Talk:DuPont (1802–2017)

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. petrarchan47คุก 23:53, 11 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. petrarchan47คุก 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr CareBear (talk • contribs) 13:53, 7 June 2007‎ (UTC)

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)

• Any editors are welcome to improve upon the statement, which is bare bones; I am not particularly active on, nor interested in, this article. petrarchan47คุก 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. petrarchan47คุก 01:03, 14 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. petrarchan47คุก 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. petrarchan47คุก 00:01, 12 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/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. petrarchan47คุก 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. petrarchan47คุก 21:55, 10 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)