Talk:John du Pont

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

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Birds Low‑importance John du Pont is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more) Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more) Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more) Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more) NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more) Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more) Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more) Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more) Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo. United States: Delaware Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Low-importance). Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: November 9 to 15, 2014 (25th) December 28, 2014 to January 3, 2015 (17th) March 8 to 14, 2015 (18th)

History's Lost and Found states that the purchase price was $850,000... [1] states 1980: Weinberg's syndicate sold the stamp for $935,000 (including buyer's premium) to John E. du Pont

Is the $935K the sum of $850K + $85K "buyer's premium" of 10%?

There are several books on birds of John Eleuthère du Pont, written in the 70s:

• South Pacific birds ISBN 0913176044
• Philippine birds
• Birds of Dinagat and Siargao, Philippines;: An expedition report
• Notes on Philippine birds (no. 5): Birds of Burias (Nemouria)
• South Sulu Archipelago birds;: An expedition report

Are we talking about the same person here?  Andreas  ^(T) 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... yes.

Someone just put John's death date as somewhere in 2002. But there is no valid source or news as to whether or not he's dead so I am removing it.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"John duPont was a competitive wrestler. duPont's only wrestling experience prior to taking up the sport in his late 50's was as a freshman in high school. He began competing again at the age of 55 in the 1992 Veteran's World Championships in Cali, Colombia; in 1993 in Toronto, Canada; in 1994 in Rome, Italy; and in 1995 in Sofia, Bulgaria. He never placed lower than fourth place in any of these championships. [16]. For this age group, duPont competed only in weight classes that had no other competitors or he lost to other veteran wrestlers. He never won a competitive match in actual competition."

Linked site only collaborates one of these wins, 94 in Rome. There is no citation for the claims that he never won a competitive match in actual competition. I'm switching it over to citation needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.101.194 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John du Pont was not involved in what we commonly call "triathlon" today ("swim-bike-run"). He was involved in promoting a subset of the Modern Pentathlon, "run-swim-shoot", which was also labeled "triathlon". So I changed the athletics section to reflect this, eliminating the links to today's "triathlon" (swim-bike-run). Wiredknight (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The John Eleuthère du Pont#Athletics section first says, Du Pont was "an accomplished athlete", then the para. at the end contradicts this statement. Comments ? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DuPont was not a successful athlete nor was he ever a coach. His involvement in modern pentathlon and wrestling amounted to donating large sums of money to needy sports. In return he was given the title of coach or team manager. In his autobiography he makes it sound as if he "made" the 1976 modern pentathlon team. He did not. He was the manager. Possibly the best source for concise information on duPont is the 1996 Playboy article "Deathlock" by Mark Bowden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishcad (talk • contribs) 21:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously pertinent; and a reader shouldn't have to scour the article to discover this material fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.129.105 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This and other content added to Lede to provide fuller view of his life.Parkwells (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I set out to find just one picture of duPont to portray him at his worst, this would be the one (presumably taken while in the depths of schizophrenia and incarcerated). I challenge anyone to find a pic of him looking worse. He had a long life and for the only pic of him to be one presumably of him at the end of his life and as a schizophrenic mess violates my sense of decency. Were there more than one pic in the article, that would be a different matter, but this being the only one in the article, I have to take issue with it... a glamour shot would of course be inappropriate, but by the same token, our including the worst possible picture of him is also inappropriate. Furthermore, this image was taken from "murderpedia". Putting aside the reliability of murderpedia, they do not source the picture. They do not say where it was taken, they do not say who took it or under what circumstances. Was it altered? We don't know. I welcome other opinions, but I am leaning towards finding a more balanced picture from a reputable source whereby the provenance of the picture can be determined. Marteau (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree, the photo is about as unflattering as one might find, but sometimes Wikipedia is stuck with whatever images can pass as GFDL. Which is where other, less subjective problems arise. For one thing, it's a (probably) copyrighted image used under "non-free fair use rationale" – but in its template, the uploader asserts "Purpose of use: To illustrate person at peak of their career" (humorously ironic, but unacceptable). Also, I don't think the image is a low enough resolution to qualify.

Ultimately, "anyone can edit WP", and if I were you, I'd axe the image from this article. If you do, just condense these reasons into your edit summary, and come back to this discussion to make note of having done so. If I had more time, I'd also apply for an AfD on the image itself, based on all of the above. Even if it survived the vote, some of these issues would be addressed. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land   06:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the image for the reasons stated above, namely 1) the image is too high resolution to qualify for fair use 2) the image was downloaded from a source not determined to be reliable 3) the source does not say who took the pic, or under what circumstances. 4) fair use rationale includes "illustrate person at peak of their career" which is untrue. I will work on a WP:FFD and notify the uploader later today Marteau (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it. If you have a better picture, upload it first, then delete this picture, it is not much bigger than the display size. If you think it should be deleted take it to a vote at the appropriate page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and replaced it with an altertative which has a known origin and which portrays du Pont not at the end of his life, sick and in jail, but during his vital years. Marteau (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great photo. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than listing his books under one of the subheading, I propose to create a separate bibliography at the end of the article which would be more in keeping with other biographies. I would also like to remove the parts referring to DuPont education at the University of Pennsylvania since he only attended the University for less than one year and it's not clear that course work even contributed to his degree from the University of Miami. Pjefts (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the books, I agree with putting them in a bibliography. Were any of his books particularly notable (and I don't know if that's the case) mention of them in the body would be appropriate, but barring that, lists of his books belong in a bibliography. Regarding the University of Pennsylvania, I see your point. However, accounts of his life on the net and in books do often refer to his time at U of P, and mention in the body would seem to me to be appropriate. I did, though, just made a non-controversial edit to the body removing the uncited claim he "transferred" from U of P and changed that to cited text saying he "withdrew" (to pursue a swimming career, unreliable sources say). I think the text does not tend to make one belive his U of P studies transferred to any other school and I'd like to see it stay. Regarding the info box, how about adding a footnote making it clear he did not complete his first year? Marteau (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your input and help. As you can see I have made a beginning on the Bibliography. It stills needs some cleanup which I will try to do soon. The article does not mention the lawsuit filed by Andre Metzger which is well documented and I would like to see that added. Thoughts? Pjefts (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of allegations of sexual impropriety, it is wise to require a high bar to be cleared for it to be included in biographies of anyone, alive or dead. The Metzger lawsuit, however, is more than just allegations but was a civil action for which du Pont ended up paying Metzger to settle out of court. Combined with the fact that this suit was filed by one of the Foxcatcher wrestlers and that it involved Villanova and an unlawful employment termination allegation, this is more that just tabloid fodder but information which was covered by legitimate national news outlets and I support it's inclusion. Including allegations by those surrounding these events (e.g. off-the-cuff statements by other wrestlers) I would hesitate to include, but the bare facts that 1) there was a suit 2) who was party to the suit 3) what the suit alleged and 4) how the suit was settled certainly deserves inclusion. Where to put it, under what heading, at this point I have no opinion, just that I personally don't think this should be more than four or so sentences and probably does not merit it's own top level heading, a second level heading I could see working. Or even no heading at all if it goes somewhere like under "Personal Life" which I'm not into, but would not object. Marteau (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He had also tried to help him with his drinking problem." Which of the two people from the previous sentence had the drinking problem? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Tweaked the article to make it clear it was du Pont who had the drinking problem. Marteau (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"John Eleuthère du Pont (November 22, 1938 – December 9, 2010) was an American philanthropist and heir to the Du Pont family fortune who in 1996 murdered Olympic gold medal winning wrestler Dave Schultz.[1]" - How can someone be called a philanthropist if he murderd a person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.142.116.61 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Eleuthère du Pont. 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/20110208135541/http://sos-pa.com/ to http://sos-pa.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 10:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The size of his Estate is referred to several times in the article, once as 200 acres, once as 440 acres, and finally as 800 acres. It's not clear whether the size grew over time, or whether these inconsistencies are errors.

When someone mentions "John du Pont" there is no confusion regarding who they are referring to... the "Eleuthere" seems unnecessary and the vast majority of sources omit it. Does anyone think the "Eleuthere" should remain in the title, or object to moving the article to to "John du Pont"? Marteau (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In discussion of his appeal the article refers to du Pont's use of "a Bulgarian prescription drug, scopolamine, before he fatally shot Schultz." Scopolamine is a drug commonly used in the US for motion sickness among other things, has been around for about 130 years and was originally synthesized by a German chemist. It's been widely available for a long time, so why doesn't especially the article make it sound like it is available exclusively in Bulgaria? Even if du Pont was taking it illegally and sourcing it out of Bulgaria (unnecessary), it still wouldn't be appropriate to refer to it as a Bulgarian drug.

Does anyone know why it was referred to this way in the article? If it was referred to this way in the appeal papers or something? History Lunatic (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John du Pont. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150529195944/http://www.thestampblog.com/1/post/2015/03/john-dupont-and-collecting-stamps-in-jail.html to http://www.thestampblog.com/1/post/2015/03/john-dupont-and-collecting-stamps-in-jail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726151845/http://www.historicnewtownsquare.org/ns/history/bookonline/part_3_11.asp to http://www.historicnewtownsquare.org/ns/history/bookonline/part_3_11.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John du Pont. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213114959/http://archive.delawareonline.com/assets/pdf/BL175750617.PDF to http://archive.delawareonline.com/assets/pdf/BL175750617.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418163325/http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/index.html to http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John du Pont. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503094320/http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?q=john+dupont&prev=%2Fimages%3Fq%3Djohn+dupont&ndsp=20&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&sa=N&start=20&um=1&imgurl=c22d968149d566e1 to https://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?q=john+dupont&prev=%2Fimages%3Fq%3Djohn%2Bdupont%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft%3Aen-US%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1&imgurl=c22d968149d566e1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Golden Eagle" was a moniker du Pont gave himself (this source refers to it, it's already used in the article for something else- https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-01-31-sp-35663-story.html). I thought this might be worth mentioning, but I wasn't sure if it was important enough, or where I would put it.

I know of a song called 'Golden Eagle' about du Pont as well, thought I don't know if it's worth making a whole in popular culture section for this one song.

The article says:

"During an October 2015 podcast, Mark Schultz revealed ..."

At that point the article has not told us who Mark Schulz is.

Quotes from the article regarding the museum:

"In 1972, du Pont founded and directed the Delaware Museum of Natural History"

"He founded the Delaware Museum of Natural History in 1957"

"he served as director of the museum for many years."

"Du Pont founded the Delaware Museum of Natural History in 1957"

"The Delaware Museum of Natural History, which du Pont formerly headed"

Some of those statements contradict each other. Also, the article is not even 3,000 words long, does it need to repeat itself that much?

The article reads like it was written by a third grader.

@Eric0000 don't forget to sign your posts on Wikipedia with four tildes (~). Also remember that part of Wikipedia is being bold and so if you come across things you think can be improved, go for it!

A separate issue I have is the archive link to the podcast where the testicular removal was apparently commented on. The original website is broken and the Wayback Machine links also did not archive the audio as it was a Soundcloud widget. So with no actual verifiable source for this, I'd say this section probably needs to be removed. Even before, a single mention on a podcast by someone whose brother was murdered by the person being spoken about probably doesn't make it a very good/reliable source. I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now, but if someone can find a reliable source, please post it here or discuss the changes. MrAureliusR_Talk! 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit more digging, and the original audio has been deleted from Soundcloud. The widget does load in the Wayback Machine page, but no audio seems to play. Again, I personally feel it's not a great source for such a bold claim about someone, so I invite anyone who wants to revert to please find better sources before adding it back. MrAureliusR_Talk! 00:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]