Talk:Firestone and Ford tire controversy
|This page was nominated for deletion on 15 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firestone and Ford tire controversy article.|
Two changes I made
There were two changes I made. The first was to take out the reference "by non-Union labor" when noting that the tires were manufactured in Decatur, Illinois during the labor strike that stretched on for a couple of years. As noted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 2000 or 2001 (unfortunately I don't have the article in front of me), it is unknown if the bad tires were because of low training of the non-Union labor, or if it was sabotage by a Union laborer who had crossed the line. I live near Decatur, it was an extremely bitter strike and both were possibilities. I didn't want to get into it in the article, but you can't say that the problems were caused by non-Union labor because we just don't know.
The second change was the note that the Car and Driver test was for a rapidly deflating tire, not a tire with tread separation. As noted in the Car and Driver article, they couldn't replicate tread separation so they did deflation - not the same thing. I wrote them a letter slamming their testing methods, they printed it (letter to the editor) a couple of months later. I love Car and Driver and am a subscriber... but it was a poorly designed test. Magicalharp (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Why shouldn't this whole article be deleted?
I know this is pretty brash for an unregistered user, but please explain why any of this article should stand without citations? The whole article is composed of unsourced statements of questionable accuracy. Check out Unless someone decides to back up any of these bald assertions, I think the article should be junked. 22.214.171.124 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
current version of this article is copied from the section in Ford Explorer
The title of this article is misleading. It gives the reader the idea that there was a court case involving Firestone versus Ford. This is incorrect and should be changed. Perhaps this should be moved to Firestone, Ford Explorer controversy or some other title. Any other suggestions are always welcome. -moogle 22:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I can be so blunt, this is a terrible article, with zero sources.
Both articles would be better served being merged into the respective Ford and Firestone sections, where more editors can edit and improve the article. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - The Ford article needs things taken out, not more put back. It's massive. Mark83 15:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. You're right, Travb, this is not a well-written article. However, it could be, with a little work, and this subject is notable by itself. This was a huge deal in the news when it happened. I think that it deserves it's own article. I don't like the title of the article (maybe just "Firestone tire controversy" would be better, or something else), but I think that there should be sections about it in the Firestone and Ford articles, with "Full Article:" links to this article. --Aervanath 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the Firestone article already has a section on it.--Aervanath 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Closed Actually, on second thought, I agree. Thanks for your comments all.Travb (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just to chime in, I would tend to agree that this should not be merged with the Ford and Firestone articles. I concur that the Ford article is way too cluttered with extraneous material, and this material would only serve to further that clutter. I also concur that the topic deserves a seperate article. If the Firestone article already has a mention of the topic, then it should be removed from there, a sentence or two should describe what happened, and link to a separate article (this one) for the topic. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion discussions before this seem to have been focused on the lack of sources, but is the topic of the article even notable enough for an article? Doesn't look like there was that much media coverage, and this was really only a minor incident. The tyres on several cars failed prematurely, and this failure was attributed to the supplier. This doesn't sound that important to me, and I think the lead sums it up: "a period of unusually high tire failures on some Ford vehicles." --126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)