Talk:Ford Pinto

Mother Jones article

The description of the Mother Jones article is incorrect in that the current version (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/) does not contain a video or any text refering to the video. I briefly went to archive.org, and found versions promising the video, but again could not see it. It seems to me that, rather than sending readers to the Mother Jones web site to find this important article, it needs to be cited and referenced properly so interested readers can see the one the authors of the secondary citations saw.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert, I'm not sure what you mean by video. I think you are referring to citation 85 (Lee and Ermann). In that instance the text is a direct quote from the Lee and Ermann source. Perhaps we could replace the sentence with a "..."? Springee (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

dark cynicism

There was the radio-spot: “Pinto leaves you with that warm feeling.” The acutal strange thing: Even in 1971 this slogan was used, also in 1971 already unusual cases of burning Pintos were reported. This reference suggests that the radio spot was kept and was dropped only years later. If this is true, it would be very dark cynicism...Max schwalbe (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not accept simple deletions. The existence of this slogan can be verified from many different sources. Even in Germany, Die Zeit wrote about it in 1971. i think this should be mentioned / discussed at least.--Max schwalbe (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Another source here. However, it is not mentioned in which year the spot was dropped.--Max schwalbe (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

None of your English sources are reliable. The second one is just a posting of the original, discredited Mother Jones article. Nothing from that article should be assumed true. Even if it is true the material isn't due in the article. Springee (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Mother Jones article

The alleged discrediting of the Mother Jones article seems to be entirely based on one source, which is referred to repeatedly as if that is sufficient. Is it? This entry reads to me like a company-driven revisionist account by a reputation manager. 158.51.81.23 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

MJ's claims are in conflict with scholarly sources on the subject (not just one). Not sure what to do about your second concern. Is there something specific you can point to as an example? Springee (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)