Talk:Ford Pinto/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The "Production figures" table's style and placing could be improved, I'll try to fix this myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sourcing in the "Background" section could be improved, but none of the statements there are controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector only finds the direct quotes included in the article, which are correctly quoted and referenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The "Motorsport" section is so short as to feel unnecessary. I'm not sure what it can be merged with , though. Also, having coverage from both the 1970s and the 2000s in "Reception and criticism" is jarring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass. The article isn't perfect, but it is Good. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Discussion with a blocked user. Almost all of this is discussed extensively in the talk archives. I'll re-check a few of the more credible points later today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for beginning the GA review.

Please examine the edit history and the talk page discussions for insight into the stability criterion and for editorial concerns of other editors.
With regard to evaluating the stability of this article. please note the article is currently semi-protected. Also, the talk page of this article has a short 45 day archive period. The talk page gives a impression of stability. Please review recent archives for additional opinions of editors on the quality of this article.
With regard to the good article neutrality criteria, this article has serious issues.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article non-neutrally relies too heavily on one source and its associated point of view: Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case"

Schwartz' point of view, over-represented by the over-reliance on this source, may be summarized (from Schwartz 1991):

... the Ford Pinto case ... can be properly referred to as "mythical."

Schwartz is cited directly at least 20 times. (Meanwhile, at least one book-length treatment is ignored: Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.) The article reads as if Schwartz' point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the Ford Pinto. PrefectF (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your ellipsis is misleading. The full sentence is "The events surrounding the controversy have been described both as a "landmark narrative" and mythical", and overall there doesn't seem to be a strong claim that the scandal was mythical. And disruption from IP editors isn't relevant to stability, especially if the article will remain semi-protected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of coverage of the emergence of the safety issues

Another area in which the article non-neutrally summarizes noteworthy reliable sources is the coverage of the emergence of the controversy. The article expresses the point of view that the safety issues of this product were largely the result of rabble rousing by Mother Jones magazine. Noteworthy reliable sources offering a more balanced perspective were deleted, including The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and 20/20.

Among the first public attention to the fire safety of Ford automobiles was December 30, 1976 when columnist Jack Anderson and investigative journalist Les Whitten writing in The Washington Post said that Ford testing had revealed a fire hazard posed by the placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle in some Ford models, and that "thousands" had died or been disfigured in fires after crashes.

Cullen, Francis T.; Cavender, Gray; Maakestad, William J.; Benson, Michael L. (2014). Corporate Crime Under Attack: The Fight to Criminalize Business Violence. Routledge. p. 146. ISBN 9781317523666. Jack Anderson and Les Whitten were perhaps the first to claim that Ford, despite having the technology to do so, had consciously refused to fix the potentially lethal hazard posed by the placement of the Pinto's gas tank. They began their December 30, 1976, column in The Washington Post by claiming, "Buried in the secret files of the Ford Motor Co. lies evidence that big auto makers have put profits ahead of lives." This "lack of concern," they lamented, "has caused thousands of people to die or be horribly disfigured in fiery crashes." All this, they said, was preventable: "Secret tests by Ford have shown that minor adjustments in the location of the fuel tank could greatly reduce the fiery danger." Moreover, "repositioning of the tank would cost only a few dollars more per car" - not much of a price when human lives are at stake. "In the long run," they warned, "the auto makers are saving little with this 'cost cutting'" Nine months later, these criticisms were elaborated in Mark Dowie's scathing condemnation of Ford, called "Pinto Madness."

Danley, John R. (April 2005). "Polishing up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk". Business Ethics Quarterly. 15 (2): 205–236. Beyond the legal problems, Ford was taking a public relations beating...Several months before the article, Jack Anderson had written a column claiming that thousands of people were either killed or disfigured as a result of this poorly designed vehicle.

Anderson, Jack; Whitten, Les (December 30, 1976). "Auto maker shuns safer gas tank". The Washington Post. Buried in the secret files of the Ford Motor Co. lies evidence that big auto makers have put profits ahead of lives. Their lack of concern has caused thousands of people to die or be horribly disfigured in fiery car crashes. Undisclosed Ford tests have demonstrated that the big auto makers could have made safer automobiles by spending a few dollars more on each car.

Swigert, Victoria Lynn; Farrell, Ronald A. (1980). "Corporate Homicide: Definitional Processes in the Creation of Deviance". Law & Society Review. 15 (1): 161–182. It was not until December 30, 1976, however, that the automobile's fuel tank was brought to public attention in a syndicated editorial appearing in the Washington Post. Columnists Jack Anderson and Les Whitten alleged that: "Buried in the secret files of the Ford Motor Co. lies evidence that big auto makers have put profits ahead of lives. Their lack of concern has caused thousands of people to die or be horribly disfigured in fiery car crashes. Undisclosed Ford tests have demonstrated that the big auto makers could have made safer automobiles by spending a few dollars more on each car."

On June 11, 1978, two days after Ford announced the Pinto recall, CBS televised a segment of 60 Minutes on the Ford Pinto. Host Mike Wallace opened saying, "Is your car safe? Well, if you're driving a Ford Pinto, vintage 1971 to '76, the answer seems to be: Not as safe as it could be." The report included an interview with Ford Pinto fire crash victim Richard Grimshaw, and an interview with Ford's vice president of safety, who said that the value of a human life used in cost-benefit analyses was set by the US government, not by Ford, and that the cost-benefit analysis was taken out of context. The ABC News television program 20/20 ran a segment on the Ford Pinto in June, 1978 featuring the Grimshaw tragedy.

Cullen, Francis T.; Cavender, Gray; Maakestad, William J.; Benson, Michael L. (2014). Corporate Crime Under Attack: The Fight to Criminalize Business Violence. Routledge. pp. 166–167. ISBN 9781317523666. Two days after Ford declared its recall, The Pinto received national exposure again...On Sunday evening, June 11, viewers of 60 Minutes were greeted by Mike Wallace's question, "Is your car safe?" He answered, "Well, if you're driving a Ford Pinto, vintage 1971 to '76, the answer seems to be: Not as safe as it could be." He then proceeded to tell the Pinto story. Richard Grimshaw a was the first to be interviewed. The audience learned that he had been in the hospital for four months following his Pinto Burn accident, and had returned for "about 65 major surgeries."...Herbert Misch, a twenty-three year veteran and vice president of environmental and safety engineering at Ford...countered by saying that the value placed on human lives was set by the government, not by Ford, and that the memo has "been taken totally out of context..."...Like Mike Wallace, other reporters found the Pinto matter a fascinating and eminently newsworthy upperworld scandal.
Schwartz, Gary T. (1990). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case" (PDF). Rutgers Law Review. 43: 1013–1068. By early June, the verdict in the Ford Pinto case was in, the NHTSA hearing was pending, and segment about the Pinto on the CBS television show, 60 Minutes, was imminent. At this point, Ford decided to undertake a "voluntary" recall.
Graham, John D. (1991). "Does liability promote the safety of motor vehicles?"". In Huber, Peter W.; Litan, Robert E. (eds.). The Liability Maze: The Impact of Liability Rules on Innovation and Safety. Washington DC: Brookings Institution. p. 132. ISBN 9780815720188. The television shows "60 Minutes" and "20/20" ran segments in June 1978 that brought the Grimshaw tragedy into millions of American homes. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Wallace, Mike (June 11, 1978). "Is your car safe?". 60 Minutes. CBS News.
Danley, John R (2005). "Polishing Up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk". Business Ethics Quarterly. 15 (2): 205–236. Beyond the legal problems, Ford was taking a public relations beating...On 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace claimed that he found it difficult to accept that top management would sit there and say "Oh, we'll buy 2,000 deaths, 10,000 injuries, because we want to make some money." 20/20 also came out with a critical episode.

PrefectF (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment regarding PrefectF (nice HHGTG reference HughD (talk · contribs)). The Pinto article and talk page are both limited to verified accounts. This was due to a large number of IP edits that were, based on WP:DUCK, considered to be HughD IP socks. Similar text was added to the article talk page by IP editors (socks of HughD) over the past few months. Springee (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's obvious quacking. I would like to read the Washington Post editorial referenced before dismissing his concerns completely. The fact that 60 Minutes and 20/20 did features on the recall after it was announced isn't particularly interesting or relevant to the article; the pending NHTSA order would be more relevant on that matter than a pending 60 minutes piece. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HughD caused quite a lot of headaches for the editors involved with the article. His concerns were discussed and dismissed. The article that HughD is concerned about was discussed in this talk page discussion.[[1]] Springee (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The excluded Washington Post article is a notable source by notable journalists, and it is an investigative journalism report, not an editorial. Mother Jones, a limited circulation specialty magazine is cited seven times in this article, while The Washington Post, 20/20, and 60 Minutes are cited not at all. According to multiple reliable sources, The Washington Post broke the story and the television shows contributed significantly to the national notoriety. The current coverage in the article is non-neutral, a non-neutral editorial bias in favor of the point of view that the Pinto safety issues were a myth promulgated by Mother Jones. PrefectF (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to check is whether anything notable regarding the safety record happened between the first concerns about safety in 1973, and the well-publicized Mother Jones events of 1977. The fact that the source is "notable" isn't relevant, what's relevant is whether it says anything about the Pinto that isn't currently in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commitment to reviewing some of the sources non-neutrally excluded from this article. The most notable aspect of the subject of this article is the story of the fuel system safety. The subject is notorious. How it became notorious is a noteworthy aspect of the story. When and who broke the story, The Washington Post December 1976, is noteworthy. The current article non-neutrally demonizes Mother Jones magazine in support of the mythology point of view. Who made the fuel tank a household word is noteworthy, 20/20 and 60 Minutes. Also, the timing of 20/20 and 60 Minutes reporters preparing their reports is significant to our readers understanding the "voluntary" recall. Relatively few learned of the Ford Pinto fuel system safety issues from Mother Jones. PrefectF (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, sorry you are being subjected to this. Here are some talk sections that discuss the questions being raised. Note that at this point other talk page issues including a proposal to have HughD topic blocked were being floated. [[2]]. The long passage quoted from Lee and Ernmann also discusses some of this. What is notable in the discussions wasn't a dispute that the Anderson article covered the subject first, but that the MJ article was the one that clearly kicked off both the public outcry and the news frenzy.[[3]]. Springee (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The desire to cite certain sources is completely unfounded; the WaPo article, 60 Minutes piece, and 20/20 piece are all primary sources in this context, and the secondary sources currently used are preferred. The concern that Wikipedia should cover the news coverage of the Ford Pinto safety issues as something separately notable from the safety issues themselves ... is weak but not completely frivolous. The obvious place for this would be in "Reception and Criticism". Having a brief mention/summary of the "Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation" in that section might improve the reading of that section; it's somewhat awkward the 1975-1980 period is only discussed in the other section. I don't think it's necessary for the GA review, the coverage in the "Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation" is enough to meet "Broad in its coverage". power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, I don't think any of PrefectF's suggestions are improvements. AFAICT there's no freely-available copy of the 60 Minutes piece, but if one existed, including it in the "External links" section would be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the production table from vertical to horizontal; I think it looks better that way, but if you disagree feel free to revert it. The table should have an inline reference; I'm certain one of the references in the prose section has this data but am not 100% sure which. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the motorsports section. It was longer in the past but the need to cite information made it hard to confirm all but the most limited of facts. It was easier just to remove it. Did a minor rework to the receptions section. I think it's reasonable to break the discussion of the car into reactions at the time (mostly car magazine reviews when the Pinto was new) and legacy mentions in the press (things like worst cars of all time lists etc). I'm not sure the section title is the best but I can't think of anything better. Springee (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]