Talk:3M

Passive Fire Protection
For reference to 3M's passive fire protection products, see http://www.mmm.com/firestop. 3M uses its own brand of sodium silicate, called "Expantrol", as an active ingredient in a variety of firestops, including its CP25 caulking, FS195 wrap strip, CS195 intumescent sheet and more. 3M also offers endothermic wrapping to preserve the operability of electrical circuits while exposed to fire. 3M's fire barrier mortar offers the best bounding in the business, with certified repair procedures using "itself" as well as 3M's intumescent caulking and putty. Their main man behind this is now retired, one Mr. Richard Licht, who testified in front of US Congress in the Thermo-lag 330-1 scandal that brought to light the US nuclear industry's acceptance of bounding without mandatory product certification.--Achim 00:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just restructure the 3M article slightly. I also added a major products and technology section. If you think the above is worth adding to this section, go for it. IMHO, I think it is, but do not know the topic well enough to write about it in an encyclopeadic fashion. Anubis1975 02:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Magnetic Recording Tape
There is no mention within the 3M article of the 3M/Scotch line of professional 2-inch magnetic recording tape. I don't have sufficient historical knowledge of these products at my disposal; however, 3M does hold an important place in the development of magnetic recording tape, and so should be indicated as such. ````--Defone 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PFC Controversy
My school is currently in the middle of a project about 3M's production of carcinogenic perfluorocarbons. This controversy has been in the local newspapers for the past year. Why is there no section of the article exploring this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.36.137 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

where is story about 3m buying venture tape co of rockland mass oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.161.252 (talk • contribs)

where is the story about venture tape co being bought by 3 m co oct 2007?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.161.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Then add it, add an acquisition/controversy section,Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

copy edit
I have copy edited the section "founding", and removed the copy edit tag. I recommend some clarification for that section because the points don't seem to link. For example, what does the sentence "In reality, however, Dwan and his associates were not selling what they thought; they were in fact selling the worthless mineral anorthosite." have to do with the rest of the paragraph?-- Samuel  Tan  03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Headquarters location
The 3M web site says that its headquarters are in St. Paul, but this article's History section and its infobox say they're in Maplewood, a city bordering St. Paul. The Maplewood article claims the same. Can someone set this straight? – Wdfarmer (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tomsv 98 (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) The mailing address on website says St. Paul; however, it is within city limits of Maplewood, MN.
 * Not without a source it cant say that.Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose driving past it is original research, I will look for a source.Tomsv 98 (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One would think this would be easily sourced, but one would be wrong. I hesitate to use Google maps as a source.  Is a GIS map for Ramsey county an acceptable source? Tomsv 98 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone has fixed and sourced this, the difficulty with finding source is due to the fact the company’s headquarters campus is in parts of at least two cities, with a mailing address of St. Paul and the headquarters building being in Maplewood.Tomsv 98 (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought the Austin site had become their headquarters? Or is that just for some smaller region? I sure remember a lot of hoopla when they bought the site about 30 years ago. Shanen (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources for perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in environmental section

 * Coming Clean: Did 3M and DuPont ignore evidence of health risks?
 * 3M found not liable for home value loss
 * 3M begins cleanup of PFCs at former landfill -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is a new article required?
This article says a company with 79,000 employees makes 55,000 different products. For that to be true each product would have to be made by 1.436 people. Since 0.436 of a person can't work on a production line but can spend 0.436 of her time on one product line and 0.436 of her time on some other product we get that after splitting her time between two product lines she has 0.128 of her time to spend on a third line. Follow this line of reasoning and we see that some lines have only one person on them whilst others have 1.536 people on them. This leaves one person with 182 hours a year to do the paperwork, pay the bills, marketing, advertising, design the logos, calculate payroll, open the mail and answer the phone. Does she have a Wikipedia page because it sure sounds as if she deserves one?  Cottonshirt  τ   05:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They can make more that Qty (1) of each product. For example they may make more than one pack of Post-It Notes and more than one roll of Scotch tape each year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.128.131 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This comments are jokes, aren't they? In case they are not: the 55000 refers to the amount of different stock keeping units. Typically you do not need a seperate line for every item, nor do you need to manufacture all of them in parallel or have them produced continuously throughout the year. The productio time of one typical 3M item (something that involves adhesive coating and converting) is maximum in the range of seconds, for example you can output several thousand of squaremeters of adhesive coated tape per hour using a number of line operators you can count on one hand. Now take your box of Scotch tape, look how much is in there and then do the math.....

3M M79 was a ground breaking, industry sandard 24 track audio tape recorder
I turned the reference to the 3M M79 recorder to a link to a page waiting to be created. The 3M M79 was a among the first production 24 track audio tape recorder. It became a recording industry standard.

I have a reference to the original owners of the first two recorders:

"[ Armin Steiner's Sound Labs' Studio 1] also featured among the first 3M M79 24-track tape machines, Serial No. 2, (Wally Heider received No.1),"

Mix Magazine: Classic Track: 'Rhinestone Cowboy': http://www.mixonline.com/news/classic-tracks/classic-track-rhinestone-cowboy/425566

Robert.Harker (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Name
Various sources say that it only changed its name from Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company to 3M in 2002. It seems to have used both names in print adverts, with 3M Company as the logo and Minnesota etc as a kind of subtitle. When did 3M come about? The company's official history is vague on this. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the 3M brand name is from some time in the 1950's or maybe earlier. I seem to recall 3M Scotch Tape growing up in the 1960's. I know that the 3M brand was strong in the 1970's because 3M recording tape was very popular. Robert.Harker (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Are product citations needed?
In the Products section most entries have been tagged "Citation needed". Are citations really needed, wouldn't a link to the 3M product page suffice? If it's thought this is unreliable as products may be withdrawn, do we need a list of all products here (possibly a list of product categories would be helpful). Simply "Current products are listed on the 3M Web site [123]" seems enough. Pol098 (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 3M. 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/20120313125926/http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering/ to http://mixonline.com/TECnology-Hall-of-Fame/1978-EM-Mastering/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Magnetic tape controversy
Aren't 3M mainly known for the controversy around their Scotch-branded video tapes? They were pretty popular due to their cheapness back in the 70s, but within only five years or so, those tapes became unplayable because they became sticky and the layers of tape on the reel stuck to each other like glue. Today, an intensive, several-hour baking process is required to play these infamous 1970s 3M video tapes. --2003:71:4E6A:B477:3C31:2EDD:5C49:A691 (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're referencing sticky-shed syndrome, yes? If so, it was an issue with binders used by multiple manufacturers - It wasn't exclusive to 3M tapes. Do you have a third-party reliable source that mentions 3M related to that issue? I looked in that article; and while 3M is mentioned, it's also unsourced over there - if a reliable source can't be found, a specific manufacturer probably shouldn't be mentioned over at that article either. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Difference of numbers
In the sidebar, the number of employees listed is stated to be 89,800 while in the opening section of the article, the number of employees is listed as 88,000. If new numbers has been produced, the number in the sidebar should be switched to the current number, and the year updated. Currently it reads as though one of the numbers is inaccurate.67.221.121.30 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Yggdrasil

Removal of content
I removed a large amount of content because it was unsourced, out of date, or otherwise incorrect. If you have a problem with an individual edit by all means revert but please state a valid reason. Claiming that I have "an axe to grind" is not a valid reason. FYI I have no axe to grind other than making articles conform to Wikipedia policy and best practices. 203.151.232.90 (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting involved in the reverting because I don't know the entire story of what is going on here, but your motivation for an edit or edits is a valid concern. I would suggest that you work with the other editors following this page to address your concerns. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A specific concern about my motivation would be valid. Merely claiming that I have an axe to grind is not. 203.151.232.90 (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly a denial, but whatever. I can't say that I disagree with the other editors who have reverted your large scale removals who are saying that you should be less heavy handed and more nuanced.  If you believe such a large scale removal is necessary you should hash that out on this page first.  Being correct is not a defense to edit warring. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not doing anything except trying to improve articles by making them conform to policy. And I do deny that I have any other motivation. 203.151.232.90 (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Source
I suggest that at least some of the unsourced history could ref to this article: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2003/04/01/341016/ Ben Aveling 13:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Update request
Hello, I'm Kelsie! I've created a Wikipedia account to propose updates to articles related to 3M, my employer. I've disclosed my conflict of interest above and on my profile, and I'll try my best to follow Wikipedia's many rules. Thanks in advance to editors willing to review my requests here and update the article on my behalf.

Currently, the information in the infobox and introduction do not match. The infobox has 2018 information for finances and employee count, but the introduction has 2017 financial information sourced by Vault.com, which I'm not sure is an appropriate source, and an outdated employee count sourced by 3M's website (again, possibly not appropriate). If you click on the Fortune 500 link (reference #7), you'll see the ranking of #97 is not correct. The company now ranks #95. I'd like to propose removing the introduction's second paragraph and replacing with proposed text and sourcing below.

More specifically, I propose removing the following text and sources:

I propose replacing with the following text and sources:

This change replaces 2017 finances and an outdated employee count with 2018 details, which are already sourced in the infobox. Furthermore, this change eliminates reliance on Vault.com and the 3M website, and uses the same Fortune 500 source to verify the company's current ranking. The number of countries in which 3M operates is verified by the same 10-K source in the infobox. Can someone please review this request and update the article on my behalf?

Thank you! KM at 3M (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with proposed changes. Sandcherry (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the endorsement. Since a couple days have passed and no one has objected or updated the page, might you be willing to make the proposed change? I can't update the page myself because of my conflict of interest. KM at 3M (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Tigraan for updating the article. KM at 3M (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Leadership request
Hello, I'm back with another request, this time for the "Leadership" section. Currently, the section has 4 subsections with lists of current officers, presidents, CEOs, and board chairs. However, the first section is sourced to 3M's website, and the remaining three have no sources. Some of the years are incorrect. I've also noticed many company articles include mention of presidents, CEOs, and board chairs, but not current officers. I've drafted a brief and neutral summary of 3M's board chairs, CEOs, and presidents (one paragraph each), based on Wikipedia-appropriate sources and with correct dates. I understand prose is preferred over bulleted lists, and I should also note these paragraphs take up significantly less real estate than the four existing lists. My leadership summary for editor review:

Board chairs have included: William L. McKnight (1949–1966), Bert S. Cross (1966–1970), Harry Heltzer (1970–1975), Raymond H. Herzog (1975–1980), Lewis W. Lehr (1980–1986), Allen F. Jacobson (1986–1991), Livio DeSimone (1991–2001), James McNerney (2001–2005), George W. Buckley (2005–2012),  and Inge Thulin (2012–2018). Thulin continued to serve as executive chairman until current chair Michael F. Roman was appointed in 2019.
 * Leadership

3M's CEOs have included: Cross (1966–1970), Heltzer (1970–1975), Herzog (1975–1979), Lehr (1979–1986), Jacobson (1986–1991), DeSimone (1991–2001), McNerney (2001–2005), Robert S. Morrison (2005, interim), Buckley (2005–2012), Thulin (2012–2018), and Roman (2018–present).

3M's presidents have included: Edgar B. Ober (1905–1929), McKnight (1929–1949), Richard P. Carlton (1949–1953), Herbert P. Buetow (1953–1963), Cross (1963–1966), Heltzer (1966–1970), and Herzog (1970–1975). In the late 1970s, the position was separated into roles for U.S. and international operations. The position overseeing domestic operations was first held by Lehr, followed by John Pitblado from 1979 to 1981, then Jacobson from 1984 to 1991. James A. Thwaits led international operations starting in 1979. Buckley and Thulin were president during 2005–2012, and 2012–2018, respectively.

Can someone please review this request and update the article on my behalf? I understand editors may want to expand or trim what I've provided, but I hope this draft will at least be considered more helpful than the current content. I'm inviting you since you reviewed the above request.

Thank you! KM at 3M (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * KM at 3M Your proposal looks much better than the lists. I do not know how to cut and paste the revision with the citations included.  Perhaps another editor knows how. Sandcherry (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make the markup as easy to copy and paste as possible. By clicking on the "edit source" link you should be able to view the markup for the proposed paragraphs. I believe the same is true for the introduction request immediately above. Or, I'm hoping another editor can help, but thanks again for the endorsement. KM at 3M (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Theroadislong for removing the list of current officers. Since you helped with copying over the markup in the above approved edit request, might you be able to help here as well? User:Sandcherry has endorsed the proposed change. KM at 3M (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I told you that the proper way to put in such requests is the template. I added it, but please do so yourself next time. If you don't understand how to use it, ask at the Teahouse.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The Chairmen were added. The other executive lists could not be added because their first names were missing. Regards, Spintendo  16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry, I am still learning this process. Thank you for your work on the Chairman section. However, I'm concerned because much of the Leadership section remains unsourced, and some of the dates are still incorrect. If you look at the proposed text again, you'll see full names are used the first time someone is mentioned, then only last names are used in subsequent mentions (ie, "Bert S. Cross" becomes "Cross"). I believe this follows Wikipedia's manual of style (Manual_of_Style/Biography). I don't mean to be a burden, but might you, User:Theroadislong, or another editor be willing to take another look? I still think the 3 short paragraphs proposed are a substantial improvement over the unsourced and inaccurate lists. Thanks for further consideration, and I hope User:Sandcherry's endorsement of the proposed text will also be taken into account. KM at 3M (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the article. KM at 3M (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Acquisitions and divestitures request
Hello, I have another request, this time to modify the structure of the "History" section. Right now the section has subsections for "Founding" (which has just one paragraph) and "Expansion and modern history", and confusingly, text about the company's founding appears above the "Founding" subsection.

I propose removing the "Founding" and "Expansion and modern history" section headings, and instead, having a subsection called "Acquisitions and divestitures". Here's the content I would suggest moving into this subsection:


 * On September 8, 2008, 3M announced an agreement to acquire Meguiar's, a car-care products company that was family-owned for over a century.
 * On August 30, 2010, 3M announced that they had acquired Cogent Systems for $943 million.
 * On October 13, 2010, 3M completed acquisition of Arizant Inc. In December 2011, 3M completed the acquisition of the Winterthur Technology Group, a bonded abrasives company.
 * On January 3, 2012, it was announced that the Office and Consumer Products Division of Avery Dennison was being bought by 3M for $550 million. The transaction was canceled by 3M in September 2012 amid antitrust concerns.
 * In May 2013, 3M announced that it was selling Scientific Anglers and Ross Reels to Orvis. Ross Reels had been acquired by 3M in 2010.
 * In March 2017, it was announced that 3M was purchasing Johnson Control International Plc's safety gear business, Scott Safety, for $2 billion.

There is more content about acquisitions and divestitures to add to this section (including some business dealings recently and appropriately removed by User:Theroadislong because of poor sourcing), but for now, I am only proposing a structural change to improve the article's organization. I may have future requests of this section, but for this request I'm not proposing any text or sourcing changes. Do editors agree this would be an improvement, and if so, can someone please update the article on my behalf? Thank you! KM at 3M (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you participated in the two discussions above, might you be willing to say if you endorse this request as well? In short, I'm proposing removing the "Founding" and "Expansion and modern history" section headings, and creating a new history subsection called "Acquisitions and divestitures" using existing related content. If this is another request you're unable to help with, I understand, but your thoughts are helpful either way. Thanks! KM at 3M (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother, but I'm struggling to get feedback on this proposed improvement. I thought I'd ask you since you helped with the request above. I'm proposing removing the "Founding" and "Expansion and modern history" section headings, and creating a new history subsection called "Acquisitions and divestitures" using existing related content. I should note, User:Commonwealth1333 just updated the article with another acquisition-related sentence, which could also be moved into this subsection. Thanks. 192.28.1.35 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've omitted the confusing heading. Regards, Spintendo  19:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Subsection request
Thank you for removing the confusing heading. In case my above request was confusing, I am hoping to improve how text is organized by moving several related claims about acquisitions and divestitures together, making a new subsection under "History" called "Acquisitions and divestitures".

Here are the claims to consider moving into the section:


 * 1) On September 8, 2008, 3M announced an agreement to acquire Meguiar's, a car-care products company that was family-owned for over a century.
 * 2) On August 30, 2010, 3M announced that they had acquired Cogent Systems for $943 million.
 * 3) On October 13, 2010, 3M completed acquisition of Arizant Inc. In December 2011, 3M completed the acquisition of the Winterthur Technology Group, a bonded abrasives company.
 * 4) On January 3, 2012, it was announced that the Office and Consumer Products Division of Avery Dennison was being bought by 3M for $550 million. The transaction was canceled by 3M in September 2012 amid antitrust concerns.
 * 5) In May 2013, 3M announced that it was selling Scientific Anglers and Ross Reels to Orvis. Ross Reels had been acquired by 3M in 2010.
 * 6) In March 2017, it was announced that 3M was purchasing Johnson Control International Plc's safety gear business, Scott Safety, for $2 billion.
 * 7) In October 2019, 3M completed the purchase of Acelity and its KCI subsidiaries worldwide for $6.7 billion, including assumption of debt and other adjustments.

My goal here is to improve how content is organized and encourage expansion of acquisition/divestiture coverage because there are many others to note. Again, for this request I'm not proposing any text or source changes, just making a new subsection and moving the above into that section. Hoping for someone to update the article for me, or at least provide some feedback since none was left specific to this request above. Thanks again to User:Spintendo for helping! KM at 3M (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is, in essence, creating two different expansion sections which cover the same topic - the expansion of the company. The COI editor needs to expand upon their reasoning given for making this change, because "improve(ing) how content is organized" is not one of them if it creates this duality in subheadings. And just to be clear, if you're proposing a new heading, you are proposing a change to the text. Regards, Spintendo  16:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Partnerships and sponsorships request.
Hello, I'm back with another request, this time to add content about 3M's major partnerships and sponsorships. The company has sponsored many events and activities over the decades, but the content proposed below focuses on the most notable such as NASCAR, professional sports teams and golf tournaments, and the Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge and WorldSkills. I've drafted a brief and neutral summary based on Wikipedia-appropriate sources.

Please see proposed text below, which I suggest adding as a "History" subsection (but I'll let editors decide the best location):

3M began sponsoring stock car racing driver Greg Biffle's No. 16 Ford in 2005, then became a primary sponsor of Roush Fenway Racing in 2006. The company started sponsoring Biffle for the NASCAR Cup Series in 2008. In 2010, 3M extended its five-year NASCAR sponsorship agreement through 2015. 3M began sponsoring Jeff Gordon at Hendrick Motorsports in 2014, followed by Chase Elliott for the NASCAR Cup Series in 2016. The company was the title sponsor of multiple Sprint Cup races at Michigan International Speedway during the 2000s, as well as the NASCAR Xfinity Series in 2015.
 * Partnerships and sponsorships

3M has sponsored other sports teams and events, including the Minnesota Timberwolves, Minnesota Twins, and Minnesota Lynx. The company sponsored the 3M Championship tournament as part of PGA Tour Champions from 2001 to 2018, and became title sponsor of the PGA Tour's 3M Open in 2019. The seven-year sponsorship agreement with the PGA Tour is expected to keep the 3M Open in Minnesota until 2025. 3M sponsored Mucho Macho Man in all three Triple Crown events in 2011. In 2016, 3M became the official "science partner" of the Minnesota Vikings for ten years with a focus on enhancing the fan experience through science. The company acquired naming rights to 3M Arena at Mariucci, the home arena for the Minnesota Golden Gophers men's ice hockey team of the University of Minnesota, for fourteen years starting in 2017.

Outside of sports, 3M has sponsored several community and educational initiatives. The Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge, a national science competition for middle school students, has been sponsored by 3M for more than a decade, and the company has also sponsored the U.S. team at WorldSkills competitions. 3M and Nobel Media, an organization affiliated with the Nobel Prize, formed a partnership in 2016; the collaboration brings Nobel laureates to 3M's campus in Maplewood, and has 3M co-sponsor and send company scientists to Nobel events both in the U.S. and internationally.

Can someone please review this request and update the article on my behalf? I understand editors may want to expand or trim what I've provided. I'm inviting you since you've reviewed previous requests. Thanks! KM at 3M (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this material doesn't belong in the article. This is just a summary of some of 3M's promotional activity. Constant314 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look. My goal is not to promote 3M's activities or products, but rather to provide a neutral overview of major sponsorships similar to Nike,_Inc. (which also sends readers to List of Nike sponsorships), Carlsberg_Group, StubHub, or Visa_Inc.. I was also hoping to add brief mention of articles clearly affiliated with 3M, such as 3M Arena at Mariucci, 3M Open, and Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge, to make the article more complete and connect related pages. 3M has sponsored many other activities over the decades. These are the most prominent and well-documented in sourcing. Is any of the text problematic in particular? I certainly want to make sure this information is approached appropriately, so I'm keen to hear if you have thoughts on wording changes or other edits to make this more acceptable. Thanks! KM at 3M (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Information added to articles needs to be evaluated on its own merit. The fat that a similar item appears in a similar article is not a valid argument that it belongs in some other article.  There are a lolt of articles that should be trimmed.  See WP:OTHERCONTENT.  Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge and WorldSkills could well be candidates for deletion.  Nor is it an argument that everything vaguely related to 3M should be linked through this article. See WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING.  There is a link to 3M’s corporate web site.  That is the place to link everything related to 3M.   Sponsorship of sporting events is not encyclopedic information.  The fact that 3M invites Nobel laureates to its campus is not encyclopedic.   Every bit of trivia added to the article dilutes the significant content.Constant314 (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Not too long ago, the article said: "On December 20, 2005, 3M announced a major partnership with Roush Fenway Racing, one of NASCAR's premier organizations. In 2008, the company sponsored Greg Biffle in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series as he drove the No. 16 Ford Fusion. In addition, on February 19, 2006, 3M announced that it would become the title sponsor of the 3M Performance 400 at Michigan International Speedway until 2011." This was removed by User:Theroadislong, along with original research and other unsourced content. Do you agree with Constant314's assessment of the proposed addition, or do you think a sourced overview of major partnerships is acceptable? I'm asking in case sourcing was your only reason for removal. Thanks again to you both for providing feedback! 192.28.1.35 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Constant314 you are just trying to promote your company here. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Environmental record request
Hello again, and thanks to the editors who have weighed in on discussions to date. I have another request, this time to add a few facts about 3M's environmental record to the existing section, which paints an almost entirely negative picture of the company and jumps around a lot chronologically. I don't seek to remove any of the current text, but I hope editors will consider adding a couple sentences about the company's efforts to improve its environmental record.

Please see proposed text below:

3M's Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) program was established in 1975. The program initially focused on pollution reduction at the plant level and was expanded to promote recycling and reduce waste across all divisions in 1989. By the early 1990s, approximately 2,500 3P projects decreased the company's total global pollutant generation by 50 percent and saved 3M $500–600 million by eliminating the production of waste requiring subsequent treatment.

During the 1990s and 2000s, 3M reduced releases of toxic pollutants by 99 percent and greenhouse gas emissions by 72 percent. The company earned the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star Award each year the honor was presented, as of 2012.

Can editors please review this request and update the article on my behalf? Thanks! KM at 3M (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Done Constant314 (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing and updating the article. The above request was meant to address the 1970s–2000s. I'd like to propose another update focused on more recent history. Please see proposed text below:


 * 3M announced its Sustainability Value Commitment at the 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference, pledging to make all new products more sustainable and improve production practices. Some models of Scotch-Brite and Thinsulate products are made with recycled materials, as of 2019, and the company has pledged to decrease waste as well as water consumption for the manufacturing of cleaning solutions. 3M's Automotive Electrification Program promotes lower energy consumption and raises awareness of vehicles' negative impacts on the environment. In 2019, the company joined The Climate Group's "RE100" business initiative to use 100 percent renewable electricity and pledged to use only renewable energy in all global facilities by 2050.


 * Can you and other editors please review this request and update the article again on my behalf? Thanks! KM at 3M (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Results are more important than intentions. Could you flesh this out a little bit with some results? Constant314 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to offer some additional sources with completed actions and results for your review:
 * This Chemical & Engineering News article confirms that Scotch-Brite heavy-duty scrub sponges are now produced with only recycled fibers and discusses a couple other 3M products as well: "Schueller points to the firm's Scotch-Brite heavy-duty scrub sponges. Intended to scour caked-on food from pots and pans, the sponges are now made with 100% recycled fibers. In Brazil, 3M developed a take-back program for the sponges, and 1 million of them have been recycled since 2014, she says. 3M has launched a sponge take-back program in the US and soon expects to roll it out globally, she adds... A similar initiative is 3M's Thinsulate Featherless insulation, Schueller says. Earlier this year the firm launched a version of the down replacement that uses fibers recycled from plastic bottles... 3M recently introduced granules with a titanium dioxide coating that reduces smog by photocatalytically converting nitrogen oxides, which are precursors to ground-level ozone, into water-soluble ions." Perhaps some of these product changes could be mentioned?
 * This doesn't directly apply to the cleaning solutions previously mentioned, but by installing a closed loop system at our Brookings, SD, site we decreased annual water consumption by more than 18 million gallons, resulting in the company being recognized at the 2017 Environmental Leader Product and Project Awards Conference. This Brookings Register article verifies these claims.
 * A similar system was also created at the 3M site in Gagnef, Sweden, which reduced the annual consumption of drinking water used in the process by more than 100m3. (See page 19 of this sustainability report.)
 * 3M Taiwan reduced the amount of water usage per unit of production by 28%, per Sustainable Brands.
 * I realize you're asking for results and not intentions, but 3M's headquarters are powered by 100% renewable energy as an initial step to reach our stated commitments, per Pioneer Press, Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal, and Star Tribune. Text in the latter article might be best for confirming actions over pledges: ("3M has committed to powering its Maplewood headquarters campus with 100 percent renewable energy under a new partnership with Xcel Energy that begins Friday. The agreement makes 3M one of the largest corporate headquarters to commit to using green energy to power corporate operations... The project has been in the works for a year.")
 * Are these helpful? Taking the previously proposed claims and this new information into account, might you be willing to update the article on my behalf? I'm open to your preferred wording, my main goal is just to update the article and make the environmental section a bit more balanced. Thanks for further consideration. KM at 3M (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The environmental record section did need balance and the proposed additions were notable and significant. I’m not inclined to add information about promises and commitments.  I see that as public relations rather than a notable accomplishment.  However, I would be inclined to add a modest statement about actual water saving with good citations.  3M publications are not reliable sources.  Any addition should make it clear what is meant by water saving.  At least in the Brookings example it means water that would otherwise have been pumped into the sewers.  Constant314 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As a aside, the photo with the environmental record section shows a building with some pretty lights. That doesn't have much to do with the environmental record.  You might want to suggest some other photo. Constant314 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking over for my colleague here, I'll try to put something together about water savings. In the meantime, would you consider updating the article based on this book? The text mentions several results:
 * During its first year, the Pollution Prevention Pays eliminated 1.5 million pounds of pollution across 19 projects, saving $11 million.
 * Since then, 4,650 projects have eliminated 1.6 billion pounds of pollution, saving an estimated $810 million.
 * 3M was one of the first companies to adopt lifecycle management (LCM) to reduce environmental impact. LCM became 3M policy in 2001.
 * "By closing the loop on waste, since 1990 3M has found ways to cut manufacturing releases to water 82 percent, volatile organic air emissions 88 percent, solid waste 24 percent, and rates of waste generation 35 percent."


 * Here are some other potentially helpful sources to consider:
 * This book was published in 1986, but confirms: "The combined total of almost 1,900 projects has resulted in eliminating annually the discharge of almost 110,000 ton of air pollutants, over 13,000 tons of water pollutants, and over 260,000 tons of sludge of which over 18,000 tons are hazardous—along with the prevention of approximately 1.6 billion gallons of waste-water. Cost savings to 3M total more than $292 million."
 * 3P Program Pays off in Cost Savings of $500 Million for 3M (1991), Public Relations Journal
 * 3M, TAKADU PARTNER TO OFFER WATER UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS (2015), Water and Waste Digest


 * I'm hoping these are helpful and you might be willing to update the article appropriately on my behalf.
 * As for the image of the photo showing a "building with some pretty lights", I agree, this has little to do with the company's environmental record, and the image quality is poor. Are you open to removing the image for now and I can work on finding better images for the article? Thanks for your feedback. CB at 3M (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello. I will help update the environmental section, but I won’t help turn it into a fluff piece for corporate public relations.  Good business practice is not notable, even if it has a trendy name like Lifecycle management, which by the way is a disambiguation page.  The company saving money is especially not notable as this can be the result of accounting changes.  Business as usual is not notable.  The section was badly out of balance and I did help put in a little bit of fluff, but that doesn’t open the gate for more.  Each new addition needs to be judged independently.


 * Unfortunately for 3M, notable often means negative. If there is something negative in the article about 3M and the company has a response, then that needs to be included for balance.  I am much more willing to add something like that to the article as opposed to something that just shows that 3M is a good corporate citizen.


 * I’m glad that the company is using less fresh water but is it notable? Some regions have abundant fresh water and so saving it is not environmentally notable, even if it saves the company a lot of money.  If there was a factory where fresh water was scare or the sewers were overloaded and 3M responded to a request to decrease usage, that could be notable, especially if they were able to continue the same level of operations.  If the savings exceeded what other companies were doing, that would add to the notability.


 * Also, I won’t do the work or the research. You put here on the talk page exactly what you want to go into the article so that it can be copied and pasted it into the article.  This puts you in the position of doing a lot of work that may be rejected.  Sorry.  My threshold for notability is fairly high.  It is best to propose small additions or changes and see how that goes.


 * For the picture, there is a lot of opportunity for something favorable to the company. Even the picture there now could be more relevant if the caption indicated that the lighting was higher efficiency than was the standard for the time frame.  I would really like to see a before and after picture of a cleaned-up discharge of some type, but that isn’t necessary.

Operating facilities
Hello! My name is Caroline. I am taking over as 3M's Wikipedia representative, and my colleague Kelsie (User:KM at 3M) has shared with me her work here so far. I will be revisiting a couple of the above discussions, but for now, I'd like to ask editors about potentially improving the "Operating facilities" section.

Currently, the section has a brief mention of the number of facilities in the United States, a few sentences about the company's Maplewood campus, then two seemingly arbitrary bullet points about specific facilities in Cynthiana and Newton Aycliffe. However, 3M has hundreds of facilities around the world, some of which employ thousands and/or have operated for decades, so I'm not sure why only these are mentioned.

I've identified a significant gap here, but given the feedback above, I want to be sure the community would welcome adding details about other facilities. Would it be helpful for me to provide new text giving a better overview of operating facilities? Do editors prefer keeping this very simple and top-level or is there an appetite for more detailed content? I can start with operating facilities within the United States, if a defined scope makes for an easier review. Any feedback here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! CB at 3M (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia. I agree the Operating facilities section could use some work. First, I’m sure 3M has a much nicer picture, such as an aerial view of the St. Paul campus.  The section itself is fine as far as existence and placement.  I don’t see anything controversial or that needs balance.  As long as it is neutral language and has reliable sources (not corporate sources), I don’t see any problem with improving and adding to the section.  I would limit the bulleted list to perhaps a dozen of the larger locations that would include several countries.  Although Wikipedia has plenty of storage, an article can have too many words.  I lean to economy of words so that they are more likely to be read, although I would not have a problem if the section were twice as long.Constant314 (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Based on your feedback, I've drafted 7 bullet points for you and other editors to consider. We have hundreds of operating facilities around the world, but I've tried to focus on some of our most important locations, balancing current use with some historical context. Most claims focus on the United States, but I've included some details about major operations in Asia as well, since there's currently very little information about international operations. I should note, since this discussion was started, someone has added information about Hutchinson to the article. This text is very poorly sourced, so my first bullet point below is intended to replace the current Hutchinson detail. I propose these additions:


 * Again, these bullets do not fully summarize 3M's global operations but I hope they help fill a significant content gap. I've tried to be as objective as possible and use only quality news and journal sources. I am open to editors' trims or additions, and I will let you decide if you think subsections for United States and International are helpful. Thanks for feedback or updates to the page on my behalf. CB at 3M (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with any of that. Let's give it a few days for others to comment. Constant314 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! I look forward to seeing the article updated. Thanks for reviewing. CB at 3M (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Done Constant314 (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the article, Constant314. CB at 3M (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutral article?
I thought neutrality was key to Wikipedia articles but this article is controlled by persons on the 3M payroll. It sounds like a report to shareholders. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4280:3150:B158:EED7:54FC:51F0 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There are editors here on the 3M payroll. They have self identified an are operating within Wikipedia guidelines.  That is allowed.  Constant314 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced content
The content you are removing is sourced to Miami Herlad, NPR, The New York Times, DW. That's a lot of references to remove as "non-notable" of sources that are widely used in many Wikipedia articles. These complaints have also been made by hospital executives, the President, etc, but I didn't add all of the many complaints that have been made and reported on in the press. The section will continue to be updated, but with the amount of press this is receiving a separate article is an option if it begins to overwhelm this article, or multiple articles like Viacom (1952–2006). Please share your thoughts here and let's try to find a solution.Gammapearls (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Thanks for contacting me.  My concern is this.  A report by Miami Herald, NPR, The New York Times of an interview with a public official is a reliable source for what the official said, but the official is not a reliable source. A public official saying that 3M should do such and such is just someone's opinion.  People complain all the time, but until those complaints are substantiated, the don't belong in Wikipedia.  There is hoarding and possibly price gouging.  That is related to the pandemic and should be covered there. The fact that it is a 3M product is again only tangentially related to an encyclopedia article on 3M. Of course, it is related if it is found that 3M actually orchestrated the gouging and hording.  Anyway, this stuff needs to be viewed through the lens of time before it makes it into the article. Emotions are too high right now.  You might what to see WP:NOTNP.   Anyway, thanks for the reaching out.  Constant314 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, this is all related to the Defense Production Act, which has to be covered somewhere in this article. We certainly can make the connection to the article subject clearer and more focused and trim some of the excess. Gammapearls (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I listened to several of the interviews and read some of the others. Although I am not suggesting any malfeasance, when a public official says "I talked to 3M and they said X," we have to ask, did the official talk to 3M himself?  How long is the chain from the person who talked to 3M to the public official and how much did the message change as it was passed on.  And did the person who actually talked to 3M verify that they were talking to3M and not to an independent distributor?  It is really hearsay and gossip. If the NY Times publishes an article and they say that they contacted a 3M spokesperson and 3M says " xxx ", that then is a reliable source about something that applies to 3M.  Again, I am not suggesting that public officials don't know what they are talking about.  It is just that public officials are not professional journalists and not accustom to high journalist standards. They just don't measure up to Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Constant314 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Two additions were removed as they appear to be inconsistent with WP:NOTNP. Please discuss here before reverting. Cheers!  Sandcherry (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Products and patents
Hello again! I'm back with another request to improve this article, this time with an overview of 3M's products and patents, separated by segment. Currently the introduction mentions a few products manufactured by the company, but the information is sourced by The Motley Fool and 3M's website. I'm sure editors are rightfully skeptical about attempts to add detailed information about specific products to Wikipedia articles, so I've worked to draft a very brief and neutral summary based on Wikipedia-acceptable sources like The Washington Post, CNBC, CNN, and the Star Tribune. I've also made sure not to mention any specific products by brand name:

How do editors feel about removing the products information from the introduction and adding this overview as a Products and patents section? I hope editors find this helpful, and thanks for feedback or updates to the page on my behalf. CB at 3M (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If that is taken out of the lede and put into a separate section, there is almost nothing left in the lede. How about proposing a rewrite of the lede?Constant314 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence in the introduction is a summary of the section I've proposed above, which provides more detail about the company's structure and a more complete overview of 3M's products. Are you willing to add the proposed section and keep the introduction sentence as a summary for now? I have some additional requests to update the page, then I'm happy to take a stab at rewriting the introduction. CB at 3M (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Constant314 left a note on my talk page saying they aren't against adding a products overview to the article but prefer not to add the proposed text at this time. You've reviewed and updated the article based on past requests. Might you be willing to review this request as well? Thanks! CB at 3M (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I told you last time, and as you were told at the Teahouse before that, you are supposed to use the template to make such requests. Among other things this allows for accountability of paid edits, in a way that making private requests via ping does not.
 * In any case, I would have refused to perform the proposed edit due to the procedural issue above, but I also feel the overview you give is too detailed and somewhat promotional. For instance, [the industrial division] focuses on the automotive, food, (...followed by 12 more domains) is not a good sentence for a Wikipedia article: a "focus" would be on 3, maximum 4 domains. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also going to decline adding this information to the article. I looked at some featured articles on businesses, including BAE Systems and Odwalla, to help me make this decision. The concern I have with this edit is the list-like quality of the paragraphs that mention categories of products, but not the name of any notable products that the company makes. It is correct that there shouldn't be too much detail on specific products, but this paragraph only mentions generalities of what 3M makes, instead of briefly describing notable products. Also, this section focuses too much on the four business groups and not enough time describing the products it produces. I suggest that editors who wish to add this information look at the FAs listed above for a template on how this information can be presented.
 * Since I am the third editor to comment without adding the information, and since no one has commented since July, I am going to close this edit request. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I had assumed mentioning specific products would be discouraged for promotional reasons. I can take another look at the proposed product details, but in the meantime, I wonder if you think the following summary is appropriate?


 * Thanks, CB at 3M (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

✅ I have added the above text. You can mention specific products (and the article already mentions Post-It Notes in the history section). However, the products have to be notable (usually evidenced by having their own article), the information should be about the company (not the product), and the amount of information about the product should be brief. A whole paragraph describing post-it notes would be inappropriate, but a sentence like "3M developed Post-it Notes in 19xx and became their highest grossing product as of 20xx" would be OK. Z1720 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the article and for your additional feedback. CB at 3M (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Rankings and recognition section request
Hello again. I'd like to submit another request for community review, this time to add mention of a handful of some of 3M's rankings and recognitions. Understanding editors may be skeptical of attempts by a representative of the company to add complimentary text, I've tried to focus on ones that are particularly representative of the numerous rankings and recognitions 3M has received over the decades. I've proposed the following text for consideration:

3M's smog-reducing granules and 'Scotch Flex & Seal Shipping Roll' were included in Time magazine's lists of "best inventions" in 2018 and 2019, respectively. In 2019, 3M was included in Fast Company lists of the "50 best workplaces for innovators" and "most innovative companies", and received the Clean Energy Ministerial's Award of Excellence in Energy Management. In 2020, 3M was included in the Ethisphere Institute's list of the "most ethical companies" for the seventh consecutive year. The company has received 100 percent ratings on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index as well as the Disability Equality Index. 3M ranked in Corporate Responsibility magazine's "best corporate citizens" list each year from 2012 to 2014,  and again in 2017 and 2019.

Can editors review this request and update the article on my behalf? Thanks! CB at 3M (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * COI noticeboard page stalker here. I'd remove the Ethisphere info per []. Corporate Responsibility seems a bit minor on the notability scale; there's no Wikipedia article about them, and the only coverage I can find is about the winners, not the award itself. I have similar concerns with the Disability Quality Index - I'm sure 3M does great things in this area, but the recognition seems borderline notable.  Clean Energy Ministerial does have an article, but the sourcing is weak - it's from the group's site.  Can you find an independent third party source?  The other recognition items seem to be OK. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing this request. This source is published by the U.S. Department of Energy, if that's helpful. Are you willing to update the article with the claims you think are appropriate? Thanks again! CB at 3M (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

PFCs vs. PFAS
Hi again! I'd like to revisit the Environmental record section to address a couple inaccuracies. Currently, the section's 4th and 5th paragraphs say:


 * In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began investigating perfluorinated chemicals after receiving data on the global distribution and toxicity of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). 3M, the former primary producer of PFOS from the U.S., announced the phase-out of PFOS, perfluorooctanoic acid, and PFOS-related product production in May 2000. Perfluorinated compounds produced by 3M were used in non-stick cookware and stain-resistant fabrics. The Cottage Grove facility manufactured PFCs from the 1940s to 2002.


 * In response to PFC contamination of the Mississippi River and surrounding area, 3M stated the area will be "cleaned through a combination of groundwater pump-out wells and soil sediment excavation". The restoration plan was based on an analysis of the company property and surrounding lands. The on-site water treatment facility that handled the plant's post-production water was not capable of removing the PFCs, which were released into the nearby Mississippi River. The clean-up cost estimate was $50 to $56 million, funded from a $147 million environmental reserve set aside in 2006.

First, to ensure readers aren’t confused between what they read on Wikipedia and other sources, we’d recommend replacing the term PFC, which stands for “Perfluroalkyl Compounds”, with the term “PFAS”, which stands for “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances”. This term is more commonly used in discourse on this topic, including by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. EPA. In addition, the examples of PFAS usage given is "nonstick cookware and stain resistant clothing" but this misses that PFAS are used in lots of other essential cases. It's useful context for readers that PFAS are used for a variety of products, including items that form important parts of modern life. I propose updating these two paragraphs to the following to make the text more accurate, with explanations below:


 * In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began investigating perfluorinated chemicals after receiving data on the global distribution and toxicity of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). These materials are part of a broad group of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances often referred to as PFAS, each of which has different chemical properties. 3M, the former primary producer of PFOS from the U.S., announced the phase-out of PFOS, perfluorooctanoic acid, and PFOS-related product production in May 2000. Perfluorinated

compounds produced by 3M have been used in non-stick cookware and stain-resistant fabrics as well as medical devices and equipment, electronics like smartphones and tablets, as well as low-emission vehicles and high-performance engines.


 * The Cottage Grove facility manufactured PFAS from the 1940s to 2002. In response to PFAS contamination of the Mississippi River and surrounding area, 3M stated the area will be "cleaned through a combination of groundwater pump-out wells and soil sediment excavation". The restoration plan was based on an analysis of the company property and surrounding lands. The on-site water treatment facility that handled the plant's post-production water was not capable of removing PFAS, which were released into the nearby Mississippi River. The clean-up cost estimate, which included the construction of a granular activated carbon system to remove PFAS from the ground water was $50 to $56 million, funded from a $147 million environmental reserve set aside in 2006.

I've included this EPA link as a source, as well as 3M’s PFAS History page that includes additional information this link that may be helpful as well. This source describes the wide variety of PFAS uses, including a quote from the industry group FluoroCouncil on essential uses we’ve described here. Additionally, I've repositioned the break between the two paragraphs so the Mississippi River contamination response immediately follows the Cottage Grove claim, changed two appearances of PCFs to PFAS, and added mention of the carbon system which is important context to better explain how the PFAS has been addressed.

I have additional suggestions to improve the accuracy of this section but I don't want to propose too many changes for editors to review in one request. I am making you aware of this discussion since you participated in the previous one related to this section, and invite other editors to weigh in as well. My goal here is to improve the article's accuracy but I won't update the page myself. Thanks for feedback or updates to the page on my behalf. CB at 3M (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, please use the template for such queries. I have added it for you this time. Even if it does not bring any timely answer and you end up pinging individual users (which again, you should not do) it will ensure transparency of the process.  Tigraan Click here to contact me 10:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This request has been completed. Constant314 (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I noticed some of the edits have been implements, but others (like as well as medical devices and equipment, electronics like smartphones and tablets, as well as low-emission vehicles and high-performance engines) have not. Are you declining to add those sections to the article? If so, can you add a short explanation as to why you declined? Also, you can close the request yourself by following the instructions at Template:Request edit/Instructions so that the request is removed from the queue. Thanks for your help, and please ping me or post on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I did not decline the request on products, I simply wasn't inclined. Then there were comments by another editor.  I was waiting to see if those comments would be addressed by the requesting COI editor.   I do agree with closing it.  The COI editor can repeat the request in light of the comments.  Constant314 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think those examples are rather irrelevant and unnecessary, with an emphasis on whitewashing (read as life-saving devices, consumer-friendly products, eco-friendly industrialization). Is there any evidence that these are more widespread use-cases worth making examples out of? If so that should be sourced. (and perhaps added to Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) --Trougnouf (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Up-scale board games(?); old 3M logo
In the History section of the Wikipedia article on the board-on-the-floor game Twister it mentions that during development in the 1960s the prototype game was shown to 3M, "who had a line of up-scale board games" at the time. If it is indeed true that they did, it would be nice if THIS article mentioned that line of games.

Second, it would also be nice if this article had an image of the old "3M" logo, in use back in the 1950s and '60s and possibly beyond, in which the two characters were figures of identical shape, but different 90° rotations. 2601:545:8201:6290:C59A:461:311B:8855 (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit in lead
The current lead to this article consists of two typical introduction paragraphs, followed by:


 * In 2016, a complaint was filed against 3M for knowingly selling defective earplugs issued to military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. These earplugs may have caused permanent hearing damage. 3M paid a $9.1 million settlement to the U.S. government.

This information is already covered in greater detail further down in the article.

This edit, which I made, removed the above quoted paragraph, which I summarized as "this information already has its own section and wouldn't belong in the header/intro anyway". User:Snooganssnoogans promptly reverted my edit without explanation. I restored it, and he reverted again, summarizing "longstanding. that the company scammed the government and harmed soldiers is notable and belongs in the lead". I restored the edit, asking that the user take his concerns to Talk. User:Constant314 has asked for the article to remain in its prior state pending a discussion here, which brings us up to date.

As I stated in my second reversion, adding a relatively narrow aspect of a company's business into the lead is not in accordance with MoS guidelines listed at WP:LEAD. Specifically,

[The lead] gives the basics in a nutshell... [and] should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." As a multibillion dollar conglomerate and one of the largest companies in the world, a single lawsuit doesn't rise to the level of notability for inclusion in the lead; the $9.1 million represents less than 0.03% of its revenue and is of limited interest outside of those directly affected.

The policy continues at MOS:LEADREL: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject." Due to the more detailed coverage of the lawsuit further down in the article - at a level of detail appropriate for a subsection, but not the introduction - my edit brings the article into better compliance with MoS guidelines and readability.

For comparison purposes, take a look at the articles for two large tobacco corporations, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris International. Both were dramatically impacted by numerous lawsuits, yet only one article mentions legal action in the lead at all - and only in passing. In contrast, the lawsuit mentioned in the 3M article was narrowly focused on one product line among hundreds and resulted in a minuscule financial and operational impact to the company.

User:Snooganssnoogans did not provide any rationale for his/her reversion beyond stating that they personally find it notable. He/she also has a history of emphasizing their own personal beliefs and engaging in numerous content disputes as listed on his/her Talk page. Considering that the first reversion was done within 60 seconds of mine, without explanation, I doubt serious consideration was given to whether the paragraph in question belonged where it was. 2601:282:4200:9070:24D5:60DC:A7DC:B73B (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that these sentences should not be listed in the lead - to me, they appeared quite jarring and not in line with the rest. -  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 12:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think content about how this company scams the government and sells dangerous equipment to soldiers, and boasts about this in internal emails belongs in the lead. What other WP articles do is irrelevant. However, more WP articles should clearly cover corporate malfeasance prominently in articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the information belongs in the lede because it summarizes a section of the article. However, I think it is given undue weight because the lede doesn't have other information like the COVID stuff or their environmental record. I suggest we add text in the lede that summarizes all aspects of the article. I disagree with the statement that WP articles should clearly cover corporate malfeasance prominently in articles. Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform and prominently covering corporate malfeasance would give undue weight to those actions, similar to how prominently featuring a company's good work would give undue weight to their good works. Wikipedia needs balance in its coverage. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the rest of the body should also be summarized in the lead. Of course, lead content should reflect Wikipedia guidelines. What I was suggesting is that many WP articles on corporations suffer from issues whereby prominent aspects of the corporation are not featured prominently because they are negative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm the OP; created a temp account as I'm at a new IP address and jumping around gets confused. Sorry I couldn't return to this discussion earlier; my original post was made right before a move.

While I appreciate User:Snooganssnoogans's point of view and somewhat agree on a personal level with his/her desire to draw attention to corporate misbehavior, that's just what it is - a personal preference. The content as written doesn't match Wikipedia policy and none has been cited to contest the policies I brought up.

I'm open to User:Z1720's idea of a more thorough summary, but am not sure of a way to draw together the diverse subject areas of the article and still meet the guidance of WP:LEAD, at least beyond the first two paragraphs. The relevant sections read, in part,


 * The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. ... As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. ... As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

Any large corporation has faced lawsuits, so absent factors making this a particularly significant one (and as mentioned above, this doesn't appear to qualify), there should be a compelling reason to push it to the lead. Any suggestions on how you would rewrite it without introducing undue weight or bias? 3MThrowawayAccount (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You are correct that Any large corporation has faced lawsuits but not every lawsuit gets in own section in an article. Currently, the earplug controversy has a whole section with four paragraphs. If the earplugs weren't mentioned in the lede, I would think we were giving undue weight to not mentioning lawsuits and controversies with the corporation. The lede should summarize the article; if there's a whole section for something, it should be mentioned in the lede.
 * On an unrelated note, are you a paid employee of 3M? This needs to be explicitly stated, per WP:DISCLOSE. If you make the declaration below an editor can help add your username to the banner at the top of the page. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Banner at Michael F. Roman
Hello again! I submitted a draft article for Michael F. Roman, which has been taken live, but an editor added a banner with the text: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". I've disclosed my conflict of interest as required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and I've worked to draft neutral text. I've tried to reach out to the editor who added the banner, both at Talk:Michael F. Roman and on their talk page, but I've received no reply. If there are no neutrality issues with the article's text, would someone mind removing the banner? Thanks for your consideration, CB at 3M (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi The best place to post this request is on Roman's talk page. You can also use a Template:Request edit to ask for a review by a neutral editor. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I've already tried addressing the banner on the article's talk page and on the user talk page of the editor who added the banner. I've disclosed my COI in compliance with the site's rules and Terms of Use and the draft has been reviewed by neutral editors. I will try the "Request edit" template soon if an editor does not remove the banner soon. Thanks for the suggestion. CB at 3M (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Innovation
They have been so much innovative since the years 196.216.86.83 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)