Talk:Sherwin-Williams

Merge Sherwin-Williams Company and Sherwin Williams Paints

All Sherwin Williams information should be on one article. Either one article should be transferred here, or this should be merged into the other. Info from either shouldnt be deleted, only moved.

Citations

This article has no citations yet makes grandiose claims. "The Sherwin Williams "Cover the Earth" logo and slogan of "Ask How, Ask Now" is one of the most recognizable symbols the world over" had no demonstrated basis in fact.216.93.229.121 06:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paint

One of the other wikipedia pages lists SWC as being charged due to lead poisoning by replacing lead paint with... lead paint. Shouldn't that be mentioned here or at least a redirect to the article?194.105.181.145 08:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be likely be factually incorrect. Sherwin-Williams hasn't produced lead paint since the 1930s.Cwc2311 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea Center

The supporting information for the Idea Center is located on Sherwin-Williams's internal intranet site. It would be rather difficult for someone to cite it in a way that the general public could see. The information that the person added on the Idea Center is correct.Cwc2311 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Competition

"Sherwin-Williams is the only national paint company."

What does this even mean? Ambiguity with "national". What nation? If United States, there are other US based paint companies: Behr (Michigan based), PPG (Pennsylvania based), Valspar (Minnesota based).

Whole section lacks substance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaintMitt (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

image from 70s

would this fit here: File:CALIFORNIA-SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA - NARA - 544720.jpg. its historic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Pop-Culture

I'm sorry about the revocation of my contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sherwin-Williams&oldid=prev&diff=795531987. But it seems important to notice how a brand has effect in pop culture. In day to day language in helps perceive the importance of a brand or product. A translator, for instance, may look for what the hell is Sherwin-Williams and find out that in USA it is a brand well known so that a songwriter can just use the name to make a statement. --Joachim~frwiki (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sherwin Williams commercial

I wasn't sure how to get in touch with anyone, so I am starting here. I just wanted to let whoever is responsible for the Sherwin Williams Paint commercial is an absolute genius. Not only the colors presented but the way the animals were presented were fantastic. I have never seen such beautiful "animation" or whatever it needs to be called and I just wanted to let y'all know this is the best commercial every placed on television. 2600:8807:9082:31D0:1133:3E2A:C235:2BDC (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Outdated infobox data

Hello, Wikipedia volunteers, my name is Mira and I am the employee representative for Sherwin-Williams here on Wikipedia. As an employee, I will follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from editing the article and related articles directly. My intention is to work with engaged editors that are interested in making constructive improvements.

A good place to start is the infobox. The number of locations, as well as the number of employees, is outdated. Could we use the most recent Form 10-K to update these numbers? This should also be updated where it's mentioned in the "History" section.

• Number of employees: 61,111
• Number of locations: 4,758

I was also wondering if editors would be willing to update the "industry" field in the infobox to say "Paint and coating manufacturing" rather than "General building materials" using this source, since it is more specific to what the company produces?

Please let me know if this is the preferred way for a conflict of interest editor like myself to best collaborate with editors! I welcome your questions and feedback if they arise. Thanks in advance! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Another editor tagged this edit request with {{request edit}} for you. That places it in the queue and improves response times. Best, Altamel (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Altamel, thanks so much for your assistance with this quick update to the article. MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia volunteers, I am here with another request to update our infobox. As an employee of Sherwin-Williams, I will follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from editing the article and related articles directly.

Now that our Form 10-K has been released for the 2020 fiscal year, there are a few pieces of information that need updating:

• Revenue: $18.36 billion (2020)
• Net income: $2.03 billion (2020)
• Total assets: $20.40 billion (2020)
• Total equity: $3.61 billion (2020)
• Number of employees: 61,031 (2020)

I was also wondering if editors would be willing to update the Key People section of the infobox. As of close of business on March 12, David Sewell has left The Sherwin-Williams Company and no longer serves as our Chief Operating Officer (COO). According to this source, you can see that in addition to David leaving, John Morikis has assumed duties of President. Knowing these pieces of information, I propose that David Sewell be removed from the infobox, and John Morikis’ title be changed to reflect all three parts of his new title: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer.

As a reminder, I am asking for the community's feedback and assistance with edits, and I will not edit the article myself due to my conflict of interest as an employee of Sherwin-Williams. As always, thank you in advance for any assistance provided! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@MiraSherwin-Williams: It’s common to allow COI editors to make adjustments and updates to financial information in their article’s infoboxes. Please do feel free to go ahead and make those factual changes yourself. Ferkjl (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Hello Ferkjl, thanks for your review and thoughts shared here. Under your guidance in this instance, I have applied the straightforward updates (proposed above) to the infobox parameters for key people, revenue, income, assets, equity, and number of employees. Updated references are included for reference as well, if you care to check my work. I appreciate your assistance and advice in this case and will avoid further updates to the live article because of my paid conflict of interest and in accordance with the site's policies. Thanks again, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@MiraSherwin-Williams: Thank you ! Commercially-related edits are the least pleasant tasks for editors (at least from my perspective, and I do a lot of them), but it's been quite easy and pleasant in your case. Your requests were sensible, clear and well organized. Cheers ! Ferkjl (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent controversies section

Hello, Wikipedia volunteers, I was wondering if editors would be willing to make two changes to the introductory sentence of Sherwin-Williams#Recent_controversies, especially following User:Daveplot's edits on Sept. 21.

In the aforementioned edit, Daveplot removed "non-notable controversies". I agree with that removal. For this request, I am curious if Daveplot or others will consider two edits to the top of "Recent controversies," where it states the following: "Sherwin-Williams has been subject to several controversies ranging from cancer-causing toxins contaminating new residential properties to financial fraud."

I ask for mention of "financial fraud" in the introductory sentence to be removed. In the source material, Reuters reported that the U.S. government "criminally charged a Standard & Poor's credit ratings analyst and two friends … with insider trading related to Sherwin-Williams Co's $9.3 billion purchase of Valspar Corp." While the unlawful trading was made on the basis of information related to the Sherwin-Williams/Valspar purchase, Sherwin-Williams was not involved in the wrongdoing. It is inaccurate and misleading to say Sherwin-Williams has been "subject to" financial fraud with a footnote to that incident, as those charged in the case were the subjects. The fact that someone employed by a rating agency unlawfully used Sherwin-Williams' confidential information to engage in insider trading does not mean that Sherwin-Williams engaged in financial fraud.

In that same sentence, "from cancer-causing toxins contaminating new residential properties" refers to a 2017 federal class action lawsuit that was dismissed in its entirety. I ask that this reference be removed as well. I suggest that the introduction to this section be "Sherwin-Williams has been subject to several controversies." If editors feel that a brief mention of that lawsuit is necessary, I suggest that it include a brief explanation that the case was dismissed in its entirety.

I am the employee representative for Sherwin-Williams here on Wikipedia. As an employee, I will follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from editing the article directly. Thanks for considering this request. MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done I agree with you on both points, and have removed the text. David (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Daveplot, thank you for assisting with this update to the article, and so quickly! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia volunteers, I am here with another request to update the Sherwin-Williams page. As an employee of Sherwin-Williams, I will follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from editing the article and related articles directly.

I noticed some inconsistencies within the Controversies section on the page, and wonder if editors would be interested in amending a few pieces here, to include more information:

• The first item I would like to propose updates to is the Ohio underpayment lawsuit . Per these two sources (Law360 and HRDive) already cited in the live article, I think more context and relevant details could be added about what took place. Specifically, I propose adding additional text so that the article reads as follows:
  • In July 2020, Sherwin-Williams was sued in Ohio for allegedly breaching the Fair Labor Standards Act through failure to calculate regular bonuses and extra coronavirus pandemic pay into overtime rates.

• I also suggest adding an additional line about the case's dismissal and date, per this article from PacerMonitor. According to the court documents, the case was dismissed on Wednesday, December 09, 2020. Is there an editor who might be willing to add this piece of information?

I am interested in thoughts from editors about these suggestions. As always, I'm open to further discussion! Thank you in advance for any assistance provided! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

MiraSherwin-Williams Partially done. The first statement that you want to include seems unnecessarily detailed. The second suggestion has been added. Chirota (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your feedback and assistance, Chirota. I appreciate your help in assisting with this suggestion, as I cannot make any edits due to my COI.

While discussing this underpayment lawsuit, I noticed that the section just above it in the article currently titled California underpayment lawsuit may represent the case more accurately if the title is modified slightly.

Per this source already cited in this section of the article, the word underpayment is never mentioned, therefore an inaccurate representation of the trial. I propose the title of this section be changed to California wage and hour lawsuit to improve accuracy. As always, I am open to other opinions or views on this so please let me know if you have any questions or thoughts surrounding this modification. As mentioned before, I will refrain from editing this myself due to my conflict of interest here. Appreciate the help as always! Best, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi MiraSherwin-Williams I closed this edit request because I am unsure what should be added to this article. If you would still like this to be added, please open a new request at the bottom of the talk page and post your request in the format of "Change X to Y". Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedians! I have an edit request for the Recent controversies section, and I am refraining from making this update myself due to my Conflict of Interest as paid employee of Sherwin-Williams. I believe that the California underpayment lawsuit section is not titled properly, and should be amended.

Per this source already cited in the article, the word underpayment is never mentioned, therefore an inaccurate representation. I propose the title of this section be changed to California wage and hour lawsuit to improve accuracy.

As always, I am open to other opinions or views on this so please let me know if you have any questions or thoughts surrounding this modification. I also want to give a quick thanks to Z1720 for the guidance and suggestion to create a separate edit request for this. As mentioned before, I will refrain from editing this myself due to my COI here. Appreciate the help as always! Best, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Its been a few months since this request was made, but I'm inclined not to change it. Your statement is technically correct as the word "underpayment" is not explicitly written in the source, but the article you linked does state "failed to pay proper overtime", also later mention for the possibility that employees have been working during meal breaks (off the clock) and are thus not being paid for their work. I'm not completely against changing it but I would like {{subst:ECOI|c}} as this is just my pov on this request. I will leave it in the edit request queue for now.

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Request edit}} template for this proposed change. I will also tag Daveplot Chiro725 Z1720 who responded to previous requests on this section of the article. I Am Chaos (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the article is fine as is. "Failed to pay proper overtime" is the same as "underpayment" of employees, in my opinion. David (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia editors, tagging a few of you who have been active in the Sherwin-Williams community in the past and present. I am hoping to start a discussion within the talk page here surrounding the controversies section of this page. Ptrnext Paper9oll FULBERT Daveplot Chiro725 Z1720

Due to my conflict of interest, I will not be making any edits but I wanted to start a conversation here surrounding undue weight and the quantity of text/prominence of placement of this section on the page.

I have been reading the Reliable sources and undue weight project page to try to get a better understanding of this philosophy.

Would the amount of text in this section fall into this category? It does take up a majority of the page and while I’m not suggesting to remove all of it, I’m wondering if there is anything that could be done to scale this section back to mirror the amount of text on the rest of the page. The undue weight and neural point of view page also notes, “an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.” If the Sherwin-Williams page was created to be informational about the Company, does having a section of controversies this large tell the story correctly? I am not trying to imply anything here, just curious what other editors think.

Thank you so much for the discussion, I am looking forward to hearing back on some of your thoughts. MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC) 

Controversies sections have generally fallen out of favour on Wikipedia due to the WP:POV nature of the sections, per WP:CRITS (an essay, so not Wikipedia policy or guidelines) as they are making an opinionated statement in Wikivoice, which is generally not allowed. Instead, this section should probably be merged with the History section. I would have to take a closer look at the information in the article, but I don't think any of those events will be removed, just perhaps shortened. Also, individual sections for each event are not necessary. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Consumer brands

Hello Wikipedians, Mira here again from Sherwin-Williams. I noticed that the Consumer Brands Group subsection includes a rather thorough list of the company's major brands, but a few are missing. If editors agree that this list should be more complete, I suggest the following be included as well: Cabot, HGTV Home by Sherwin-Williams, Guangdong Huarun Paints Co.,Ltd., Wattyl, and Ronseal. It might make sense to add these brands to the infobox under subsidiaries as well. For reference, I found the following sources to help verify these additions:

• Cabot: CNBC, Feb 2018
• HGTV Home by Sherwin-Williams: The Oregonian, June 2011
• Guangdong Huarun Paints Co.,Ltd.: CoatingsWorld, July 2012 and Annual reports, Valspar Corp. Form 10-K, 2011
• Wattyl: Financial Review, June 2020
• Ronseal: BusinessLive (UK), September 2020 and Prolific London, October, 2019

Are there any editors willing to please apply these changes? I will refrain from doing so myself due to my paid conflict of interest. Thanks for your consideration! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the five to the article's Consumer Brands Group subsection since that covers brands that Sherwin-Williams develops, manufacturers, or distributes. However the subsidiaries list would be companies that Sherwin-Williams owns or controls. Are each of those five their own company that Sherwin-Williams owns, or are they a just a brand name? Thanks David (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello editors, I wonder if any others might be interested to assist with this request? User:Zazpot has been very helpful thus far, and apparently inactive on the site since my last post above. I hope all is well! I'll continue to avoid editing the article myself because of my COI, so I'm pinging a few names here that come to mind from other conversations, in case one of you has an interest: User:Daveplot, User:Altamel, and User:Whisperjanes. Please let me know if other details will help beyond what I've provided above. Thanks for any consideration, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Daveplot, that's a great question. Our SEC filing is the best place to see a list of our true subsidiaries. Right now, Valspar is the only true one currently listed under subsidiaries in the infobox. Out of the ones we have requested to add, only Ronseal and Guangdong would fit to go under here. This would only make three subsidiaries listed in the infobox. What do you think is the best direction here:

1. Remove the subsidiaries from the infobox altogether since many of the same names appear in the body copy?
2. Remove all brands currently listed except Valspar, and then add Ronseal, Guangdong, and others listed on the SEC filings? This does not seem ideal, since there are many.
3. Move the list from the subsidiaries parameter to the "brands" parameter?

Thanks for your consideration! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, MiraSherwin-Williams here with the thought to add the edit request template to my updated request here. Daveplot has already been helpful with part of my initial query and makes the important distinction above between "brands" and "subsidiaries". Can any interested editors please advise of the best approach below and provide assistance with updating the article's infobox listing of subsidiaries? Which is the best direction:

1. Remove the subsidiaries from the infobox altogether since many of the same names appear in the body copy?
2. Remove all brands currently listed except Valspar, and then add Ronseal, Guangdong, and others listed on the SEC filing? This does not seem ideal, since there are many.
3. Move the list from the subsidiaries parameter to the "brands" parameter?

Thank you for any consideration and assistance, in advance! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@MiraSherwin-Williams: thanks for pointing to the SEC filing that lists the subsidiaries. Please can you point to a similarly canonical list of brands? Having access to both lists, rather than just one, would enable an informed editorial decision to be made. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Zazpot Thanks for your reply here too! HERE is a list of the company's Consumer Brands, as seen on the website. Although not a third-party, published source, I hope it will be helpful for verification purposes. In case it's helpful, here is also a shorter list of "selected brands" among the Consumer Brands division, highlighted in the 2019 annual report: Cabot, Duckback, Dupli-Color, Dutch Boy, Geocel, HGTV HOME by Sherwin-Williams, Huarun, Krylon, Minwax, Pratt & Lambert, Purdy, Ronseal, Solver, Thompson's WaterSeal, Valspar, Wattyl, White Lightning. Does this help? I'm interested to know your thoughts on the best approach here. Thanks again! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello editors, I wonder if any others might be interested to assist with this request? User:Zazpot has been very helpful thus far, and apparently inactive on the site since my last post above. I hope all is well! I'll continue to avoid editing the article myself because of my COI, so I'm pinging a few names here that come to mind from other conversations, in case one of you has an interest: User:Daveplot, User:Altamel, and User:Whisperjanes. Please let me know if other details will help beyond what I've provided above. Thanks for any consideration, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no connection to Sherwan Williams, other than being a satisfied customer of their products. They appear to be asking about what to do with a list of subsidiaries in the infobox that they say is also listed in the body of the page itself. If I understand correctly, the answer to their question is here: "If there are more than five subsidiaries and the article body lists them or discusses them, consider linking to that part of the article rather than listing them in the infobox." Unrelated to the request, it looks like most of this page could be deleted as a mix of promotion (awards section) and undue criticisms (Criticisms section). It would be worthwhile for someone to give it a once-over. CorporateM (Talk) 19:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CorporateM for your reply and very helpful clarification. Based on this, I propose that the infobox subsidiaries list be updated to include only Valspar and perhaps a link to "see SEC filing", if appropriate. Also, it seems like a good measure to add the brands parameter to the infobox with a link to Consumer brands within the article. If reviewing editors agree, will a volunteer please implement these changes as you see fit? I prefer not to edit the article myself, even just the infobox, due to my paid conflict of interest as an employee. Pinging Daveplot once more, now that the above questions are somewhat answered, in case it still interests you to carry this out on my behalf. Thanks all for your helpful perspectives and collaboration! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Thank you MiraSherwin-Williams for the clear edit request. I went ahead and edited the Infobox as I thought it made the most sense to feature a long list of brands (featuring a collapsible list), and updated the subsidiaries list. See if you think it accurately reflects the current company reality. Ferkijel (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ferkijel, thanks so much for helping to resolve this request! What you have done is certainly an improvement. I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at my related request below, regarding updates to Products and Divisions within the infobox as well. Thanks again, and in advance if interested, 72.23.172.228 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

History

Hello, Wikipedia volunteers, I was wondering if editors would be willing to consider a new "History" section for this article. The previous "History" section was renamed "Corporate Structure" by Daveplot, which was the correct call because that section is not a true "History" section. The move also highlighted to me that this article has very little history of the 154-year-old company. Using third-party sources for verification, I created a draft of what a proper "History" section could look like: a high-level overview of Sherwin-Williams's 154-year history with new content that fills timeline gaps and key company milestones.

History draft

Sherwin-Williams traces its roots back to 1866, when Cleveland bookkeeper Henry Sherwin made an initial investment in Truman Dunham & Co., a paint distributorship. After this partnership was dissolved in 1870, he formed a partnership named Sherwin, Williams, & Co. with Edward Williams and A.T. Osborn. The company has operated from its site in Cleveland since purchasing a cooperage from Standard Oil in 1873. This was the company's first factory where it manufactured paste paints, oil colors, and putty. The company has housed its headquarters nearby at the Landmark Office Towers Complex since its opening in 1930. Sherwin-Williams was among the first "big" clients for accounting tycoon, Ernst & Young, also founded in Cleveland at the time.

Sherwin-Williams incorporated in Ohio on July 16, 1884, two years after Osborn sold his interest in the company while retaining the retail operations. The brand then focused on paint manufacturing; acquiring other companies so it relied less on suppliers. These acquisitions and the company's new retail stores contributed to Sherwin-Williams's growth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In 1877, Sherwin-Williams developed the first resealable paint can, and first marketed ready-mixed paint in 1880. This was a significant change because consumers previously bought paint ingredients that they themselves would mix together. The brand led a campaign beginning in 1939 that saw success in making school buses yellow. Sherwin-Williams chemists invented the first water-based interior paint in 1941. The washable Kem-Tone paint was made to dry within an hour and cover various indoor surfaces. In its first three years on the market, Sherwin-Williams sold 10 million gallons to Americans. The American Chemical Society later named the product a National Historic Chemical Landmark in 1996. Also in the early 1940s, Sherwin-Williams launched its roller brush, the Roller-Koater.

Sherwin-Williams experienced a downturn in the 1970s, attributed to increases in raw material costs, market pressure from discount retailers, other paint manufacturers, and costs associated with modernizing Sherwin-Williams facilities. Gulf Western unsuccessfully attempted to take over Sherwin-Williams in that time. A series of acquisitions in the 1980s and 1990s helped Sherwin-Williams recover.

Sherwin-Williams introduced its anti-graffiti coating in 2010 and its Emerald line of paints with no volatile organic compounds in 2012. More recently, in 2015, the brand announced the development of Paint Shield, the first EPA-registered paint that reportedly kills 99.9% of bacteria such as Staph, E. Coli, and MRSA on painted surfaces within two hours. Paint Shield sales began in 2016 as Sherwin-Willilams focused its early marketing efforts on hospitals, nursing homes, and schools.

Sherwin-Williams announced in 2016 that it would acquire rival paint-maker Valspar Corp. for more than $11 billion. When the deal closed in 2017, Sherwin-Williams became the world's largest coatings company. As of 2019, the company employed some 4,400 workers in Northeast Ohio alone, with more than 60,000 employees in 120 countries. Net sales hit $17.9 billion. As of 2020, the Sherwin-Williams brand is sold in approximately 4,900 company stores; other brands are sold at independent retail stores. Sherwin-Williams announced in February 2020 that it is building a new corporate headquarters in Cleveland at Public Square and a new research and development facility in Brecksville, Ohio, a nearby suburb. Sherwin-Williams is ranked No. 180 on the Fortune 500.

References

This is my first crack at writing a "History" section. If editors have any issues with the draft, I'm happy to collaborate and edit as needed. Thanks for your consideration! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MiraSherwin-Williams, first of all, thank you for following the conflict of interest (COI) guidelines, and for contributing proposed content to Wikipedia.

Your draft above is a decent start. A bit more polish and I'd be happy to move it to the article. Please could you refine it again (either in place, or as a userspace draft), addressing issues like:

• The section is long compared to the rest of the article. It should be copy-edited for concision.
• Detailed information about specific product lines (e.g. percentage of bacteria killed by a particular new product) is inappropriate for a "History" section about a company, and seems promotional.
• Why would a company see success in making school buses yellow? (I can guess, but the reader shouldn't have to.) Improve comprehensibility; wikilink to School bus yellow. Perhaps draft and suggest improvements to the School bus yellow article. Ideally, seek information about, and be upfront about, whether Sherwin-Williams's motives were commercial rather than just altruistic.
• Current/recent Fortune 500 placing should be in the infobox so it can occasionally be updated in place; not in the prose of a "History" section where it would be a hostage to fortune.
• The MOS:SCAREQUOTES need fixing.
• Gulf Western should be clarified and ideally wikilinked. Did you mean Gulf and Western Industries?

Zazpot (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zazpot for your review, thoughtful feedback notes, and willingness to help me improve this content in the existing article. This is very helpful! You can see above that I have updated the proposed draft of this History section content in place, as you request. If I have satisfied your suggested edits, I'll thank you to integrate this drafted section in the article on my behalf, because of my conflict of interest.

Revised History section draft

Sherwin-Williams traces its roots back to 1866, when Cleveland bookkeeper Henry Sherwin made an initial investment in Truman Dunham & Co., a paint distributorship. After this partnership was dissolved in 1870, he formed a partnership named Sherwin, Williams, & Co. with Edward Williams and A.T. Osborn. The company has operated from its site in Cleveland since purchasing a cooperage from Standard Oil in 1873. This was the company's first factory where it manufactured paste paints, oil colors, and putty. The company has housed its headquarters nearby at the Landmark Office Towers Complex since its opening in 1930. Sherwin-Williams was among the first "big" clients for accounting tycoon, Ernst & Young, also founded in Cleveland at the time.

Sherwin-Williams incorporated in Ohio on July 16, 1884, two years after Osborn sold his interest in the company while retaining the retail operations. The brand then focused on paint manufacturing; acquiring other companies so it relied less on suppliers. These acquisitions and the company's new retail stores contributed to Sherwin-Williams's growth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In 1877, Sherwin-Williams developed the first resealable paint can, and first marketed ready-mixed paint in 1880. This was a significant change because c,Consumers previously bought paint ingredients that they themselves would mix together. The brand successfully led a drivecampaign beginning in 1939 to paint that saw success in making school buses yellow. Sherwin-Williams chemists invented the first water-based interior paint in 1941. The washable Kem-Tone paint was made to dry within an hour and cover various indoor surfaces. In its first three years on the market, Sherwin-Williams sold 10 million gallons to Americans. The American Chemical Society later named the product a National Historic Chemical Landmark in 1996. Also in the early 1940s, Sherwin-Williams launched its roller brush, the Roller-Koater.

Sherwin-Williams experienced a downturn in the 1970s, attributed to increases in raw material costs, market pressure from discount retailers, other paint manufacturers, and costs associated with modernizing Sherwin-Williams facilities. Gulf and Western Industries unsuccessfully attempted to take over Sherwin-Williams in that time. A series of acquisitions in the 1980s and 1990s helped Sherwin-Williams recover.

Sherwin-Williams introduced its anti-graffiti coating in 2010 and its Emerald line of paints with no volatile organic compounds in 2012. More recently, in 2015, the brand announced the development of Paint Shield, the first EPA-registered, bacteria-killing paint that reportedly kills 99.9% of bacteria such as Staph, E. Coli, and MRSA on painted surfaces within two hours. Paint Shield sales began in 2016 as Sherwin-Willilams focused its early marketing efforts on hospitals, nursing homes, and schools.

Sherwin-Williams announced in 2016 that it would acquire rival paint-maker Valspar Corp. for more than $11 billion. When the deal closed in 2017 for the brand's acquisition of Valspar Corp., Sherwin-Williams became the world's largest coatings company. As of 2019, the company employed some 4,400 workers in Northeast Ohio alone, with more than 60,000 employees in 120 countries. Net sales hit $17.9 billion. As of 2020, the Sherwin-Williams brand is sold in approximately 4,900 company stores; the company's other brands are sold at independent retail stores. Sherwin-Williams announced in February 2020 that it is building a new corporate headquarters in Cleveland at Public Square and a new research and development facility in the nearby suburb of Brecksville, Ohio, a nearby suburb. Sherwin-Williams is ranked No. 180 on the Fortune 500.

References

Thanks again! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

MiraSherwin-Williams, thanks. This is an improvement, but still needs work.

On concision, "interior paint" is obviously "made to ... cover indoor surfaces", so why state that? Other parts of the draft, too, use many words when fewer would do. I'm loath to spend my (volunteer) time addressing them given that you are paid for this work. So, I'll leave that to you.

Likewise, scare quotes still not addressed.

And again, the school buses: why "success"? What obstacle was overcome here?

I appreciate that writing for Wikipedia is challenging. However, it's also frustrating to give feedback and see it only partly taken on board. Please make the third draft worthwhile. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Zazpot, thanks for your continued feedback and collaboration. I'll work more on the proposed text and post another update here for review in hopes of satisfying your suggestions. Best, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Zazpot. I am back with another updated version of the drafted History text I'm proposing to improve the current article. As you suggest: I have worked to simplify the language for readability and concision, and stripped out extraneous details to the best of my judgement. I removed the term "success" and added a bit more context to the mention of the 1939 campaign to paint school buses yellow, as well as an additional reference found on the entry for Frank W. Cyr. Finally, I have copy edited further, to the best of my ability, in hopes of satisfying the concern about MOS:SCAREQUOTES as well. If you agree that this version is acceptably improved, I'll thank you to please assist with its placement within the current article. I will not edit the entry directly myself because of my COI and welcome future edits and improvements to the text from other editors once placed. I have provided a clean VERSION-3 draft below instead of editing in-place this time, in hopes of making it easiest for you to place in your volunteer time. Thanks again for your collaboration thus far.

VERSION-3 Revised History section draft

Sherwin-Williams traces back to 1866, when Cleveland bookkeeper Henry Sherwin invested in Truman Dunham & Co., a paint distributorship. After it dissolved in 1870, he formed a partnership named Sherwin, Williams, & Co. with Edward Williams and A.T. Osborn. The company has operated from Cleveland since purchasing a cooperage from Standard Oil in 1873 for its first factory. Sherwin-Williams has housed headquarters nearby at the Landmark Office Towers Complex since its opening in 1930.

Sherwin-Williams incorporated in Ohio on July 16, 1884, two years after Osborn sold his interest in the company while retaining the retail operations. The brand focused thereafter on paint manufacturing and continued to grow through acquisitions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In 1877 Sherwin-Williams developed the first resealable paint can. Before 1880, when the company first marketed "ready-mixed" paint, consumers bought paint ingredients that they themselves would mix together. Alongside other efforts in the 1930s to standardize school bus design and appearance to be more visible, the brand led a drive beginning in 1939 to paint school buses yellow. Sherwin-Williams chemists invented the first water-based interior paint in 1941 and the washable Kem-Tone paint was made to dry within an hour. The American Chemical Society later named the product a National Historic Chemical Landmark in 1996. Also in the early 1940s, Sherwin-Williams launched Roller-Koater, its roll-on alternative to the paint brush.

Sherwin-Williams experienced a downturn in the 1970s, and Gulf and Western Industries unsuccessfully attempted to take over in that time. Instead, the brand recovered through a series of acquisitions in the 1980s and 1990s.

Sherwin-Williams introduced its anti-graffiti coating in 2010 and its Emerald line of paints with no volatile organic compounds in 2012. In 2015, the brand developed Paint Shield, the first EPA-registered, bacteria-killing paint.

Upon its 2017 acquisition of Valspar Corp., Sherwin-Williams became the world's largest coatings company. As of 2019, the company employed 4,400 workers in Northeast Ohio, with more than 60,000 employees in 120 countries. As of 2020, the Sherwin-Williams brand is sold in approximately 4,900 company stores; the company's other brands are sold at independent retail stores. The company announced in February 2020 that it is building a new corporate headquarters in Cleveland at Public Square and a new research and development facility in nearby Brecksville, Ohio.

References

Thanks again, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@MiraSherwin-Williams: thanks for the update.

As a trained historian, the part about school buses still seemed fishy to me. I dug deeper.

The only sources I found suggesting Sherwin-Williams helped choose the yellow color for U.S. school buses are the two very recent (2019 and 2020) sources that you provided. Both those pieces were from the same journalist (Grant Segall), both were published by the same local news outlet (the Plain Dealer), both make similar claims, and both read as though they could have been ghostwritten by Sherwin-Williams PR. The 2019 piece clearly took as its starting point a press release by "Sherwin-Williams Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John G. Morikis". The 2020 piece also appears to be churnalism: its initial point is from tip by "anonymous sources" close to Sherwin-Williams, and the rest of it seems to just repeat the same points made in the 2019 piece.

That being so, and in the absence of further information to suggest otherwise, I will treat the two Plain Dealer pieces as though they were press releases: promotional works, not to be relied on for historical information.

(By contrast with the Plain Dealer pieces, I can find accounts from more reputable sources stating that the national yellow color for school buses was chosen via the national conference organized by Frank W. Cyr in the 1930s, which was attended by the paint companies DuPont and Pittsburgh Paint I can find no reliable sources at all saying that Sherwin-Williams participated in that conference.)

The Crain's Cleveland article is from around the same time as the Plain Dealer ones (2020), is also from the local press, and makes the same points in much the same way (minus the dubious yellow school bus claim). So it, too, seems to have been based on the same or a similar press release.

This all makes me a bit suspicious that in recent years Sherwin-Williams has perhaps been on a PR push; and that astroturfing (or similar) a prominent website like Wikipedia, especially if it favorably associated Sherwin-Williams with something as iconic, nostalgic and popular as yellow school buses, would be the capstone. I note that your engagement on this talk page only occurred after those pieces had been "seeded" - one might say - in local press outlets. Local press outlets are often susceptible to churnalism, and are comparatively liable to provide sympathetic and trusting coverage of local large employers. Forgive my scepticism, but it is clear that Sherwin-Williams has had some quite negative publicity in recent years that it has not always successfully defeated in court. Attempting to counter bad publicity like that with good PR is a pretty common corporate strategy. And any experienced PR person would know that they stand a better chance of getting claims into Wikipedia if a journalist has published them first, even if only local ones.

I am not assuming bad faith on your part, or even on Sherwin-Williams's part; but I am saying that the evidence for some of the claims in your draft is negligible outside of (effectively) promotional materials, and that the context should give any attentive encyclopedia editor cause for caution.

Anyway, this needs resolving. I intend to copy into the article those parts of your draft that do not strike me as WP:PROMO and whose sources seem to be more substantial than churnalism. I think that is a fair compromise that does actually add value to the article without creating hostages to fortune, and I hope we can leave the matter there. Thanks again for following Wikipedia's COI requirements, and for doing something to improve the article. Zazpot (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Zazpot (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your feedback and assistance, Zazpot. The History section is much improved. Best, MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Competition section

Hello again editors, I'm back with another request, this time addressing the Competition section as it is seen in the current article. First, I notice right off that this section is entirely unsourced. Secondly, the information included is not an exhaustive list. If editors think it a valuable addition to the article, I'll gladly help by listing sourcing here to help editors complete it. However, it seems to me that information about competing brands is not pertinent to Sherwin-Williams as the article subject and so is unusual to see included in a typical Wikipedia entry for a corporate brand. If the community agrees, are there any reviewing editors who might be willing to remove the existing Competition section and its unsourced contents from the article on my behalf? As with other requests, I will not make changes myself due to my conflict of interest. Thanks for any assistance or thoughts you might share. MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support deleting the competition section. Such sections are usually created by the competitors themselves looking for plugs/mentions, but those competitors are not the subject of the page. In rare instances, there are strong sources with an in-depth analysis comparing the article-subject to competitors that can be included in a Reception section, but most of the time it's just a spammy directory that violates "not a directory" and other policies. As previously stated, I have no connection to Sherwan Williams other than being a satisfied customer. CorporateM (Talk) 21:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support deleting; category:Paint and coatings companies of the United States already fulfills that purpose. --Pokechu22 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. That was completely rubbish, unsourced and should not have been created in the first place. Also did minor clean up while I was at it. Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CorporateM for your thoughts about this along with your above reply to Consumer brands. Thanks to you, Graywalls, too for your help with removing this section! I noticed your clean up within Awards and recognition and have a few thoughts for further improving that section. Trying to keep things tidy, I'll make a new section/post to that effect, below. In the meantime, thanks again for your help here! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Awards and recognition

Hello editors, I'm back as promised with a few thoughts for improving the Awards and recognition section within the current article. These suggestions are on the heels of this recent adjustment to the section and thoughts above from User:Graywalls and User:CorporateM. Once again, due to my paid conflict of interest, I will not make changes to the entry myself. I'm providing a list of awards below, along with supportive sourcing, for editors to review and consider for inclusion in the live article, specifically from Forbes:

• Forbes awards:
  • America's Best Employers 2021 (#50)
  • Best Employers for Veterans 2020 #106)
  • America's Best Employers for New Grads, 2020 (#13)
  • America's Best Employers By State 2020
  • Best Employers for Women 2020 (#248)
  • Global 2000 2020 (#448)
  • Best Employers for Diversity 2020 (#435)
  • Top Regarded Companies 2019 (#239)
  • America's Largest Public Companies 2018 (#148)

Thanks for any guidance or assistance offered! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia making is not copywriting and it is not an extension social media of a company even though unfortunately many articles are used in such a way. Those are statistics that can be exhibited on your own website. I don't see how any of those have encyclopedic value. The information isn't prohibited if context warrants it but just putting it in is not necessary in my view. Graywalls (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls Thanks for this reply and for your input. I'm adding the edit request template above so other editors might review it and weigh in. I welcome collaboration and will defer to the consensus of the community. Thanks again! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Dumping the list into the section is obviously not going to happen, because that is unduly promotional. With that said, your request on how you'd like like all/some of those utilized in the article is not specified and the request is too vague. Please make clearer suggestions. Graywalls (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox products and divisions

Hello editors, I'm here with what I think is a straightforward request to update parameters within the infobox. In particular, Products and Divisions, as follows:

• The current list of Products, "paint, wallpaper, flooring", seems to me like a random selection of Sherwin-Williams products that does not truly summarize the company's offerings. I propose replacing this list with: paints, coatings, stains, caulks, sealants and applicators
• Similarly, the listed Divisions appear arbitrarily selected and not representative of the company's official divisions, as outlined in the body of the article itself. I propose replacing this list with: The America's Group, Consumer Brands Group, and Performance Coatings Group as seen within the article body.

If editors agree, is there a volunteer willing to help by implementing these recommended changes to the infobox on my behalf? I prefer to remain hands-off, even within the infobox, to respect the site's guidelines for my conflict of interest. Thanks for any feedback or consideration. MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm adding the edit request template above for visibility. Thanks! 72.23.172.228 (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry about the delay, there’s an edit request backlog of around 200 articles, and I’ve been going in chronological order. Saw this because you pinged me, otherwise it’d have to wait until someone got to it. But this was such a small edit, that it’s not worth to come back. It’s done. As you said, the infobox should be consistent with the body; it’s now better. Thank you. Ferkijel (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Carbon Footprint

Hello, Wikipedia volunteers, my name is Mira and I am the employee representative for Sherwin-Williams here on Wikipedia. As an employee, I will follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from editing the article and related articles directly. My intention is to work with engaged editors that are interested in making constructive improvements.

I am wondering if editors would be willing to update the Carbon Footprint section based on new data available from the 2021 Sherwin-Williams Sustainability Report ESG Summary. We are proposing updating the figures on the page now, and also adding a data point for 2021. Please see below for what I believe should be reflected in the table on the page:

• December 2017: Keep as is
• December 2018: Keep as is
• Decebmer 2019: Change to 676
• December 2020: Change to 635
• Please add to the table: December 2021: 621

We will also want the top page updated to reflect the following:

Sherwin-Williams Co reported Total CO2e emissions (Direct + Indirect) for the twelve months ending 31 December 2021 at 621 Kt (-55 /-8.1% y-o-y)[68] and plans to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 from a 2019 base year.

Please let me know if this is the preferred way for a conflict of interest editor like myself to best collaborate with editors! I welcome your questions and feedback if they arise. Thanks in advance! MiraSherwin-Williams (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Hi MiraSherwin-Williams, I believe you posted an incorrect citation for the 2021 ESG report. I've picked it up from the company website and updated the figures. Note that the "(-55 /-8.1% y-o-y)" no longer applies when comparing 2021 vs 2020 emissions. I've fixed this as well. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)