Talk:Mark Whitacre/Archives/2013

Education

It's a little strange how the article describes his Ph.D. in terms of majors and minors. A Ph.D. is not like an undergraduate degree; you obtain a Ph.D. in a specific field, and you cannot get a minor on it. (You can, however, get a master's degree in a related field while getting your Ph.D., as some programs require.) D haggerty (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply for D Haggerty: The two minors were mentioned by his Cornell PhD adviser in one of the books about Whitacre, "Rats in the Grain". Unlike other colleges, the Cornell website states that 2 minors are required for a PhD, which is shown in 2nd sentence of paragraph 3 of this Cornell website link [1] ReadQT (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Whole article

Does this seem just a little biased to anyone? The intro paragraph says he is "an american hero" like 10 different times. The whole thing is rambling. It's pretty clear the dude wrote his own biography. I also think its weird that the education history is all over the place. It would make more sense to occur in chronological order. Mentions PhD then BS.

Yep. Where to start? --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It reads like his (inflated) resume, combined with his (heroic) autobiography. The man himself certainly had a hand in writing this, and it shows. 74.72.224.4 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and tagged as such. Cirt (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Myself and two other editors have contributed significantly to this article over many months; none of us knowing the article's subject personally. We have 10s of thousands of edits on Wikipedia between us on many different articles, and are active Wikipedians. We had an interest in the subject because a movie was made about him. The editing of this article was based on dozens of online references which are all cited in the article's text, two books (Rats in the Grain and The Informant), and from a recent Discovery Channel documentary about the subject of the article. It is an article that is heavily referenced. ReadQT (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the whole career section reads like a puffed up resume cover letter- yes, we need to have some educational and work background as context for what he is actually known for, but keep it neutral, and TO THE POINT, his role in the price fixing, or embezzlement, whatever. THATS why I came here!! Not to HIRE the guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.56.92 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 September 2009

The fact is, this article is clearly attempting to discredit the book "The Informant" and persuade the reader that Whitacre did not deserve to go to jail for stealing 9 million dollars. As an "neutral" article, this should not be the case. It should simply state the facts as they occured: he grew up in Ohio, earned several degrees, worked for ADM, became an informant for the FBI, during which time he admitted to fraud, he went to prison, and now he is out of prison and fighting for clemency and/or Presidential pardon. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.99.217 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 September 2009

OK, i've prepared (cleaned-up) for a thorough review, and that has worn me out. Have at it. BTW, i've messed up the Tim Cain refs, the Harvard citations are not working as expected, all 3 point to the same ref (the 1st one). That'll need fixing. If you look at the code, you can tell which citation is supposed to point to which bibliographical entry. Enjoy. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking better, I've now got this on my radar and will occasionally swing through and remove some of the peacockery. Ronabop (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the law degrees...that lawschool is basically a degree mill. I wouldn't comment on that fact on this entry, but I would question whether or not it even offers an LLM. Has anyone verified that reference? 204.16.25.238 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Was verified in one of the books about Whitacre that NWCU did offer the LLM program in 2001 when it was awarded, and also in this older brochure of NWCU programs offered [2]. But, agree that it may be better to remove it since NWCU does not offer LLM anymore. ReadQT (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag to be removed since Jerome Potts significantly edited the article.LovePasadena (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a good sign when the authors of this article talk about how much time and work they put into it - and it still reads like Whitacre wrote it himself. And from what I've learned about Whitacre, you can't believe anything he says. And that doesn't exactly make this an article worthy of Wikipedia. I think the whole thing should be deleted and a new one with just the most basic, incontrovertible facts entered.Wlegro (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the article to be well-written and to have a balanced viewpoint. Especially appears to be well-referenced; with multiple references after almost every sentence. To learn more, I scanned U-Tube about Whitaker and viewed numerous recent interviews about the subject. Experts on the case, mostly the FBI, had conducted several recent interviews and disagree with Wlegro's opinion about the subject. Example: [3]. Wlegro appears to be biased on the subject matter, based on his/her comments above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.191.22 (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I spent the morning cleaning up the whole article, though I was not able to verify references or page numbers. I agree with many others: the article seems like an attempt to use Wikipedia to clear Whitacre's name; this is not the appropriate forum for this. I hope my changes are effective. Jwjwj (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Start with Lede?

How about starting with the WP:LEDE section?

The last half of it seems questionable:

The fact that Whitacre suffered from bipolar disorder became public.[10] More than ten years later (2008), the former FBI supervisor of the price fixing case, Dean Paisley, with backing from two other FBI agents, went public with praise about Whitacre. "Had it not been for the fraud conviction," Paisley said, "he would be a national hero. Well, he is a national hero." [11][12][13] "Without him, the biggest antitrust case we've ever had would not have been", Paisley added.[11][12][13] On August 4, 2009, a Discovery Channel documentary aired, Undercover: Operation Harvest King, where several FBI agents stated that "Whitacre got a raw deal".[14] In addition, official letters from the FBI in support of a Whitacre pardon were published September, 2009 in a new book, Mark Whitacre Against All Odds

I'm not sure the coverage of this information in the rest of the article justifies this information being in the lede at all, let alone given such prominence. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I dumped it to the end of the section on pardon support by so-and-so. In doing so, i removed the first sentence, because the cited reference does not really supoort the statement. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Incoming!

Just read the book, when I heard the movie was coming out. Dayum, this is a convoluted story, and Hollywood's about to release a film. We should expect 6-12 months of fun. Ronabop (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of major contributors to the article

Per http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl - the article's single largest contributor by edit count is ReadQT (talk · contribs), with related account ReadQ (talk · contribs). The only other contributors with over 50 edits are TubaPlayer (talk · contribs), and an IP address, 72.215.33.13 (talk · contribs). When checked against the earliest contribs of all four (72.215.33.13, ReadQT, ReadQ, and TubaPlayer) - this article is among the earliest contribs of the account - or its only/predominant contribs. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be further noted that several months ago User:Twp, User:Treybien, and more recently two weeks ago User:Jerome Charles Potts, conducted major re-writes and restructuring of this article. They placed a lot of effort and work into editing and improving it as compared to the original article.ReadQT (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tense

A lot of the article is written in the present tense while the events transpired 10 years ago. I'm far too lazy to revise the article. Maybe someone else can. 66.210.96.228 (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Feature Film

My only familiarity with Mark Whitaker is through the film, The Informant! I see in this article that it claims he cracked under pressure and had bipolar disorder and that was the reason for embezzling. However, a few facts are in order:

• Bipolar disorder does not make you tell lies.
• Mark Whitaker started embezzling from ADM before the FBI investigation.
• Mark Whitaker made up the story of a Japanese competitor who called him to reveal a mole in exchange for $10 million. Whitaker's end game was obviously to get the $10 million from ADM and keep it himself.
• As stated in the movie, Mark Whitaker was probably responsible for the virus at ADM that slowed production.
• When the FBI was called in much to his surprise, he then decided to use them to dethrone the executives that were between him and the top. He thought when the dust settled he would be the CEO in charge of ADM.

So my question is, is the film accurate? And if so, shouldn't the article be more explicit about what Mark Whitaker was really doing? He was obviously duplicitous from the start, even before the FBI entered the scene, but the article seems to want to offer apologies and excuses for his unethical behavior. JettaMann (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the above is in the article about the movie, The Informant!. I thought this article was about the person, not the movie. There is a separate article about the movie, The Informant!. When I reviewed the recent interviews in the media and U-Tube, the head of the FBI who oversaw the case said the movie was not accurate to reality, such as the following [4]. There are numerous other examples of FBI interviews with the same conclusion on U-Tube and Google search. The books on the case, both documentary books, are referenced in this article and they both went into great detail about Whitaker cracking under pressure and bipolar disease. The book that the movie was based on, The Informant, interviewed psychiatrists specializing in bipolar, and quoted that embellishments is a symptom of bipolar disease, and poor judgment also a symptom. The same book (The Informant), and another documentary book called "Rats in the Grain", both stated that Mark Whitaker did not cause the virus in the manufacturing plant. Based on what FBI agents quoted in various interviews after the movie which I found on Google search and U-Tube, the documentary books are more accurate to reality than the movie.ReadQT (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentencing and Release

I think that this section needs to distinguish between Whitacre's sentence for fraud and tax evasion, and his sentence for price fixing. Lieber in Rats in the Grain makes much of the fact that Whitacre was sentenced to more time *for price fixing alone* than either Michael Andreas or Terry Wilson, despite the fact that evidence during his period of cooperation with the FBI was barred. Judge Blanche Manning sentenced Mark Whitacre as a manager in the price fixing talks, whereas neither Andreas nor Wilson received that designation. There were two separate trials. One, presided over by Baker, had to do with Whitacre's fraud/embezzlement. The other was the federal price fixing trial in Chicago, presided over by Blanche Manning. Matt2h (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite

The articles The Informant (book). Lysine price-fixing conspiracy and Mark Whitacre are a disaster. Things that should be in one article are in another and things that should be in an article aren't. There should probably also be an article Rats in the Grain. I plan a total restructuring after Christmas. (I've posted this message on the relevant articles.) (Jmckeon ie (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC))

Recent Discovery Channel TV documentary with several FBI agents and Mark Whitaker

I understood the Mark Whitaker & ADM case much better after seeing the recent Discovery Channel TV documentary, "Undercover", which documents the case about Mark Whitaker and the ADM price fixing case by the real people involved. I viewed it at the following link on U-Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNLrR0qkMR8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.161.58 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)