Talk:Archer Daniels Midland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Half of this article is about the recent controversy. Would it be possible to have some more focus on the company's history ?
- I have added {{npov}} to this article. It is written in exceedingly onesided, unencyclopedic, argumentative and blatant libertarian-type language. NTK 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have made several edits that have resolved some -- maybe all -- of the npov issues. It may be close enough now to remove the notice. --TrustTruth 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- It still reads as NPOV to me.160.39.111.79 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the NPOV issue here; looks good to me. Not a lot of complaints here. If someone sees NPOV issues, why not fix 'em? DavidDouthitt (Talk) 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looks NPOV to me. Criticism is clearly labelled as such. Danielsan1701 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree, and also to mention that these anti-ethanol arguments aren't specific to libertarians or other partisan groups, it's a bit more spontaneous and neutral than just being some libertarian talking point.Abbenm 03:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have made several edits that have resolved some -- maybe all -- of the npov issues. It may be close enough now to remove the notice. --TrustTruth 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion of the problems that ADM had in 1996, but ten years later the article makes no mention of ADM's initiatives toward renewable fuels (ethanol, biodisel, etc.). This article is seriously flawed. I have made the appropriate changes.
This page provides very little information for all that the company really does. Is in need of some updates, I updated the slogan to the current one. - Jan 3, 2007
Quite a subjective article clearly lacking in broad perspective and depth. pdj
Clearly ADM has their snout deep in the government trough, but why is that section titled "Criticism of ADM"? Isn't it the subsidies themselves that are criticized? Instead how about "Controversy Over Subsidies: ADM's success at lobbying for and capturing federal agribusiness subsidies has brought these programs under criticism..." jrb 209.163.161.166 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am compelled to agree that this article is unencyclopedic, and fails to retain any semblance of balance. (Just consider the length of the criticism relative to the overall length.) I would hate for Wikipedia to devolve into a newsgroup-esque gallery of soapboxes. I suggest some serious trimming. Ares0524 00:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Trim away!--TrustTruth 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tres Bon! Ares0524 00:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, so I've snipped out some of the most egregiously outdated/erroneous material. I am leaving intact those things requiring citation still, so as to give their contributor the opportunity to provide these sources... Anyone know what the grace period is on this? I usually give about a month on articles I frequent... any thoughts?Ares0524 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tres Bon! Ares0524 00:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
