Talk:Firestone Tire and Rubber Company/Archive 2
== "First Firestone investigation" section == WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEH A FIRESTONE (FR480 SERIES) AND A FIRESTONE(FR480 MS SERIES) OF TIRES ? (SMITH)
I just noticed the edit made a few minutes ago, with the edit summary, "(→First Firestone investigation - non-notable, ancient history)" and it piqued my curiosity. Looking over the material removed, the provided reasoning for removing it is not convicing to me. 1979 is hardly "ancient history", and two apparently reputable sources rather rebutt the claim that something is "non-notable". I presume there has been considerable more discussion on this; as an outsider, I'd appreciate it if someone would mind giving me a very short summary of the arguments for and against including this section. I'm certainly open to changing my opinion. Thanks for your time and attention! JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Firestone 500 fiasco should be a significant part of the article. Here's what I wrote earlier. Late 1960's to late 70's corporate mismangement, and series of mistakes and poor decision making almost bankrupted the company. It's so significant that Harvard Business School (and other business schools) wrote papers on it, so that other corporations can avoid making the same near-disastrous mistakes. Please see Wharton and Harvard. One of the first aricles I found when I search for 'Firestone 500 Hearings' stated:
- "Back in the '70s, Firestone was in a similar position. You may remember the Radial 500 tires and the fiasco that followed. The company's director of development wrote a memo stating, "We are making an inferior quality radial tire, which will subject us to belt-edge separation at high mileage."
- "So what did Firestone do? Nothing. They kept it hush-hush and kept on manufacturing the 500s. A high number of consumers were completely dissatisfied with their 500s and brought them back. Firestone still did nothing." Firestone Rides on its New Ad Campaign (ultimately leading to the biggest consumer recall in American history, the largest NHTSA fine in history, congressional hearings on Firestone 500 Tires, and nearly bankrupted the company) This will be a major part of the article. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough -- it stays. Thank you for a sane and cogent explanation. MortonDevonshire Yo • 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I completely rewrote this section. I'm open to constructive criticism. - Fairness & Accuracy For Harvey Fierstein 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Morton, the new version is ok, needs a few typo fixes though. Got a bit confused with where to look for the mods, your draft page or the main article, diffs, showed you did your edit to the main article. Mobile 01Talk 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - I'll delete the draft article. Just rewrote the 'sale to Bridgestone' part. Who knows how to make those cool ref links? I was going to answer your email to me, but you have your email option disabled. - Fairness & Accuracy For Harvey Fierstein 01:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You should have my email address as it says it will send it to you with the mail message, if not I will provide it, I have it turned off for two reasons, 1- to prevent the possible bombardment of hate mail. 2- to prevent me being further recruited into other peoples wars. Mobile 01Talk 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Editors would never send you hate mail. I answer mail through the Wiki form, the same way you contacted me. Cheers, and thanks for teaching me the word Larrikinism. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You should have my email address as it says it will send it to you with the mail message, if not I will provide it, I have it turned off for two reasons, 1- to prevent the possible bombardment of hate mail. 2- to prevent me being further recruited into other peoples wars. Mobile 01Talk 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - I'll delete the draft article. Just rewrote the 'sale to Bridgestone' part. Who knows how to make those cool ref links? I was going to answer your email to me, but you have your email option disabled. - Fairness & Accuracy For Harvey Fierstein 01:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Firestone and racing
[edit]IMHO there should be a dedicated racing section, just like the Bridgestone article has. The Firestone brand was very important in American racing (and somewhat important in EU), and still is in the USA, to some extent. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, The Goodyear and Michellin pages have one too. There are several dedictaed wiki articles already that cover the different Firestone racing codes Firestone Indy 200, Firestone Indy 225, and Firestone Indy 400 plus a multitude of history about Harvey Firestone and his invlovement with the Indy car Series. Mobile 01Talk 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a 'code'. Thats the name of the race because Firestone is the sponsor, and the number of miles. Another one is named the 'Peak Antifreeze Indy 300' for instance. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- OH!, shows how much I know about Racing in the USA. I thought they were racing codes. We have different racing codes here in Australia which use numbers. These relate to the size of the engines. Sorry, My Bad. Mobile 01Talk 04:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just found a whole page on Firestone's racing history. FS racing - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Firestone/Bridgestone template
[edit]As time desire permits, I will make a Firestone/Bridgestone template. This way everything about the company can be in one convenient place. Similar to: Template:Colombia conflict one of the many templates I created. Travb (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Timeline copyvio
[edit]The "100 Years Company History Timeline" subsection is (despite the "reworded" disclaimer) 100% copvio from the company timeline page. As per Wikipedia:Copyright violations, I have removed it. — Athænara ✉ 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Athaenara, would you reconsider this decision? This edit puts me in an awkward position. I have very liberal views on copyright, and I have praised Mobile 01/203 anon before for adding this table.
- Re: copyright: I have added several issues into the timeline, which make the timeline different than the original. Maybe you were not aware of this when you removed the timeline.
- Could you please reconsider? I change my mind on things all the time, I think that makes a persons position stronger, not weaker.
- Again, this is uncomfortable for me, since you have been so helpful to me in the past, but I really feel like the timeline is okay. I look forward to your response. Travb (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing personal about copyvio and plagiarism issues and policy, they simply are what they are. This has nothing to do with "awkward," "liberal," "uncomfortable," "helpful," "feel like," etc.—a few alterations do not protect a violation from being what it is. — Athænara ✉ 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I used an emotional appeal first on your talk page in the hope you may reconsider your postion Athaenara.
- My background
- My first Arbcom was with User:TDC who in my opinion, used copyright as a way to silence oposition and as a tool in an edit war.
- I was indefinetly booted for alleged copyright violations. What led up to my indefinete ban was questioning a powerful administor who was pushing for, in my opinion, draconian fair use rules to "protect" wikipedia. This admin refused to answer my question 8 times, and took my questions as an insult to her authority. (She was later hounded off of wikipedia)
- Fair use
- As you may know, I am a law student in my third year, last semester I took an international intellectual property class with a esteemed local intellectual property lawyer. Fair use laws are purpously vague. This timeline would probably fit into the definition of fair use. (Again, it is hard to say, because fair use rules are so vague--in addition, I don't think a legal case "on point" would persuade you one way or the other at this point)
- Wikipedia rules
- Wikipedia rules on copyright are also contentious and in flux. For some more information on Fair use, see Wikipedia:Fair use and User:Travb/Fair_use
- Despite the hysteria and falacious slippery slope arguments by the small group of editors who are completly ignorant of copyright law and like to push their weight around (I am talking about other editors, Athaenara, not you), restoring the Firestone timeline would not be the end of wikipedia. The timeline is an acceptable addition to wikipedia under wikipedia rules.
- In addition I have modified the timeline to include controversial issues, so it is not like the original timeline anymore.
- Athaenara, I am sad that my initial emotional appeal did not change your mind, I doubt a factual appeal will either.
- Athaenara, thanks for taking the time to respond. Travb (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing personal about copyvio and plagiarism issues and policy, they simply are what they are. This has nothing to do with "awkward," "liberal," "uncomfortable," "helpful," "feel like," etc.—a few alterations do not protect a violation from being what it is. — Athænara ✉ 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright is not the only issue involved: another issue is the problem of the encyclopedia being used for corporate promotion (and here's some good reading on that subject). No, I am not particularly moved by your appeals—perhaps because I've seen so many of them in the past month ;-P My interest is in the neutrality and legitimacy of the encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be easier for the two of you to then work together to remove items in the timeline that you feel are "promotional" and not historically significant, thus allowing even more of a differentiation from the old timeline that this one derived from? --Nuclear
Zer013:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)- Hi Nuclear, welcome to the party. I like your idea.
- Athaenara My stance is consistent. Most reference are acceptable on wikipedia. I have fought for months about sources being WP:RS WP:V. I agree that these rules such as WP:RS WP:V are important, but they are often abused. I feel that Bridgestone corporate, which knows about its history better than almost anyone, would be a good source for this article.
- Nuclear, I am going to take your advice. Travb (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be easier for the two of you to then work together to remove items in the timeline that you feel are "promotional" and not historically significant, thus allowing even more of a differentiation from the old timeline that this one derived from? --Nuclear
- Copyright is not the only issue involved: another issue is the problem of the encyclopedia being used for corporate promotion (and here's some good reading on that subject). No, I am not particularly moved by your appeals—perhaps because I've seen so many of them in the past month ;-P My interest is in the neutrality and legitimacy of the encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 08:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Timeline workshop
[edit]Struck items are items which probably are unnecessary for the article, and can be removed.
Items in yellow are new added items, which need more background.
PLEASE only change the "modified" version, not the orginal version. I will revert any changes to the original version. Travb (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Click here to change the modified version
Table added by 203 anon/mobile 01 Copy of Firestone 100 Year Celebration Timeline
|
Modified table
|
I made some minor changes such as removing 49th win, changing "perfected method" to "created method" and removing "now popular", hopefully this addressed some of the issues brought forth regarding promotional material. The 49th win did not seem particularly notable, the 468th doesnt either, but it states the car was a charger which may be why its notable. Other then that it was just a matter of more neutral wording. Hope this helps all, if anyone feels I made todrastic of a change let me know, not trying to step in middle, just help reach a middle ground. --NuclearZer0 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe "Bridgestone won its first F1 world championship in only its second season as Mika Hakkinen captured the driver's title in 1998. His team, McLaren, won the constructor's championship." should be readded, as winning their first F1 Championship would eb a milestone, perhaps if its needed to be cut down, remove that it was its "second season." or who won it possibly, but it seems it would be an important piece of history for the company. --Nuclear
Zer013:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)- I removed this information because F1 has nothing to do with Firestone. Only Bridgestone Tyres are used in F1 and these are all manufactured by Bridgestone Japan. This information can be added to the Bridgestone article if it's not already there. Formula 1 racing contracts for tyre use are between Fifa and Bridgestone Corporation Japan and do not include any of it's subsidiaries which includes Firestone both in USA and Europe. Mobile 01Talk 06:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Archive
[edit]For simplicity, I converted the 4 archives into one large archive, since they were all archived on the same day. If anyone here needs to refer to past discussions, it will be much easier to search through one archive instead of 4. Travb (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I originally had it as 1 archive but the message came up about it being too big. It's 128 long and so I dropped it into 4 by 30ish. Following the how to archive a talk page suggestion to keep pages at a reasonable size, this made it faster to load for slower connection speeds and made the contents menu smaller and easier to locate discussion. If you feel it is better as one long archive then OK. When the current page gets too long, are we going to keep adding to the archive1. At what point do you eventually create an archive2. Mobile 01Talk 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can start from this point on =) That way the previous discussions are kept together, and the size doesnt get larger. --Nuclear
Zer013:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can start from this point on =) That way the previous discussions are kept together, and the size doesnt get larger. --Nuclear
Jingle
[edit]Is it legitimate to say that a jingle which first ran in the 1960s "helped establish the name" of a company founded in 1900? It's a very catchy jingle, but please! 68.53.110.123 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- There has been discussion already on whether the jingle should even be included in the article or not and the general consensus was Keep. You can look at the archives for the discussion thread. As for the statement that it helped to establish the name, this I believe was a direct quote from the Firestone Radio show although it was never deemed required to reference this as a citation. Mobile 01Talk 06:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)