Talk:DuPont

Sources

There appear to be enough sources for in-line citations and to demonstrate notability. See Google News here: . Dow Dupont merger might be a better name for this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

PFOA scandal

There has been a bit of a kerfuffle concerning this subject, in which I am involved. I have removed this section on the grounds of a BLP violation and non-neutral stance, but the basic question remains, does this subject merit inclusion? I would not personally view the documentary is a RS, lacking editorial oversight, but the article in the intercept does qualify. If, of course, the section is reformulated neutrally and without violating BLP. Kleuske (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is another one, Kleuske:

In the 1970s, DuPont discovered that there were high concentrations of PFOA in the blood of factory workers at Washington Works. They did not tell the E.P.A. at the time. In 1981, 3M — which continued to serve as the supplier of PFOA to DuPont and other corporations — found that ingestion of the substance caused birth defects in rats. After 3M shared this information, DuPont tested the children of pregnant employees in their Teflon division. Of seven births, two had eye defects. DuPont did not make this information public.

In 1984, DuPont became aware that dust vented from factory chimneys settled well beyond the property line and, more disturbing, that PFOA was present in the local water supply. DuPont declined to disclose this finding. In 1991, DuPont scientists determined an internal safety limit for PFOA concentration in drinking water: one part per billion. The same year, DuPont found that water in one local district contained PFOA levels at three times that figure. Despite internal debate, it declined to make the information public....

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html Zezen (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zezen: Your point? Kleuske (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Without a full context or checking the edit history, I tried to quickly help here by quoting a possible RS in lieu of this documentary, which I have not seen. Zezen (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That seems fine add that MESSIAHOFALL69 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, their role in Lead Gasoline isn't mentioned. Lead Gasoline isn't mentioned At All

https://environmentalhistory.org/about/ethyl-leaded-gasoline/#:~:text=The%20Development%20of%20Tetraethyl%20Lead,used%20as%20a%20fuel%20additive.

It seems they missed quite a few of Dupont issues. Dupont also played a role in starting the Drug war. 31.21.9.14 (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

https://theemeraldmagazine.com/did-the-du-pont-family-catalyze-cannabis-prohibition/ 31.21.9.14 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Remerge required

Why was it split in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.60.61 (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems the only reason a new article was created was to distance themselves from their controversial history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.60.61 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge

Yeah, I'm doing it. This should not be its own page. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Reorganization (Merge and Split) Proposal

As seen above, an IP and @Gamle Kvitrafn have both suggested that the two DuPont articles be merged in some form. Additionally, a concurrent merging proposal for Dow Chemical Company and Dow Inc. is leaning towards (as of writing) a merger. I would say that the two major DuPont articles can be repurposed as follows:

• DuPont (1802-2017) merges into DuPont
• The history of DuPont as a whole is merged into a new article, History of DuPont (currently a redirect to DuPont's history section)
  • History of DuPont should primarily consist of both DuPont's history as an independent company and while as it was a part of DowDuPont
  • Controversies of both DuPont entities should be listed in a single article, either on the main DuPont article or a separate article if necessary.

The structure of the merger is intended to be similar to the merger of Exxon into ExxonMobil and the separation of it's history into History of ExxonMobil. As pointed out by oknazevad on the Dow Chemical merger currently under discussion, Wikipedia has traditionally had its articles on general companies encompass all of its successor entities. Oknazevad cited General Motors as an example during the Dow discussion; GM's main article encompasses its entire history as a brand, not a legal entity.

I'm well aware that corporate history is sometimes even more complicated than normal history, but for the sake of continuity and for the reader, I think it's best that these two articles are merged. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Support I know I said I was going to do it, but when I set about to it I had no idea what to do! I'm glad we appear to have somewhat of a consensus. Please make this happen, @InvadingInvader. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to turn DuPont (1802–2017) into a redirect. While I see you brought over some content, I think it made more sense to have a separate article on the early years of the business. It gets lost here, InvadingInvader. Also, it emptied at least one category, for businesses started in 1802, as this article focuses more on its modern corporate manifestation than its early history. It's its longevity that makes the company interesting, not just what it's doing today as a corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liz I understand your position, and I agree that the history of DuPont is among the longest and most storied of any American company, and even some countries. However, I think that it would be better to have an article that encompasses DuPont as a whole throughout its three incarnations (the original, DowDuPont, and DuPont today) as well as corporate info, economics, productions, controversies, etc. Would you support moving most of that article into a "new" History of DuPont article which covers the entire history of DuPont through all its forms? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Conoco spin off discussion

The quoted section below is a candidate for removal or expansion and clarification.

"In 1999, DuPont sold all of its shares of Conoco, which merged with Phillips Petroleum Company. DuPont acquired the Pioneer Hi-Bred agricultural seed company in 1999."

Quite simply, the spin off of Conoco had nothing to do with the Phillips merger to form ConocoPhillips. Additionally, Dupont had nothing to do with the merger.

If the merger is felt to be included in the Dupont article, then it needs to be expanded to show that the spin off was in 1999. Conoco then operated as a completely separate company (as opposed to the wholly own subsidiary it was while owned by Dupont.)

The decision between Conoco and Phillips to merge was made/announced in 2001 (announced in Nov 2001 iirc), 2+ years after Dupont sold all interest in Conoco. (The merger was then completed in Sep. 2002 to form ConocoPhillips (nyse COP).

My belief is that the article should simply indicate that Dupont sold Conoco allowing it to become a standalone company (again). Any mention of the merger between Conoco and Phillips.

In reality, if Dupont did not spin off Conoco, the Conoco/Phillips merger is unlikely to ever occur. Conoco (under Dupont) and Phillips explored various merger scenarios multiple times in the 90's. In (nearly) all of these discussions it was Conoco/Dupont which chose to not merge and walk away.

The difference for Conoco in 2001, which lead to the different decision, was largely driven by cash flow to cover debt load taken on well after the Dupont spin off. Had the underlying acquisition for this debt been taken on by Conoco but they were still owned by Dupont, the post-9/11 liquidity crunch would not have forced Conoco into the arms of Phillips.

So the merger between Conoco and Phillips was indirectly related to the Dupont spin off in 1999, it is much more a part of Conoco, Phillips, ConocoPhillips (and then again Phillips being spunout again in 2012) history than anything to do with Dupont. 216.54.239.133 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Please review and comment on revision. Sandcherry (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Controversies and Crimes section

The first subsection, Environmental Record, is sprinkled with paragraphs about how DuPont really isn't so bad. This really doesn't seem to fit under the section header. Maybe we could move these to a new subsection at the end of the section and call it something like Environmental Rankings or More Recent Improvements? Seananony (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes

There are two infoboxes in this article. It appears that one is intended to represent the company before the Dow merger and one after. However there is a lot of overlap between the two and some differences are unclear. For example, the second info box shows company became defunct in 2017, but shows financial information for 2022. Should the two infoboxes be merged into one? --Lexiconaut (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Concerns re: rewrite by User:Pats322

Diff

it's a large rewrite so I haven't had the time to review everything, however, right now it looks pretty good with citation formatting and chronology. there are a few content removals that affect our coverage of DuPont's environmental/legal record and went largely unexplained:

• Political Economy Research Institute: ranking DuPont as the fourth-largest corporate air polluter in the US
• Mother Jones: finding that DuPont facility discharged 5m pounds of toxic chemicals into NJ and DE water ways.
• $3 million environmental fine
• Leading the Toxic 100 Water Polluters index
• PFOA section's explanation, that it persists indefinitely and is resistant to biodegratdation
• the entire genetically modified foods section

the cumulative effect of this is that the article only retains headline facts but loses qualified and well-sourced evidence of scale.

i'm not reverting but I think the deleted environmental content should be restored.

happy to discuss @Pats322: - pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 15:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Pats322 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)The environmental claims are outdated - the chemical division was spun-off into Chemours and DuPont is no longer on those lists. DuPont is not involved in genetically modified foods - that is Corteva and the paragraph did not have anything of substance anyhow. PFOA description is in the article for PFOA..no need for a long description of it in every article that touches on the subject. Other info was added back.