This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Freemasonry Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli Articles to be re-written Freemasonry in Cuba - Entirely AI generated. Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Michigan: Detroit High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Detroit task force. Business High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Automobiles High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Anti-war (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war

Can Somebody please correct the lies & propaganda on this the Henry ford wiki page please ...

Fist up Ford did not create the 8 hour work day as this page incorrectly claims as

This page is inaccurate, fine line between inaccuracy & misinformation.

The following paragraph is just wrong & misleading as Henry ford did not invent the 8 hour work day / 48 hour week. Ford also introduced a new, reduced workweek in 1926. The decision was made in 1922, when Ford and Crowther described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week, but in 1926 it was announced as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week. The program apparently started with Saturday being designated a workday, before becoming a day off sometime later. On May 1, 1926, the Ford Motor Company's factory workers switched to a five-day, 40-hour workweek, with the company's office workers making the transition the following August.'

Australia was the first country in the world to give workers an 8hR work day & the 48hr work week. ( 8 hrs work, 8 hours rest, hours play ) Australia introduced the 8 hr day & the 48hr week on 1 September 1873

8Hour Days & a 48-Hour Week

By Alison Painter

1 September 1873 48-Hour Week

On 1 September 1873 450 employees and 50 employers came together at a banquet to celebrate the first 48 hour week. This had been achieved through the efforts of building trade workers who had appointed a committee to work on an agreement acceptable to the industry. The first firm approached was one of the largest contracting firms in the city and after negotiations the agreement was signed. At the dinner, held in Whites Rooms, Sir Henry Ayers gave an address in which he said in part: The improvement in steam and water power ought to benefit the working classes and shorten their hours of toil. Thus they would be able to improve their minds and raise themselves socially and increase their political power. Labor began to be heard in parliament when in 1893 ten of its nominees were elected to the House of Assembly and it was then that the principle of an eight-hour day received legislative sanction. The celebration of this achievement is carried on with Labor Day holiday and parade. The 40-hour week was sanctioned in 1948. ‘How Labor Day was born’, The News, 11 October 1938, Newspaper Cuttings Book, Volume 2, p.124.

How Australia's world-first 8 hour day was achieved - ABC listen https://discoversouthaustraliashistory.org.au/chronology/september/1-september-1873-48-hour-week.shtml

The Origins of the Eight Hour Day | HACSU Tasmania [1]https://www.hacsu.org.au/HACSU/Everything_Else/Workplace_Issues___Information/the-origins-of-the-eight-hour-day/HACSU/Content/Workplace_Issues___Information/the-origins-of-the-eight-hour-day.aspx?hkey=a21502ae-d662-49a4-949c-50648093b0ab

&

[2]https://atui.org.au/2021/04/21/1856-the-eight-hour-day-strike/

i just think Wikipedia does a lot of good allowing people to fill its pages with lies & propaganda does nothing but undermine Wikipedia as a legitimate source for accurate information.

Also can somebody please add this link to better reflect the fact Ford did not invent the Ute/utility/Truck it was Australia, And an Australian/'s

How the utility vehicle, once dismissed by Henry Ford as a 'kangaroo chaser', became an Australian classic By Tim Lee

[3]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-27/great-australian-ute-story-of-utility-vehicle-s-birth/100855458

&

Ford celebrates Aussie ute’s 80th anniversary as the pioneer of the company’s global truck leadership ( 2014 )

[4]https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2014/02/25/ford-celebrates-aussie-ute-s-80th-anniversary.html

Cheers. 114.30.110.77 (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s good information. Thank you. NW Cracker (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NW Cracker Where do you find these claims in the article? I can't. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian 48-hour week was not universal; it was specifically targeted only at female workers and children in larger factories with10 or more employees. Adult men were not covered. By 1874 it was reported that the Act was ineffective in what it tried to cover. In October 1874 a long article in the Argus entitled ‘The Factories of Melbourne’, stated: ‘many manufactories in Melbourne were neglecting to comply with the regulations’, citing overcrowded workrooms, poor ventilation, insanitary facilities, and long hours worked by young children. see online historical account Rjensen (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he had right wing views in 1927 but was a democrat at the time. That would make his antisemitism left wing. NW Cracker (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are anti-semites of every political position. And the Democrats weren't left wing then. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? The Democrats were the KKK in the south in the 1920s. How can you say they weren’t left wing? Two parties, two wings. NW Cracker (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NW Cracker Confused here. KKK was left wing? Doug Weller talk 10:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Democrats have historically been pro segregation and anti civil rights. Especially in the early part of the century. Trying to spin the Democrat Ford as far right is laughable. NW Cracker (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a position is defined as right-wing or left-wing depends on how it fits into the ideological frameworks those labels describe (see right-wing politics and left-wing politics for some details about how they're defined academically.) When portions of the Democrats held right-wing views, they were the right wing of the party; historically, the Democrats and Republicans both had right- and left-wings. It wasn't until around the 70s-80s that they finished fully sorting themselves into entirely right-wing and left-wing parties. Saying "this was a position held by a wing of the Democrats at one point, therefore it was a left-wing view" is backwards - it's political parties that are defined by their ideological positions; the meaning of ideological positions don't get redefined based on which political parties hold them. --Aquillion (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I would say that the Democrats had both left- and right-wing sections then (just like the Republicans; Rockefeller Republicans were a thing.) The parties didn't fully sort themselves into their modern positions until the 70s-80s. It wouldn't even be wrong to say that by the 1930s the Democratic Party had probably already started to lean left (the process really started in earnest with FDR), but it still contained a sizeable right-wing contingent of which Ford was a part. --Aquillion (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting points, thank you. NW Cracker (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry ford is not alive anymore. 2603:8000:F63D:271E:8CCA:F36E:C5A9:9393 (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On April 7, 1947 Henry Ford died. He made the ford cars. 2603:8000:F63D:271E:8CCA:F36E:C5A9:9393 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ford also paid to print and distribute 500,000 copies of the antisemitic fabricated text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and is reported to have paid for the English translation of Hitler's Mein Kampf.

I'll take the two parts of this separately. The first part is a common myth. If Ford published half a million copies of the Protocols, they would be easy to find, but they can't be found because they don't exist. The origin of this story is unpicked here and here. The Dearborn Independent published a series of original articles that included quotations from the Protocols, but it didn't publish the Protocols as a whole (you can check at archive.org). The number 500,000 is the claimed maximum circulation of DI, rounded up, though it is distorted by the "subscriptions" Ford imposed on dealers and customers (you buy a car, you get a copy of the DI). In any case, the reading of our article that implies there was a publication separate from the DI is wrong despite the sources that repeat the myth. Regarding the second claim (English translation), it is the type of thing Ford would have done but I searched multiple sources without confirming it. The present citation seems to be a radio show (?); I challenge its reliability. Incidentally, one true fact is that some editions of Mein Kampf included a favorable mention of Ford.^[1] Other editions removed the mention of Ford; maybe there is a story in that. Zero^talk 02:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth looking into the first one a bit more. Do we have any RSs saying that the 500k copies claim is incorrect? The two citations are to reasonable news sources but we should always be careful when a news article mentions a historic fact. Did the writer research the claim or repeat a "known" fact? The current WP link is dead. In checking for citogenesis, I looked at the version of the article before the cnbc article was published. That version has a WP link that works but is paywalled. Also, at the time it only says the paper reprinted the text but doesn't say anything about 500,000 copies. If we can't find a solid source verifying the claim made by the cnbc writer I would suggest removing the specific claim and using the older one. The same is true of the translation claim. Again, if we have only once source and it's not well supported I would again say remove it as a bit too "red flag" given the quality of sourcing. While both of these things may be true, if the best sourcing we have is weak then odds are the claims aren't due for inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not so dubious. A series in his paper; a stand alone book. Here are two contemporaneous sources.^[2][3] Is there a source that establishes the number of books and/or the circulation of the newspaper? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources support that the Dearborn Independent reprinted parts of the protocols. It doesn't support the 500,000 copies claim nor the translation claim. Zero's concerns still stand. Springee (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The CNBC source in the article says this: "Ford, for instance, paid to print and distribute 500,000 copies of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which has renewed popularity in America among today’s neo-Nazi and white supremacists." However, the WaPo source, which is reprinted here, says "One of the paper’s [The Dearborn Independent's] chief targets was the so-called “International Jew,” a sinister figure cited as the root cause of World War I. In 1921, The Independent printed the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” even though the book had by then been exposed as a forgery created by the Russian czar’s secret police in 1905 to foment virulent anti-Semitism." That doesn't support the 500,000 figure, and seems to be saying it was printed in the newspaper itself, rather than as a standalone book. [And, honestly, I'm not sure that's even true.]

The "Henry Ford printed 500,000 copies of the Protocols" factoid seems to be repeated in numerous places. However, I suspect it arises from a conflation between the Protocols and The International Jew. Here's an article from the Holocaust Museum. They say "The International Jew, based largely on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", sold more than 500,000 copies and was translated into at least 16 languages." That matches the number of copies, and does mention the Protocols. Andrew Jameson (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: It's a bit hard to prove a negative (i.e., no one talks about what Henry Ford didn't do, only what he did), but: I downloaded Henry Ford's War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech (DOI: 10.2307/j.ctvqsdsb9, author Victoria Saker Woeste). It's 424 pages, and mentions the Protocols dozens of times, but does not mention that Ford reprinted them. The closest it comes is:

On May 22, 1920, the Independent launched the antisemitic series, purporting to reveal the role of the “International Jew” in world affairs. In ninety articles that ran weekly for nearly two years, the Independent excerpted and recapitulated the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, adapted and Americanized for its intended audience.

That's not conclusive, but the entire book is about Ford and his antisemitic publications, so I'm doubtful the author would have overlooked that detail. So, excerpts in the Independent and later in The International Jew, but not actually a stand-alone reprint. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Google AI gave me the following:

Henry Ford funded the publication and distribution of approximately

500,000 copies of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the United States during the early 1920s.

In addition to distributing the Protocols directly, Ford utilized his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, to serialize, promote, and build upon the fabricated text. Key details regarding this effort include:

   ::The International Jew: Ford aggregated the anti-Semitic articles from his newspaper into a four-volume set titled The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, which was based heavily on the Protocols.
   ::Distribution Network: These materials were distributed through Ford’s nationwide network of automobile dealerships.
   ::Mass Circulation: At its peak, The Dearborn Independent had a circulation of roughly 700,000 to 900,000, ensuring the widespread dissemination of the Protocols' conspiracy theories.
   ::International Impact: Due to Ford's refusal to copyright these materials, they were translated into at least 16 languages and circulated globally, becoming a major source of anti-Semitic propaganda in Germany. 

Ford continued this campaign until libel lawsuits forced him to issue a retraction in 1927.

Here is another source that shows the books and the lawsuit:

"Henry Ford and Antisemitism: The Notorious "Dearborn Independent"". The American Jewish Archives.

Calling them "dubious" does not make it so. Ipse dixit does not apply here.

WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. And Henry Ford is long since dead, so we have no concern about defamation. That he was sued and stopped and apologized is good evidence that it was true! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I think following the language of the Holocaust Museum on the subject makes sense. Perhaps we should remove the other references and replace them with a link to the HM article. Springee (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

re Protocols: see the major book Wheels for the World: Henry Ford, His Company, and a Century of Progress by history professor Douglas Brinkley - (2004) p 262 "Among the receptive were William Cameron and Henry Ford, who pored over the volume and apparently believed every word in it. After editing the book for American sensibilities, they serialized it in the Dearborn Independent beginning in October 1920, under the running headline "The International Jew." It continued for ninety-one weeks and Ford later published the collected pieces in a widely distributed book of the same title. "I suggested the name The International Jew," Ernest Liebold claimed without compunction years later." Rjensen (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Dearborn Independent and "The International Jew" are already covered in the previous paragraph in the Henry Ford Wikipedia article, and Brinkley's quote squares pretty closely with Woeste's quote. What does not seem to be true is that in addition to publishing the Dearborn Independent and "The International Jew," Ford "also paid to print and distribute 500,000 copies of the antisemitic fabricated text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

I think this would be more clear if something like the Brinkley quote were referred to in the article when the Dearborn Independent is first discussed.Andrew Jameson (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust Encyclopedia seems like an authoritative source.

It states:

The Protocols inspired many other books that promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. Among the best known in the United States was Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. Ford was the founder of the Ford Motor Company. He was one of the most famous and respected people in the United States by the 1920s. The International Jew was first serialized in Ford’s newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. It was quickly published as a book and translated into at least 16 languages, including German. Nazi Party leaders, among them Adolf Hitler, took inspiration from The International Jew.^[4]

I've said enough. Nothing to see here. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everything you have posted aligns with what others are saying. Ford published a lot of material based on the protocols but we don't have good sources that he published copies of the protocols themselves which is the claim being questioned. Springee (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The source says: "they say The International Jew, based largely on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.... was published by Ford. I am not saying he published the Protocols. You are niff nawing over a miniscule and immaterial difference. Those books still exist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The question that started this discussion was about claims within the Wiki article. The Wiki article says he published 500,000 copies of The Protocols... but I think we all agree the sources don't say he did that. The sources do say he published a lot of material based on the protocols. The "dubious claim" was specifically that he published 500,000 copies of The Protocols..., not that he published hundreds of thousands of copies of The International Jew. The other dubious claim was the one below about a translation of Mein Kampf. Again, it appears that specific claim is unsupported and perhaps a confusion with a different person named Ford who did a translation. Springee (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to archive.org and search for "International Jew", you will find several volumes of it. I don't want to put a link here. Take a look if you haven't eaten recently. Note that it consists of a collection of articles from the Dearborn Independent. The thing that stands out most is that it is primarily about the American domestic scene (which is not mentioned in the Protocols) and, apart from a few short articles that quote a paragraph or two, the Protocols are rarely mentioned. It is nonsense to say that it serialized the Protocols, and stretching credibility to say that it is primarily based on the Protocols. These US authors were perfectly capable of producing their own antisemitic rants and didn't need to rely on a Russian forgery. There is actually a good reason why only a little of the Protocols is quoted: most of it is gibberish and the reaction of a typical US reader would be "huh?". The propaganda aim is better served by quoting a little and just making claims about the rest. This episode reminds me of Protocols authority Hagemeister's complaint that many authors who write about the Protocols appear to have not read them. Zero^talk 02:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, the above discussion has been focused on the "Protocols," and not the "Mein Kampf" claim. The "Mein Kampf" claim is sourced to what seems to be a now-deleted page for a German radio show, so it's not clear how it supported the claim. In any case, I note that the newest (2009) and most complete English translation was done by Michael Ford, so "Ford's English translation of Mein Kampf is actually a thing, it just doesn't have anything to do with Henry Ford. I suggest either the German radio show or the Wikipedia editor who added that factoid to the article got their Fords confused. Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any source that says Henry Ford produced/commissioned a translation I would remove that as fails wp:V. We can't be certain what the original source meant if it no longer exists. Springee (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a couple sentences about the Protocols, representing what I think is the consensus of this discussion, into the paragraph about the Independent and The International Jew; I also removed the sentence on the Protocols later in the section. Andrew Jameson (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]