Jump to content

Talk:DuPont (1802–2017)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.62.69.11 (talk) at 23:27, 28 March 2013 (→Environment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Delaware SA

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

It should be noted that the above statement is FALSE. This citation proves PFOA was a recognized rodent liver carcinogen as early as 1999![1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neutrality

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External link removal - for discussion

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hemp

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).[reply]

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 McKayuser talk 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Image

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

1935 was the year that DuPont Introduced Phenothiazine as an Insecticide.

It is now being used in the manufacture of various antipsychotic neuroleptic drugs. These drugs are being given to people to disrupt their behavior so they can not function normally. Phenothiazine exposure causes explosive violence in individuals in many cases. Ironically these drugs are being given as "mood stabalizers" but actually increase the violent behavior. Many people exposed to the nerve agent of phenothiazine are being given more phenothiazine in the form of phenothiazine dirivative antipsychotic neuroleptic drugs. This is really insane. One must wonder if this is being done deliberately as part of a big corporate conspiracy to protect the interests of the corporations. Many people who are wistle blowers are targeted by the psychiatric establishment for treatment. If you enter a hospital emergency room and have a conversation with a doctor about controversial issues you may find yourself forcable admitted into their psychiatric unit.

ROI

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

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)[reply]

List of Directors

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sabotage

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

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:

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Help

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

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[reply]

Addition of controversies in Lede

Per WP:LEDE I've added a statement in reference to the controversy section. petrarchan47tc 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DuPont_(1802–2017)&oldid=547520991"