Talk:DuPont (1802–2017)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

playing hardball

".. the DuPonts played hardball with publisher Prentice-Hall .. " What does "playing hardball" mean ? Is it a phrase ? Why did they have to do anything with P-H ? Was the book against the DuPonts ? Jay 08:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Playing hardball with is a colloquial figurative phrase meaning getting tough with.
H Padleckas 11:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Didn't they have also some involvement in the (re?)criminalization of marijuana in the United States? I could be mistaken... Jeff 8:80, May12 2005

The two paragraphs toward the bottom about CFCs and the Tennant family could use some rewriting. Parag, 10:30, 6 August 2005

Removed huge section

I commented out a large section towards the end for just sounding biased and not being sourced. If someone can rewrite the tone or find sources I missed it's still there for re-addition.

Thanx 68.39.174.91 06:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim that they invented CFCs is supported by thier own website [1]. The same site supports the claim that the move away from CFCs is only happening in developed countries:

"In 1991, DuPont commercialized its first family of CFC alternative refrigerants under the Suva® brand in response to the changing needs and priorities of societies around the world. These low- or nonozone-depleting products, HCFCs and HFCs, have enabled an economical, nondisruptive global transition away from CFCs -- a transition still underway in some developing economies."

Note the cute in response to the changing needs and priorities of societies around the world, kinda like, having an ozone layer is a lifestyle choice.

See also [2] [3] [4] [http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030813/index.php] [5] [6] [http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030606/secretplan.php] [7] [8]

Content of article

It concerns me that the largest single part of this article, comprising maybe half the article, is criticism of the company in question. It seems that some people have an anti-corporation axe to grind??? I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not going to edit it immediatly, but I intend to do a bit of research and balance the article a bit.

Of all the corporations in the world I feel that DuPont are far from the worst, with the reputation they have for being one of the safest companies around and for their focus on safety and the environment. Sure there are accidents, leaks and seepages but I think if you take the time to do your research you'll find that the frequency of such occurances is far below the frequency in almost any other comparable company.

NPOV in this article

I took out a paragraph describing DuPont's connections with Nazi Germany because the first sentence really betrayed the point of putting it in this article and made me doubt that its inclusion upheld NPOV...

"Charles Higham's book on the subject of DuPont connections to Nazi Germany, "Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949," is highly recommended."

Wikipedia is not a book club. Books are to be used as sources for information. At least that is my understanding. If whoever it is would like to rewrite this section, making it more relevant to a critcism of DuPont specifically (Higham's book, as far as I know, was not JUST about the subject of DuPont's connections to Nazi Germany), I would have no problem with it. Just remember not to quote from the book but rather to give a general idea of the point and then source it properly (and of course list the book itself in the sources section).

"Du Pont's anti-Semitism "matched that of Hitler" and, in 1933, the Du Ponts "began financing native fascist groups in America . . ." one of which Higham identifies as the American Liberty League: "a Nazi organization whipping up hatred of blacks and Jews," and the "love of Hitler". "Financed . . . to the tune of $500,000 the first year, the Liberty League had a lavish thirty-one-room office in New York, branches in twenty-six colleges, and fifteen subsidiary organizations nationwide that distributed fifty million copies of its Nazi pamphlets." "Between 1932 and 1939, bosses of General Motors [DuPont was a major shareholder] poured $30 million into I.G. Farben plants . . ." Further, Higham informs us that by "the mid-1930s, General Motors was committed to full-scale production of trucks, armored cars, and tanks in Nazi Germany." It is worth noting, however, that this was accomplished through its German carmaking subsidiary, Adam Opel AG which, along with most other manufacturing companies, was conscripted into building up the Wehrmacht for the Nazis."

As it stands this section clearly has a POV and also includes information about things that have no relevance to DuPont.

--IRelayer 23:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Killed off the paragraph allegign Du Pont's manufacture of Zyklon B used at Auschwitz as it was unsourced.Mikedelsol (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Stock Ticker

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but in the category description box, there is a link to Dow's stock instead of DuPont's. I don't have the spare moment to edit it right now, but hopefully someone else can fix this.

--Dpraedan 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

DD is the correct symbol. You have to click on the link arrow at the end to get the quote-- if you click on DD, you get a blank NYSE page. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I probably should have specified, but I meant at the bottom of the page. There it has the link to DOW.

--Dpraedan 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

More on NPOV

This article is yet another example of the "negative" writings that dominates many Wikipedia articles. The "criticism" is longer than all other parts of the aricle when in fact, the conduct of the DuPont company, its employees, and family members epitomizes a history of integrity that is filled with earned respect. This is in FACT a company with an outstanding reputation spanning more than two hundred years. To point out a few minor and allegedly negative incidents, or portray what happened years ago in the context of today's knowledge, is nothing less than a disservice to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is ever going to have credibilty, this type of unbalanced writing has to end. - Ted Wilkes 17:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

From User talk:Mwanner:

This article is certainly not balanced as you claim it should be, not even remotely close to that. If you (or others) have serious intent to create credible articles, then do as you state and ensure "balance." It is not "contributing" by inserting only real or alleged "criticsm". There are, many, mamy, many, such crap articles at Wikipedia. You may have lived in Wilmington, but it means little and Wikipedia:No original research means "No personal opinions" as were there. Some insertion about about North carolina "leeks" is pure crap until it is placed in precise context with Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And please don't tell me what edits you will "let stand". I spelled out the reasons for my deletions fully in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy. You, or anyone else are free to add, reinsert etc. them in the same Policy manner - and when you do, you have an obligation to provide balance. This article as it stood (still) is a disgrace. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your references are non-scientific. They are all either personal websites Wikipedia:No original research) and activist groups which don't provide scientific facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and sources must be unimpeachable -- lobby or special interest groups are not acceptable as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia policy requires: "Cite peer-reviewed scientific journals." And in Court cases, you need to provide a Court and court case number for referencing and the judgment details - Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) does not quote allegations in frivolous cases. Also, one case you refer to was thrown out of court as being without foundation but the link to the article doesn't work on the Activist Group page you linked to. As to CFC's, what is the purpose of quoting this? Did DuPont deliberately create a product to harm the environment? Did they conspire to hide facts so they could sell them? They did not - ever. DuPont was one company of many around the world who made a product that later turned out "might" be harmful to the ozone layer. So what? Scientists haven't even agreed on that, or the effects, unlike say Thalidomide, which was withdrawn from sale after it was discovered to cause severe birth defects because it inhibits angiogenesis. There are millions of products that we later learned caused harm (or might have) but an encyclopedia doesn't devote its content to these unless the company knowingly created a harmful product and hid the facts - a criminal act. DuPont is in fact one of the best corporate citizens in American history with family members and corporate personnel demonstrating a history of the highest integrity. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 12:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As well, comments taken out of context and without citing the verifiable source are not acceptable.

"On April 27, 1992 DuPont announced that "we will stop selling CFC's as soon as possible," but only in the "US and other developed countries."

- Ted Wilkes 12:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ted, there is currently a worldwide agreement in effect (first coming into force in 1989) known as the Montreal Protocol to phase out CFC production completely by the year 2006. 189 countries are party to the agreement, including the United States (No major country is not a signatory except for Iraq), and it is being administered by international institutions such as the World Bank. I don't think this would happen if there was any credible doubt about the harmful effects of CFCs on the ozone layer. What are your authoritative references for your statement that there is no scientific consensus about this matter (Rush Limbaugh and shills for the refrigerator industry don't count) Bwithh 14:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My objection here has zero to do with the effects of CFC's on the ozone. It is why are we referring to this in DuPont? Please read what I said above. It isn't up to me to provide rebuttals to ozone claims. It is only up to whoever inserts something to meet Wikipedia policy and provide reliable sources from scientific journals and in the appropriate article. - Ted Wilkes 15:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the reasons for notable inclusion here are that 1) CFC impact on the ozone layer is a priority global environmental issue 2) Dupont invented CFCs 3)Dupont has been/is the world's leading producer of CFCs and will be the leading producer of the refrigerant chemicals which replace them. 4) This is a major issue for the company. Allegations that the company attempted to stall or stop anti-CFC legislation need to be referenced properly, but I don't see why this issue shouldn't be included.

Here are a couple of links which put the Dupont company's involvement in the ozone layer debate in a good light ("Dupont showed responsibility and took the lead in proving that CFCs were harmful to the ozone layer" kind of stories) : http://www.thetech.org/nmot/detail.cfm?id=116&st=awardDate&qt=2002&kiosk=Off http://www.siam.org/siamnews/mtc/0195111.htm

I suggest these positive perspectives be entered onto the page and balanced with critical perspectives with proper referencing Bwithh 15:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

For the third time: What is the point for a comment on the CFC's possible problem? They made a product that turned out to possibly have problems, one out of hundreds of thousands created by many companies over the centuries that years later revealed there were problems with. It's only material if they developed a "widget" with the intent of causing harm etc. "Allegations" by activists with a $2 website aren't "sources." Hence, if a comment is made on CFC's, it starts with the actual product, its uses and value to society then ---- x number of years later scientific research by ????-source and ????-source suggested the possibility etc. As a result, by 2005 (whenever), DuPont and other CFC producers have done ....

Again, I repeat. Scan though Wikipedia and you will find numerous negative remarks about people and companies. It is an attitude that must be stopped. Go to the John E. du Pont article and all it said of him was he shot someone and gave some convoluted mention of guilty but mentally ill. Not a word on his academia, nor his major stamp collecting, only that he shot someone. An Anonymous user read a few of these types of crap biographies and then decided Wikipedia was the place to add his own negative BS and conspiracy theory about John Seigenthaler. This DuPont company article, before I deleted it, was fifty percent or more filled with garbage negatives and innuendo and without the required sources. - The response was to then give unacceptable sources and more unsubstantiated statements detrimental to the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for activists views, hate literature, or character (personal or corporate) assassination. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. Balanced NPOV writing is essential but for an encyclopedia, CFC's are infinitesimal to a 200 year corporate history of a company that developed many, many products that bettered the lives of everyone and set an example for integrity in dealing with employees, suppliers and the community. - Ted Wilkes 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"It's only material if they developed a "widget" with the intent of causing harm"?! So the Exxon Valdez oil spill can't be mentioned in the Exxon page, the Bhopal Disaster can't be mentioned on the Dow Chemical page, the fact that Exxon is one of the few energy companies to actively fight the Kyoto Protocol can't be mentioned, Three Mile Island can't be mentioned in the Babcock and Wilcox article? I think, just maybe, your point of view is showing here.

The best way to deal with negative items is to refute or balance them. If we omit information that everyone knows about, it is clear that we have glaring gaps. If we cover information like the EPA suit against DuPont, and include responsible sources (if any) that suggest that the suit was ill-founded, we have done the company a favor. Why is suppressing this info better than explicating it? -- Mwanner | Talk 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Not only did I not say such things should not be in the article, I even wrote what to say about CFC's in the article. REPEAT - BALANCED NPOV. Exxon Valdez is not a comparison: it was the result of alcoholism by an employee who was deliberately reckless, knowing full well he should not be piloting a tanker when drunk. Nonetheless, Exxon did not tell him to do it, nor did they condone it. The accident at Bhopal was not because the company unknowingly invented a product -- with Bhopal there is absolute proof of a double set of standards by the company - one for India (and other 3rd World countries) and one for the U.S. As to the Kyoto Protocol, are you suggesting everyone should just go along and no one should suggest alternatives? Exxon NEVER opposed it, they only said there were better ways and Americans voted in a president who agreed with Exxon. All of which is irrelevant, anyway. My point is not that Wikipedia editors cover up or not mention such things, (I suggest you look at my 600+ articles and you will see I readily do bring out such things), it is that its context must be both proper, factual, balanced, and referenced in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy. AND, no article on any company, except possibly a special case like I.G. Farben, should be dominated by criticsm when a company makes a product to better society in good faith that later proves to be a problem. I could make a list a mile long. Dupont is an outstanding corporate citizen and its family members are great benefactors who have demonstrated great integrity. - Ted Wilkes 20:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, those who inserted the crap negatives and innuendo in this article? Check out their other edits. Or, look at the anti-semitism comment above. Too bad, the Jewish Bronfman kid wanted to mingle with the movie stars and sold the family's major position it held for years in DuPont following the Conoco deal. - Ted Wilkes 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well for starters, the anon who inserted the "crap" we're talking about here [9] has no other contributions other than a graf in the IG Farben article. And while I have barely 100 articles to my credit, if you look at them you will find that none of them is written from a frothing-mouthed environmentalist pov, as you seem to assume is the case.

Your version of the EPA suit ("DuPont is an inventor of CFCs and the largest producer of ozone depleting chemicals in the world. Developed at a time when their dangers were unknown to the scientific community, the industry plans to replace CFCs with a new generation of chemicals, such as HCFCs and HFCs"[10]) seems, to me, just a bit short of the complete story.

It seems to me that you could make this problem go away a lot faster if you would write less on the Talk page and more on the article. In stead of deleting, help create a reasonably balanced account, and we'll go away. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned criticism subsection title

Ted Wilkes hello sir. Sorry to bother you, but I find this so funny.

I have been in the middle of this argument with this anon (left wing) and another user (right wing) for months. This left wing anon did the same thing you did, he deleted the criticism section and refuses to allow any criticism on the page. I brought this up to him here: Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation#anon

Can you explain why you didn't just delete the entire criticism section, why leave the header but delete several paragraphs. Why not just delete the criticism header too? Travb 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following because it is false:

"A science advisory board convened by the EPA found C-8 to be a likely human carcinogen."

The actual statement in the Washington Post was:

"The EPA is considering whether PFOA is a health risk to humans and should be regulated. The chemical has been linked to cancer and possible birth defects in animals, and the agency's scientific advisory board is to announce soon whether it considers it a possible or likely human carcinogen."

- Ted Wilkes 15:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following personal opinion:

"although it was of minor import to the company, given their earnings" - Ted Wilkes 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

While the "criticsm" might be warranted, the space allocated to a minor matter leaves the article unbalanced in that out of a 200 year history as one of the most important companies in world history, this criticism on a minor matter is out of proportion to the entire article. This is not encyclopedic. - Ted Wilkes 15:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So you are talking about three sentences out of several paragraphs--why not just rewrite the paragraphs? Can the the article be "unbalanced" with no criticicm section?Travb 19:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Before and after, I lost OVER 20 pounds, err...sentences with the Dupont weight loss plan!

BEFORE:

==Criticisms==

DuPont is an inventor of CFCs and the largest producer of ozone depleting chemicals in the world. DuPont sells $3 billion in CFCs worldwide. In 1987, Du Pont campaigned against effective controls on the use of CFCs. On April 27, 1992 Du Pont announced that "we will stop selling CFC's as soon as possible," but only in the "US and other developed countries." The chemical industry plans to replace CFCs with a new generation of chemicals, such as HCFCs and HFCs.

In June 1999, in West Virginia, the Tennant family sued DuPont for accidentally killing 280 Hereford cows with C-8, a proven animal carcinogen. DuPont was dumping the chemical in a landfill for nonhazardous waste. The chemical leaked into Dry Run Creek, where the cows drank it. The Tennants settled. As part of the settlement, the Tennants were forbidden to discuss the case. The local drinking water was also contaminated with the C-8. Up to 50,000 residents of the mid-Ohio Valley started a class-action lawsuit against DuPont. They claim that DuPont knew that C-8 was in the public water supply since 1984, but never informed the community. DuPont says the amount of C-8 is too low to raise health concerns, and that they met their reporting obligations.

The EPA is researching how C-8 has entered the bloodstream of much of the country’s population. Blood-bank samples from across the U.S. are being looked at. This investigation seeks to determine if DuPont violated federal law by not informing the EPA years ago.

On May 26, 2003, ammonium perfluorooctanoate or APFO (used to produce Teflon and similar products) was found in groundwater near a North Carolina DuPont plant. The chemical leaked from a cement cistern the company wasn't using.

Based on the revelations made by Smedley Butler in 1933, the DuPont corporation has also been implicated in the Business Plot, or The Plot Against FDR. This alleged failed coup attempt was said to be a conspiracy of moneyed interests intended to strip President Franklin D. Roosevelt of his political power as a reaction against the New Deal

Some conspiracy theorists surmise that cannabis sativa was made illegal because the fibres from the hemp plant, used for fabrics and ropes, were in strong competition with DuPont's nylon, a newly develloped fiber at the time. Since hemp cannot be used as a drug, but was made illegal along with cannabis sativa, it has been said that the inclusion of cannabis sativa into the same category of substances as heroin was made purposefully in order to destroy the hemp industry, therefore promoting nylon production. These allegations had no foundation in fact since the characteristics of hemp fiber and nylon are entirely dissimilar and were therefore non-competitive.

AFTER:

==Criticisms==

Thank you weight loss plan! ;-) Travb 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It didn't amount to much without citing sources. --Chroniclev 22:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, who is responsible for citing sources?Travb 19:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How the criticisms that were deleted got onto this page

Here is the source of the criticism section which was deleted. This criticism section was created by an anon...Travb 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

1987 Associated Press report on Senatorial pressure on Dupont CFC issue

This article excerpt is from a commercial news database. I fully recognize the copyright of Associated Press and Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC , and will gladly take down this article if so requested by either company. I am reproducing this here, believing I have reasonable fair use protection - I am reproducing it here as historical evidence in a public discussion of public issues.

I will try to find an equivalent news article link which is actually on the internet, but am pasting this here for now to support the CFC section of article Bwithh 23:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have now excerpted this article below . The full article, I believe, is available from a link provided by another editor in the main article (difficult for me to confirm due to firewall issues). Please see that link for the full text

Senators Ask DuPont to Stop Making Ozone-Destroying Chemicals

GUY DARST

4 March 1988

The Associated Press

English

(Copyright 1988. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

(AP) _ Three senators have asked the DuPont Co. to redeem a 13-year-old promise to stop making chemicals that destroy the ozone layer if health damage were shown, but the company said Friday it has declined.

"It is our judgment that there is no longer an credible dispute that Freons do, and will continue to, damage human health and inflict injury to the enviroment," wrote Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Dave Durenberger, R-Minn., and Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt., to DuPont's chairman on Feb. 22.

[...]

The senators asked that DuPont "commit itself to cease the production and sale of all Freons that result in ozone depletion. We hope that this commitment will be immediate and, if necessary, unilateral" and complete within a year for most of the compounds in question.

They said "DuPont has a unique and special obligation" as author of public assurances of safety of the compounds and as the developer, along with General Motors Corp., of CFCs in the first place.

In his reply, Heckert said the senators' proposal "calls for more drastic action than the scientific evidence justifies" and "would reduce U.S. CFC supplies by almost 50 percent at a time when safe alternatives in many areas do not exist." He noted that a recent study showed small declines in ultra-violet rays reaching the United States from 1974 to 1985.

"We believe DuPont clearly has assumed leadership in hastening the development of substitutes," the result of development work begun "in advance of scientific proof," Heckert said.

Bwithh 23:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article, in my opinion needs cleanup and is not very neutral. Samuel 15:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is not very neutral. It is written to sound like DuPont causes extreme amounts of pollution. It should be noted the variety and quantity of products they produce and the complicated processes required for production.

Presidents and CEOs of DuPont

This section is a mess. I am moving it here

==Presidents and CEOs of DuPont==

*[[Eleuthère Irénée du Pont]] (1771-1834) 1802 through 1834

*[[Alfred V. du Pont]] (1798-1856) 1834 through 1850

* ??

*[[T. Coleman du Pont]], [[Pierre S. du Pont]] (1870-1954) and [[Alfred I. du Pont]] 1902 through ?

*[[Crawford H. Greenewalt]] 1948-1962

*[[Charles O. Holliday]] 1998- current

Eleuthère Irénée du Pont (1771-1834) 1802 through 1834
Alfred V. du Pont (1798-1856) 1834 through 1850
??
T. Coleman du Pont, Pierre S. du Pont (1870-1954) and Alfred I. du Pont 1902 through ?
Crawford H. Greenewalt 1948-1962
Charles O. Holliday 1998- current

Where it should be cleaned-up before restoration to the article. —12.72.69.237 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DuPont and DuMont

Are these companies related at all? They use practically the same logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.65.163 (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

External link removal - for discussion

I've removed the external link shown below from the article

Dupont Performance Coatings - Automotive Paint Division

Is an external link to a single one of the dozens (hundreds) of subdivisions of DuPont helpful to the reader? If the division were mentioned in the article in a notable manner, it might warrant inclusion, but as a stand alone external link, I don't think it belongs in the article.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

DuPont during WWI

Does anyone have any information about DuPonts business dealings with Germany during WWI? I remember hearing something about DuPont providing aid/chemicals/training to Germany. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about world war one, but I wouldn't be suprised. DuPont did however supply chemicals to the Germans in WWII - personal acount from family members who were in concentration camps. I was told to never forget. Nic McBride

DuPont more accurately exploited German chemists to produce goods for Americans in WWI

Product list in Infobox

The product list in the infobox is woefully inadequate, listing only a small percentage of DuPont's products. I will change the "nylon" entry to "nylon resins" as DuPont sold its nylon fiber business to Koch along with the rest of its fiber business several years ago. --ukexpat 13:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also deleting Chromaflair -- it is not a DuPont product.--ukexpat 13:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

Added a pic of an original powder wagon that I took at Hagley Museum. --ukexpat 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Directors

I have updated the list of directors. Source: DuPont website. --ukexpat 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Factual Dispute

I removed the dispute tag, since there seems to be no active discussion since it was introduced--Work permit 06:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Enviroment

When the environment section says "DuPont has a mixed environmental record" this is clearly written in a manner which would improve the image of the company DuPont is widely regarded alongside companies like honeywell and GE to be one of the biggest polluters in the world - just because they have reduced their emissions and dumping, it does not make them the nice guys - they still have caused much damage around the world. symode09's 14:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

C8, or PFOA is not a proven animal carcinogen. It is true that there are some health concerns about the compound, but it has never been proven to cause cancer in humans or other animals (see Perfluorooctanoic acid health concerns section). Polonium 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above statement is FALSE. This citation proves PFOA was a recognized rodent liver carcinogen as early as 1999![11] The toxicology history has the potential to go back many additional years. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I wonder why no one from one of DuPont's science/medical/toxicology branches fixed this error? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. I have already integrated your concern into the article two days ago and deleted the disputed-sign. This is only marginal critique on the article though, as many would agree that the precautionary principle is even demanding active protection against suspected cancerogenic substances, at least if they are persistent organic pollutants. So should be still worth writing about health issues, even if there is no clear proof yet. --Olaf g 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1987 New York Times article on DuPont's dramatic turnaround in CFC policy

This article is from a commercial news database. I fully recognize the copyright of the New York Time Co. and Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC , and will gladly take down this article if so requested by either company. I am reproducing this here, believing I have reasonable fair use protection - I am reproducing it here as historical evidence in a public discussion of public issues.

I will try to find an equivalent news article link which is actually on the internet, but am pasting this here for now to support the CFC section of article

I will add further detail from this news report to the WP article later, to clarify/amend some points already in the text. Bwithh 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this as a potential copyright issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

List of plant sites

You know what? You are making something out of nothing, and it isn't worth any more energy. But this crusade of yours is only detracting from the mosaic on Dupont. User:75.146.104.130 30 October 2009

I have twice reverted the list of plant sites added by User:75.146.104.130 as I do not believe it is encyclopedic per WP:IINFO and also the final paragraph of the addition concerning the condition of the sites was completely unreferenced. – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My reference is the company's 2009 Annual Report, as I indicate in the first paragraph. There are location listings on a dozen corporation-related wikipedia pages (Examples: 3M, Goodyear, US Steel). A listing of operating facitilies is definitely relevant when trying to understand a given corporation, from a number of different standpoints (such as historical, operational or organizational). As far as I know, understanding concepts is what Wikipedia is all about. I can see your point with regard to site condition. I will remove these statements. But I must point out that you removed my contribution before I even had a chance to finish my edits. Look at the time stamps. You were most certainly jumping the gun in this case. 75.146.104.130 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't taking issue with the source of your information, but rather whether its inclusion is encyclopedic in view of the policy at WP:IINFO. As to the timing of my reversions, it would have helped enormously if you had explained in edit summaries what edits you were making and why. – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sabotage

The article has been sabotaged by parties unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonZehle (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ROI

Didn't DuPont invent the ROI ratio theory? In that case I think it deserves mention. --Citral 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A DuPont employee is credited with it. I believe they were the first to use it. 68.222.96.56 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pompton Lakes, NJ

DuPont had a munitions factory in this New Jersey town for years (I think for almost a century) until it was closed. There is a lot going on right now in terms of clean-up, etc. Also high rate of cancer and other diseases. Might be worth having in the article.

Some sources:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/state_will_expand_study_of_can.html
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Cancer-Cluster-Claims-Lives-in-NJ-79126037.html
www.naturalnews.com/027818_DuPont_toxic_chemicals.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]}
http://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/community/sites/dupont_pompton_lakes/
http://www.northjersey.com/news/012510_Officials_vow_more_involvement_in_Pompton_Lakes_cleanup.html

Freddicus (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A brief mention may be appropriate bearing WP:WEIGHT in mind, but certainly nothing like this diatribe which I recently reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Clearly it was very personal to that individual. I live in Pompton Lakes, too, but outside the affected area. Hopefully, I can whip up a brief mention, or maybe someone else can. It definitely needs to be said in some capacity, though. Freddicus (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit war?

This guy ukexpat is removing useful info from the article and claiming it's already there. Well, it isn't. Any of it. {{help}} 85.77.178.11 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

{{help}} is for use on your talk page, not article talk pages. The problem here is undue weight and detail. The article says at the moment, in the Current activities section ...for many markets including agriculture... - by all means expand that a little (a few words) to refer to genetic traits, but to add much more detail would unbalance the article and would require commensurate detail about its myriad other products. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's hide the facts. That always makes a great wikipedia article. Do you perhaps work for this company? And since no wikipedia article is perfect and complete, let's remove all the entries following your logic. 85.77.178.11 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to hide the facts, all I am saying is that the stuff about genetic traits and biofuels doesn't need its own separate paragraph. Check out my most recent edit - does that work for you? Presumably you will be making similar points about Monsanto, BP and other companies in these markets?-ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pioneer Hi-Bred

no mention of Pioneer? very odd— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.160.33.158 (talk • contribs)

See the navbox at the foot of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New Section for its industries arround the world.

We know that the dupont have large industries around the world engaged in the agriculture, science, construction, energy, transportation, biotechnology, processing (automation, manufacturing, graphic and arts and plastics), transportation, electronics and government. any help to expand its topic?

Bonvallite (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Germany stuff

I have just reverted a completely unreferenced section about relationships with Nazi Germany. These are serious allegations and require bullet proof sources, not just vague references to internal documents. – ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed again (twice). Please CITE (properly) your sources. – ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

So many dead links! Newone (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Pioneer

In the article under current activities it states Pioneer Ignite/Liberty herbicide. This is a Bayer product that is in no way controlled or owned by Pioneer or DuPont, they have the license to use the herbicide resistance not to produce the chemical.

75.218.54.41 (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Farmer

Coal skimming

Coal skimming – While no longer in general use, because of the massive amount of water needed and environmental damage there of, in the late 1930s DuPont developed a method that was much faster and less labour intensive than previous methods to separate the lighter coal from the mining refuse (e.g. slate) called "coal skimming" or the "sink and float method".^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.38 (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

References

^ "Skimmed Coal - new sink and float process removes slate and speeds production" Popular Science, August 1938

Fascist Dupont POV

DuPont is one of the corporations that aided Hitler's rise to power: http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/dupont.html in addition dupont was the principal interest behind the business plot as was declared by Butler in the trials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.52.89 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

DuPont was also involved in businesses with the German company IG Farben at least until 1939, although they already knew that Nazi Germany was preparing for war, knew about the already existing concentration camps at that time, and accepted the repressions on the Jewish population just to keep the cooperation alive. I just saw that on a documentary about a high-ranking spy at IG Farben. They even quoted an official document by DuPont. I hope I can find some reliable resources on the internet about it. By the way, they were also involved in the development of hydrogen cyanide, which was used for the execution of prisoners. As far as I know, they shared their experiences and knowledge with IG Farben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.74.20 (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes please supply sources. These rumours have been around for years and no one has ever been able to adequately substantiate them. – ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

https://www.globalscreen.de/television.documentary/content/show/139158 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.117.62 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Corporate Secretary

I removed the redlink to the corporate secretary, Erik Hoover, on the basis that the corp sec isn't notable per Wikipedia's definition. It has been reinstated (also deleting my other perfectly correct additions) so opening discussion here. Corporate secretaries may in some cases have a "lot of power", but that doesn't make them notable nor does it qualify for being listed along with the company's board. You may be able to convince me to have his name delinked completely (a "black link"), but I doubt it.--ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! Dupont itself lists the corporate secretary on their webpage describing their board, here, right next to the other Directors. They think he is worth noting! Also, Schneider doesn't actually join the Board until Oct 22; he is not on the board now - it is not accurate to list him as such. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

i don't care if you remove red wikilinks or not. Some people are emotional about that, believing that they spur new article creation. Please see the guideline, Wikipedia:Red link, if you not familiar with it. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines#Article composition guidelines states: "lists in an article of current and former directors and executives of a company are desirable". And as User:Jytdog correctly stated, DuPont has chosen to list Hoover, so on the list he goes. But it really shouldn't be a red link. His position is important, but he's mostly legal council, and at this point not notable enough for an article (nothing links to Hoover's red link). And User:ukexpat, "my other perfectly correct additions", and "you may be able to convince me to have his name delinked". That's so rich! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake...they actually don't call Hoover a director. He's listed with the directors, but his title doesn't call him one. He really shouldn't be on the list then. A pretty impressive guy none-the-less, a J.D. from Rutgers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've got a law degree from Oxford, so what? Neither Mr Hoover nor I will ever be notable for Wikipedia purposes. --ukexpat (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

i agree that corp sec is not a Director. Dupont itself still considers the role important enough to list that position with the board... Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

and i am totally willing to let this go. made correction to description of Kullman. she is not President, she is chair and CEO.Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this she is President too.--ukexpat (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

hmm according to their 10K also. I will fix that back. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

She is chairman & CEO per her profile on DuPont's corporate site. It says, "Prior to being appointed chair of the board and chief executive officer, Ellen served as president, executive vice president and a member of the company’s office of the chief executive." Wikimandia (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DuPont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051231215247/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Dupont.jpg to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Dupont.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Was DuPont's decision to phase out CFCs instigated by a letter from 4 senators?

In addition to being unsourced original research, the deleted passage actually contradicts reliable sources. Per the NYTimes, DuPont responded to the senators' letter saying that phasing out CFCs would be premature based on the available data. According to the same source, the company reversed itself upon seeing the NASA data.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/25/us/du-pont-to-halt-chemicals-that-peril-ozone.html

This is a good example of why WP:VERIFY puts the burdden of proof on those seeking to add information to provide sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B01E:1A64:B3E9:652B:789C:328F (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Political Economy Research Institute

So we have an issue here regarding what constitutes a reliable source. Here is my position:

PERI is probably not a reliable source for the impact of DuPont's toxic emissions as shown by the wild year-to-year variations in the Toxic Emissions Score. In my opinion, it simply isn't possible for the environmental impact of a company this size to increase several hundred percent or decrease by 60% in a single year. The PERI website, is however, a reliable source for what PERI said about DuPont's emissions, whether in 2012 or any other year.

I am willing to leave the PERI toxic scores in the article provided that the year-to-year variations are shown and the scores are attributed. This allows the reader to have access to the numbers, either to draw conclusions about DuPont or regarding the reliability of the source, as they see fit. In this case, the article should also show that the absolute levels of material released declined over the period of observations. (This decline is EPA data, with PERI as a secondary source and thus is reliable.) It isn't NPOV to include only the data that is damning to DuPont, and to exclude data that reflects positively on the company or which points out that the damning data may not be completely reliable. Attempting to remove all the data that reflects favorably on the company as "unimportant details" isn't really fair play.

Let me know what you think. I'm happy to leave the whole thing out or add it all back in, according to your preference. But you can't have it both ways. PERI either is or is not a reliable source. It can't be a reliable source only for the parts of the data you want to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.155.123 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"the article should also show that the absolute levels of material released declined over the period of observations." As I said, just find a secondary source for this and we will consider its addition. For now, the simple statement of fact included in the article is allowable under WP:NOTRS (see notes on primary sources). the reason a secondary source is required for the analysis you're describing is just that: analysis by Wikipedia editors is not allowed per WP:OR. It's pretty simple: imagine if a giant company wanted to make its history look a bit brighter, and decided to try and edit their WP page. They might have a vastly different take on what primary sources are saying, which may be a result of POV. Secondary sources are far more likely to be neutral, so we have to leave the analysis to them. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think your analysis of the calculation is questionable per WP:CALC. Nonetheless, I'll let that go in the spirit of compromise. As for the absolute decline in emissions,

If the Toxic 100 report is a good enough source for the Toxic Score (which is primary research), it is certainly good enough for the total mass of emissions
As you point out, WP:NOTRS allows use of primary sources for simple statements of fact. The emissions are exactly that.
In any case, the Toxic 100 is a secondary source for the emissions. The EPA Toxic Release Inventory is the primary source.

What I really don't understand is why, whatever your personal POV, you would want to use this Toxic 100 emissions score as a source. Surely you don't believe that the impact of DuPont's environmental emissions fell by half two years in a row, and then increased several-fold the following year? Whatever your POV, isn't using the highest quality sources what really matters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.155.123 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't ask me to analyze sources after I just finished explaining why we don't. Anyway, I'm happy with your recent addition of DuPont's reaction, but I do wonder why you're so confident schooling other editors when you've only been here a few days. If, in fact, you are an experienced editor, I would rather you logged in. petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hemp AKA Cannabis AKA Marijuana delegalization and the start of the World Civil Class & Race War on a Selection of Drug Users in 1937

Although DuPont denies any involvement with hemp prohibition, their 1937 Annual Report hints that somebody may have done something in their favor:

"With respect to taxation, of which the direct burden upon your company in 1937 was approximately $18,900,000, the future is clouded with uncertainties, not only as to the amount and form of future imposts but also as to the extent to which the revenue-raising power of government may be converted into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization."

("DuPont, Annual Report 1937," Page 25, as photocopied on page 166 of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes," 1991 edition, by Jack Herer)

The "Marihuana Tax Act" of 1937 imposed a prohibitive tax on hemp growers, putting them out of business.

Herer's book also states that DuPont's banker, Andrew Melon of the Melon Bank, was also Secretary of the US Treasury at the time and his nephew-in-law was Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which was originally organized under the Treasury Department. Conspiracy or coincidence?

The fact remains that if industrial hemp were legalized tomorrow, DuPont's sales of tree-paper chemicals would eventually suffer. Whether or not DuPont had anything to do with hemp prohibition, they certainly benefit from it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apryason (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

DuPont did have a huge part in the prohibition of marijuana, read Legal history of marijuana in the United States#DuPont and William Randolph Hearst. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, DuPont apparently had a part to play. Potentially one of Pierre's most socially and industrially toxic legacies, this deserves a section in the article. Kaecyy (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted the addition of a new section. Most importantly, none of that content said anything about what the DuPont company actually did or did not do. On top of that, most of the sources fail WP:RS. Let's discuss.. what reliable source is there, that says that the DuPont company itself had any role in the legislation? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is probably merit in considering the addition of this information, readers would appreciate it. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Some criticisms have unscientific merit

Upon browsing the article, I'm surprised that more controversies are not included, particularly the flap over C-8 (a report concerning which DuPont placed on its Chinese site: http://www.dupont.com.cn/english/news/eng_2005_04_20.html). Obviously the report has some bias, as it was sponsored by DuPont and not undertaken independently, and documented debates like this are deserving of Wikipedia entries.

Part of NPOV is that if a company is in the news, then it might just be news- (and Wiki-) worthy. Whether it's good or bad (and yes, DuPont has received good press as well, and deserves mentions of that). But winning an award for vague terms, such as "2006 Employer Support Freedom Award" can't really carry the same weight as serious debates between interested parties, such as "Indian government sues DuPont for Damages", especially when the issues are (potentially) life-threatening.

At some point you must include some of the "crazy environmental groups" for article content if you are trying to be balanced. Not everything which is included on Wikipedia must be backed up by research. For instance, if there were nothing against DuPont but groups of environmentalists, and DuPont releases a study to show that C-8 is safe, it is absolutely appropriate to discuss how advocacy groups caused a stink that caused DuPont to do undertake the study, regardless of the merits of that advocacy groups research. It is not appropriate to cite unscientific research when discussing research, but this is not a science journal entry on the merits of DuPont - a thorough entry should also address DuPont's interactions with society, and when discussing those terms calling it a "model corporate citizen" will be judged not by us but by history. - IstvanWolf 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Environment

The environment section seems white-washed.

Why are there no references prior to 2005? This company has been in operation for a hundred years, and is related to hundreds, if not thousands of spill sites. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It probably has been whitewashed, it seems they may have a history of cover ups. http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.146.216 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There have been recent improvements, but yes, the article does seem to have been whitewashed quite aggressively. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That article http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/ needs to be added. If anyone wants to help, please do. Otherwise I'll get to it when I can. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Addition of controversies in Lede

Per WP:LEDE I've added a statement in reference to the controversy section. petrarchan47 t c 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Any editors are welcome to improve upon the statement, which is bare bones; I am not particularly active on, nor interested in, this article. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The statement was removed in this edit. I don't feel the removal squares with WP:LEDE:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

By the removal, we are saying in essence that DuPont has not been involved in any controversy to speak of, and that our article does not mention it either. Both of these insinuations are incorrect. From the little bit of research I've done this week I don't think it's at all gratuitous to mention that DuPont has had some controversy, in fact, it actually seems to be a defining factor in much of the RS I've seen. Editors on this page saying that the article is lacking NPOV coverage have a point; removing mention of controversy from the Lede doesn't help. petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DuPont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130720090302/https://www.pioneer.com/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_A63E6368EAEB6E559AA431453626E78C775B0500/filename/techchart_lj_2012.pdf to https://www.pioneer.com/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_A63E6368EAEB6E559AA431453626E78C775B0500/filename/techchart_lj_2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

New and extensive source on PFOA contamination issues

There is a recent article in the NY Times that goes into great detail about DuPont's chemical contamination of an area with PFOA. I think a lot of content in that article is worthy of inclusion here.

The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare by Nathaniel Rich, January 6, 2016.

I don't have time at this moment, but wanted to let people know of this resource. SageRad (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting little edit was made

This fascinating edit was made by an unregistered editor, which i reverted because it's hearsay and there was no supporting documentation:

In the late 1920's the DuPont family charged up a large tab at the Alexander & Son Hardware store in Elkton MD . The store tried on nermerous accounts to get the tab paid but forced the Hardware store to close in the early 1930's without ever paying the debts.

Thought others might find this curious. SageRad (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DuPont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060428172827/http://web.mit.edu:80/dma/www/ to http://web.mit.edu/dma/www/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DuPont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on DuPont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation/Suggestions for Improvement

As it stands, the article does have a good base of information, although it is certainly tipped on the side of praise and accomplishments. It does not take much research to find information on nearly every aspect of DuPont's history (and present) that are much less praiseworthy. Facts could be disbursed throughout the entire article relevant to each area that would bring light to both sides of DuPont's history. For instance, there is very little mention of how many of DuPont's chemical creations have become known carcinogens.

It is worth mentioning the Environmental Record and Controversies sections, while they do make mention of less positive facts, are far from thorough in this regard. Environmental Record" is almost entirely a list of accomplishments, and leaves out a large amount of factual information over time showing negative contributions to the environment. Controversies does bring up some issues, as the title implies, although the list is very short in relation to the actuality of controversies with DuPont overall.

These items could be disbursed throughout the article, although it is viable as well to create an entire section outlining the long history of environmental and social impacts (positive and negative) of the company and its practices. Overall there is a large amount of information that could fill out this article as a more accurate representation of the entity.

In addition, sourcing for the information already present could be more complete. There are entire historical sections with no sources, and some weak sources as well. Ifightninjas (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Blood tests on people living near DuPont plant show high levels of C8, Netherlands

Here is a news article which might add to this wiki entry, Im not good at editing wiki's or writing, so these links may help others researching

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/05/blood-tests-on-people-close-to-dupont-plant-show-high-levels-of-c8/
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/05/dordrecht-chemical-scare-dupont-knew-about-c8-health-risks-ad/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.68.49.93 (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Some of the controversies in this article are underrepresented compared to others. I suggest adding more information to both the "genetically modified foods" section and the "price fixing" section. Specifically, the descriptions should give more context to why these topics are considered controversial in the context of DuPont, and also more details should be given about both of the respective topics in general.

2. The section labeled "Establishment: 1802" does not cite a single source, but contains a good deal of information. I suggest at least one source be sighted for where this information came from. --Isabelangelo (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

3. When mentioning the history of DuPont in the 1920s, I noticed DuPont's essential role in the creation of Ethyl Corp and production of Tetraetyl Lead (i.e. leaded gasoline) was not present. Is this an oversight? -- Alex Rohde — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.103.7 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

[1] "Skimmed Coal - new sink and float process removes slate and speeds production" Popular Science, August 1938

[1]