wikipedia (also a model article)? 6 Antisemitismo

English is the ONLY wikipedia article not to use this headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalFailure (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you that the *heading* about the Dearborn Independent should include the word "antisemitism". As for the article's *lede*, it needs to be kept as-is. It is at a brief, understated compromise that works without being messed with regularly by one faction or the other. As for the *heading* excluding the word "antisemitism", I wouldn't doubt that you're right that the English Wikipedia is the only one among de,en,es,fr that is holding out on that. (We could also go check a dozen other Wikipedias, too, but why bother, your point stands true.) This holding out on the English Wikipedia is driven by a stubborn conviction among some members of our Wikipedian community that feels that putting the word "antisemitism" in the heading overemphasizes the villainy of Henry Ford, or the degree of proof that his own views drove the content of the Dearborn Independent. I think it's obvious to most cynical, realist-minded people today that the paper's name was a joke, because whatever other influences it may have been independent of ("Big City Jewry from back East" being my guess of what it meant to imply), it was very much *not* independent of Henry Ford's editorial hand, although Ford claimed that it was. The main reason why I am satisfied with the current version despite that one bone that was thrown to the stubborn faction regarding the heading itself is that we finally got to an article version that people would stop messing with and batting back and forth constantly, but yet it *does* contain the antisemitism truth if anyone bothers to read it. Anyone who reads the article will get all the facts (which certainly take most of the supposed hagiographic worthiness out of the true identity of Henry Ford).

I also want to explicate here something about the difference between American and European culture that helps explain the stubbornness of some American Wikipedians about avoiding any emphasis that they consider undue. They are on guard (maybe too defensively on guard) against letting "agendas" be pushed on Wikipedia, and they have viewed some of the changes and reversions to this article over the years as "pushing an agenda" that is some cross between (as *they*, not I, would view it) (1) Trying to paint Henry Ford as an advocate of the Final Solution (which is false—he was an antisemitic old bastard, but not a genocidal one); (2) trying to push a "liberal, PC view" as understood specifically through the lens of American culture and politics of recent decades, where American conservatives imagine that American liberals want to take away American pride regarding anything good about America, and want to tear down the reputations of any American achievers of big things. They see efforts on Wikipedia to cover the bad points about famous Americans "a little too prominently" as some "liberal" attack on American values. So for example, they acknowledge that Thomas Jefferson had interracial sex with his slave Sally Hemings, but they clearly have this attitude of "yeah, but if you dwell on discussing it too much, then you're obviously just trying to rain iconoclasm down on American history and bury its good points under a mountain of discussing the hypocritical points." And they acknowledge that Henry Ford was antisemitic, but they point out that "if you try to paint Henry Ford up as a genocidal Nazi then you're obviously just trying to rain iconoclasm down on American history and bury its good points under a mountain of bad." One has to appreciate this cultural context in which edit wars between American Wikipedians sometimes take place. Personally, I agree with you that changing this one heading would not be pushing any agenda, it would merely be avoiding the appearance of apologist excusing or denial. — ¾-10 15:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So let's modify that heading already, shall we? This article has had that apologist/excuse/denial appearance way too long. Yes, the facts are in there -- but I wouldn't know to look under "Dearborn Independent" to find them; would you? That deceptive heading creates the appearance of an attempt to bury those facts, even if that wasn't the intent (and frankly, I think it was). DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is the problem. the Dearborn Independent issue was a minor epsiode in Ford's career. He did not write or even read any of the articles--he DID allow some of his people to publish them under his name in the early 1920s. He then stopped it and publicly apologized. Hitler biographers do not assign any importance to Ford's influence on Hitler (apart from the idea of cheap autos, which Hitler did like). Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I beg to differ. Guilty people and their apologists always plead ignorance ("I didn't know anything about Watergate!"), but Ford knew exactly what he was doing. As a well-sourced entry states in the article, "...that Cameron would have continued to publish such controversial material without Ford's explicit instructions seemed unthinkable to those who knew both men. Mrs. Stanley Ruddiman, a Ford family intimate, remarked that 'I don't think Mr. Cameron ever wrote anything for publication without Mr. Ford's approval.' "

The assertion that Ford had no influence on Hitler or his subordinates is even more ridiculous.

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."

Example: Baldur von Schirach, who ran the Hitler Youth and sent sent 65,000 Viennese Jews to the ovens, testified under oath at Nuremberg:

"The decisive anti-Semitic book I was reading and the book that influenced my comrades was...that book by Henry Ford, The International Jew. I read it and became anti-Semitic. The book made a great influence on myself and my friends because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success and also the representative of a progressive social policy."

If Ford had kept his bigotry to himself, you might be able to make an argument for WP:UNDUE -- 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 -- and they can't find it when it's buried under a seemingly-unrelated heading in this article.

Even if WP:UNDUE (or any other WP rule) did apply, as the MOS states repeatedly, Wikipedia has no rigid rules. No policy should be enforced zealously if the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article. Improving this article takes priority over any WP rule or policy. We need to join the rest of the world on this if we are to maintain any semblance of objectivity. DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain this: if i write "Henry ford" to the Search-folder, I got myself redirected to this article and notice that I'm reading an article with antisemitism on the first chapter of the intro. Then I click myself to the Discussion-page and then go back to the article and notice that intro has changed again. Now antisemitism is mentioned at the end of the intro, not the first chapter of it. Why does the article change?--188.67.230.161 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Mother's foster parent's name

The article says Ford's mother's foster parent's name was O'Hern. In her book "The First Henry Ford: A study in Personality and Business leadership", Anne Jardim on page 174 in Chapter 5 references "Accession, 592", there stating the name to be Ahern. Mother's maiden name in this reference is spelled "Litegotte". I must note that later in the same reference, Ford spells coal as "cole" so the differences may be due to Ford's misspelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WithGLEE (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Impact on Industry and Transportation

Once Henry Ford invented the Model T, he came up with the idea for the Assembly Line. The Assembly Line is when each individual worker is responsible for a certain action or part to fully build the product. This made building the Ford cars quicker and more efficient. Also, it allowed him to employ more people thus creating more jobs. He also had a large impact on transportation. Once he built the Model T, it allowed people to travel by car instead of horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhartl0495 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Although Henry Ford was instrumental in developing and demonstrating the efficiency of the assembly line, it's quite a stretch to say he "came up with the idea." The assembly line section in this article devotes what is probably an appropriate amount of space to the subject. More coverage on Ford Motor Company's development of the assembly line is, properly, located in the assembly line article. That section says, in part: "The assembly line developed for the Ford Model T began operation on December 1, 1913. It had immense influence on the world. Despite oversimplistic attempts to attribute it to one man or another, it was in fact a composite development based on logic that took 7 years and plenty of intelligent men." Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

References

999 Ford Model

Hi,

There are two references to the "999" Ford model. One that states that Barney Oldfield drove it to victory in October 1902 and the other that Ford introduced it as a newly designed car after the founding of Ford Motor Company on June 16, 1903. Which one's right or am I missing something?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.117.129 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Henry Ford's Vision for the future: The Hemp Body Car (1941)

Henry Ford was a huge advocate of cannabis. There is alot of websites with material proving this youtube.com even has videos of Henry Ford taking a sledgehammer to his Hemp Plastic Car without damage. Henry Ford intended for all vehicles to run on Hemp because he knew the environmental dangers of oil, he even grew his own Hemp illegally until he died to use as fuel for his vehicles because he refused to by oil products. Henry Ford also advocated Hemp's use in fuel for vehicles and electricity, and uses to build entire homes, nutritional value and thousands of other uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.105.155.5 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sites you refer to are marijuana advocacy websites run by people with obvious agendas, not reliable sources for anything but a cheap dime bag. Bring us some scholarly articles, we can discuss the matter. ThuranX (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Ford was a promoter of soy not cannabis. Source: Ford, The Men

and the Machine by Phillip Lacey. There is a photo of him using an axe on the soy body car. By the way, he was older by then and got the axe turned around and sliced through the trunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.150.39 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1941 video of Ford's car plainly talks about using hemp and sisal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.52.49 (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are the links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rgDyEO_8cI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.83.86 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And here's an original article from Henry Ford himself:

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1941-henry-ford-plastic-hemp-body-car-original — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.83.86 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention a Typo

There is a typo in the article: '...war materiel' instead of '...war material'

Not necessarily. The word "materiel"[1] is different from "material"[2]. Britmax (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, piece is misspelled peace in the first paragraph.

Text muss korrigiert werden

Mir scheint, dass dieser Text von einem nicht-deutschen Muttersprachler geschrieben worden ist, der ganze Text muss redigiert werden, damit man ihn fliessend lesen kann. Im Moment ist der Text der Wikipedia absolut unwuerdig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.63.86 (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dass dieser Text von einem nicht-deutschen Muttersprachler geschrieben worden ist—aber natürlich, denn dieser Text ist die Englische Wikipedia! Vielleicht suchen Sie de:Henry Ford und de:Diskussion:Henry Ford? — ¾-10 00:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry

The family's ancestry is contested. In Ireland the surname 'Ford' is the anglicised version of a number of indigenous Gaelic names: one of these being Ó Fuaráin (from fuar, meaning "cold"), common to the Cork-Waterford region . Some claim that Ford's ancestors came from western England, who were among migrants to Ireland as the English created plantations. However there are no records to back up the English ancestry claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelsceal (talk • contribs) 10:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

References

References

Krebs, Michelle (2003, June 16). Ford was first to hire blacks in large numbers. Automotive News. pp. 16J.

English, Simon (2003, November 3).Ford 'used slave labour' in Nazi German plants. THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON). pp. 11.

(2003 november 3). The man who put the world on wheels was fascinated by flight. Automotive News. pp 4. Kinggofthewworld (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Topic Overlap

There is already a History of Ford Motor Company topic, which has a lot of overlap with this. I suggest a "main link" be created to the history topic. Thank You. --76.89.189.214 (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

African Americans

I hear from other places that Henry was the biggest hirer of African Americans at that time (although I always thought it was Pullman, who hired the most).

Did Henry Ford hire blacks? and what kind of positions did he put them in? Did he also pay them enough to buy one of his cars too??? I can't find much information on this, and I am not even sure if he even hired black people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.134.156 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he didn't care who he hired, as long as they could work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.137.215 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 November 2012

from text: raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. correct: raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualified workers. Yours, Eduard Wienk 78.98.87.253 (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This may not be an error: it may mean "the workers who qualify for the raise" rather than "the workers who have the qualifications". Britmax (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 November 2012

In the section on Henry Ford's $5 work day, the reference to $120 dollars per day is only one measure, and among the smallest of possible measures. Please consider adding the gold standard measure, which could read as an insert like this:

At that time (1914), the U.S. dollar was worth approximately 1/20th of an ounce of gold (officially $20.67 per ounce), and directly convertible to gold. At this rate, Ford's minimum wage for his workers would have been about $425 per day in current dollars, assuming the current gold market price of a bit over $1,700 per ounce.

Source for historical gold conversion price: http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/gold/result.php Source for other dollar value conversions: http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/index.php Teddlem (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: - there appears to be no consensus at this point for this edit. Feel free to reactivate the request if necessary. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 11:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The history of the Ford family in Cork

Regarding referencing source material quoted in article: this was not intended to promote a documentaray already shown on TV (which as a result onlibe referebces to which are now limited as is not being shown anymore); just point out the soucre. The history of the Ford family in Cork until 1980 and the closure of the production line, which was one of the first in the world tsted there, and techniques developed in Germany's production plant ught to be included; the absense of appropriate international following of the Ford famiy, and overconcentration on the US elements is RACSIST, Offensive and wholly misleading. Ford's hostory is very much an international, myltigenerationa story - the buiding up of the insdustrial techniques, and production lines was started outside the USA - and resisted for many years in the USA. Telling complete false and misleading US-centric nonsensical dribble, and removinbg historicaly more appropriate giving European entymology to Henry Ford and the history of the development of the horseless carriage.

You should be ashamed of yourselves - please reinstate material referencing the newspaper and documentary sources on the history of Ford family in Ireland, which also include the Cork Examiner newspaper and the Ford Museum: " Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Henry Ford. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Please do not promote a documentary about the Fords. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)"

If you are referring to this edit, I have to agree with Binksternet that it was basically a WP:COATRACK. While the Ford family did have some history in Ireland, it mainly involved Henry's father and uncle, not Henry himself, as I understand it -- and this is an article about Henry. (If I'm wrong about that, please educate me.) If you feel that that historical information is important enough to include in this article, you'll need to gain consensus here, and cite better sources than a transient TV documentary. Also, on general principle, you might want to take a look at WP:NPA regarding the advisability of criticizing editing rather than editors. Finally, please sign your posts. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 03:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Net Worth?

Henry Ford's net worth is listed on this page, but he is dead. What does his net worth mean? Is it his net worth at the time of his death, adjusted for inflation? Or is it something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.14.218 (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

I think more should be stated about the popularity of his funeral than just 5000 per hour pasted by his casket. In the American Experience documentary they said something like over 100,000 I believe. It is very rare and may be unique for a industrialist to have so many people pay their respects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.234.68 (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Why does the Controversy section have a Level 3 subsection titled "The Dearborn Independent and anti-Semitism", even though the Controversy section does not contain other Level 3 subsections? Should the Controversy section be re-titled with the Level 3 heading, and/or should the Level 3 heading be removed? AldezD (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nazi death camp newsreel footage leading to Ford's final stroke

An editor, who likely wrote this previous Talk page section, contributed a sentence to the section on "The Dearborn Independent and anti-Semitism", saying: "A close collaborator of Ford during World War II reported that Ford, at the time over 80 years old, was shown a movie of the Nazi concentration camps and was horrified by the atrocities documented in it. <ref>Lacey, Robert (1987). ''Ford: Des Hommes et des Machines'', Libre Expression editor, ISBN 2-89111-335-7, p. 140.</ref>" It appears there have been some translation or interpretation errors, as the original earlier material in Lacey's 1986 Ford: The Men and the Machines (translated into French as Ford: Des Hommes et des Machines and published a year later) did not make any reference to Ford being "horrified", but to him instead suffering his final stroke after viewing the newsreel footage.

This was attributed to Josephine Gomon, a former senior manager at the Willow Run bomber factory. As described by Lacey, Gomon's description of the event "...hinted at some sort of last-minute, almost death-bed repentance." That vague description by Lacey is open to multiple interpretations and its synthesis into a "horrified" reaction is best left out. What was factually reported from the source material is that after being shown the newsreel footage, Ford suffered his final stroke; whether that was caused by viewing the newsreel is unknown given that the elderly Ford was already in poor health and had previously suffered multiple strokes and heart attacks. I've revised that sentence to instead a factually reporting of the chain of events. HarryZilber (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Wehrmacht pick ups

The number of produced pick up trucks for the German Wehrmacht seems missing. It's stated in the German WP.--178.193.39.223 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ford's Apology Forged

It has since been claimed that Ford's apology was forged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.230.125 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Ancestry

The English immigration to Ireland statement must be incorrect, Henry Ford's grandfather was named Patrick O'hern, not the least bit English. Although it could be possible that hsi fathers other side was English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeralLynX (talk • contribs)

No, it is not incorrect. The Ford family were originally from England. Patrick O'hern, who wasn't even a blood relative, was actually his Maternal grandfather.

"His mother, Mary Litogot Ford (1839–1876), was born in Michigan as the youngest child of Belgian immigrants; her parents died when she was a child and she was adopted by neighbors, the O'Herns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.13.142 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

"Strokes' is misspelled as 'stokes' at the end of the section on antisemitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.216.100 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

In the section The coming of World War II and Ford's mental collapse we find the statement, "Nothing happened until 1945 when, with bankruptcy a serious risk, Edsel's widow led an ouster and installed her son, Henry Ford II, as president." It has two cites, one of which says merely "Yates, p. 45". This is apparently in reference to a cite that had been generally eliminated a few years ago which said in full, "Yates, Brock. "10 Best Moguls", in Car and Driver, 1/88, p.45." The full cite was cut out in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Ford&diff=390675229&oldid=390614323 on the grounds, apparently, that popular magazines are not reliable sources.

Either the cite needs to be expanded to what it originally said as quoted verbatim above, or it should be cut entirely and let the statement rest on the other cite. 192.31.106.34 (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Done For now I have inserted the source and added a {{Better source}}. Other editors should feel free to remove the sentence, if they feel that is better for the article. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Education

From this article is not clear if he graduated College or High School. The articles says Ford also studied bookkeeping at Goldsmith, Bryant & Stratton Business College in Detroit but it's not clear if he graduated the college. I found a link where it says he didn't graduate high school. —  Ark25  (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

Supersayin23458 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) you have made a mistake i am henry ford's decendent

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Willow Run plant

"Once the U.S. entered the war, Ford directed the Ford Motor Company to construct a vast new purpose-built factory at Willow Run near Detroit, Michigan. Ford broke ground on Willow Run in the spring of 1941, and the first B-24 came off the line in October 1942 [sic]."

The Willow Run plant was built before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and began production in summer 1941, so the sentence above is inaccurate.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Run:

"The plant began production in summer 1941; the dedication plaque is dated June 16. The plant initially built components; Douglas Aircraft and the plane's designer Consolidated Aircraft assembled the finished aircraft. Remote assembly proved problematic, and by October 1941 Ford received permission to produce complete Liberators.[2][3] Willow Run's Liberator assembly line ran through May 1945, building almost half of all the Liberators produced." Autodidact1 (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

Please change or delete paragraph accompanying reference 77, because source cannot be read or verified, and actual death circumstance already cited under 'death'. Please deleted paragraph accompanying reference 77. Chainheart Machine (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also please note WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Besides consensus, another important point: Despite fairly widespread misconception, being online and open access is not a prerequisite to being a reliable source. Print books and paywalled resources are often necessary sources. Otherwise, many copyrighted books and journals could not be cited at all, which obviously would block off half the world's curated knowledge from being cited. — ¾-10 02:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

what about this quote by him

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

178.148.10.191 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

'which finally and unanswerable [sic] laid bare…'

Can someone please verify that Robert Lacey wrote in Ford: The Men and the Machines that Ford 'was confronted with the atrocities which finally and unanswerable [sic] laid bare the bestiality of the prejudice to which he contributed…' (emphasis added)? '[U]nanswerable' is obviously grammatically incorrect in that context, and all of the other instances I can find of that quote online contain the same mistake. Esszet (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

References

What's wrong with the references page? Ignore that thing underneath.JerrySa1 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2015

Please change "Ford married Clara Jane Bryant (1866–1950) on April 11, 1888 and supported himself by farming and running a sawmill." in the 'Marriage and family' section to: "Ford married Clara Jane Bryant (1866–1950) on April 11m 1888. The wedding was to be held at the Bryant home on Clara's birthday, April 11, 1888. Henry Ford and newly-wed Clara Ford were to live on an eighty-acre track of land, west of William Ford's farm, known by the name Moir Place. Doubtless in making the arrangement about the Moir place with his father, Henry Ford had in mind not only building a mill but erecting a small machine shop in which he could "tinker" with engines and other machines possibilities." Kirbyburns (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: I am unable to view the book in Google Preview, and thus unable to check the content for accuracy and copyright concerns. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Net Worth

1. What does the green arrow mean? When you hover over it, it says "increase". Increase compared to what?

2. What is the "as of" date of $188.1 billion? The date he died?

3. Has that $188.1 billion been converted into today's dollars, or is it dollars at that time?

4. Why do we need 'February 2008' data to determine the net worth of a man who died in 1947? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.149.220 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler quote

Himmler is quoted in this article as stating Ford was one of the Anti-Jewish movements most important figures. The source is Pfal-Traughber, Armin (1993). Der antisemitisch-antifreimaurerische Verschwörungsmythos in der Weimarer Republik und im NS-Staat. Vienna: Braumüller. p. 39. That sources is not even in English, and looking it up online, it seems to be an obscure source, I could only get a snippet view on google books. I don't really think its appropriate to use an obscure source that people will have trouble obtaining for a quote. I'm not saying Himmler did not say that but I think there needs to be better evidence than that source. I looked up the source on google books and it doesn't reference Ford on the page provided, https://books.google.com/books?id=IzkFAQAAIAAJ&dq=Der+antisemitisch-antifreimaurerische+Verschw%C3%B6rungsmythos+in+der+Weimarer+Republik+und+im+NS-Staat&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Ford although Himmler is not in the part of the page in the preview. Still, I think it would be best to remove the quote until a more easily accessible English language source could be found. RandomScholar30 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It says as policy here, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Language RandomScholar30 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I emailed Armin Pfal-Traughber, who replied as follows (my translation): "As I recall, I did not provide a citation for that letter. But please look at the literature on Ford and anti-Semitism. Even Norman Cohn's book on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion contains a few details. In the United States, there are a few essays and books on the subject of Ford, the Protocols and anti-Semitism. Best Wishes" [German original: "Ich habe da meiner Erinnerung nach keinen Brief zitiert. Aber schauen Sie doch einfach in der Fachliteratur zu Ford und Antisemitismus nach. Auch Norman Cohns Buch zu den Protokollen der Weisen von Zion enthält ein paar Angaben dazu. In den USA gibt es ein paar Aufsätze und Bücher zum Thema Ford, die Protokolle und der Antisemitismus. Schönen Gruß"]

Fortunately, [User:RandomScholar30]] has found other sources; see the discussion on User talk:DavidMCEddy#The Henry Ford Article seems to have a Henry Ford=Hitler Agenda, we should not whitewash his hate campaign against the Jews, but we shouldn't exaggerate it either. We should be able to improve this article on these points soon. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I just heard again from Armin Pfal-Traughber. He said (my translation): "I just read the book by Thomas Weber (2016) How Hitler Became a Nazi. Henry Ford and the Nazis is discussed on pp. 368ff. Greetings. APT" [German original: "Gerade gelesen habe ich das Buch von Thomas Weber, Wie Adolf Hitler zum Nazi wurde. Dort finden Sie auf den S. 368ff. zu Henry Ford und dem Nationalsozialismus. Gruß APT". Other reports (e.g., http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/hitler-new-german-tv-drama-about-nazi-leaders-life-after-world-war-i-to-present-him-as-awkward-loner-a6912876.html) suggest that this may be the definitive work on how Hitler was transformed from an unremarkable Corporal (if we believe this story) into the charismatic fascist he became. My review of this book on "https://www.amazon.de/Adolf-Hitler-Nazi-wurde-unpolitischen/dp/3549074328?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0" and elsewhere suggests that this is quite well researched from primary sources, e.g., letters written by Hitler's peers in the Bavarian military during the First World War. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)