Talk:3M

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:

Extended content

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.

References

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.

References

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. @Constant314: 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)

• @CB at 3M: Again, please use the {{request edit}} 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 @Constant314: 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)

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, @3MThrowawayAccount: 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 @CB at 3M: 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)

@Z1720: 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)

Dead link in reference

Reference 1 (ref name=3MCite, used in the info box under "Founded" and at the top of the History section) goes to a dead link. I'm not familiar with the way the reference is written and don't presently have the time to look into this. Hopefully there's an archived copy of that page that can be added.

Itskieran (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)