This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ADM (company) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

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

Agriculture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the ((portal|Companies)) template Tag company talk pages with the ((WikiProject Companies)) project banner Answer requests for comments Food and drink Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the ((WikiProject Food and drink)) project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. ADMDane (talk · contribs) has been paid by ADM. Full COI disclosure. ADM DavidW (talk · contribs) has been paid by Archer-Daniels-Midland Company.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello! David here on behalf of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, hoping to suggest some corrections and updates for editors to consider. I understand I should not update the page myself because of my conflict of interest, so I'll share requests here and thank editors in advance for helping to make updates on my behalf.

First, I propose removing mention of cocoa products from the Products section's first paragraph. As mentioned in the History section, the cocoa business was sold in 2015. If a non-ADM source is needed to verify the claim or replace the current citation, please see this Reuters article. Can someone please remove cocoa liquor, cocoa powder, and cocoa butter from the list of products? Thank you. ADM DavidW (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I've not received any feedback on this request to date, I've added Template:Request edit. User:QatarStarsLeague, since you've updated the article recently, would you be willing to review this update request? Thanks! ADM DavidW (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Graywalls (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again! Thanks to User:Graywalls for helping above.

Similar to my last request, I propose removing mention of crop risk services from ADM_(company)#Insurance_services. As mentioned in the History section, the crop risk services unit was sold in 2017 (source). Can someone please remove crop risk services from the list of products? Thank you. ADM DavidW (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done, but the products section looks quite promotional like an intro to the company given that its mostly based on sec.gov filing. Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again! Thanks again to User:Graywalls for helping above. Feel free to remove the list of products and the tag which reads "This section needs additional citations for verification". I agree it's not particularly helpful and that readers would be better served by a more general description of the company.

For this request, I propose removing the following information about LDC from the Corruption section: Entanglement with government officials can even go a step further. In November 2017, in the wake of the revelations dubbed the Paradise Papers about dubious offshore schemes, the French TV broadcast Cash Investigation^[1] reported on the problematic dealings of LDC in Brazil. In 2010, the Geneva-based trader joined forces with a subsidiary of the world's biggest soy producer Amaggi to form Amaggi & LD Commodities Ltda. Amaggi is owned by Blairo Maggi, former Minister of Agriculture and a large landowner known as the "king of soy" who was Governor of the state of Mato Grosso when the joint venture with LDC was established. Amaggi & LD Commodities Ltda opened a trust based in the Cayman Islands the same year. The beneficial owners of the trust were all members of the Maggi family. Blairo Maggi himself has claimed never to have received any money from the trust. But allegations against him should have raised a red flag: Maggi was under investigation by the Brazilian judiciary for corruption and money laundering for his time as Governor of Mato Grosso. The administration under Maggi "is suspected of having enforced a scheme of monthly bribes paid to state lawmakers in exchange for political support".^[2] Brazilian prosecutors filed charges against Blairo Maggi in May 2018, accusing him of orchestrating a bribery scheme in 2009.^[3] LDC thus knowingly relied on an individual classified as a PEP for its business activities in Brazil.^[4] When it set up the joint venture in 2010, Blairo Maggi had an important role in government, which he had already mixed with his private-sector activities, creating clear conflicts of interest."

discussion

This information is about another company, not ADM. Thank you. ADM DavidW (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ADM DavidW:, This is extremely wordy. is it/are they related to ADM by ownership? If so what's the nature of relationship? I'm not really inclined to read through all that. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Graywalls, ADM is not related to LDC by ownership. I've been around ADM and privy to our major M&A and partnerships for more than 15 years, and to the best of my knowledge there is no ongoing ownership-type relationship between ADM and LDC (nor am I aware of any such relationship in the past). We are in the same industry. We both originate and sell crops and their derivative products, so there may be instances where we're buying, say, a cargo of corn from them at a market price. Also, we have collaborated with LDC and other peer companies in industry-wide partnerships, one of which, Covantis, is an industry-owned initiative created this year to develop global standards for digital trading. But I'm aware of no ownership relationship or other such connection between our two companies. I hope this helps explain why the LDC-related text should be removed. ADM DavidW (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hello! Thanks again to User:Graywalls for helping above.

I propose removing the detail about jatropha from the Environmental record section: ADM is involved in a joint project with Daimler AG and Bayer CropScience to develop jatropha as a biofuel.^[1]"

The source is Daimler's website. I cannot provide third-party sourcing confirming an ending, but nothing material ever came of this joint project aside from a Memorandum of Understanding. We never did any significant work together. I understand editors will have the ultimate say here, but I think the claim should be removed. Thanks, ADM DavidW (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's properly sourced now and rephrased. I personally don't see removal is justified now. Graywalls (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Above I received help to remove outdated information from the article (thanks again!), but I'd like to pivot and submit a request to add mention of products to the Products section and infobox. Specifically, I propose adding mention of natural flavors per "Acquisition adds natural flavors to Archer Daniels Midland portfolio" by The Post and Courier. There are other sources to verify the claim, but I think the title of this article makes the request especially easy to review. Thanks in advance, ADM DavidW (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @ADM DavidW: thanks for requesting an edit and using this template. Can you post below the exact text you want to add to the article, including all the sources you would like referenced? This helps us evaluate your request more quickly. You can find more instructions on requesting edits at this link: Template:Request edit/Instructions. If you have any questions or comments please post below or on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for your reply. The Products section already says, "Products include oils and meal from soybeans, cottonseed, sunflower seeds, canola, peanuts, flaxseed, Palm kernel and DAG oil, as well as corn germ, corn gluten feed pellets, syrup, starch, glucose, dextrose, crystalline dextrose, high fructose corn syrup sweeteners, chocolate, ethanol, and wheat flour", and the infobox also has a list of the company's products. I am trying to add to these lists using the source provided above. I'm also open to editors adding mention of natural flavors to the article as they see fit, but if I had to offer specific text, I think "Natural flavors were added to ADM's product portfolio with the 2014 acquisition of Wild Flavors" is a neutral update to the end of the first paragraph in the Product section.^[1]

Thanks again! ADM DavidW (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @ADM DavidW: Unfortunately, the Post and Courier article is behind a paywall for me so I cannot verify the information. If there's another source we can cite, please post it below. I'll also keep this request open and hope that another editor can access the P and C article to evaluate this request. I'm sorry I could not help more. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - @Z1720: Some seemingly paywalls are actually not paywalls. You can try disabling the javascript on the article (which I had done so) to display the whole article. I have verified the source and added the line as per requested by ADM DavidW and closed the edit request. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Z1720 and Justanothersgwikieditor: Thanks, both, for your help here. Do you think the infobox could be updated as well to match the article body? I've submitted a similar request below to add mention of flour milling. ADM DavidW (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

Above I received help to add mention of natural flavors to the list of products. I'd like to submit a similar request to add mention of flour milling, per this source.

The article currently mentions "wheat flour", but in order to bring the page up to date, I propose adding the following to the Products section:

• In 2019 in Mendota, Illinois, ADM opened the largest flour mill in North America to ever be built in a single construction project. The facility mills multiple varieties of wheat as well as two kinds of whole wheat.^[1]

Related, could "flour milling" be added to the infobox in a "services" field? I see the template supports "services" as well as "products".

Finally, I propose removing some of the subheadings in the Products section and retitling this part of the article as Products and services. I understand editors will decide how to organize details but this seems like excessive subdividing for not a lot of content. Thanks again! ADM DavidW (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Z1720 and Justanothersgwikieditor: Might either of you be willing to review this request or respond re: the infobox in the natural flavors section above? Thanks again for the feedback you've provided thus far. ADM DavidW (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @ADM DavidW: this request is in the request edit queue. Editors are trying to clear the backlog but it will take some time. I am sorry for the long wait and thank you for your patience. Z1720 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose adding more to the list of products in the infobox as more general descriptions are ordinarily used (e.g. food and fuel products) rather than a comprehensive list of individual products that violates the "not a directory" policy.

Possibly Support adding a sentence or two on the mill. I couldn't access the full article quickly, but the headline appears to be saying it's the largest mill in the area, not in the U.S. and the "built in a single construction project" qualifier diminishes the significance. Claims of being the largest or first are naturally met with some skepticism and usually require very strong sources.

I have no connection to the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 21:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CorporateM: Thanks for taking a look at this request. To be honest, I don't disagree...a comprehensive list of our products and services would be painfully long. Is there a way we can migrate to some overarching categories or spaces that could accurately portray the breadth of our offering without going into unnecessary or unwieldy detail? Here's an overview of what ADM does:

Also, we leverage our own scale and expertise to provide value-added services to customers along our value chain and beyond:

To date, I've been proposing some updates to this page simply to bring information up to date. This has been a very slow process; I understand volunteer editors have a lot on their plate, and I appreciate whatever help I can get. I've not proposed specific structural changes because I assumed editors had a preferred framework, but I am open to how the updates are implemented. Based on the information I've provided, might you be able to update the Infobox and Products section appropriately? ADM DavidW (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have implemented the specific edit requests regarding the infobox. I feel the product list you’re proposing is far too detailed per "not a directory" (see here)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Similar to my above posts, I'd like to submit a request to add mention of vanilla to the Products section and infobox, per "ADM expands vanilla products with agreement to acquire Colorado-based company" by Herald & Review.

If specific text is helpful, I propose the adding following in the Products section, after mention of the Wild Flavors acquisition in 2014:

• ADM began producing and selling vanilla products following the 2018 acquisition of Rodelle Inc.^[1]

Thanks in advance, ADM DavidW (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It reached an agreement, but hasn't happened yet, so it's a planned extension, correct? I'd say wait for it. Encyclopedia articles are not a place to showcase products. Graywalls (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Graywalls: The source I shared was published in 2018, and the deal actually closed a couple months after the announcement. Apologies for not having been clearer. Here are some sources to confirm the acquisition's completion:

• https://www.dairyfoods.com/articles/93141-adm-completes-rodelle-acquisition
• https://www.snackandbakery.com/articles/92038-adm-completes-rodelle-inc-acquisition
• https://www.powderbulksolids.com/wire-cloth/adm-expands-vanilla-offerings-rodelle-acquisition
• https://foodnewsinternational.com/2018/09/11/americas-adm-buys-vanilla-supplier/

Again, sorry for causing confusion there. Thanks! ADM DavidW (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Graywalls (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again! I see the article has a banner which reads, "This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective and add more content related to non-recent events." True, the History section has a 1902 fact, followed by a 1923 fact, before jumping to 1970. I propose adding the following well-documented facts to the article, specifically to address this banner:

• ADM was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1924.^[1]
• ADM purchased control of the flour milling company Commander-Larabee Corp. in 1930.^[2][3]
• ADM's headquarters were relocated to Decatur, Illinois, in 1969.^[4][5]

These sources mention a few additional early acquisitions and operational details as well. There may be other claims worth adding, and I'm happy to provide more, but I don't want to share too much to consider in one request. I am hoping editors can update the History section appropriately and remove the banner. Also, perhaps there's a way to link Archer Daniels Midland Wheat Mill to this article? User:Graywalls and User:CorporateM, do either of you have a moment to review?

Thanks in advance! ADM DavidW (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello! I'm still waiting for feedback on a few requests, but I wanted to go ahead and submit another request to update the article by adding mention of a few major acquisitions. Based on reliable news coverage, I propose adding the following text to the end of the History section:

• ADM agreed to purchase the British probiotic supplement company Probiotics International Limited--known under its umbrella brand, Protexin--in 2018 for $243 million.^[1] In 2019, ADM agreed to purchase the remaining 50 percent stake in British grain and oilseed producer Gleadell from the French company InVivo,^[2] and completed the acquisition of animal nutrition company Neovia for $1.54 billion euros (US$1.73 billion).^[3][4]

Thanks! ADM DavidW (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Ferkijel (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

This is my first request on Wikipedia, so a short introduction to myself: I'm Dane and I'm the media relations contact for ADM. My financial conflict with ADM is also disclosed above in the template at the top of this page and I'll include a reminder in any future posts.

This is a short and sweet request, I hope! The Fortune ranking in the introduction is a couple of years old, can someone please edit this to the latest ranking? Here are the details and the 2022 Fortune citation:

ADM ranked No. 38 in the 2022 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations.^[1]

Let me know if you can help, or if you have any questions for me. Thank you. ADMDane (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Kpgjhpjm 15:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very much appreciate the help, User:Kpgjhpjm. ADMDane (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again, Wikipedians. This is Dane, the media relations contact for ADM, back with another request, this time about the History section.

When I was reviewing this article initially, I noticed that the company's early history — meaning everything from 1902 to 1969 — was covered in basically one paragraph + one short sentence. So I did some research and found several strong sources that provided detailed accounts of these sixty-some years. I then put together the following History draft that splits the History material into three sections: Early history (1902–1969), Dwayne Andreas period (1970–1997), and Recent history (1998–present).

As you can see, I kept as much existing material as possible but also added a lot of new details throughout about significant acquisitions and expansions. I know this is a lot to assess, but once I got started researching ADM's early history I found that there were a lot of gaps in the company's later history as well.

I've done my best to present all of these new details in an encyclopedic fashion. But I recognize that, as a representative of ADM, I have a clear COI and uninvolved editors will need to carefully review everything.

Please let me know if there's anything at all I can do to assist with this process. I really do appreciate the efforts of volunteer editors to keep articles up-to-date and accurate. ADMDane (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm hoping that Kpgjhpjm or Graywalls can take a look at this request, as they've recently been active on this Talk page. Thank you! ADMDane (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't feel like blow-by-blow details of "agreed to purchase" needs to be included. It's supposed to be encyclopedic, so announcements in real time is rather routine. Graywalls (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally don't find anything wrong with the draft . But I will wait for the opinion of a couple more editors before making any change . Kpgjhpjm 08:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kpgjhpjm: It is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than the news and letting companies draft out exactly what they want written into the page and approving/denying and simply copying it as is in the presentation they want isn't ideal. Routine mergers/acquisitions and them agreeing to buy something are a better fit for their own website rather than on the encyclopedia. Not that the information is inaccurate, but I feel its undue. Graywalls (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do partially agree with your viewpoint here . Maybe shorten down the recent history section especially to include only the major events or acquisitions ? Kpgjhpjm 15:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply 2-JUL-2023

Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.  Spintendo  20:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While looking over the article, I found something that looked questionable. The CATO Institute being a think thank, I don't exactly feel their position/opinion citing the institute itself really belong in articles. If other editors feel inclined to include it, let's discuss it. For now, I removed it. Graywalls (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I'm back with a revised version of my proposed History rewrite. This new draft reflects feedback from Kpgjhpjm, Graywalls, and Spintendo. Let me lead by saying that I deeply appreciate all of your constructive suggestions. I am obviously new to Wikipedia and I'm learning as I go, so granular feedback like this is very helpful.

In my new draft, I have substantially reduced the number of acquisitions covered, particularly in the Recent history subsection, and also tried to address all of Spintendo's requests for further clarification. (More on this in a minute.)

That said, I would like to push back on a few things.

Right now the History section seems more like a bulleted timeline than an encyclopedic accounting of ADM's corporate history. Nearly every sentence is some variation of "On Date X, this happened." There is no attempt to explain to the reader why these particular dates and developments are significant or to organize claims into a cohesive and readable structure. As such, I tried to find opportunities to offer context whenever sourcing supported it that would help the reader understand the importance of particular acquisitions, expansions, personnel changes, etc. Likewise, using subheads to separate out different periods of the company's history (especially as reflected in coverage) seems like a useful and easy way to denote significance and improve readability.

This revised draft is below, followed by an itemized response to Spintendo's feedback.

On to Spintendo's granular comments. I tried to duplicate your list and add my own notes explaining the changes I made or otherwise addressing your feedback. I should note that many of your comments concern claims from the existing article, so even when you "denied" these changes the original claims remain in the History section but often without proper citation (which is something I added throughout my draft). In fact, many of the citations I added to the draft to improve sourcing have still not been incorporated, even when the claims have been updated.

And though I understand why you only want to focus on acquisitions of companies notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries, in some cases these deals are illustrative of ADM's expansion and growth and for that reason I did retain some of them in order to "show not tell" and otherwise support contextual claims about the company's expansion.

I've tried to be as thorough as possible in responding to feedback, but please forgive me if I missed something or messed up the formatting. For instance, I struggled to get the note tags to work correctly in my itemized response, so please refer to the full list of comments for notes #3 and #6. Thank you all again for your assistance with this matter. I clearly have a COI and I recognize that my suggestions will be (and should be) treated with scrutiny, but I think that by working together on this we can really improve the History section. Again, I will not be making any changes myself so I'm hoping editors will review what I've put together. ADMDane (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for supplying these changes I'll review them shortly. And it's understandable if you were unable to duplicate my formatting as well as I do, it is quite complex.^[a] So no worries there. I would note that any sources which rely on company or industry provided information (such as world-grain, asebio) will not be approved. Likewise, publications which cover the industry (such as feednavigator.com, Unconventional Ag News, etc) will be heavily scrutinized, as these oftentimes rely on company provided information (and sometimes financing) for their stories in absence of any independent investigative journalism as other, higher quality sources offer through their reporting. Regards,  Spintendo  20:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply 7-JUL-2023

there are several issues here, I'll try to address them in order

1. You have responded to a lot of my concerns in my earlier request review,(your response being in the ill formatted section) but you've also submitted what looks to be a completely separate request asking for information to be substituted. (the draft version above, at the top of your request. There needs to be an economy of requests here. It's not advised to do this dual track system. I read through your responses and now see this section was to compliment the above section and is not a separate section. Labeling it as a separate section was my mistake.
2. You've asked for substitutions to be made either in text or in references but you have not supplied the text or references that are to be removed from the article. The instructions state "describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution." Text from your proposal which already exists in the article and is in need of only improved or added references should be indicated as such. This can be done by using the highlight parameter.
3. Previous editors have made their concerns known about the length of the sections. You've stated that you whittled it down to just the important details. If the details are important, then they would have been covered by major reliable third-party sources. There are still references to company provided information, company press release related information, and information from industry related sources^[a] (which is likely also company produced/informed information). As an earlier editor stated, the Wikipedia page is not the place for a comprehensive history of the company. At the risk of speaking for them I would guess that they would also state that if company information was important enough, it would have been covered by major reliable third-party sources. Thus, only high quality sources should be provided for information to be included here. Those sources must be third party. (not food industry or company produced/informed sources). I'm afraid that as larger amounts of company-history minutiae is proposed, the more rigorous we need to be about where the sources are coming from (per WP:BALASP). As the current request contains many of these company produced/informed sources, and because it does not include the text or references already in the article that the requestor wishes to be removed,^[b] I'm declining the request.
4. I and other editors stand ready to review additional requests which follow these suggested guidelines on proposed/prior text inclusion and sourcing.^[c] Regards,  Spintendo  01:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC) updated underlined and strikeout texts  Spintendo  05:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More individual feedback on the sources:

• The Korba source is written like an advertisement with flowery language
• The Sosland source is an interview with one of the executives of the company
• The Pothering source is an interview with another executive
• The Nunes source is an interview with an executive
• The Schroeder and Donley sources are interviews with executives from ADM
• There are two SEC filings and reports which is all company provided information
• The Vegconomist source is an interview with one of the executives
• The Mitchell source uses company provided information
• The Valente source comes from ACS
• The Pederson source uses company supplied information
• The Ayoyagi source, which is used a lot, does have a lot of good information in it— and when it does, it lists the source of that information. However, that source is not a panacea. There are several entries which list no source, and surprisingly, there are some entries—including one covering the year 1972—which lists Wikipedia as the source, which takes us into WP:WALLEDGARDEN territory, not to mention WP:WINARS. The fact that Ayoyagi would consult Wikipedia for their research, and then felt comfortable publishing that information in their pdf, is a serious knock on their credibility IMHO.^[a]
• There's also a lot of padding going on in the edit request proposal where multiple references covering the same story are used, or circumstances where the same information is repeated twice. The June 11, 2019 source from Kiernan-Stone "ADM reorganizes for second time in 14 months" and a different article from Kuehner-Hebert titled "Monster acquisitions aside, ADM is on a bite-sized buying spree" (which covered the exact same story) were used as references for two separate claims in the article that are identical: "under Luciano's leadership, the company restructured its business segments" in one paragraph (referenced by the latter source), and then several paragraphs down it is mentioned "in 2019 ADM consolidated its Ag services and oil seed units" (referenced by the former source covering the same story). There are other examples of padding the references section, such as the several sources which report on a Bunge deal (which actually never went through) as well as the dual sources both covering the March 2018 story: "ADM restructures business as grain margins falter" and "ADM realigns business to build on growth momentum".^[b] Then there are the two sources covering the exact same story about the acquisition of a dog food firm: "ADM buys Kansas dog food firm" and "ADM is betting on a pet food boom". Needless to say, all six of these references were based on interview / press releases issued by the company.
• So there are a lot of issues here, I hope I've delineated them as best as possible for you to use in future edit requests. The other sources I didn't mention, the New York times, the Chicago Tribune as well as the various local papers/journalists are all perfect to use (and to a lesser degree, the Wall Street journal, Bloomberg and Reuters). I look forward to seeing those sources in future edit requests.

Regards,  Spintendo  03:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello editors. I am having a hard time following the feedback provided for the previous request, so I'm posting a scaled back History draft that only includes the first subsection, Early history, a period which roughly covers ADM's formation at the start of the century to shortly before Dwayne Andreas becomes CEO in the late 1960s. Per my earlier remarks, I think adding subsections like this will make the entire History section more readable. To be clear, this request would involve replacing the first three paragraphs in the existing History section with the following:

I have also compiled a detailed accounting of how this draft differs from existing content. In some cases I have provided multiple citations for particular claims in order to demonstrate that the news itself is notable enough to generate widespread coverage in different publications.

I would like to ensure that requests like this are generating feedback from multiple editors, and that additions, deletions, approvals, denials, etc. all reflect community consensus and commonly understood Wikipedia editorial guidelines. Would it be useful to reach out to a relevant WikiProject to ensure that we're hearing from a range of voices? ADMDane (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a discussion with CNMall41 at WikiProject Companies, I have added the "request edit" template to the top of this request. I hope that Kpgjhpjm, Graywalls, Z1720, CorporateM, Justanothersgwikieditor, Ferkijel,Tobby72, FDRMRZUSA, and any other editors who have recently been active editing the article and engaging on this Talk page will review this request.

I am also happy to work with Spintendo on this but I'd like to ask that they (a) please not edit my Talk page posts, and (b) restore the "Response to edit request review 2-JUL-2023" section. It seems like your intention was to fix an issue with the formatting, but unfortunately it is now unreadable, which isn't helpful to me or any editors who might want to look over the discussion to date. Looking into the Wikipedia Talk page guidelines, I see that "The basic rule [...] is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." As I didn't give you permission to edit that post, I'd like to see that restored. I'm still learning when it comes to formatting and that part of my post might not have been the prettiest but it did provide requested clarifications and citations, and I think it's important that other editors be able to see the full conversation. Thanks in advance.

As a general note for editors reviewing, re: sourcing: whenever possible I'm trying to cite Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and similar national news organizations, but occasionally specific facts/figures are only available in industry press—as one would expect, as the readership for these publications is industry observers who are looking for slightly more depth to news items. If you look through the existing article there are numerous examples of sources like this (Food Dive, Food Processing, BioDiesel, etc.) being cited to confirm acquisition details and dates, and that's exactly how I have used reputable industry sources. For example, World Grain, which is a prominent industry journal that is widely cited across Wikipedia for agricultural topics, see for instance the articles on Durum, Atta flour, Pasta, High-fructose corn syrup, Economy of Nigeria, Wheatbelt railway lines of Western Australia, Agriculture in Kazakhstan, and Agriculture in Pakistan. Again, I am only sparingly using industry sources to confirm specific acquisition and timeline details, not to try and include anything promotional or excessive, and I hope editors will bear that in mind. ADMDane (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ADMDane:, I'm not really sure why Spintendo did what they did in "Response to edit request review 2-JUL-2023" table, but there was a "nowiki" code added into it, which might have been unintentional. I corrected the code so it is functional as it appear to have happened unintentionally. Where are you saying they edited your posts? Can you provide the diff # of your concerns? As for your contents concerns, some of the sources are simply passing along information from ADM's press release making them "dependent coverage". While everything in article needs to be verifiable, not everything verifiable is entitled to be included simply because the article subject wishes them to be included. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:DUE gives you some insight. Announcements of every breath taken by the company parroted by industry newsletters based on press releases need not be included into the encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this feedback, Graywalls. The "editing my Talk page post" incident I'm referring to is specifically the insertion of that "nowiki" code into the "Response to edit request review 2-JUL-2023" table. Spintendo had asked for clarification on a number of items, which I provided, but then all of that information was effectively hidden by the nowiki code so that other editors could not read it.

I completely understand your point about press releases and following your earlier feedback I significantly trimmed down the number of acquisitions covered in the draft. What I'm trying to avoid is having the History section just be a bulleted timeline, with every sentence structured as some variation of "On Date X, this happened," and no attempt to explain to the reader why these particular dates and developments are significant.

I would greatly appreciate you taking a look at the Early history draft I prepared above, along with my explanation of changes, and letting me know what you think. I can see that you've edited the article in the past and clearly have a familiarity with the topic, so your feedback would be especially valuable. ADMDane (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ADMDane Just to clarify, I added the nowiki because you had taken code from my reply message (code that I specifically use for reviewing text) and applied it to your proposal, where you stated "Please forgive me if I messed up the formatting ... I struggled to get the note tags to work correctly". I applied the no wiki in order to be able to read it (being familiar with it, I can read it just as easily in its unformatted version—and in this case, much more quickly^[a]). Nowiki tags are placed outside of the text and do not alter the substance of that text, they only remove the coloring and the positioning of it, and can easily be removed.  Spintendo  08:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ADMDane: I added your early history, but moved some things around chronologically. There was also some duplicate content. STEMinfo (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, STEMinfo. Thank you for reviewing and implementing the Early history draft. And thank you as well to all of the editors who provided feedback on earlier versions. I am honestly learning a lot about Wikipedia here and will be sure to incorporate your suggestions about sourcing and structure with future requests. ADMDane (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ADMDane, in light of the vandalism on ARTCO can you proof-read the ADM page just to check there's no such issue? That vandalism remained for several months. Graywalls (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi editors, I'm back on the ADM Talk page with another request. This time, I'm proposing a new Dwayne Andreas subsection that would replace the current few sentences of the existing 1970 to present subsection, up until the sentence that reads: "In 1997, Dwayne Andreas' nephew G. Allen Andreas was named CEO."

I found this section to be lacking major parts of history, so I did some research and drafting and put together an outline of key milestones during his time as CEO of ADM. At the same time, some of the existing information is not correct and isn't supported by the sourcing, so I have removed these details. I only used the best sourcing I could find when drafting this.

Additionally, I have created an account of what in this draft differs from what is already in the 1970s to present subsection:

I understand that this request is rather large, so I appreciate any editor that takes the time to evaluate this request. I am ready and willing to respond to any feedback on this request. To editors who provide feedback: thank you so much for taking the time and energy to do so. ADMDane (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ADMDane:I specifically pinged about checking over for potential incorrectness in the previous section, but you didn't bother to respond. I feel that follow through is important if you are trying to work collaboratively. Graywalls (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sincere apologies Graywalls, I somehow missed your note to me about that. You’re right that it is important for me to follow through when asked by editors and I’m sorry about that. I’ve reviewed the ADM page closely and don’t see any issues similar to the vandalism you pointed out and fixed on the ARTCO page. It does not look that that same editor made any changes to the ADM page, nor did I spot any similar sourcing or information added by other editors, thankfully. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and, again, apologies for missing your previous note. ADMDane (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ADMDane: Is there any reason why we wouldn't just use dates for the history section, as is more common in other articles, rather than call it the " Dwayne Andreas period"? Are there sources that call it the "Dwayne Andreas period"? STEMinfo (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great question, STEMinfo. The cited NYT, WaPO, and StarTribune obituaries all highlight how Andreas "transformed" ADM during his time as CEO. The WaPo article specifically says that "His use of political clout — and his aggressive acquisition of smaller companies and expansion into new markets — built ADM into one of the world's largest agricultural processing, marketing and distributing companies." So given his prominence in ADM's history, I thought it made sense to have a subsection that specifically covered the period during which he was CEO, followed by a Recent history subsection covering roughly 2006 to present. All that said, such subsection headers are just a suggestion (in part to improve readability) and I obviously defer to you and other editors about their usage here. ADMDane (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done @ADMDane: I reviewed the request and the sources. Everything looked good, except the company reportedly didn't buy 80% of Toepfer in 1982. It only bought an undisclosed portion. The 80% purchase happened in 2002, according to this and other reports. I also edited the section title to include Andreas' name and the date range. STEMinfo (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your assistance here, STEMinfo. I double checked and you're completely right about the Toepfer deal. Apologies for getting that wrong! I really appreciate that you're taking the time to thoroughly review everything. In my new request (below) for an updated 2001–present subsection, I added details about ADM completing its acquisition of Toepher in 2014. I also added details about the Cuban contract, since that occurred in 2001 and would thus make more sense to include there than in the Dwayne Andreas subsection. ADMDane (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi there Wikipedia editors, I'm back with another ADM request for the History section. I've put together an updated version of the 2006–present subsection that adds a few more details and slightly changes the header:

As before, I created a table that details how this draft differs from the current subsection: